sustainability
Article
The Importance of Safety and Security Measures at Sharm El
Sheikh Airport and Their Impact on Travel Decisions after
Restarting Aviation during the COVID-19 Outbreak
Thowayeb H. Hassan 1,2,* and Amany E. Salem 1,2






Citation: Hassan, T.H.; Salem, A.E.
The Importance of Safety and
Security Measures at Sharm El
Sheikh Airport and Their Impact on
Travel Decisions after Restarting
Aviation during the COVID-19
Outbreak. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095216
Academic Editors: Hyeon-Mo Jeon,
Hyung-Min Choi and Hye-Jin Sung
Received: 23 March 2021
Accepted: 26 April 2021
Published: 7 May 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1 College of Arts, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa P.O. Box 31982, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] or
[email protected]
2 Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University, Cairo P.O. Box 12612, Egypt
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +966-54-029-4550
Abstract: Travel decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic might be substantially influenced by
destination-based attributes, in particular, health safety measures at airports. In the current study, we
aimed to assess the effects of the perceived importance of safety measures at the Sharm El Sheikh
airport on the intention of international passengers to revisit the destination, which might reflect
their behavioral control for traveling to other tourism destinations. A total of 954 international
travelers were asked to fill out a survey to reveal their travel risk perceptions, the importance of
airport safety measures, and their future intentions to revisit the destination, and the data were
integrated in an SEM model. The results showed that passengers with low-risk perceptions and
highly perceived importance of logistic and sanitization procedures, as well as traveler- and staffrelated safety measures, were more likely to exhibit greater intentions to revisit the city and lower
intentions to cancel or change future travel plans to other touristic regions. Health safety at airports
should be stressed in future strategic plans by governmental authorities and stakeholder activities to
mitigate the psychological barriers of tourists.
Keywords: travel behavior; intention to travel; COVID-19; safety measures; air transport; sustainable
transport systems
1. Introduction
The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused formidable and unprecedented
challenges in multiple sectors worldwide since the first description of the outbreak as a
pandemic on 12 March 2020 [1]. The aviation sector has been no exception due to the
inherent vulnerability of the global air transport to disruptive events. Indeed, aircraft and
airline passengers were first described as vectors of human infectious diseases in the late
1920s, when commercial flights between European countries and destinations in the Middle
East, Africa, and India began to operate [2,3]. The sheer volume of traveler movement has
supported the “mobility turn” theory, which provoked a plethora of studies to investigate
the multidimensional aspects of aviation security [4,5]. Nevertheless, multiple dimensions
of sanitary and safety regulations during disruptive infectious instances have been scarcely
considered in the academic literature.
In the recent past, the commercial aviation sector has been influenced by four major
outbreaks, including SARS, EBOLA, bird flu, and H1N5 influenza [6–8]. Actually, such outbreaks lasted for relatively short time periods, were restricted to distinct regions, and they
exhibited low rates of symptomatic infections. Consequently, there were no widespread
global travel restrictions, national lockdowns, border closures, or rigorous quarantine
measures. Furthermore, passengers’ perceptions and willingness to travel did not have
a significant impact on the travel sector. Contrastingly, the COVID-19 outbreak has been
associated with global flight restrictions, closed borders, and strict quarantine periods,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095216 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 2 of 15
leading to a rapid decline in international and domestic tourism worldwide. Within the
space of months, the global system has evidenced a significant transition from overtourism
to non-tourism [9,10]. As a consequence, according to the International Air Transport
Association [11], it is expected that the pre-pandemic levels of passenger demand will only
be attained in 2023 at the earliest.
Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the self-perceptions of passengers regarding
their future intentions to revisit a destination. Regardless of the scientific rationale, the
perceived efficacy of safety measures for air travel should inevitably influence travelers’
decision making. The use of face masks, thermo screening, sanitization procedures, preflight testing, social distancing, and air filtration systems reflect efforts that are aimed at
reducing the likelihood of exposure to aninfection. Such measures seem to be important in
making future decisions, in particular, with the lack of unanimity in regard to definitive
risk areas, methods of virus transmission, and the ideal thresholds of restricted travel and
quarantine measures. After re-opening the borders to international tourism, the subjective
assessment of tourists’ behavioral intentions to revisit the destination is crucial, such
that airlines and tourism companies can focus on specific domains that ensure reducing
infection transmission and, at the same time, satisfy tourists’ needs for better attachment to
the destination. In Egypt, after flight suspension in March 2020, hotels in Sharm el-Sheikh
resumed their activities on 15 May 2020. Domestic flights were only allowed until mid-July,
when regional and international flights returned [12]. This was associated with strict health
and safety requirements at the airport. In this context, the aim of the present study was
to assess the perceived importance of safety and infection control measures at airports
from the perspectives of international tourists at the Sharm el-Sheikh airport. The impact
of adopting such measures on the behavioral intentions to revisit the destination and the
intentions to cancel or change travel plans to other regions was also evaluated.
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Perceived Risks of Infectious Diseases and Risk Reduction Strategies
Tourists’ decision making to revisit a destination has been cited as a major determinant
of the sustainability of tourism and travel establishments [13]. Future behavioral intention
is referred to as the degree to which an individual tends to perform or not perform a
distinct action [14]. In the tourism sector, the intention of tourists can be subjectively
evaluated through a survey-based approach to collect personal data for assisting the
likelihood of returning to COVID-19-affected destinations. After re-opening the Egyptian
borders to international tourism, tourist’s perceptions of risk play an important role in
future decisions. Tourists perceive risk differently based on their personal knowledge,
their degree of exposure to risks, and their risk acceptance levels [15] and their perceived
risks may also differ significantly according to their nationality, religious backgrounds,
cultural orientation, and psychographic characteristics [16–18]. When their risk tolerance
levels reach a certain threshold, tourists either abandon the trip or engage in risk reduction
strategies to alleviate the effect of the perceived risk.
Generally speaking, the adaptive strategies of tourists fall under two major categories,
i.e., modification of the consumption behavior and information search [15]. While the
former deals with the adjustment of behavioral strategies to avoid or reduce the impact
of a risk, the latter is related to gathering information on the best ways to reduce the risk.
