Content uploaded by Burhan Sevim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Burhan Sevim on Dec 27, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wttm20
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20
Perceived risk in hospitality and tourism
scholarship: a systematic review and future
research agenda
Selda Yordam Dağıstan, Burhan Sevim, Hasan Evrim Arici, Mehmet Bahri
Saydam & Mehmet Ali Köseoglu
To cite this article: Selda Yordam Dağıstan, Burhan Sevim, Hasan Evrim Arici, Mehmet Bahri
Saydam & Mehmet Ali Köseoglu (2023) Perceived risk in hospitality and tourism scholarship:
a systematic review and future research agenda, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 40:9,
863-877, DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2023.2296640
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2023.2296640
View supplementary material
Published online: 25 Dec 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Perceived risk in hospitality and tourism scholarship: a systematic review and
future research agenda
Selda Yordam Dağıstan
a
, Burhan Sevim
a
, Hasan Evrim Arici
a,b
, Mehmet Bahri Saydam
c
and Mehmet Ali Köseoglu
d
a
Tourism, Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey;
b
EU Business School, Digital Campus, Barcelona, Spain;
c
Tourism, Eastern Mediterranean
University, Gazimagusa, Turkey;
d
College of Management, Metropolitan State University, Minneapolis, MN, USA
ABSTRACT
This study oers a bibliometric evaluation of perceived risk research in the hospitality and tourism
literature. It emphasizes the essential scientic topics, the conceptual foundations, and the recent
research stream. Bibliometric analysis tested two hundred and thirty documents related to per-
ceived risk. Co-citation analysis showed that perceived risk is a research domain concentrating on
technology-driven risks, customer anxiety, uncertainty, and coping strategies. The theory of
planned behavior and the technology acceptance model are frequently used in dierent elds
of study. The analysis of bibliographic coupling and comparison of ndings reveals trending topics
and presents several recommendations for further research.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 15 July 2023
Revised 27 November 2023
Accepted 12 December 2023
KEYWORDS
Perceived risk; tourist
anxiety; uncertainty;
bibliometrics; hospitality and
tourism
Introduction
The hospitality and tourism (H&T) sectors constitute the
biggest and most intensely competitive in the world, and
their income growth is accelerating. However, as a result
of natural disasters for instance, oods and earthquakes,
as well as man-made disturbances such as wars and ter-
rorist attacks, the H&T sector worldwide has undergone
sudden shocks (Barbhuiya & Chatterjee, 2020; Kerr & Kelly,
2019). This is unfortunate because, before the pandemic
in 2019, the H&T sector oered 334 million jobs world-
wide as well as 10.4% of the universal economy, adding to
a 3.5% increase in the GDP (WTTC, 2021). In addition, H&T
is dependent on foreign travel, and visitor arrivals are the
most common metric used to measure tourism demand.
Yet, economic turbulence caused by crises such as eco-
nomic, pandemic, or political disturbances can also have
a big impact on travel demand (Sigala & Sigala, 2021).
The H&T domain is susceptible to multiple external
and internal diculties and crises in the present day
(Wut et al., 2021). Akin to McKercher and Hui (2004,
p. 101),the tourist and hospitality industry is frequently
disrupted by crises. The decline in tourist arrivals and
expenditures as a result of the crisis has a negative
impact on the industry and its stakeholders, hence
increasing their susceptibility. Crises and uncertainty
directly or indirectly aect individuals to consume H&T
products since they perceive potential risk because of
the abovementioned factors. The risk perceptions of
individuals have been identied as one of the key ante-
cedents of decisions and behaviors (Godovykh et al.,
2021; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2023). Recently, H&T
eld has experienced numerous crisis events, including
terrorist attacks such as 9/11 and the 2002 Bali bombing,
natural disasters like two large earthquakes in south-
central Turkey near the border of Turkey and Syria,
wars (Ukraine-Russia), political instability such as
Catalonia in 2017, economic recessions (the Great
Recession in December 2007 to June 2009), and disease
outbreaks including Ebola and severe acute respiratory
syndrome, and the newest calamity, covid-19.
Several review papers on risk perception is available.
For example, Gstaettner et al. (2018) reviewed 59 publica-
tions between 2000 to 2015 on the concept of risk in
nature-based tourism and recreation. Steiger et al. (2019)
systematically reviewed of climate change risk for ski
tourism using 119 publications between 1986 and 2017.
Another systematic review study was conducted by Yang
and Nair (2014) on risk and gender research in tourism by
reviewing 86 articles. Ritchie and Jiang (2021), systematic
review used 142 papers on tourism risk, crisis, and disaster
management published between 1960 and 2018. As can
be seen above, in H&T literature, a comprehensive under-
standing of risk-related research has yet to be articulated.
Given the prominence of calamities and disasters in
H&T, as well as the conicting perspectives on it, it
appears that clarication is required regarding risk-
CONTACT Mehmet Ali Köseoglu trmaliktr@yahoo.com College of Management, Metropolitan State University, 1501 Hennepin Ave, Minneapolis, MN
55403-1897, USA
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2023.2296640.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
2023, VOL. 40, NO. 9, 863–877
https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2023.2296640
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
related research. Nonetheless, “tourism risk” writing has
been criticized for scarce theoretical pieces of evidence,
hence impeding the development of novel data (Steiger
et al., 2019). Due to disasters, the consumer experience
in T&H has continuously altered, thus this gap is essen-
tial. Following the pandemic and previous wars, natural
disasters, as well as economic ups and downs, the sig-
nicance of risk-related research in T&H has grown
(Carvalho, 2022).
In the context of the rapidly evolving H&T sector, we
acknowledge that previous review studies exist on the
topic of risk perception, as mentioned above. However,
what distinguishes our study is its exclusive focus on the
H&T industry, a sector renowned for its susceptibility to
an array of crises and risks (Carvalho, 2022). Despite the
existence of these prior review papers, our comprehen-
sive analysis seeks to shed light on a specic research
gap – namely, the lack of an all-encompassing under-
standing of risk-related research tailored to the distinc-
tive challenges and dynamics within the H&T sector. As
delineated in the existing pool of studies, crises, ranging
from natural disasters to pandemics and economic uc-
tuations, have signicantly transformed the H&T land-
scape, necessitating a deeper examination of risk
perceptions and their implications. Therefore, our sys-
tematic review oers a unique perspective by exploring
this critical facet of the H&T eld, thus contributing novel
insights and guidance to both academics and industry
professionals in navigating the post-pandemic H&T
environment. We trust that our study will not only high-
light the existing gaps but also provide a comprehensive
synthesis of the evolving body of risk-related research in
the context of H&T, making a valuable addition to the
literature. In a more general sense, numerous uncertain-
ties remain regarding how destination marketers and
businesses can eectively leverage an overview of exist-
ing risk-related literature within H&T domain to meet the
evolving needs and anticipations of both tourists and
countries, all while augmenting their long-term nancial
sustainability. Using a risk-related paper ow structure to
originate our systematic review research, we provide
potential responses for both academics and industry
actors. The framework could be used as a toolset by
incorporating concepts from the perspectives that
emerged during our research. Our suggestions are
intended to help academics, destination marketers, and
other stakeholders as they manage the post-pandemic
environment. We investigate the relevance of risk-
related research for previous ndings and present prac-
tical advice for reassessing ongoing creative endeavors
in the H&T eld. The paper also identies signicant
knowledge gaps in the discipline and presents recom-
mendations for further research and policy goals.
