IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/toueco/v29y2023i3p643-663.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recreational travel behavior and COVID-19: Insights from expected utility and the theory of planned behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Kehinde E Ojo
  • Susana Ferreira
  • John Salazar
  • John Bergstrom
  • Kyle Maurice Woosnam

Abstract

Understanding what factors play a role in people’s decisions to travel during a pandemic is important to public health officials and to stakeholders in the travel and tourism industry in the United States (US) and worldwide. This study examines factors influencing people’s decisions to cancel/postpone recreational travel within the US amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Our conceptual framework extends the Expected Utility model, commonly used in economics to model decisions under risk and uncertainty, to incorporate subjective norms and perceived behavioral control from the Theory of Planned Behavior. Our results suggest that risk perceptions, subjective norms, and concerns over transmitting COVID-19 to others play a significant role in the decision to cancel and postpone recreational travel. Results also suggest that perceived behavioral control may be less relevant to travel decisions when traveling involves elevated health risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Kehinde E Ojo & Susana Ferreira & John Salazar & John Bergstrom & Kyle Maurice Woosnam, 2023. "Recreational travel behavior and COVID-19: Insights from expected utility and the theory of planned behavior," Tourism Economics, , vol. 29(3), pages 643-663, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:toueco:v:29:y:2023:i:3:p:643-663
    DOI: 10.1177/13548166211059642
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13548166211059642
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/13548166211059642?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy, 2009. "Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 199-228, March.
    2. Ki-Hoon Lee & Minwoo Lee & Nuwan Gunarathne, 2019. "Do green awards and certifications matter? Consumers’ perceptions, green behavioral intentions, and economic implications for the hotel industry: A Sri Lankan perspective," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(4), pages 593-612, June.
    3. Albert Assaf & Raffaele Scuderi, 2020. "COVID-19 and the recovery of the tourism industry," Tourism Economics, , vol. 26(5), pages 731-733, August.
    4. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    7. Glenn Harrison & E. Rutström, 2009. "Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(2), pages 133-158, June.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Yeajin Joo & Hwayoon Seok & Yoonjae Nam, 2020. "The Moderating Effect of Social Media Use on Sustainable Rural Tourism: A Theory of Planned Behavior Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    2. Herzfeld, Thomas & Jongeneel, Roel, 2012. "Why do farmers behave as they do? Understanding compliance with rural, agricultural, and food attribute standards," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 29(1), pages 250-260.
    3. Caspar G. Chorus & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2012. "Travel Choice Inertia: The Joint Role of Risk Aversion and Learning," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 46(1), pages 139-155, January.
    4. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    5. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    6. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2010. "Behavioral econometrics for psychologists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 553-576, August.
    7. Petraud, Jean & Boucher, Stephen & Carter, Michael, 2015. "Competing theories of risk preferences and the demand for crop insurance: Experimental evidence from Peru," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211383, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    9. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    11. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Gilles Boevi Koumou & Georges Dionne, 2022. "Coherent Diversification Measures in Portfolio Theory: An Axiomatic Foundation," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, October.
    13. Harin, Alexander, 2014. "Problems of utility and prospect theories. A discontinuity of Prelec’s function," MPRA Paper 61027, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    15. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Hans-Martin von Gaudecker & Arthur van Soest & Erik Wengstrom, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 664-694, April.
    17. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2011. "Uncertainty Equivalents: Testing the Limits of the Independence Axiom," NBER Working Papers 17342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Hans-Martin von Gaudecker & Arthur van Soest & Erik Wengstrom, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 664-694, April.
    19. Carlos Laciana & Elke Weber, 2008. "Correcting expected utility for comparisons between alternative outcomes: A unified parameterization of regret and disappointment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2022. "Source and Rank-dependent Utility," Post-Print hal-03924295, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:toueco:v:29:y:2023:i:3:p:643-663. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.