Tourists, as expected, integrate various types of information about the recent situation of
COVID-19 spread and the relevant preventive measures at a destination. This is in line
with the information integration theory [19], which indicates that individuals are more
likely to search and integrate information from a number of sources in order to finally
attain a judgement about a situation, a person, or an object. Accordingly, more favorable
judgements are based on highly valued information. However, uncertainty avoidance
theory states that individuals with negative or relatively uncomfortable attitudes towards
an unknown or an ambiguous situation attempt to reduce uncertainty via looking for
information from trusted sources [20]. Given that tourists might be exposed to infection at
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 3 of 15
a destination with high risk of transmission, tourists seek information about the measures
adapted to ensure travelers’ safety.
In the literature, health risks have been frequently cited as a significant determinant
of travel decision making. For instance, backpackers arriving at the Kotoka International
Airport in Ghana expressed significant interest in information for avoiding poor sanitary
conditions and exposure to tropical infections at their travel decisions [15]. Similarly,
infectious diseases were independent predictors of the intention to change travel plans
as revealed in an early study involving passengers departing from the Hong Kong Airport [21]. Furthermore, infection control strategies, such as the requirement to wear face
masks and health screening of tourists coming from endemic areas, were highly acknowledged by international tourists at the Bangkok International Airport during the SARS
and bird flu outbreaks [22]. Consequently, the decision to visit and revisit a destination is
mostly affected by perceived risk of infection based on an interaction among the acquired
information, tourist attributes, and the characteristics of the destination [23].
Considering the context of the recent COVID-19 pandemic, it has been shown that the
adoption of international travel restrictions is more effective for reducing the daily reported
incoming cases rather than fully reopening and the implementation of voluntary quarantine
measures (even at a rate of 95%) [24]. However, an early systematic review showed that
international travel restrictions delayed the spread of human influenza epidemics by two
months, and reduced the incidence of the disease by 3% [25]. Therefore, the impact of
travel restrictions was only evident on delaying disease spread rather than preventing it.
Alternatively, partial reopening is possible; however, it should be accompanied by strict
preventive measures. Since recently-infected individuals are usually asymptomatic, strict
quarantine conditions are required at their destination [26]. Therefore, starting from the first
point of arrival, namely the airports, implementation of personal protective interventions
seems to be effective for risk reduction.
2.2. Safety at Airports and Its Efficacy to Reduce the Rate of Infection
Basically, according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary [27], the concept of safety is
defined as the state of being protected from a distinct danger or harm. Within the context
of airports and tourism, on the one hand, safety includes the protection of passengers
physically. On the other hand, the image of the environment of a given destination is
also protected [28]. Therefore, multiple strategies have been introduced to reduce the
incidence of infectious diseases, their rates of transmission, and disease-specific morbidity
and mortality due to international travel. For example, the application of a quarantine
after travel is one of the oldest measures known. Quarantine is defined as the restriction
of movement of apparently healthy individuals who have had exposed to a contagious
disease. It requires integrated coordination of multiple sectors, the establishment of reliable communication channels, and the implementation of new legislative actions by the
authorities [29]. A recent Cochrane systematic review indicated that the basic reproduction
number of COVID-19 were reduced by 37–88% after implementing effective quarantine
measures [30]. Furthermore, a combined model of safety measures, including quarantine,
social distancing, and school closures has led to a significant reduction in COVID-19 incidence, transmission, and disease-related deaths as compared with the same measures
without quarantine [30].
Screening procedures have also proven to be effective for limiting trans-border transmission of infectious diseases and onboard transmission. While COVID-19 is predominantly transmitted in the symptomatic phase of the infection [31,32], transmission via
contacting asymptomatic individuals or presymptomatic patients may be possible [33]. As
such, temperature screening procedures have been recommended by IATA [34]. Despite the
high cost of installing thermoscanners, it has been anticipated that as high as 45% of travelers might be detected [35]. However, since there is a considerable proportion of infected
individuals who do not develop fever, particularly among the young populations [36], the
efficacy of these measurements might be relatively inadequate in airports [37].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 4 of 15
To further control the spread of COVID-19, many countries have required that passengers possess a negative PCR test result, where the test should have been performed within
a specific time period before arrival to the destination. Other countries have required
PCT testing upon arrival regardless of prior test results at the origin [38]. Some simple
measures have been frequently reported in different airports, such as allowing the entry of
passengers only to the airport, mandating personal protective equipment for the working
staff, and regular disinfecting of surfaces [39]. Wearing face masks, physical separation by
leaving middle seats free, and air filtration in planes are also common measures. Indeed,
air filtration is a critical intervention given that air travelers spend prolonged periods in
enclosed spaces, and thus the risk of spread of infection is theoretically substantial. This
has been confirmed by recent epidemiological investigations. For example, in January
2020, Chen, et al. [40] showed that 16 patients (out of 335 passengers) were diagnosed with
COVID-19 after exposure to virus particles during a flight from Singapore to Hangzhou
International Airport in China. Similar observations were reported in other flights between Sydney and Perth [41] and between London and Hanoi [42]. Consequently, the
transmission of COVID-19 infection can be inhibited by employing strict preflight and
onboard measures.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Context
Sharm El Sheikh is a major tourism city and a popular Red Sea resort in South Sinai
Governorate, Egypt. The city has gained significant interest due to its strategic location
at the narrow entry point to the Gulf of Aqaba. In addition, it has become an important
destination in the global tourism sector given the unique biodiversity of the marine life
of the Red Sea. Since the resumption of international air traffic to Sharm El Sheikh, more
than one million tourists have arrived to the local airport [43,44]. All passengers on local
and domestic flights are asked to provide a PCR report which proves that the passenger
has tested negative for COVID-19 within 72 h before boarding. The Airports Council
International (ACI) has recently granted the Health Accreditation Seal for Safe Travel to
Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport, which reflects the dedication and efforts of the
national aviation sector for ensuring the application of strict safety measures to combat
the global pandemic [45]. Given such unique touristic aspects and proven safety measures,
we selected Sharm El Sheikh as the destination of choice and the national airport as the
study setting.