Literature review
The denition of risk
Every day, the vast majority of people engage in some
form of risky behavior, and this pervasiveness has driven
researchers to exert considerable eort to comprehend
how individuals perceive risk (Sjöberg et al., 2004).
Everyone is attempting to manage risk, but they are all
making broad assumptions because if they were certain,
they would not be managing risk (Williams et al., 2022).
In other words, in any given circumstance, a negative
outcome may or may not occur, and the probabilities of
varied outcomes are skewed by the inuence of causal
factors. One factor is shared by all risk concepts: the
contrast between actuality and possibility.
There are diverse characterizations of risk perception.
Li et al. (2020) dened risk perception as “the possibility
of consumers’ subjective feelings of various losses in pur-
chasing goods” (p.77). Akin to Douglas (1992), risk per-
ception is “the chance of an event multiplied by the
magnitude of the losses and benets it entails” (p. 40).
Risk and uncertainty are frequently used synonymously.
However, risk refers to estimates of the likelihood that
particular (unfavorable) circumstances might occur,
while uncertainty denotes incomplete knowledge while
the selection process (Karl, 2018). Even though the
majority of studies agree the risk performs a signicant
role in the decision-making process of individuals, the
issue of how and when risk factors inuence individuals’
decisions regarding choosing whether or not consume
a service is ambiguous, and the results are frequently
contradictory (Karl, 2018). In other words, when the out-
comes of a decision are uncertain, risk aects human
perceptions and decision-making (Reisinger & Mavondo,
2006). Risk generates feelings of worry and dreads about
the outcomes of purchase decisions (Li et al., 2020).
A risky purchase causes anxiety and worries about
unknowable repercussions (Karagöz et al., 2021). These
emotions have a direct eect on how secure consumers
feel about their purchases.
Risk perception in hospitality and tourism
Although risk perception is originally coined from con-
sumer perception behavioral studies, the notion of
“tourist risk perception” emerged almost four decades
ago and was extensively studied by academics (Hasan
et al., 2017). In the tourism eld, Roehl and Fesenmaier
(1992) championed investigation of tourist risk percep-
tion as well as stated that every travel method, tourist
location, and tourism activity entails a certain level of
risk. Since then, a number of studies have utilized the
concept of “risk perception” to portray the designation
864 S. YORDAM DAĞISTAN ET AL.
of risk perception components and their signicance in
a variety of travel and tourism circumstances (Hasan
et al., 2017).
The majority of studies on risk perceptions started in
the elds of behavioral nance and risk management,
which dene risks in terms of uncertainty, severity, and
the likelihood of negative consequences (Godovykh
et al., 2021). “Risk perceptions” have also been shown
in studies of consumer behavior to be important inu-
ences on consumer attitudes and behavior (Paker & Gök,
2021; Xu et al., 2022). H&T research uses distinct inter-
pretations of risk perceptions, which are commonly
related with visitors’ frustration, anxiety, worry, and
uneasiness (Godovykh et al., 2021).
Risk in hospitality and tourism industry
Tourism is a service-based industry, inheriting the
intangibility, variety, perishability, and inseparability
of services (Yang & Nair, 2014). Both theoretical and
empirical evidence from prior research supports the
notion that clients who receive services perceive
more risk in comparison to ones who consume
goods (Murray & Schlacter, 1990). Since tourists can
only experience risk that is relevant to them or that
they can perceive, the majority of risk-related research
in the tourism industry concentrates on “perceived” or
“subjective risk” rather than true or objective risk
(Yang & Nair, 2014).
The tourism industry has distinctive characteristics
that must be considered when assessing risk. Several,
for example, serve both local markets and domestic and
international tourists. Until a crisis or natural disaster
aects demand, these rms may be oblivious of the
extent and signicance of tourism to their revenue and
long-term existence. In certain situations, such as
a pandemic, local shops can be advantageous for tourist
businesses, enabling them to obtain local need, whereas
travel and tourism industries that focus primarily on
foreign and domestic tourists’ non-local desire may be
more susceptible. Hence, that is vital to research crisis
and disaster management in the hospitality business
and compare its development to that of the tourism
industry in order to identify any similarities and varia-
tions in the way these incidents are handled (Ritchie &
Jiang, 2021).
Risk can be viewed through the eyes of a traveler,
a business operator, or a tourism destination. Risk can
potentially be viewed as (1) “absolute or actual risk,” or
(2) “subjective perceptions of danger” (Bauer, 1960).
Tourism studies frequently focus on subjective per-
ceived risk, as buyer or executive perceptions of risk
inuence their actions.
The extant H&T literature expressed travelers’ percep-
tion of potential negative eects during their stay in
a tourist destination, addressing specic characteristics
of the tourist product and the fact that tourists can be
exposed to a wide variety of potential risks, as well as
uncertainties in the decision-making phase (Perić et al.,
2021). Moreover, research underlined that risk percep-
tion is a highly nominative and individual aspect of each
person’s mental structure, as well as the perception of
risk in tourism varies according to the qualities of visitors
and the types of perceived hazards (Reisinger &
Mavondo, 2006). Recently, however, risk perception has
inuenced the decisions and actions of travelers, as
those who view risk as intimidating avoid risky tourism
products (Caber et al., 2020; Cahyanto & Liu-Lastres,
2020). As the past and novel writings focus increasingly
on travel risk, “tourism risk” literature has been criticized
for scarce theoretical pieces of evidence, hence imped-
ing the development of novel data (Steiger et al., 2019).
Table S1 (online supplementary le) shows the sys-
tematic review of studies on risk in the H&T domain. As
can be seen in Table S1, only limited and fragmented
systematic literature reviews studies conducted on risk
in the H&T domain.
Method
Bibliometric analysis reveals research trends and links
between dierent elds of study. In this study, co-
citation analysis and bibliographic coupling analysis,
which have widely been utilized bibliometric techni-
ques, were used. First, the co-citation analysis recognizes
how frequently two documents are mentioned together
in other documents’ references (Arici et al., 2021).
Therefore, when two papers are cited together in
a third paper, it provides a common treatment of the
two articles. Simply put, co-citation analysis shows the
origin and source of the eld of study. Secondly, when
two publications include a third publication in their
references, this is called bibliographic coupling (Phan
Tan & Wright, 2021). In other words, in bibliographic
coupling analysis, two articles (A-B) cite another article
(C), so these two articles are related to each other (Yun,
2022).
Co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling are
two complementary bibliometric techniques (Singh &
Chaurasia, 2022). Bibliographic coupling analysis is the
similarity between citing papers, while co-citation ana-
lysis is the value between two cited papers (Yun, 2022).
In other words, while bibliographic coupling is the
grouping of cited articles, co-citation analysis is con-
cerned with references that come in clusters. Moreover,
bibliographic coupling allows us to learn new trends,
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 865
while co-citation analysis groups previous articles
related to the eld. Therefore, using these two techni-
ques together is the right approach to reveal the struc-
ture of the eld (Arici et al., 2022; Singh & Chaurasia,
2022).
