Home Determinants influencing tourists’ willingness to visit Türkiye – Impact of earthquake hazards on Serbian visitors’ preferences
Article Open Access

Determinants influencing tourists’ willingness to visit Türkiye – Impact of earthquake hazards on Serbian visitors’ preferences

  • Ivana Blešić EMAIL logo , Milan Ivkov , Tamara Gajić , Marko D. Petrović , Milan M. Radovanović , Aleksandar Valjarević , Slavica Malinović-Milićević , Marina Vukin , Jovanka Popov Raljić , Dušan Puhar and Tin Lukić
Published/Copyright: August 12, 2024
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Earthquakes are a rather complex natural phenomenon that cannot be prevented, and their effects can be catastrophic and have profound implications on various economic sectors (especially tourism). This study investigates the relationships between subjective factors (gender, age, education, previous experience, and disaster anxiety), the perceived travel risk, and the travel intention of tourists from Serbia to destinations in Türkiye. The pilot study was done in March 2023 with 110 respondents from the Faculty of Science, Department of Geography, Tourism, and Hotel Management, Novi Sad. After the validation of the instruments, the main survey was conducted in the period from March to June 2023. The subjects of interest were residents of Serbia over the age of 18. The data from this study are analyzed using the confirmatory factor analysis and path analyses. This study aims to enhance the understanding of perceived risk and travel intention, specifically focusing on Türkiye. The assessed outcome relates to how tourists perceive three specific categories of risk when traveling to destinations with a high risk of natural disasters, such as earthquake-prone areas. The findings suggest that older respondents tend to perceive lower physical and financial travel risks, even though the influence of age on the perception of socio-psychological risks was inconclusive. Further results reveal that individuals with prior experience tend to hold a heightened perception of physical, financial, and socio-psychological risks. An examination of the relationship between disaster anxiety and perceived travel risks indicates that physical, financial, and socio-psychological risks exert a negative influence on travel intention. Thus, this study may provide a conceptual foundation for both theoretical and practical implications for the improvement of risk management techniques at a specific travel destination in areas prone to earthquake hazards.

1 Introduction

Türkiye, spanning the Anatolian peninsula in Southwestern Asia and Thrace (Rumelia) in the Balkan region or Southeastern Europe, is recognized as one of the largest Eurasian countries. It is situated within a significant seismic belt of the world [1], which is influenced by the dynamics of numerous tectonic plates [2,3]. This area is well known for being seismically active, with short periods between seismic events – earthquakes. These complex and disastrous natural events caused many fatalities and infrastructural and economic damage over the past decades in Türkiye [4,5,6,7] and have proven to be one of the most severe threats to society in general [3]. Although earthquakes represent the second most common natural disaster in Türkiye [8], 99% of its population, 96% of industrial areas, and 75% of power stations are located in seismically risky zones [9,10,11]. Evidently, Türkiye is vulnerable to earthquake risk in terms of economic, psychologic, and social concerns [3]. According to the conducted geological analysis [12] and seismic history of the area, similar major earthquakes are also expected in the future. Unfortunately, devastating earthquakes struck the south-central parts of Türkiye (and northwestern parts of Syria) on February 6, 2023, affecting at least 13.5 million people (equivalent to approximately 16% of Türkiye’s population) and destroying around 520,000 households. This event triggered a global-scale impact [7]. Additionally, some earthquakes in the past further resulted in catastrophic tsunamis [13], with the most recent tsunami after the earthquake in 2017 off the coast of Bodrum, one of the most popular tourist destinations [14]. Hence, the susceptibility of major tourist destinations in Türkiye to seismic activity presents a looming threat with potentially devastating consequences. As highlighted by Dolu and İkizler [15], recent earthquakes, such as those in Elazig on January 24, 2020, and Izmir on October 30, 2020, underscore the vulnerability of these regions, particularly impacting the local economy, notably the tourism sector. However, it is the seismic event of August 17, 1999, with a magnitude of 7.4, that stands as a grim reminder of the catastrophic potential. This earthquake resulted in an alarming toll of 17,480 fatalities, 43,953 injuries, and widespread damage to 73,342 buildings. Its impact reverberated across ten cities, affecting 16 million people. The toll on the tourism industry was equally severe, with a staggering financial loss estimated at 173 million USD. The aftermath of the 1999 earthquake also manifested in a notable decline in international tourism arrivals. Çiftci and Bayram [16] reported a significant drop from 9,752,697 visitors in the preceding year to 7,487,285, signaling the profound impact of seismic events on the tourism landscape in Türkiye.