3.2. Measures and Data Collection
In this study, we employed a quantitative research design, where a self-administered,
structured questionnaire was submitted to international travelers at Sharm El Sheikh
Airport during the period between 1 November 2020 and 31 January 2021. The survey
was uploaded on a specifically designated platform (Google Forms), and the respondents
were invited to fill out the online questionnaire via travel agencies which prepared the
programs for the tourists. International travelers who traveled to Sharm El Sheikh for
leisure or work purposes were eligible. The instrument was comprised of five major
domains (31 items), which included tourists’ travel risk perception during the pandemic,
perceived importance of safety measures at the airport, willingness to change or cancel
travel plans, and personal intention to travel in the future. Items for all the aforementioned
domains were ranked on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). The purpose of respondents’ visits to Sharm El Sheikh as well as their
demographic characteristics were additionally collected, including gender, age, level of
education, and the frequency of travel before the pandemic. The included items were
adapted from previous studies; the measurement of travel risk perception was based on
six items [46,47], i.e., perceived importance of safety measures at the airport on 16 items,
willingness to change or cancel travel plans on six items [48], and personal intention to
travel in the future on three items [49].

The statistical analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
version 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and AMOS v26. Demographic characteristics
as well as the purpose of visiting the destination were expressed as frequencies and
percentages. Likert responses of different items (from 1 to 5) were presented as means
± standard deviations (SDs). Dimension reduction, namely exploratory factor analysis
(EFA), was performed on the “perceived importance of safety measures” domain to derive
valid constructs from the included items (n = 16). More specifically, a principal component
analysis (PCA) technique was carried out to load the variables of interest into a smaller
set of composite components with a shared variance [50]. The analysis was performed
using an eigenvalue of 1 to improve the strength of the obtained factors [51]. In addition,
the minimum factor loading was set at 0.3, and the rotation method was the Promax
method with Kaiser normalization. As demonstrated in Table 1, a three-factor solution
was extracted. The results of the PCA showed that the ratios of the unique variance to the
shared variance (communality) were >0.2 for all items, and the four components explained
75.28% of the total variance (Figure 1). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure was 0.892
and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 15,441.630, p < 0.0001), indicating
a significant sampling adequacy. Ultimately, the items were loaded according to the
following components: sanitization and logistics operations (7 items), staff- and travelerrelated preventive measures (6 items), and innovative preventive measures (3 items). These
components were further incorporated in the statistical analysis.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15
ST2 Travelers should wear face masks or face
shields and gloves -0.144 0.908 0.066
ST3
Airport should apply social distancing
between the passengers in the waiting
areas by leaving an empty seat between
travelers
0.122 0.891 -0.139
ST4
All airport staff and crew of the airplane
should have continuously renewed
COVID-19 certificate
-0.144 0.876 -0.014
ST5
All airport staff should be obligated to
wear protective coveralls to protect them
from infections
0.126 0.875 -0.237
ST6
All airport staff should wear face masks
or face shields and gloves during work
hours
0.113 0.847 -0.06
IN1 Airport should apply electronic payment
applications for all services -0.078 -0.141 0.987
IN2
Airport should depend on robots instead
of humans in some services at the airport
0.033 0.004 0.822
IN3
Airport should carry out the disinfection
and sterilization operations using environmentally friendly materials
-0.017 0.172 0.801
Figure 1. Scree plot of the eigenvalues in the factor analysis. The dashed line represents the reference eigenvalue (1).
Subsequently, for all domains, we employed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
confirm factor loadings on each latent variable, and the relevant fit indices were expressed
including comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),
the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and chi square (χ2). The reliability of different domains was
assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). The independent associations among latent variables were tested to confirm or reject our hypothesis, and these were expressed as path coefficients. For the significant associations, we further tested impact of group-specific differences in parameter
Figure 1. Scree plot of the eigenvalues in the factor analysis. The dashed line represents the reference
eigenvalue (1).
Subsequently, for all domains, we employed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
confirm factor loadings on each latent variable, and the relevant fit indices were expressed
including comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),
the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and chi square (χ2). The reliability of different domains
was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), and average variance
extracted (AVE). The independent associations among latent variables were tested to
confirm or reject our hypothesis, and these were expressed as path coefficients. For the
significant associations, we further tested impact of group-specific differences in parameter
estimates based on the purpose of participants’ visits to the destination. More specifically,
groups were categorized as follows: 0 = work/education and 1 = other purposes, since the
passengers from the former group might have stronger behavioral intentions to visit the
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 6 of 15
destination. A partial least squares multi-group analysis (PLS-MGA) was carried out in
SmartPLS to test the difference in bootstrapping results as derived from each group [52].
Table 1. Pattern matrix of the factor analysis of the 16-item domain used to assess the perceived importance of safety
measures at the airport.
Item 1 2 3
SL1 Airlines have to sanitize airplanes after and before every flight 0.957 –0.16 –0.073
SL2 Airport should locate a sanitizing gate or disinfection tunnel at
all its entrances 0.926 –0.08 –0.206
SL3 Airlines should leave at least 2 h between arrival and departure
flights for sterilization and disinfection of aircrafts 0.901 0.028 0.097
SL4 Airlines should close their sales’ offices at airports 0.866 0.087 –0.005
SL5 Airport should put glass barriers to separate travelers from all
service providers at the airport 0.862 –0.012 0.041
SL6 Airport should activate a safe route to transfer a traveler who is
suspected to the quarantine zone 0.86 0.076 –0.024
SL7
Air conditioning systems at airport should be sanitized daily, and
air purification technologies, such as plasma cluster technology,
should be used.