Using the Scopus database, which is commonly used
database for examining scholarly publications (Köseoglu
et al., 2021), we searched extant literature on perceived
risk in tourism. We conducted a Boolean search in
June 2022 involving the search in H&T journals with
the keywords “perceived risk” AND “tourism” OR “hospi-
tality” OR “travel” OR “vacation” along with the standards
used for H&T journals. We followed commonly used
review procedure, “Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” (PRISMA),
including a four-stage ow diagram to guide our review
process and to develop the reporting of this research
(Moher et al., 2009). We chose all H&T journals index and
SCOPUS with two or more impact factors to merit quality
benchmarking of the papers included in this study. This
process resulted in 719 articles, which were screened
based on their titles, abstracts, keywords, and full text
(if necessary), resulting in a nal set of 610 articles (see
Figure 1). The Web of Science, Google Scholar, Prowess,
and EBSCO databases were also searched using the
same keywords. The SCOPUS database was chosen for
the study because the data it provides is more
comprehensive.
We only included journal articles and excluded other
documents, such as books, book chapters, conference
papers, and dissertations because of their questionable
nature. Once ltering the articles, we downloaded
a dataset (CSV le) including information about the 610
articles, consisting of their titles, keywords, abstracts,
and other bibliometric classications. Two content-
specic criteria were used to choose the nal papers
(Koseoglu et al., 2016): (1) does the refer particularly to
perceived risk H&T in the eld of tourism? and (2) Does
the study enhance our knowledge of perceived risk?
These issues have been examined by academics.
Identification of journals
publishing on the topic
from the Scopus database
Keywords = (“perceived risk” AND
“tourism” OR “hospitality” OR
“travel” OR “vacation”)
Number of papers
published on the topic
(n=719)
Excluded books, book chapters,
conference papers, and dissertations
(n=109)
Full text articles were
evaluated for eligibility
(n=610)
Articles that were not relevant in terms
of title, abstract and keywords were
excluded (n=380)
Identification
Screening
Included Eligibility
Studies included in
bibliometric analysis
(n=230)
Bibliometric analysis
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart for bibliometric analysis.
866 S. YORDAM DAĞISTAN ET AL.
Publications focusing on perceived risk that wasn’t
related to tourism were excluded from the rst analysis.
The second inquiry excluded the articles if there was no
connection to perceived risk. Once 230 papers were
nally chosen, the results were combined into a single
new Excel database. Afterward, we utilized this dataset
for our integrative analysis. The data set was analyzed in
the VOSviewer program.
Results
Descriptive inferences
The top journals based on the number of published
papers were identied to better understand the distribu-
tion of academic studies on perceived risk in tourism
research. (see Table S2-online supplementary le). It
demonstrates that the International Journal of
Hospitality Management is ranked rst, followed by the
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management and the Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, with 31, 28, and 26 publications, respectively.
It is possible to state that the number of publications of
the journals is close to each other, and the perceived risk
by the authors is a topic worthy of research.
The most cited studies on perceived risk have been
summarized (see Table S3-online supplementary le). It
is seen that the most cited study is related to structural
equation modeling. Then, it was determined that the
focus was on risk perception in destinations and travels.
The results of the co-citation analysis
Figure 2 shows that Cluster 1 (red) includes 41 contribu-
tions, cluster 2 (green) contains 40 contributions, Cluster
3 (blue) contains 12 contributions, and Cluster 8 (yellow)
includes 17 contributions.
Cluster 1: technology-driven risk perception
The rst three paper within this cluster (red-colored,
right) is interested in structural equation models and
common method biases (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988;
Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). It is seen
that more quantitative research methods are used in
studies. For example, Kim et al. (2008) quantitatively
tested the eect of consumer trust on perceived risk
and customers’ intention to purchase using a structural
equation modeling technique. Trust variable has been
mostly considered a predictor (Amaro & Duarte, 2015),
while attitude and behavioral intention variables are
acknowledged as outcomes (Chiu et al., 2014; Martins
et al., 2014). Further, scholars have also used mediators
and moderators to answer how and when questions in
the relationships between these independent and
dependent variables. For example, So et al. (2018) inves-
tigated Airbnb consumers the mediating role of attitude
between perceived risk and behavioral intention, while
Sun (2014) examined the mediating role of perceived
risk in hotel businesses in the relationship between rm
and individual characteristics and consumer responses.
Furthermore, Chiu et al. (2014) examined perceived risk
moderating role the relationship between utilitarian
value and hedonic value with repeat purchase intention.
Moreover, the most dominant theory is the theory of
planned behavior. The theory of planned behavior is
a psychological theory used to explain and predict
human behavior. This theory examines what factors
determine people’s behavior and how these factors can
be changed (Ajzen, 1991). So et al. (2018) examined the
motivations (such as price value, novelty) and con-
straints (such as perceived risk, insecurity) of Airbnb
users within the framework of the theory of planned
behavior.
In this cluster, several inuential studies have also
focused on the risk perception of people about technol-
ogy (e.g. Davis, 1989; Kim et al., 2009). In particular,
Figure 2. Co-citation visualization of perceived risk research.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 867
researchers have concentrated on customers’ risk per-
ceptions about e-services (Featherman & Pavlou, 2003),
electronic commerce (Kim et al., 2008), internet banking
(Lee, 2009; Martins et al., 2014), internet shopping
(Forsythe & Shi, 2003), and use of information technol-
ogy consumer context (Venkatesh et al., 2012). For
example, Kim et al. (2009) found that the most important
determinant of the perceived overall risk associated with
purchasing online air tickets is security risk.
Cluster 2: perceived threat and anxiety
The second cluster (green-colored, left) focuses on the
individuals’ perceive threats during their travels
(Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Roehl & Fesenmaier,
1992). In particular, perceived travel anxiety has been
associated with the risk of terrorism (Pizam & Fleischer,
2002; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998). For example, Floyd et al.
(2004) investigated the relationship between locals’ risk
perception and travel intentions following the
September 11 attacks in New York. The authors found
that security concerns, social risk, income, and travel
experience are associated with the travel intentions of
local people. Moreover, travel anxieties are related to
also strange foods, cultural dierences, diseases such
as SARS and bird u, disasters such as earthquakes, and
health (Chew & Jahari, 2014; Lepp & Gibson, 2003;
Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009). For example,
Fuchs and Reichel (2011) compared visit motivations
between rst-time and repeat visitors to a place with
high destination risk, and found that rst-time visitors’
risk perceptions are related to human-induced (crime,
terror and political unrest), socio-psychological, food
safety and weather while others visitors risk perceptions
are related to nancial and service quality risk, natural
disasters and car accidents. Also, Kozak et al. (2007)
investigated the eect of perceived risk on international
travel intention. The authors revealed that visitors will
avoid traveling to destinations where there is potential
risk.
Cluster 3: coping strategies
The third cluster (blue-colored, bottom) deals with risk
reduction or coping methods (Dowling & Staelin, 1994;
Mitchell & Greatorex, 1993; Roselius, 1971). When faced
with risk, consumers use a variety of risk-reduction stra-
tegies, such as taking advice about the product or trying
a sample of the product (Roselius, 1971). Dowling and
Staelin (1994) examined the relationship between risk
perception and risk coping behaviors of women buying
dresses. Individuals show risk coping behavior when the
acceptable risk level is exceeded. As a result, the authors
found that perceived benet and the consumer’s inabil-
ity to aord monetary loss are important factors in terms
of coping with risk. In a study of 6 dierent service
categories’ risk perception and risk reduction strategies,
the authors found that nancial loss is a signicant risk in
3 service categories and brand loyalty is the most useful
risk reduction strategy (Mitchell & Greatorex, 1993).
