Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Demographics of Respondents
| Variable | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | 342 | 56.0 |
| Male | 269 | 44.0 |
| Age | ||
| 30 and younger | 256 | 41.9 |
| 31–40 | 166 | 27.2 |
| 41 and older | 189 | 30.9 |
| Education | ||
| High school | 104 | 17.0 |
| Bachelor’s | 301 | 49.3 |
| Postgraduate | 206 | 33.7 |
| Number of Children | ||
| None | 327 | 53.5 |
| 1 | 120 | 19.6 |
| 2 | 164 | 26.8 |
| Marital Status | ||
| Married | 305 | 49.9 |
| Single | 306 | 50.1 |
| Income | ||
| 400 dollars or less | 352 | 57.6 |
| 401–600 dollars | 80 | 13.1 |
| 601 dollars or more | 179 | 29.3 |
| Who do you go on vacation with? | ||
| Alone | 41 | 6.7 |
| With immediate family | 376 | 61.2 |
| With a friend | 93 | 15.5 |
| With multiple friends | 83 | 13.6 |
| With relatives | 18 | 2.9 |
Analysis of the Convergent Validity of the Theory of Planned Behaviour
| ITEMS | Outer loading | Cronbach’s alpha | CR | AVE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOS | During the travel ban. the city I intended on visiting remained welcoming to visitors from parts of the country hardest hit by the pandemic | 0.953 | 0.845 | 0.948 | 0.901 |
| The city I intended on visiting showed a great deal of resilience in ensuring the health and safety of visitors | 0.945 | ||||
| IMP | My impression of the city will be affected by the number of coronavirus cases reported | 0.869 | 0.843 | 0.860 | 0.754 |
| My impression of the city will be affected by its reported coronavirus recovery rate | 0.868 | ||||
| ATT | Once this epidemic is over, I believe it is still a good idea to go on holiday to the city I intended on visiting | 0.875 | 0.776 | 0.813 | 0.705 |
| Once this epidemic is over, I would be excited about going on holiday to the city I intended on visiting | 0.778 | ||||
| SUN | Once this epidemic is over, we intend on going on holiday to the destination we had chosen to visit originally | 0.875 | 0.772 | 0.808 | 0.709 |
| Once this epidemic is over, my friends and colleagues intend on going on holiday to the destination they had chosen to visit originally | 0.769 | ||||
| PBC | Once this epidemic is over, I will remain financially able to go on holiday in the city I intended on visiting | 0.862 | 0.779 | 0.814 | 0.695 |
| Once this epidemic is over, I will continue to have availability in my schedule to go on holiday in the city I intended on visiting originally | 0.794 | ||||
| PPT | After this epidemic, I will go on holiday to the city I intended on visiting originally | 1 | |||
Analysis of Goodness of Fit of the Model
| Goodness-of-Fit Index | Acceptable Range | Before Correction | After Correction | Goodness of Fit of the Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 (chi-square) | Smaller the Better | 49.481 | 4.123 | pass |
| χ2 and degrees of freedom | < 3 | 3.54 | 2.72 | pass |
| GFI | > 0.80 | .930 | .977 | pass |
| AGFI | > 0.80 | .930 | .945 | pass |
| RMSEA | < 0.08 | .079 | .064 | pass |
| CFI | > 0.90 | .974 | .966 | pass |
| PCFI | > 0.50 | .326 | .371 | pass |
Path Analysis and Effect Size
| Path Coefficients | T-statistics | f2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| IPP-ATT | .145 | 3.825 | 0.213 |
| IPP-PPT | .105 | 2.662 | 0.138 |
| ATT-PPT | .346 | 6.258 | 0.375 |
| PBC-PPT | .686 | 15.510 | 0.480 |
| SUN-PPT | .262 | 5.387 | 0.303 |
| R2 | Q2 | ||
| ATT | 0.226 | 0.184 | |
| PPT | 0.620 | 0.590 |
PLS path analysis results
| Model Path | β | t | Label | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | IPP → ATT | .305 | 3.118 | Accepted |
| H2 | ATT → PTT | .458 | 12.291 | Accepted |
| H3 | IPP → PPT | .280 | 2.348 | Accepted |
| H4 | PBC → PPT | .872 | 47.964 | Accepted |
| H5 | SUN → PPT | .624 | 35.542 | Accepted |