0.827 0.253 –0.017
ST1 Airlines must give all travelers new face masks and gloves once
they get into the airplane –0.341 0.991 0.025
ST2 Travelers should wear face masks or face shields and gloves –0.144 0.908 0.066
ST3 Airport should apply social distancing between the passengers in
the waiting areas by leaving an empty seat between travelers 0.122 0.891 –0.139
ST4 All airport staff and crew of the airplane should have
continuously renewed COVID-19 certificate –0.144 0.876 –0.014
ST5 All airport staff should be obligated to wear protective coveralls
to protect them from infections 0.126 0.875 –0.237
ST6 All airport staff should wear face masks or face shields and
gloves during work hours 0.113 0.847 –0.06
IN1 Airport should apply electronic payment applications for all
services –0.078 –0.141 0.987
IN2 Airport should depend on robots instead of humans in some
services at the airport 0.033 0.004 0.822
IN3 Airport should carry out the disinfection and sterilization
operations using environmentally friendly materials –0.017 0.172 0.801
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
A total of 954 passengers responded to the survey during the assigned study period.
More than half of them were females (61.01%) aged 25–44 years (53.46%). The majority of
the respondents had attained a high school degree or a bachelor’s degree (71.70%, Table 2).
Recreation for the pursuit of leisure activities was reported as the main purpose for visiting
the destination by more than half of the respondents (53.2%), followed by visiting family
members and relatives (25.2%), as well as cultural and educational purposes (17.6% and
15.7%, respectively, Figure 2).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 7 of 15
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the participants (n = 954).
Parameter Category Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 372 38.99
Female 582 61.01
Age
18–24 182 19.08
25–34 248 26.00
35–44 262 27.46
45–54 208 21.80
55–64 42 4.40
>65 12 1.26
Level of education
No formal education 24 2.52
High school 270 28.30
Bachelor’s 414 43.40
Masters 54 5.66
Doctorate 192 20.13
The frequency of travels
before the COVID-19
pandemic
I never travelled before 90 9.43
Once 288 30.19
2–3 times 336 35.22
4–5 times 90 9.43
>5 times 150 15.72
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8
Figure 2. The percentages of participants’ responses regarding their purpose of visiting the de
nation (n = 954).
4.2. Internal Consistency of the Study Instrument
The internal consistency of different subscales was tested using the Cronbach’s alph
efficient. The reliability of the questionnaire regarding the importance of safety measures
excellent (0.974). Furthermore, it was considered excellent for the domains of sanitization
cedures and quarantine (0.967) and staff- and traveler-related preventive measures (0.969
robust for innovative preventive measures (0.818) [53]. The reliability estimates for othe
mains of the survey are provided in the Table 3.
Table 3. Outer loadings and mean values of the indicators and the reliability of constructs included in the study instrument.
Factors and Items Mean (SD) Standardized
Factor Loading α AVE
Travel Risk Perception 0.974 0.726 0
TRP1: Tourism can significantly increase the
Figure 2. The percentages of participants’ responses regarding their purpose of visiting the destination (n = 954).
4.2. Internal Consistency of the Study Instrument
The internal consistency of different subscales was tested using the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient. The reliability of the questionnaire regarding the importance of safety measures
was excellent (0.974). Furthermore, it was considered excellent for the domains of sanitization procedures and quarantine (0.967) and staff- and traveler-related preventive measures
(0.969) and robust for innovative preventive measures (0.818) [53]. The reliability estimates
for other domains of the survey are provided in the Table 3.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 8 of 15
Table 3. Outer loadings and mean values of the indicators and the reliability of constructs included in the study instrument.
Factors and Items Mean (SD) Standardized Factor Loading α AVE CR
Travel Risk Perception 0.974 0.726 0.920
TRP1: Tourism can significantly increase the
spread of SARS-CoV2 3.48 (1.10) 0.795
TRP2: Tourism will be substantially influenced by
the spread of SARS-CoV2 4.02 (0.41) 0.889
TRP3: The risk of transmitting the infection
increases by staying in a hotel 2.97 (1.08) 0.974
TRP4: Travel should be restricted to prevent the
spread of the disease 3.74 (1.20) 0.775
TRP5: Currently, it is irresponsible to go on a
business trip to highly endemic countries 2.08 (0.97) 0.879
TRP6: Currently, it is irresponsible to go on leisure
trips to highly endemic countries 3.57 (1.09) 0.783
Sanitization and logistics operations 0.976 0.779 0.962
SL1: Airlines have to sanitize airplanes after and
before every flight 4.67 (0.79) 0.841
SL2: Airport should locate a sanitizing gate or
disinfection tunnel at all its entrances 4.52 (0.85) 0.897
SL3: Airlines should leave at least 2 h between
arrival and departure flights for sterilization and
disinfection of aircrafts
4.67 (0.85) 0.957
SL4: Airlines should close their sales’ offices at
airports 4.45 (0.89) 0.791
SL5: Airport should put glass barriers to separate
travelers from all service providers at the airport 4.33 (1.06) 0.893
SL6: Airports should activate a safe route to
transfer a traveler who is suspected to the
quarantine zone
4.67 (0.73) 0.987
SL7: Air conditioning systems at airport should be
sanitized daily, and air purification technologies,
such as plasma cluster technology, should be used.
4.00 (1.16) 0.792
Staff- and traveler-related measures 0.969 0.777 0.942
ST1: Airlines must give all travelers new face
masks and gloves once they get into the aero plane 4.73 (0.77) 0.897
ST2: Travelers should wear face masks or face
shields and gloves 4.66 (0.82) 0.977
ST3: Airports should apply social distancing
between the passengers in the waiting areas by
leaving an empty seat between travelers
4.32 (1.02) 0.879
ST4: All airport staff and crew of the airplane
should have continuously renewed COVID-19
certificate
4.60 (0.85) 0.794
ST5: All airport staff should be obligated to wear
protective coveralls to protect them from infections 4.36 (0.99) 0.858
ST6: All airport staff should wear face masks or
face shields and gloves during work hours 4.77 (0.77) 0.874
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 9 of 15
Table 3. Cont.