In this cluster, some articles also concentrated on
product and service risks faced by visitors. For example,
Yüksel and Yüksel (2007) examined whether tourists’
perceptions of risk in shopping aect their satisfaction
and loyalty intentions, while Kaplan et al. (1974) investi-
gated the perceived risk factors when purchasing
a product.
Cluster 4: uncertainty and risk perception
The rst two studies of the fourth cluster (yellow colored,
center) focus on risk perception and uncertainty (Quintal
et al., 2010; Williams & Baláž, 2015). Quintal et al. (2010)
investigated the impact of uncertainty and risk percep-
tion on travel decisions in the context of the theory of
planned behavior. Williams and Baláž (2015) evaluated
approaches to risk and uncertainty in terms of indivi-
duals, businesses, and destinations.
Some articles have focused on the global health risks
of COVID-19 and Ebola as a cause of uncertainty
(Cahyanto et al., 2016; Neuburger & Egger, 2021).
Neuburger and Egger (2021) examined the relationship
between COVID-19 perception, risk perception, and tra-
vel behavior of tourists visiting the DACH region
(Germany, Austria, Switzerland). They found that tourists
avoid travel, cancel or change their travel plans.
Cahyanto et al. (2016) examined the reasons for travel
avoidance of Americans due to Ebola cases in America
within the framework of the Health Belief Model. The
authors found that as risk perception increases, the level
of sensitivity increases, and self-ecacy also aects tra-
vel avoidance behavior. Generally, four signicant clus-
ters were identied overall by the co-citation analysis of
journal papers on perceived risk in tourism research.
The results of bibliographic coupling analysis
Bibliographic coupling analysis revealed four dierent
clusters (see Figure 3).
Cluster 1: online travel purchasing and shared
accommodations
The rst cluster (red-colored, left) mostly focuses on the
risks perceived by travelers in their travels through
online bookings or smartphones and the strategies
developed to mitigate these risks (Dayour et al., 2019;
Park & Tussyadiah, 2017). In particular, research on
online travel purchasing has revealed that perceived
risk negatively aects attitude (Agag & El-Masry, 2017;
868 S. YORDAM DAĞISTAN ET AL.
Amaro & Duarte, 2015). Lee (2020) and Yuan et al. (2021)
developed a scale for the risks and benets perceived by
customers in the context of shared accommodation. In
addition, recent studies have examined the mediating
role of attitude on purchase intention and behavioral
intention (Amaro & Duarte, 2015; Hwang et al., 2021).
Recent academic studies have focused on online web-
sites (i.e. reservation systems) and shared accommoda-
tions (i.e. Airbnb).
Cluster 2: destination risk
The second cluster (green colored, right) is related to
destination risk perceived by tourists (Chew & Jahari,
2014; Schroeder et al., 2013). Sharifpour et al. (2014)
examined the relationship between tourists’ prior knowl-
edge (subjective knowledge, objective knowledge), risk
perceptions and information seeking behaviors in the
Middle East, which is associated with high risk due to
cultural dierences, war and political problems and
investigated the mediating role of perceived risk in this
relationship. The authors found that subjective informa-
tion is the most important type of information on risk
perception and physical risk mediates risk perception.
Researchers have also addressed the dierences in risk
perceptions of international tourists (Deng & Ritchie,
2018; Seabra et al., 2013). Deng and Ritchie (2018) com-
pared international students and their travel character-
istics and risk perceptions. They found that Asian
students’ perceptions of social-psychological risk and
human-induced risk were higher than others. In addi-
tion, travel experience and revisit (travel characteristics)
reduce risk. Seabra et al. (2013) categorized international
tourists into three groups: those who are not concerned,
those who are concerned, and those who are concerned
about a specic issue. They also stated that risk percep-
tions consist of satisfaction, terrorism and unrest (politi-
cal problems), health (illness, accident), and personal
risks.
Cluster 3: Covid-19 Pandemic and perceived health
risk
The third cluster (blue-colored, top right) involves arti-
cles concentrating on the health risks perceived by locals
and tourists during the COVID-19 pandemic. The major-
ity of papers in this cluster, show antecedents (e.g.
negative eect, consumer resilience) and consequences
of perceived risk (e.g. mental well-being, perceived
uncertainty, support for tourism, intentions to travel,
intention to resume the consumption) in the travel dur-
ing COVID-19 context (Chua et al., 2021; Joo et al., 2021).
Furthermore, the studies examined the moderating role
of perceived risk on beliefs and emotions and social
media and customer brand engagement during COVID-
19 (Foroudi et al., 2021; Rather, 2021).
Cluster 4: perceived barriers to travel
The fourth cluster (yellow-colored, center top) is related to
the perceived barriers to tourists’ travel intentions. Studies
have investigated the perceived risks and attitudes of
tourists in their travel intentions (e.g. COVID-19, local
food) within the theory of planned behavior (Kim et al.,
2020). While some papers have focused on developing
Figure 3. Bibliographic coupling visualization of perceived risk research.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 869
a travel risk, satisfaction, and motivation scale (Lin et al.,
2012), others have focused on the moderating eect of
motivation between women’s travel intentions and risk
perceptions and travel constraints (Khan et al., 2019). They
revealed that motivation is a moderating eect of struc-
tural constraints (limited information, weather, and heavy
trac) on travel intention.
Overall, the bibliographic coupling analysis grouped
the current topics of perceived risk research under four
themes. The results of the co-citation analysis and bib-
liographic coupling analysis explained important out-
comes (see Figure 4). First, two common themes
(technology-driven risk perception/online travel pur-
chasing and shared, perceived threat, and anxiety/desti-
nation risk) emerged as a result of the two bibliometric
analyses. These themes show that topics related to per-
ceived risk continue to be studied in similar areas.
Second, the other two clusters (i.e. coping strategies,
uncertainty, and risk perception) in the co-citation ana-
lysis did not match the other two clusters in the biblio-
graphic coupling analysis. Bibliographic coupling
analysis revealed new themes on perceived risk issues
(COVID-19 pandemic and perceived health risk, per-
ceived barriers to travel). That is, clusters in the rst
group are replaced by clusters in the second group. For
example, strategies have been developed to deal with
perceived risk, or various ways of reducing risk have
been demonstrated.
Discussion
Adopting a two-stage bibliometric method, this paper
intends to investigate the perceived risk literature in the
eld of tourism from a broader perspective. Our study
claried 230 journal articles published up to June 2022 in
leading H&T focused journals. With the bibliographic
coupling analysis, gures showing the main themes
and recent developments in the eld were created.
These gures show the theories, nomological network,
and context associated with perceived risk. Following
careful evaluation and improvement, we combine the
information in the four areas: mainstream (i.e. perceived
risk), nomological network, country, and theories. The
themes that emerged in the research can be useful for
future research. Based on the themes, we developed
research questions for future research (see Table S4-
online supplementary le).
