| Literature DB >> 35681976 |
Abstract
COVID-19 has shifted people's activities from the real world to the virtual world in many fields, such as conferences, shopping, education, and more. In the field of MICE, however, exhibitions have been held steadily since the second half of 2020 in the form of on-site exhibitions. The exhibition organizers and related authorities have tried to attract exhibitors and visitors to the exhibition hall by providing exhibition quarantine services. Moreover, despite various perceived risks during the COVID-19 period, exhibition visitors continue to visit the exhibition. This study, therefore, paid attention to the psychological factors of visitors who consistently visit on-site exhibitions even during the pandemic. In addition to the perceived risks, this study tried to examine the quality of exhibition quarantine services and switching intention of visitors, and to analyze the relationships between them. A survey of 167 people who visited the camping exhibition and well-food exhibition held in June 2021 found that they would not visit the exhibition due to the functional and financial risk of the exhibition rather than the risk of the virus. On the other hand, it was found that visitors who felt the social risk of COVID-19 valued the quality of exhibition quarantine service. Furthermore, the study found that the quarantine service quality lowered switching intention. Therefore, the study suggests that exhibition organizers should think about ways to strengthen the most essential characteristics of on-site exhibitions along with appropriate quarantine measures to induce steady visits even during the pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; COVID-19 quarantine service quality; new exhibition environment; perceived risk; switching intention
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35681976 PMCID: PMC9180223 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116388
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Theoretical framework on the relationship between perceived risk, COVID-19 quarantine service quality, and switching intention of on-site exhibition visitors.
Perceived risk of exhibition in the era of COVID-19.
| Factor | Item |
|---|---|
| Functional |
I thought that the purpose of visiting the exhibition would not be achieved. I thought I would not be satisfied with the contents of the exhibition. I thought the products I wanted to see would not be on display. I thought the exhibition’s scale would be small. I thought I would not get enough relevant information from the exhibition. |
| Financial |
I thought the exhibition entrance fee would be expensive. I thought the related expenses for visiting to the exhibition would be high. I thought it would cost extra to visit the exhibition. I thought it would take a long time to visit the exhibition. I thought it would take a lot of time to travel from my house to the exhibition hall. I thought my time was wasted due to unexpected problems. |
| Physical |
I thought I was likely to be exposed to COVID-19 at the exhibition. I thought I would be able to come into contact with COVID-19 infected person at the exhibition. I thought there could be something wrong with my health after visiting the exhibition. I thought that the exhibition organizers would not properly comply with COVID-19 quarantine measures. I thought that other visitors would not follow COVID-19 quarantine rules properly. |
| Social |
I thought that people around me would feel bad about visiting exhibition due to COVID-19. I thought that visiting an exhibition in a COVID-19 situation could harm the people around me. I thought that visiting an exhibition in a COVID-19 situation would make me nervous. |
COVID-19 quarantine service quality of exhibition hall.
| Factor | Item |
|---|---|
| COVID-19 |
Distance signs and partitions have been installed in the exhibition hall. A wide distance was maintained for air circulation. Exhibitor booths were arranged in consideration of distance. Access control and health check-up were implemented. Management guidelines such as restrictions on admission of those judged unsuitable for medical examination were operated. As a multi-use facility, cleaning, sanitation, and disinfection were well managed. Sanitary and hand washing areas were provided. Non-contact policy enforcement and related technologies were in operation. Ventilation and filtration in the exhibition hall were well done. Exhibitors and organizers cleaned and disinfected well. Communication with visitors regarding quarantine went well. Catering and indoor food were provided as take-out food. The flow of visitors was well managed. A registration process was implemented to reduce face-to-face contact. The number of participants in exhibition halls and conference rooms was managed. Safety rules were provided for easy understanding. Temporary isolation space and medical service points were established. Reporting procedures by health authorities, such as checking visitor information, were being managed. News monitoring and response procedures were established. On-site problem solving and questions and answers from visitors were well done. The movement of visitors was monitored in real time and response procedures were followed. Quarantine products were prepared in the exhibition hall. It seems that the guidelines for managing overseas arrivals are working well. A manager in charge of quarantine was designated. |
Switching intention of exhibition visitors.