Factors and Items Mean (SD) Standardized Factor Loading α AVE CR
Innovative measures 0.854 0.730 0.855
IN1: Airport should apply electronic payment
applications for all services 4.03 (1.13) 0.793
IN2: Airport should depend on robots instead of
humans in some services at the airport 3.96 (1.01) 0.846
IN3: Airport should carry out the disinfection and
sterilization operations on a daily 24-h basis, using
environmentally friendly materials and in
accordance with the highest global safety and
health standards
3.40 (1.22) 0.919
Intention to travel 0.812 0.769 0.885
INT1: I intend to revisit Sharm El Sheikh soon 3.28 (0.82) 0.789
INT2: I intend to revisit the city for work in the
short/medium term, if needed. 4.24 (0.76) 0.927
INT3: I intend to revisit the city for leisure in the
short/medium term 2.12 (0.76) 0.909
Willingness to change or cancel travel plans 0.915 0.793 0.948
WTT1: My travel behavior is likely to change due
to coronavirus 2.40 (0.60) 0.937
WTT2: If I travel to another country depends on
how media is reporting about that country 2.20 (0.53) 0.910
WTT3: Currently, I would cancel travel plans to
countries with reported cases of coronavirus 2.22 (0.60) 0.967
WTT4: Currently, I would cancel travel plans to
countries with no reported cases of coronavirus 1.87 (0.54) 0.814
WTT5: Currently I would avoid trips by
airplane/boat 2.15 (0.66) 0.903
WTT6: Currently I would avoid trips by train 2.14 (0.68) 0.799
4.3. The Measurement Model (Confirmatory Factor Analysis)
The reliability of individual items was used to validate the measurement model. As
demonstrated in Figure 3, the outer loadings of all indicators to their respective latent
constructs were above 0.707, as previously suggested [54], and they were all significant
(p < 0.05). Furthermore, as shown in Table 4, the CR of different domains were acceptable,
since it exceeded the cut-off value of 0.7 as suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein [55].
Additionally, the convergent validity of constructs fulfilled the threshold of AVE > 0.5 [56],
which indicates that each domain could explain more than 50% of the variance in the
relevant indicators. Finally, the discriminant validity requirement was satisfied, given
that the square root of the shared variance between the items and their respective domain
(indicated in bold) was greater than the relationship between different constructs in the
matrix (Table 4). Therefore, we concluded that the used instrument was valid and reliable,
and it measured distinct and identifiable items.

Table 4. Validity and reliability of the measurement model.

Additionally, the convergent validity of constructs fulfilled the threshold of AVE > 0.5
[56], which indicates that each domain could explain more than 50% of the variance in the
relevant indicators. Finally, the discriminant validity requirement was satisfied, given that
the square root of the shared variance between the items and their respective domain (indicated in bold) was greater than the relationship between different constructs in the matrix (Table 4). Therefore, we concluded that the used instrument was valid and reliable,
and it measured distinct and identifiable items.
Table 4. Validity and reliability of the measurement model.
Construct CR AVE Fornell–Larcker Criterion
TRP L ST IN INT WTT
Travel risk perception (TRP) 0.726 0.920 0.874
Sanitization and logistics operations (L) 0.779 0.962 0.031 0.784
Staff- and traveler-related measures (ST) 0.777 0.942 -0.245 0.124 0.914
Innovative measures (IN) 0.730 0.855 -0.427 0.014 0.245 0.719
Intention to travel (INT) 0.769 0.885 -0.124 -0.475 -0.512 0.171 0.841
Willingness to change or cancel travel plans
(WTT) 0.793 0.948 0.014 -0.357 -0.010 -0.074 0.048 0.701
Figure 3. Figure 3.The percentages of participants’ responses regarding their purpose of visiting the destination ( The percentages of participants’ responses regarding their purpose of visiting the destination ( nn= 954). = 954).
4.4. The Structural Model
The relationship between the latent variables was estimated and validated in the
structural model (Figure 3). The variance inflation factor (VIF) value was <5 for all analysis,
indicating the lack of multicollinearity. The relationships between endogenous variables
were significant (p < 0.05) except the relationship between travel risk perception and the
perceived importance of innovative preventive measures and the intention to travel in the
future and the importance of innovative measures.
Regarding R2 values, the results revealed significant correlations between the constructs (R2 > 0.100) as suggested by Falk and Miller [57], except the relationship between
passengers’ risk perception and innovative preventive measures (R2 = 0.001). The correlation between risk perception and sanitization measures was judged as weak (R2 = 0.214),
since it did not reach the recommended cut-off value of 0.330 [58]. Furthermore, the com
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 11 of 15
posite effect of the perceived importance of safety measures on respondents’ intention to
travel was moderate (R2 = 0.512, Figure 3).
4.5. Results of the Primary Outcomes
The perceived risk of travel has negative effects on the perceived importance of
sanitization and logistic operations performed by the airport to reduce the likelihood of
COVID-19 spread (b = –0.36, p = 0.004) as well as the staff- and traveler-related preventive
measures (b = –0.48, p < 0.0001). Additionally, respondents’ intention to travel in the future
was positively influenced by the perceived importance of sanitization procedures (b = 0.42,
p = 0.007) and personal protective measures (b = 0.57, p < 0.0001). That is, if individuals
perceive that such measures are very important, they exhibit greater intentions to revisit the
destination. However, the implementation of innovative safety measures has no significant
effect on the personal intentions to travel. Therefore, hypotheses 2a and 2c were supported
by the current model, while hypothesis 2b was not accepted. Finally, the intention to travel
to the destination in the future was inversely correlated with the willingness to cancel or
change travel plans to other countries/places (b = –0.312, p = 0.04), which indicates that
those who declared that they intented to revisit the destination would be less likely to
cancel or change their future travel plans to other touristic places (Figure 3).
4.6. Between-Group Differences Based on the Purpose of Participants’ Visits
The outcomes of the structural model were compared based on the purpose of passengers’ purpose of visit, i.e., for work/education or other purposes (Table 5). The analysis
was limited to the significant independent associations from the structural model. According to the Henseler’s MGA approach [52], the positive independent association between
the perceived importance of staff- and traveler-related safety measures and the intention
to revisit the destination was significantly higher among passengers who had come for
work/education as compared with those arriving for other purposes (the difference in the
path coefficient = 0.17, p = 0.041). No significant differences were detected between groups
in other independent associations.
Table 5. Multi-group analysis by the purpose of visit.
Relationship
Path Coefficients Path Coefficient
Difference p *
Work/Education Others

* p value of Henseler’s partial least squares multi-group analysis (PLS-MGA).