Mainstream in perceived risk research
Perceived risk is the uncertainty that an individual
feels in the face of possible negative consequences
of using a product or service (Featherman & Pavlou,
2003). The mainstream has generally focused on tour-
ists’ risk perception. In particular, our analysis shows
that tourists’ risk perceptions concentrated on their
behavioral intentions, such as travel intentions,
bibliographic coupling analysis
Cluster 1:
Technology-driven
risk perception
Cluster 2: Perceived
threat and anxiety
Cluster 3: Coping
strategies
Cluster 4:
Uncertainty and risk
perception
Co-citation analysis Bibliographic coupling analysis
Cluster 1: Online
travel purchasing and
shared
accommodations
Cluster 2:
Destination risk
Cluster 3: Covid-19
Pandemic and
perceived health risk
Cluster 4: Perceived
barriers to travel
Figure 4. A comparison of co-citation and bibliographic coupling findings.
870 S. YORDAM DAĞISTAN ET AL.
attitudes, and satisfaction. However, the risks per-
ceived by employees have been largely ignored by
H&T scholars to date.
In other words, there are limited studies on the
risks perceived by service sector employees.
Therefore, researchers could investigate employees’
risk perceptions its antecedents and their impact on
employees’ behavioral, attitudinal, and emotional out-
comes. What are the perceived risks in the H&T (hotel
or restaurant) employees transformed in the post-
pandemic periods? What is the role of employee
resilience to tackle with this risk perceived by
employees in the post-pandemic periods? How do
the emotions (i.e. fear, anxiety, worry) of employees
in technology-oriented businesses (use of drones and
robots) aect their risk perceptions? Overall, the focus
mainstream could be adjusted from customer center-
ing and employee centering.
Study context
Our ndings reveal that perceived risk studies are mostly
conducted in South Korea, China, the United States,
Spain and Italy. Surprisingly, the issue of perceived risk
in Middle-East countries where adverse events such as
political instability and natural disasters occur, has been
ignored by researchers.
Future research may focus on travelers’ risk percep-
tions about touristic destinations from Middle East coun-
tries to reveal its eect on their decision-making and visit
intentions. How the climate of insecurity that emerged
with the political instability in the Middle East eects
consumers’ perception of risk might be investigated.
Particularly, research can be conducted on whether
there is a change in consumers’ risk perception towards
Turkey as a result of the migration of the country’s
citizens to Turkey due to the turmoil in the Middle East.
How natural disasters occurring in this geography, such
as the earthquake disaster centered in Turkey and Syria,
aect the risk perception of consumers planning to visit
these destinations could also be investigated. Moreover,
with migration emerging after the Russia-Ukraine war,
the focus could be on how tourists perceive risk in East
European (e.g. Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria)
destinations.
Theoretical understanding
From a theoretical viewpoint, recent studies have used
various theories (e.g. the theory of planned behavior
(TPB) and technology acceptance model) to underpin
their propositions, arguments, and hypotheses (see
Figure 5). Among them, the theory of planned behavior
has predominated the knowledge eld. Researchers
Country
Nomological
network
Theoretical
understanding
South Korea Spain
Predictors
Characteristics-focused
Emotion-focused
Experience-focused
Demographic- focused
Mainstream
Perceived
Risk
Mediators Mediators
Outcomes
Behavioral/
Attitudinal
Psychological
Moderators Moderators
Main theories
Theory of planned
behaviour
Protection motivation
theory
Prospect theory
Means-end chain theory
China Italy
United States
Technology
acceptance model
Perceived risk theory
Figure 5. Conceptual framework of perceived risk research. * The figure is adapted from Arici et al. (2022)
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 871
have used this theory to measure the perceived risks of
events occurring in destinations (terrorism, natural dis-
asters, diseases, etc.) and their potential inuences on
tourists’ travel intentions (e.g. Chew & Jahari, 2014;
Quintal et al., 2010). Moreover, another commonly
adopted theory, the technology acceptance model,
has been used to examine (Agag & El-Masry, 2017;
Balouchi et al., 2017). Agag and El-Masry (2017) exam-
ined the relationship between consumers’ trust in the
website and purchase intention in online travel sites
based on the technology acceptance model and the
theory of reasoned action. It could be assumed that
these two theories have continued their popularity in
the knowledge eld because researchers may need to
investigate technology-oriented implications of tour-
ism businesses and destinations as well as customers’
reactions to these new developments in the new era.
With these technological developments (the usage of
robots or drones in restaurants), the eects of such
new-generation technologies on travelers’ risk percep-
tions might also be investigated by specically focusing
on consumers’ emotions (such as fear, anxiety) as cus-
tomers could avoid to receive service from these
techno-driven service providers. Surprisingly, though
this eld has its own theory (i.e. perceived risk theory),
tourism researchers have not drawn attention to
adopting it in their scholarly attempts. Thus, scholars
could consider this theory to expand the knowledge of
perceived risk in tourism contexts by comparing its
arguments with the mainstream. Finally, even though
TPB is the dominant theory in the knowledge eld, its
predecessor (i.e. the theory of reasoned action) has not
suciently received attention from tourism scholars to
examine risk perception of travelers. This theory, speci-
cally, could be adopted to underpin future research-
ers’ propositions regarding potential perceived risk-
related predictors of travelers’ purchase intention or
travel intention.
Nomological network
In relation to the nomological network, a structure
including the antecedents, outcomes, mediating and
moderating variables of perceived risk has been devel-
oped (see Figure 6). The antecedents of perceived risk
are categorized into four groups: characteristics-focused,
emotion-focused, experience-focused, and demo-
graphic-focused. Studies have focused extensively on
the role of tourists’ individual characteristics on their
risk perceptions (e.g. risk aversion, sensation seeking,
innovativeness).
Figure 6. A framework of nomological network of perceived risk research.
872 S. YORDAM DAĞISTAN ET AL.
The continuous development of technology and the
increase in digitalization bring risks that are dicult to
control and predict (Hand, 2018). Breach of personal
information, digital traces of individuals collected for
commercial use are among the risks brought by digita-
lization (Nurmi et al., 2019). Blockchain technology could
reduce perceived risks such as nancial, performance,
psychological, social, and physical (Dua et al., 2022).
Because, blockchain technology aims to minimize the
security consent of people regarding online pay proce-
dures. Does blockchain technology oer a new path to
coping with this technology-oriented risk perception? is
another question that has still waited H&T scholars’
attention. Does blockchain technology reduce perceived
risk in online travel purchases and online bookings?
Our framework also answers the question of how the
independent variable eects the dependent variable in
perceived risk research. Three variables mostly have
considered (attitude, destination image, and emotional
solidarity) mediating variables (Chew & Jahari, 2014; Joo
et al., 2021). For example, the mediating role of destina-
tion image on tourists’ risk perceptions and revisit inten-
tions after the earthquake disaster in Japan was
examined (Chew & Jahari, 2014). This shows that per-
ceived risk researchers have limitedly attempted to
explore mechanisms linking relationships predictors
and outcome variables. The impact of the predictor on
outcome variable without any intervening eect is not
a logical and compelling claim. Following, Whetten’s
(1989) suggestions, researchers need to identify inter-
vening variables between predictor and outcome vari-
ables in order to clarify causal relationships in
a phenomenon. Future research may be more interested
in answering how independent variables indirectly inu-
ence dependent variables mediating mechanisms. For
example, future researchers could examine the mediat-
ing of destination attractiveness in the relationship
between perceived risk and travel intention.