| Factor | Item |
|---|---|
| Switching |
I would like to refuse to visit the exhibition if possible. I am against visiting exhibitions. I am dissatisfied with my visit to the exhibition. I am critical of visiting exhibitions. I think it is more efficient not to visit the exhibition. I prefer to visit online exhibitions rather than on-site exhibitions. |
Exploratory factor analysis and reliability.
| Factor | Item | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s α | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical Risk | PR12 |
| 0.071 | 0.089 | 0.208 | 0.906 |
| PR13 |
| 0.073 | 0.083 | 0.313 | ||
| PR15 |
| 0.086 | 0.201 | 0.116 | ||
| PR14 |
| 0.158 | 0.168 | 0.298 | ||
| PR16 |
| 0.213 | 0.155 | 0.271 | ||
| Functional Risk | PR2 | 0.075 |
| 0.148 | 0.139 | 0.884 |
| PR3 | −0.031 |
| 0.095 | 0.032 | ||
| PR1 | 0.08 |
| 0.113 | 0.224 | ||
| PR4 | 0.132 |
| −0.042 | −0.029 | ||
| PR5 | 0.262 |
| 0.111 | −0.121 | ||
| Financial Risk | PR7 | 0.005 | 0.097 |
| 0.244 | 0.791 |
| PR8 | 0.086 | 0.11 |
| 0.108 | ||
| PR9 | 0.251 | −0.016 |
| −0.087 | ||
| PR6 | 0.339 | 0.29 |
| 0.148 | ||
| Social Risk | PR17 | 0.417 | 0.093 | 0.158 |
| 0.919 |
| PR19 | 0.497 | 0.048 | 0.144 |
| ||
| PR18 | 0.536 | 0.051 | 0.112 |
| ||
| Eigenvalue | 4.112 | 3.518 | 2.489 | 2.244 | ||
| Variance (%) | 24.187 | 20.695 | 14.64 | 13.197 | ||
| Cumulative Variance (%) = 72.718 | ||||||
| Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.855 | ||||||
| Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity: χ2 = 1893.322, df = 136, | ||||||
PR = perceived risk; factor loadings of 0.5 or higher are in bold.
Correlation coefficients between variables.
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional Risk (1) | ||||||
| Financial Risk (2) | 0.282 ** | |||||
| Physical Risk (3) | 0.285 ** | 0.404 ** | ||||
| Social Risk (4) | 0.204 ** | 0.376 ** | 0.326 ** | |||
| Service Quality (5) | 0.044 | 0.012 | −0.083 | 0.273 ** | ||
| Switching Intention (6) | 0.285 ** | 0.318 ** | 0.241 ** | 0.227 ** | −0.315 ** | |
| M | 2.711 | 2.874 | 2.889 | 2.936 | 3.596 | 2.145 |
| SD | 0.754 | 0.736 | 0.817 | 0.895 | 0.475 | 0.743 |
** p < 0.01.
Results of multiple regression using perceived risk to predict COVID-19 quarantine service quality.
| Model |
|
| ß |
|
| VIF |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional Risk | 0.045 | 0.052 | 0.071 | 0.861 | 0.391 | 1.131 | 0.082 | 3.587 ** |
| Financial Risk | 0.011 | 0.057 | 0.017 | 0.192 | 0.848 | 1.263 | ||
| Physical Risk | −0.102 | 0.068 | −0.175 | −1.488 | 0.139 | 2.270 | ||
| Social Risk | 0.353 | 0.142 | 0.244 | 2.484 | 0.014 * | 2.154 |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Results of multiple regression using perceived risk to predict switching intention.
| Model |
|
| ß |
|
| VIF |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional Risk | 0.193 | 0.076 | 0.196 | 2.553 | 0.012 * | 1.131 | 0.152 | 7.275 ** |
| Financial Risk | 0.219 | 0.082 | 0.217 | 2.667 | 0.008 ** | 1.263 | ||
| Physical Risk | 0.040 | 0.099 | 0.044 | 0.404 | 0.687 | 2.270 | ||
| Social Risk | 0.061 | 0.088 | 0.074 | 0.695 | 0.488 | 2.154 |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Results of multiple regression using COVID-19 quarantine service quality to predict switching intention.
| Model |
|
| ß |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 Quarantine Service Quality | −0.492 | 0.116 | −0.315 | −4.258 | 0.000 *** | 0.099 | 18.133 *** |
*** p < 0.001.