5. Discussion
The COVID-19 outbreak has dramatically influenced the global economy and the
preferences of travel destination due to the uncertainty of exposure to risks and the differences in the geographic distribution of endemic regions. Perceived risk is an important
construct, in which the potential dangers associated with a trip are associated with changes
in the intention to revisit a given destination and/or changes in the behavioral control
of traveling to other regions [59]. Although health risks have primarily affected tourists’
behaviors and choice of destinations where an infectious disease is endemic, there is scant
evidence regarding such intentions in the context of the widespread pandemic. In the
current study, two constructs from the perceived importance of health safety measures
at the Sharm El Sheikh airport have influenced passengers’ future decisions to revisit the
destination, which induced significant changes in the willingness to change or cancel travel
plans to other touristic places.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 12 of 15
The perceived risk of travel has negatively affected the importance of personal and
logistic safety measures, with more robust effects on staff- and traveler-related safety
precautions. The reported negative relationship in our model might have emerged from the
lack of trust regarding the applied safety measures among individuals with higher levels
of risk perceptions. This might be explained by the findings of Lee and co-authors, who
revealed that tourists during the H1N1 pandemic might have exhibited adaptive behaviors
to reduce the threat of infection to an acceptable level; thus, their adjusted behaviors might
have reduced their levels of perceived risks and supported their travel decisions [46].
Recent studies of different populations in the Middle East have shown that good infection
control measures, the existence of a reliable health system at the destination, and the use of
hand sanitizers and face masks were the most significant factors that could impact travelers’
decisions when choosing a trip [60–62]. A “new” characteristic of passengers’ behaviors has
also entailed hygienic precautions in the hotels rather than their service quality, location, or
size [60]. Seemingly, during a pandemic, safety measures surpass other destination-specific
attributes, such as operator performance, personal values, and consumer needs, as drivers
of intention to re-travel or visit other destinations [63].
Therefore, the impact of safety procedures is a crucial variable in airport performance
and passengers’ satisfaction after re-opening the aviation. As indicated in our analysis,
the importance of these measures is highly perceived by those coming for relatively more
obliged purposes, such as work and education as compared with other purposes. Other
demographic determinants of passengers’ perceptions have been reported elsewhere,
such as age, gender, and economic levels, which have changed the perceived importance.
However, adopting health safety procedures in airports remains an important aspect for all
categories of passengers.
Collectively, we stressed that a vital aspect in our model was to support efforts aimed
at reviving the demand for tourism. Although the knowledge of passengers’ perceptions as
a whole has not been fully elucidated, our study contributes significantly to an invaluable
domain of tourism recovery during the ongoing crisis. By providing insights into the
factors that influence the intention to travel during the pandemic, decision makers in
the tourism industry should be able to establish effective marketing strategies based on
stressing the relevant safety procedures that are being implemented at the destination.
This should, in turn, increase tourism demand and assist in the recovery of the national
economies, which would also an integral part of the wider aspect of governmental actions
to help mitigate the consequences of the worldwide pandemic. Therefore, the perceived
risks of infection and barriers of travel should be targeted via optimizing quality seals
and airport reputation, as well as communicating the measures of safety, hygiene, and
cleanliness which are applied by relevant airlines.
Although post-pandemic research has shown significant concerns and uncertainty in
the daily lives of consumers, people still have a more favorable attitude towards travelling,
and only people with excessive anxiety and highly perceived risks would be less likely
to travel [60,61,64]. Interestingly, since social media is an important driver of provoking
fear due to misinformation, government and tourism decisionmakers are required to
communicate with travelers via these platforms to convey the accurate situation regarding
safety precautions in order to reduce the heightened perceptions of risks. This might
include communicating trusted reports provided by independent experts to confirm the
safety of airports and implementing promotional activities to reduce travelers’ uncertainty.
Despite the inclusion of a large sample of air travel passengers, the present study
may be limited by the survey-based design, which is subject to reporting bias and the
inability to draw robust correlations. The study was also performed in a single airport in
Egypt, which may limit the generalizability of the outcomes to other touristic regions. The
study could be replicated in other countries to enable effective comparative analysis and to
explore the perceptions of tourists from different cultures. The timeline of the study was
only limited to the pre-vaccine period; therefore, the obtained results are subject to change
due to altered perceptions when a vaccine becomes available. Finally, the convenience of
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 13 of 15
passengers regarding strict safety measures were not explored, which could be a matter of
future research.
6. Conclusions
In conclusion, the applied operational and personal safety measures at the Sharm El
Sheikh airport have played an important role in future intentions to revisit the destination as
well as the perceptions of travelers towards traveling to other touristic places in the future.
The inherently perceived risk of acquiring the COVID-19 infection was associated with
low perceived importance/efficacy of safety measures and high inclination to future travel.
The model applied in the present study was well-fitted and validated for future use, and it
paves the way for similar studies in other regions. Airport safety should be acknowledged
while implementing future strategic plans by governments, tourism stakeholders, and
relevant authorities in order to control the perceived risks of tourists. Future investigations
may include passengers of domestic and international flights. Furthermore, studies may
consider the role of safety measures at multiple airports, hotels, and touristic sites and on
airplanes to obtain more reliable and generalizable conclusions.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.H.H.; Data curation, A.E.S.; Formal analysis, T.H.H.
and A.E.S.; Funding acquisition, T.H.H.; Investigation, A.E.S.; Methodology, T.H.H. and A.E.S.;
Project administration, A.E.S.; Resources, T.H.H. and A.E.S.; Software, T.H.H.; Supervision, T.H.H.;
Validation, A.E.S. and T.H.H.; Visualization, T.H.H. and A.E.S.; Writing—original draft, T.H.H.;
Writing—review and editing, T.H.H. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: The authors acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University for
the financial support under Nasher Track grant no. 206182.
Data Availability Statement: Data available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. World Health Organization. WHO Announces COVID-19 Outbreak a Pandemic. Available online: https://www.euro.who.
int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/news/2020/3/who-announces-covid-19-outbreak-apandemic (accessed on 28 June 2020).