The frameworks also under which conditions per-
ceived risks antecedents, and consequences have been
examined. To do authors best knowledge two factors
namely, tourist information and travel motivation con-
sidered moderators. Several scholars have also exam-
ined moderating eect of perceived risk in this
knowledge domain (e.g. Foroudi et al., 2021; Rather,
2021). This limited attempts have opened a door to
include other new factors that could shape strengthen-
ing or dumping the role of independent variables on
dependent variables in perceived risk research. For
example, because of the devastating impacts of COVID-
19 pandemic on people anxiety, health, and safety con-
cerns leading travelers to prioritize their health related
issues when making a travel decision, health risk could
be considered a potential factor moderating visitors’
attitudes and intentions.
Another important avenue is inherently driven from
the fast growing digitalization endangering H&T practi-
tioners to transform their traditional services marketing
structures, because such a technology-oriented transfor-
mation in the industry has also brought along potential
negative eects on various industry stakeholders includ-
ing customers and employees. Particularly employees’
risk perception of their future career in H&T organization
might be interesting topic will be still waiting for atten-
tion of researchers in the eld. With the advent of the
digitalization growing risk perceptions of customer
regarding online payment channels (when booking tra-
vel or purchasing travel product or services in the indus-
try) is another specic topic that could be examined by
future researchers. Moreover, can H&T businesses that
aiming at/for digital transformation better accomplish
their desire outcomes when they implement training
and development procedures to improve the skills,
knowledge, and abilities of their employees? This is
a question that needs to be answered by future
researchers.
Our framework divides consequences of perceived
risk research into two groups: behavioral/attitudinal,
and psychological consequences. First, we found that
current literature has focused on the behavioral/attitu-
dinal outcomes of tourists such as revisit, purchase
intention, and satisfaction. Individuals’ perception of
health-related risks may have increased their tendency
to use new generation technology tools. In addition, the
tendency of individuals to use technology-oriented tools
may have caused tourism and hospitality businesses to
transform their practices in this direction. Therefore,
issues such as technology use, technology adaptation,
and technology acceptance as potential outcomes of
health risk could be investigated from the both custo-
mers and rms’ perspective. This digital transformation
may have increased employees’ fear and risk of losing
their jobs. How do digital transformation eorts in busi-
nesses aect employees’ risk perception? It can also be
investigated how risk perception aects other
employee-level outcomes such as career satisfaction,
turnover intention loang, and work sabotage.
Second, there is a limited scientic eort on the psy-
chological outcomes of perceived risk including mental
well-being and perceived usefulness (e.g. Balouchi et al.,
2017; Chua et al., 2021). Especially after COVID 19, inu-
encing human being both physically and psychologi-
cally around the world studies can be conducted on
how employees’ risk perceptions aect their psycholo-
gical behaviors. Because the inability to cope with such
issues as pandemic beyond the control of a individual
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 873
could trigger psychological distress (Moyo et al., 2022).
Therefore, future researchers could investigate how
employees’ risk perception (i.e. health, nancial) aects
their psychological distress (i.e. depression, insomnia).
Conclusions and limitations
The topic of perceived risk continues to be popular and
the results of this study reveal interesting ndings. In our
study, we followed the commonly used PRISMA proce-
dure. As a result of the co-citation analysis, we found
four main clusters: technology-driven risk perception,
perceived threat and anxiety, coping strategies, and
uncertainty and risk perception. Four main clusters
emerged from the bibliographic coupling analysis:
online travel purchasing and shared accommodations,
destination risk, COVID-19 pandemic and perceived
health risk, and perceived barriers to travel. Then, we
compared the ndings of co-citation analysis and biblio-
graphic coupling. Our compression revealed that online
travel purchasing and shared accommodations and des-
tinations risk are still trendy topics. The other two clus-
ters in the co-citation analysis (coping strategies and
uncertainty and risk perception) have lost their popular-
ity in the knowledge eld. We also developed
a conceptual framework including countries, nomologi-
cal network, and theoretical understanding. We have
presented predictors, mediators, moderators, and out-
come variables in the eld. Finally, we developed
research questions for future researchers (see Table S4).
Although this study contributes to the perceived risk
literature, our work has some limitations. First, even
though we used a software tool (VOSviewer) to analyze
our bibliometric data our ndings are not completely
free from subjectivity. Second, the study data is limited
to academic articles published in H&T journals indexed
by SCOPUS. To generalize future studies might examine
the perceived risk literature in the context of dierent
sectors such as health, nance, and automotive (electric
vehicles). Considering other databases such as Web of
Science (WOS), Google Scholar, and EBSCO could also
have generalization of this research study ndings. Third,
co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling were uti-
lized as bibliometric techniques. Using other biblio-
metrics including co-words, co-authors, co-occurrences,
and a combination of these bibliometrics with content
analysis would pay dividends to increase the knowledge
of perceived risk in H&T researchers. Finally, we used
keywords “perceived risk” along with “tourism,” “hospi-
tality,” “travel,” and “vacation” in the study. Future
research might consider more specic search terms on
risk perception, such as employees’ risk perceptions,
customers risk perceptions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Agag, G. M., & El-Masry, A. A. (2017). Why do consumers
trust online travel websites? Drivers and outcomes of
consumer trust toward online travel websites. Journal of
Travel Research, 56(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287516643185
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Amaro, S., & Duarte, P. (2015). An integrative model of con-
sumers’ intentions to purchase travel online. Tourism
Management, 46, 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
2014.06.006
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Arici, H. E., Arici, N. C., Köseoglu, M. A., & King, B. E. M. (2021).
Leadership research in the root of hospitality scholarship:
1960–2020. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
99, 103063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103063
Arici, H. E., Köseoglu, M. A., & Cakmakoglu Arici, N. (2022).
Emotions in service research: Evolutionary analysis and
empirical review: 服务情绪研究: 进化分析与实证综述. The
Service Industries Journal, 42(11–12), 919–947. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2101638
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Balouchi, M., Aziz, Y. A., Hasangholipour, T., Khanlari, A., Abd
Rahman, A., & Raja-Yusof, R. N. (2017). Explaining and pre-
dicting online tourists’ behavioural intention in accepting
consumer generated contents. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Technology, 8(2), 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JHTT-09-2016-0059
Barbhuiya, M. R., & Chatterjee, D. (2020). Vulnerability and
resilience of the tourism sector in India: Eects of natural
disasters and internal conict. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 33, 100616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.
2019.100616
Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. In
Proceedings of the 43rd National Conference of the American
Marketing Assocation, June 15-17, Chicago, Illinois. American
Marketing Association.
Caber, M., González-Rodríguez, M. R., Albayrak, T., &
Simonetti, B. (2020). Does perceived risk really matter in
travel behaviour? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 26(3),
334–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766720927762
Cahyanto, I., & Liu-Lastres, B. (2020). Risk perception, media
exposure, and visitor’s behavior responses to Florida red
tide. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(4), 447–459.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2020.1783426
Cahyanto, I., Wiblishauser, M., Pennington-Gray, L., &
Schroeder, A. (2016). The dynamics of travel avoidance:
The case of Ebola in the US. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 20, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.
2016.09.004
874 S. YORDAM DAĞISTAN ET AL.
Carvalho, M. A. M. (2022). Factors aecting future travel inten-
tions: Awareness, image, past visitation and risk perception.
International Journal of Tourism Cities, 8(3), 761–778. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-11-2021-0219
Chew, E. Y. T., & Jahari, S. A. (2014). Destination image as
a mediator between perceived risks and revisit intention:
A case of post-disaster Japan. Tourism Management, 40,
382–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.008
Chiu, C.-M., Wang, E. T., Fang, Y.-H., & Huang, H.-Y. (2014).
Understanding customers’ repeat purchase intentions in
B2C e-commerce: The roles of utilitarian value, hedonic
value and perceived risk. Information Systems Journal, 24
(1), 85–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.
00407.x
Chua, B.-L., Al-Ansi, A., Lee, M. J., & Han, H. (2021). Impact of
health risk perception on avoidance of international travel in
the wake of a pandemic. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(7),
985–1002. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1829570
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dayour, F., Park, S., & Kimbu, A. N. (2019). Backpackers’ per-
ceived risks towards smartphone usage and risk reduction
strategies: A mixed methods study. Tourism Management,
72, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.11.003
Deng, R., & Ritchie, B. W. (2018). International university stu-
dents’ travel risk perceptions: An exploratory study. Current
Issues in Tourism, 21(4), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13683500.2016.1142939
Douglas, M.(1992). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory.
Routledge.
Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk
and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer
Research, 21(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1086/209386
Dua, S., Sharma, M. G., Mishra, V., & Kulkarni, S. D. (2022).
Modelling perceived risk in blockchain enabled supply
chain utilizing fuzzy-AHP. Journal of Global Operations and
Strategic Sourcing, 16(1), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JGOSS-06-2021-0046
Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services
adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3
Floyd, M. F., Gibson, H., Pennington-Gray, L., & Thapa, B. (2004).
The eect of risk perceptions on intentions to travel in the
aftermath of September 11, 2001. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 15(2–3), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J073v15n02_02
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equa-
tion models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Foroudi, P. H., Tabaghdehi, S. A., & Marvi, R. (2021). The gloom
of the COVID-19 shock in the hospitality industry: A study of
consumer risk perception and adaptive belief in the dark
cloud of a pandemic. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 92, 102717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.
2020.102717
Forsythe, S. M., & Shi, B. (2003). Consumer patronage and risk
perceptions in internet shopping. Journal of Business
Research, 56(11), 867–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-
2963(01)00273-9
Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2011). An exploratory inquiry into
destination risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies
of rst time vs. Repeat visitors to a highly volatile
destination. Tourism Management, 32(2), 266–276. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.01.012
Godovykh, M., Pizam, A., & Bahja, F. (2021). Antecedents and
outcomes of health risk perceptions in tourism, following
the COVID-19 pandemic. Tourism Review, 76(4), 737–748.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2020-0257
Gstaettner, A. M., Lee, D., & Rodger, K. (2018). The concept of risk
in nature-based tourism and recreation–a systematic litera-
ture review. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(15), 1784–1809.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1244174
Hand, D. J. (2018). Aspects of data ethics in a changing world:
Where are we now? Big Data, 6(3), 176–190. https://doi.org/
10.1089/big.2018.0083
Hasan, M. K., Ismail, A. R., Islam, M. F., & Tiu Wright, L. (2017).
Tourist risk perceptions and revisit intention: A critical
review of literature. Cogent Business & Management, 4(1),
1412874. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1412874
Hwang, J., Kim, H., Kim, J. J., & Kim, I. (2021). Investigation of
perceived risks and their outcome variables in the context
of robotic restaurants. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 38(3), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10548408.2021.1906826
Joo, D., Xu, W., Lee, J., Lee, C.-K., & Woosnam, K. M. (2021).
Residents’ perceived risk, emotional solidarity, and support
for tourism amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 19, 100553. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100553
Kaplan, L. B., Szybillo, G. J., & Jacoby, J. (1974). Components of
perceived risk in product purchase: A cross-validation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 287–291. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0036657
Karagöz, D., Işık, C., Dogru, T., & Zhang, L. (2021). Solo female
travel risks, anxiety and travel intentions: Examining the
moderating role of online psychological-social support.
Current Issues in Tourism, 24(11), 1595–1612. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1816929
Karl, M. (2018). Risk and uncertainty in travel decision-making:
Tourist and destination perspective. Journal of Travel
Research, 57(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287516678337
Kerr, G., & Kelly, L. (2019). Travel insurance: The attributes,
consequences, and values of using travel insurance as a
risk-reduction strategy. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 36(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10548408.2018.1506376
Khan, M. J., Chelliah, S., Khan, F., & Amin, S. (2019). Perceived risks,
travel constraints and visit intention of young women trave-
lers: The moderating role of travel motivation. Tourism Review,
74(3), 721–738. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-08-2018-0116
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based
consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce:
The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents.
Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544–564. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001
Kim, M. J., Lee, C.-K., Petrick, J. F., & Kim, Y. S. (2020). The
inuence of perceived risk and intervention on international
tourists’ behavior during the Hong Kong protest:
Application of an extended model of goal-directed
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 875
behavior. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management, 45,
622–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.11.003
Kim, L. H., Qu, H., & Kim, D. J. (2009). A study of perceived risk
and risk reduction of purchasing air-tickets online. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26(3), 203–224. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10548400902925031
Köseoglu, M. A., Mehraliyev, F., Aladag, O. F., & King, B. (2021).
Origins, evolution and themes of scholarly hospitality
sources: 1960–2019. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 94, 102817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.
2020.102817
Koseoglu, M. A., Rahimi, R., Okumus, F., & Liu, J. (2016).
Bibliometric studies in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
61, 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.10.006
Kozak, M., Crotts, J. C., & Law, R. (2007). The impact of the
perception of risk on international travellers. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 9(4), 233–242. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jtr.607
Lee, M.-C. (2009). Factors inuencing the adoption of internet
banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk
and perceived benet. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 8(3), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.
2008.11.006
Lee, S. H. (2020). New measuring stick on sharing accommoda-
tion: Guest-perceived benets and risks. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, 102471. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102471
Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and
international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3),
606–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00024-0
Lin, Y.-H., Lee, Y.-C., & Wang, S.-C. (2012). Analysis of motiva-
tion, travel risk, and travel satisfaction of Taiwan undergrad-
uates on work and travel overseas programmes: Developing
measurement scales. Tourism Management Perspectives, 2–3,
35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.01.002
Li, Z., Sha, Y., Song, X., Yang, K., ZHao, K., Jiang, Z., & Zhang, Q.
(2020). Impact of risk perception on customer purchase
behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 35(1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-12-
2018-0381
Martins, C., Oliveira, T., & Popovič, A. (2014). Understanding the
internet banking adoption: A unied theory of acceptance
and use of technology and perceived risk application.
International Journal of Information Management, 34(1),
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.06.002
McKercher, B., & Hui, E. L. (2004). Terrorism, economic uncer-
tainty and outbound travel from Hong Kong. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(2–3), 99–115. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J073v15n02_06
Mitchell, V.-W., & Greatorex, M. (1993). Risk perception and
reduction in the purchase of consumer services. The Service
Industries Journal, 13(4), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02642069300000068
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzla, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009).