2. Hoare, S. India by Air; Longmans, Green and Company Ltd.: London, UK, 1927.
3. Budd, L.; Bell, M.; Brown, T. Of plagues, planes and politics: Controlling the global spread of infectious diseases by air. Political
Geogr. 2009, 28, 426–435. [CrossRef]
4. Cresswell, T. On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
5. Urry, J. Sociology beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century; Routledge: London, UK, 2012.
6. Breugelmans, J.G.; Zucs, P.; Porten, K.; Broll, S.; Niedrig, M.; Ammon, A.; Krause, G. SARS transmission and commercial aircraft.
Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 1502. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Cohen, N.J. Travel and border health measures to prevent the international spread of Ebola. MMWR Suppl. 2016, 65, 57–67.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Monterrubio, J.C. Short-term economic impacts of influenza A (H1N1) and government reaction on the Mexican tourism industry:
An analysis of the media. Int. J. Tour. Policy 2010, 3, 1–15. [CrossRef]
9. Dodds, R.; Butler, R. Overtourism: Issues, Realities and Solutions; Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG: Berlin, Germany, 2019.
10. Seraphin, H.; Sheeran, P.; Pilato, M. Over-tourism and the fall of Venice as a destination. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 9, 374–376.
[CrossRef]
11. IATA Biosecurity for Air Transport a Roadmap for Restarting Aviation v.2. Available online: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/
4cb32e19ff544df590f3b70179551013/roadmap-safely-restarting-aviation.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2020).
12. Selim, M.; Aidrous, I.; Semenova, E. International tourism: Prospects for development in the post coronavirus world (egyptian
example). Int. J. Manag. 2020, 11, 1145–1155.
13. George, B.P.; George, B.P. Past visits and the intention to revisit a destination: Place attachment as the mediator and novelty
seeking as the moderator. J. Tour. Stud. 2004, 15, 51.
14. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
15. Adam, I. Backpackers’ risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies in Ghana. Tour. Manag. 2015, 49, 99–108. [CrossRef]
16. Reisinger, Y.; Mavondo, F. Cultural differences in travel risk perception. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2006, 20, 13–31. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 14 of 15
17. Turnšek, M.; Brumen, B.; Rangus, M.; Gorenak, M.; Mekinc, J.; Štuhec, T.L. Perceived threat of COVID-19 and future travel
avoidance: Results from an early convenient sample in Slovenia. Acad. Tur.-Tour. Innov. J. 2020, 13, 13. [CrossRef]
18. Ragbir, N.K.; Baugh, B.S.; Rice, S.; Winter, S.R. How nationality, weather, wind, and distance affect consumer willingness to fly in
autonomous airplanes. J. Aviat. Technol. Eng. 2018, 8, 1. [CrossRef]
19. Anderson, N.H. Foundations of Information Integration Theory; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1981; Volume 578.
20. Williams, A.M.; Baláž, V. Tourism risk and uncertainty: Theoretical reflections. J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 271–287. [CrossRef]
21. Kozak, M.; Crotts, J.C.; Law, R. The impact of the perception of risk on international travellers. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2007, 9, 233–242.
[CrossRef]
22. Rittichainuwat, B.N.; Chakraborty, G. Perceived travel risks regarding terrorism and disease: The case of Thailand. Tour. Manag.
2009, 30, 410–418. [CrossRef]
23. Bekk, M.; Spörrle, M.; Kruse, J. The benefits of similarity between tourist and destination personality. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55,
1008–1021. [CrossRef]
24. Linka, K.; Rahman, P.; Goriely, A.; Kuhl, E. Is it safe to lift COVID-19 travel bans? The Newfoundland story. Comput. Mech. 2020,
66, 1081–1092. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Mateus, A.L.P.; Otete, H.E.; Beck, C.R.; Dolan, G.P.; Nguyen-Van-Tam, J.S. Effectiveness of travel restrictions in the rapid
containment of human influenza: A systematic review. Bull. World Health Organ. 2014, 92, 868D–880D. [CrossRef]
26. Sharun, K.; Tiwari, R.; Natesan, S.; Yatoo, M.I.; Malik, Y.S.; Dhama, K. International travel during the COVID-19 pandemic:
Implications and risks associated with ‘travel bubbles’. J. Travel Med. 2020, 27. [CrossRef]
27. Oxford Leaner’s Dictionary Safety Noun. Available online: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_
english/safety#:~{}:text=%2F%CB%88se%C9%AAfti%2F,custody%20for%20his%20own%20safety (accessed on 25 January 2021).
28. Costea, M.; Hapenciuc, C.-V.; Stanciu, P. Tourist safety and security: A factor of the competitiveness of secondary tourist
destinations. Rev. Tur. Stud. Cercet. Tur. 2017, 23, 1–9.
29. Wilder-Smith, A.; Freedman, D.O. Isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community containment: Pivotal role for old-style
public health measures in the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. J. Travel Med. 2020, 27, taaa020. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Nussbaumer-Streit, B.; Mayr, V.; Dobrescu, A.I.; Chapman, A.; Persad, E.; Klerings, I.; Wagner, G.; Siebert, U.; Ledinger, D.;
Zachariah, C. Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: A rapid review.
Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020. [CrossRef]
31. Chowdhury, S.D.; Oommen, A.M. Epidemiology of COVID-19. J. Dig. Endosc. 2020, 11, 3.
32. Al-Tawfiq, J.A.; Rodriguez-Morales, A.J. Super-spreading events and contribution to transmission of MERS, SARS, and COVID-19.
J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 105, 111–112. [CrossRef]
33. Bielecki, M.; Züst, R.; Siegrist, D.; Meyerhofer, D.; Crameri, G.A.G.; Stanga, Z.G.; Stettbacher, A.; Buehrer, T.W.; Deuel, J.W. Social
distancing alters the clinical course of COVID-19 in young adults: A comparative cohort study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 72, 598–603.
[CrossRef]
34. IATA Temperature Screening: A Public Health Responsibility—Existing Guidance. Available online: https://www.iata.org/
contentassets/67e015cf3db1410392cd5b5bb5961a16/iata-temperature-screening-public-health-responsibility.pdf (accessed on
5 December 2020).
35. Quilty, B.J.; Clifford, S.; Flasche, S.; Eggo, R.M. Effectiveness of airport screening at detecting travellers infected with novel
coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Eurosurveillance 2020, 25, 2000080. [CrossRef]
36. Bielecki, M.; Crameri, G.A.G.; Schlagenhauf, P.; Buehrer, T.W.; Deuel, J.W. Body temperature screening to identify SARS-CoV-2
infected young adult travellers is ineffective. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2020, 37, 101832. [CrossRef]
37. Cardwell, K.; Jordan, K.; Byrne, P.; Smith, S.M.; Harrington, P.; Ryan, M.; O’Neill, M. The effectiveness of non-contact thermal
screening as a means of identifying cases of Covid-19: A rapid review of the evidence. Rev. Med. Virol. 2020, e2192. [CrossRef]
38. U.S. Department of State COVID-19 Country Specific Information. Available online: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/
traveladvisories/COVID-19-Country-Specific-Information.html (accessed on 5 December 2020).
39. Janzen, J. Air Travel Remains a Safe Way to Travel during COVID-19; Advanced HEPA Filters Constantly Clean the
Air Onboard, Limiting the Risk of Virus Transmission and Providing a Safe Environment. Available online: https:
//a4e.eu/publications/air-travel-remains-a-safe-way-to-travel-during-covid-19-advanced-hepa-filters-constantly-cleanthe-air-onboard-limiting-the-risk-of-virus-transmission-and-providing-a-safe-environment/ (accessed on 5 December 2020).
40. Chen, J.; He, H.; Cheng, W.; Liu, Y.; Sun, Z.; Chai, C.; Kong, Q.; Sun, W.; Zhang, J.; Guo, S. Potential transmission of SARS-CoV-2
on a flight from Singapore to Hangzhou, China: An epidemiological investigation. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2020, 36, 101816.
[CrossRef]
41. Speake, H.; Phillips, A.; Chong, T.; Sikazwe, C.; Levy, A.; Lang, J.; Scalley, B.; Speers, D.J.; Smith, D.W.; Effler, P. Flight-Associated
Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Corroborated by Whole-Genome Sequencing. Emerg. Infect.
Dis. 2020, 26, 2872–2880. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Khanh, N.C.; Thai, P.Q.; Quach, H.-L.; Thi, N.-A.H.; Dinh, P.C.; Duong, T.N.; Mai, L.T.Q.; Nghia, N.D.; Tu, T.A.; Quang, L.N.
Transmission of SARS-CoV 2 during long-haul flight. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 2617. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Simple Flying Editorial Team How Egypt Is Aiming to Return to Pre-Pandemic Flight Levels. Available online: https://
simpleflying.com/egypt-pre-pandemic-flight-level-return/ (accessed on 10 February 2021).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5216 15 of 15
44. Zaki, N. Sharm El-Sheikh Receives 1st Polish Flight after 7-Month Hiatus Due to COVID-19. Available online: https://www.
egypttoday.com/Article/6/92959/Sharm-El-Sheikh-receives-1st-Polish-flight-after-7-month (accessed on 10 February 2021).
45. EgyptIndependent.com Sharm el-Sheikh International Airport Receives Health Accreditation Seal for Safe Travel. Available
online: https://egyptindependent.com/sharm-el-sheikh-international-airport-receives-health-accreditation-seal-for-safe-travel/
(accessed on 10 February 2021).
46. Lee, C.-K.; Song, H.-J.; Bendle, L.J.; Kim, M.-J.; Han, H. The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions for 2009 H1N1 influenza
on travel intentions: A model of goal-directed behavior. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 89–99. [CrossRef]
47. Floyd, M.F.; Pennington-Gray, L. Profiling risk perceptions of tourists. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 1051–1054. [CrossRef]
48. Reisinger, Y.; Mavondo, F. Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk perception. J. Travel
Res. 2005, 43, 212–225. [CrossRef]
49. Hsu, C.H.C.; Huang, S. An extension of the theory of planned behavior model for tourists. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2012, 36, 390–417.
[CrossRef]
50. Child, D. The Essentials of Factor Analysis; A&C Black: London, UK, 2006.
51. Schönrock-Adema, J.; Heijne-Penninga, M.; van Hell, E.A.; Cohen-Schotanus, J. Necessary steps in factor analysis: Enhancing
validation studies of educational instruments. The PHEEM applied to clerks as an example. Med. Teach. 2009, 31, e226–e232.
[CrossRef]
52. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New
Challenges to International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bradford, UK, 2009.
53. Taber, K.S. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res. Sci. Educ.
2018, 48, 1273–1296. [CrossRef]
54. Carmines, E.G.; Zeller, R.A. Reliability and Validity Assessment; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1979.
55. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
56. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
57. Falk, R.F.; Miller, N.B. A Primer for Soft Modeling; University of Akron Press: Akron, OH, USA, 1992.
58. Chin, W.W. Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Q. 1998, 22, vii–xvi.
59. Fuchs, G.; Reichel, A. Tourist destination risk perception: The case of Israel. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 2006, 14, 83–108. [CrossRef]
60. Ivanova, M.; Ivanov, I.K.; Ivanov, S. Travel behaviour after the pandemic: The case of Bulgaria. Anatolia 2020, 32, 1–11. [CrossRef]
61. Kourgiantakis, M.; Apostolakis, A.; Dimou, I. COVID-19 and holiday intentions: The case of Crete, Greece. Anatolia 2020, 32,
148–151. [CrossRef]
62. Çelik, S.; Dedeo˘glu, B.B. Psychological factors affecting the behavioral intention of the tourist visiting Southeastern Anatolia. J.
Hosp. Tour. Insights 2019, 2, 425–450. [CrossRef]
63. Al-Saad, S.; Ababneh, A.; Alazaizeh, M. The influence of airport security procedures on the intention to re-travel. Eur. J. Tour. Res.
2019, 23, 127–141.
64. Wachyuni, S.S.; Kusumaningrum, D.A. The Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic: How are the Future Tourist Behavior? J. Educ. Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2020, 67–76. [CrossRef]