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-
4819-151-4-200908180-00135
Moyo, N., Bhappu, A. D., Bhebhe, M., & Ncube, F. (2022).
Perceived risk of COVID-19 and employee decision-making:
How psychological distress during the pandemic increases
negative performance outcomes among healthcare
workers. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 19(11), 6762. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph19116762
Murray, K. B., & Schlacter, J. L. (1990). The impact of services
versus goods on consumers’ assessment of perceived risk
and variability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
18(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729762
Neuburger, L., & Egger, R. (2021). Travel risk perception and travel
behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: A case study
of the DACH region. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(7),
1003–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1803807
Nurmi, S.-M., Kangasniemi, M., Halkoaho, A., & Pietilä, A.-M.
(2019). Privacy of clinical research subjects: An integrative
literature review. Journal of Empirical Research on Human
Research Ethics, 14(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1556264618805643
Paker, N., & Gök, O. (2021). The inuence of perceived risks on
yacht voyagers’ service appraisals: Evaluating customer-to-
customer interaction as a risk dimension. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 38(6), 582–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10548408.2021.1969316
Park, S., & Tussyadiah, I. P. (2017). Multidimensional facets of
perceived risk in mobile travel booking. Journal of Travel
Research, 56(7), 854–867. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287516675062
Perić, G., Dramićanin, S., & Conić, M. (2021). The impact of Serbian
tourists’ risk perception on their travel intentions during the
COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Tourism Research, 27,
2705–2705. https://doi.org/10.54055/ejtr.v27i.2125
Phan Tan, L., & Wright, L. T. (2021). Mapping the social entre-
preneurship research: Bibliographic coupling, co-citation
and co-word analyses. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1),
1896885. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1896885
Pizam, A., & Fleischer, A. (2002). Severity versus frequency of
acts of terrorism: Which has a larger impact on tourism
demand? Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 337–339. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0047287502040003011
Quintal, V. A., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2010). Risk, uncertainty
and the theory of planned behavior: A tourism example.
Tourism Management, 31(6), 797–805. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tourman.2009.08.006
Rather, R. A. (2021). Demystifying the eects of perceived risk
and fear on customer engagement, co-creation and revisit
intention during COVID-19: A protection motivation theory
approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management,
20, 100564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100564
Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2005). Travel anxiety and inten-
tions to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk
perception. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 212–225.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504272017
Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2006). Cultural dierences in travel
risk perception. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 20(1),
13–31. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v20n01_02
Ritchie, B. W., & Jiang, Y. (2021). Risk, crisis and disaster man-
agement in hospitality and tourism: A comparative review.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 33(10), 3465–3493. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJCHM-12-2020-1480
Rittichainuwat, B. N., & Chakraborty, G. (2009). Perceived travel
risks regarding terrorism and disease: The case of Thailand.
Tourism Management, 30(3), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tourman.2008.08.001
876 S. YORDAM DAĞISTAN ET AL.
Roehl, W. S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1992). Risk perceptions and
pleasure travel: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel
Research, 30(4), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875
9203000403
Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction
methods. Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 56–61. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224297103500110
Schroeder, A., Pennington-Gray, L., Kaplanidou, K., & Zhan, F.
(2013). Destination risk perceptions among U.S. residents for
London as the host city of the 2012 Summer Olympic
Games. Tourism Management, 38, 107–119. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2013.03.001
Seabra, C., Dolnicar, S., Abrantes, J. L., & Kastenholz, E. (2013).
Heterogeneity in risk and safety perceptions of international
tourists. Tourism Management, 36, 502–510. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.008
Sharifpour, M., Walters, G., Ritchie, B. W., & Winter, C. (2014).
Investigating the role of prior knowledge in tourist decision
making: A structural equation model of risk perceptions and
information search. Journal of Travel Research, 53(3),
307–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513500390
Sigala, U., & Sigala, M. (2021). A bibliometric review of research
on COVID-19 and tourism: Reections for moving forward.
Tourism Management Perspectives, 40, 100912. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100912
Singh, V., & Chaurasia, S. S. (2022). Research landscape of multi-
generational workforce literature: A bibliographic coupling
and co-citation analysis. NHRD Network Journal, 15(2),
156–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/26314541221078909
Sjöberg, L., Moen, B.-E., & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk
perception. An Evaluation of the Psychometric Paradigm in
Risk Perception Research, 10(2), 665–612.
Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Inuence of terrorism
risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism
Research, 25(1), 112–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-
7383(97)00072-8
So, K. K. F., Oh, H., & Min, S. (2018). Motivations and constraints
of Airbnb consumers: Findings from a mixed-methods
approach. Tourism Management, 67, 224–236. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.01.009
Steiger, R., Scott, D., Abegg, B., Pons, M., & Aall, C. (2019).
A critical review of climate change risk for ski tourism.
Current Issues in Tourism, 22(11), 1343–1379. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1410110
Sun, J. (2014). How risky are services? An empirical investigation
on the antecedents and consequences of perceived risk for
hotel service. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
37, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.11.008
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer accep-
tance and use of information technology: Extending the
unied theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS
Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
Wattanacharoensil, W., Lee, J.-S., Fakfare, P., & Manosuthi, N.
(2023). The multi-method approach to analyzing motiva-
tions and perceived travel risks: Impacts on domestic tour-
ists’ adaptive behaviors and tourism destination advocacy.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 40(2), 109–130.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2023.2215266
Whetten, D. A.(1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribu-
tion? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371
Williams, A. M., & Baláž, V. (2015). Tourism risk and uncertainty:
Theoretical reections. Journal of Travel Research, 54(3),
271–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514523334
Williams, A. M., Chen, J. L., Li, G., & Baláž, V. (2022). Risk, uncer-
tainty and ambiguity amid covid-19: A multi-national analysis
of international travel intentions. Annals of Tourism Research,
92, 103346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103346
World Travel and Tourism Council-WTTC. (2021). World -
Economic Impact 2021. https://wttc.org/research/eco
nomic-impact
Wut, T. M., Xu, J. B., & Wong, S. (2021). Crisis management
research (1985–2020) in the hospitality and tourism indus-
try: A review and research agenda. Tourism Management, 85,
104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104307
Xu, L., Cong, L., Wall, G., & Yu, H. (2022). Risk perceptions and
behavioral intentions of wildlife tourists during the
COVID-19 pandemic in China. Journal of Ecotourism, 21(4),
334–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2021.1955894
Yang, C. L., & Nair, V. (2014). Risk perception study in tourism:
Are we really measuring perceived risk? Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 144, 322–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.07.302
Yuan, T., Honglei, Z., Xiao, X., Ge, W., & Xianting, C. (2021).
Measuring perceived risk in sharing economy: A classical
test theory and item response theory approach.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 96,
102980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102980
Yüksel, A., & Yüksel, F. (2007). Shopping risk perceptions:
Eects on tourists’ emotions, satisfaction and expressed
loyalty intentions. Tourism Management, 28(3), 703–713.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.025
Yun, J. (2022). Generalization of bibliographic coupling and
co-citation using the node split network. Journal of
Informetrics, 16(2), 101291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.
2022.101291
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 877