International tourism is an important driver of economic development in Türkiye. Being a worldwide tourism hotspot, Türkiye confronts enormous hurdles in managing tourism development [17] as this sector generates approximately one-eight of its national economy [18,19]. The current exponential growth of Turkish tourism is expected to exceed 149 billion dollars in national earnings by 2028. Moreover, Türkiye received roughly 40 million international tourists in 2018, which was more than double the number of tourists only a decade ago [20]. Therefore, it is obligatory to acknowledge tourists’ behavior, preferences, and priorities [21]. However, this country is vulnerable to natural disasters, especially earthquakes, and these safety-related concerns could further affect tourist behavior patterns and decision-making processes [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. When a country’s travel risks rise, tourists’ concerns about their personal safety cause them to postpone or cancel their travel plans. This impedes the arrival of international tourists, as risk perception about personal safety has the strongest impact on them [29,30,31]. Tourists are apprehensive about visiting earthquake-stricken areas [32], and their perceived image of that destination is likely to be negative [33]. Conversely, these risks, which could be objective or subjective [34], do not necessarily impact their decision to visit a specific location [35]. Some of them, particularly repeat visitors, return to these destinations in spite of potential risks [36].

Destination visit intention is one of the most researched issues in tourism literature [37,38,39]. As the intention to visit is shaped by a complex process, scholars have focused on uncovering the determinants that influence this procedure. Besides the aforementioned perceived risks, some of the main determinants are familiarity [40], place attachment [41,42], hospitableness [43], emotions [44], travel motivation [38], and destination image as a key determinant in this process [27,37,40,45,46,47,48,49].

While it is difficult to eliminate all potential risks and have a risk-free destination, it is critical to detect and comprehend them in order to limit their negative impacts on tourism in the long run. Governments, travel agents, and the media provide warnings about the dangers of foreign tourism on a regular basis [50], which proved to affect tourists’ perceived risk and travel behavior [51,52].

While Serbian tourists primarily seek safe destinations that fulfill most of their needs, their choices are mainly influenced by geographical proximity, economic aspects, and consumer–tourist satisfaction [53,54,26]. These destinations primarily include Türkiye, Greece, Montenegro, Croatia, Bulgaria, Egypt, and Tunisia [55]. Based on data from the National Tourism Organization of Serbia and the National Bank of Serbia, among the top destinations, Greek summer resorts along the Aegean Sea claimed the lion’s share, with a staggering 392 million Euros spent by tourists from Serbia. Following closely behind, the Türkiye Riviera, notably Antalya, secured its position as the second most favored destination, with Serbian tourists contributing 125 million Euros to the tourism revenue. Zooming in on Türkiye, the influx of Serbian tourists surged significantly in 2023, with a notable 50% increase compared to the previous year. This growth trend mirrors the overall year-on-year increase of 50%, emphasizing the robust upward trajectory of Serbian visitors to Türkiye.

In addition to the available literature and the necessary pointing to travel risks, this research seeks to broaden the topic area by assessing determinants that influence tourists’ willingness to visit Türkiye as an earthquake-prone destination. The main objective of the study was to examine the travel risk perception of Serbian tourists and its impact on travel intention using important socio-demographic factors (gender, age, and education), disaster anxiety, and previous earthquake experiences.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Perceived travel risks and intention to travel

The consumer’s purchasing behavior is significantly influenced by their perception of risk. Bauer [56] identified it within the marketing discipline, specifically in the area of consumer decision-making. Consistently, the literature demonstrates that tourists’ perceptions of a destination’s safety (travel risk) have a substantial impact on their choice of destination [26,38,57,58]. The level of risk associated with travel varies depending on the exact circumstances, and each travel risk is unique and cannot be generalized [59]. Prior studies incorporated diverse categories of risks into their approaches. For example, Kovačić et al. [26] explore the impact of psychological factors, including personality traits and tourism worries, on tourist behavior based on perceived risk in the context of natural hazards affecting tourist destinations. Blešić et al. [34] underscore the significance of risk perception in the tourism industry, emphasizing the relationship between objective risks and subjective factors. The article aims to provide implications for improved risk management in regions prone to hydro-meteorological hazards. Ma et al. [60] investigate the effects of both natural and man-made disasters, including earthquakes and terrorist acts, on the tourism industry. The study focuses on analyzing the impact of disasters on tourist numbers and experiences while also providing recommendations for disaster prevention and recovery in the tourism sector. Furthermore, Ivkov et al. [61] investigate hotel resilience to natural disasters, highlighting the importance of managers’ experience, organizational factors, and disaster preparedness in sustaining business and minimizing negative impacts on the hotel industry. Kovačić et al. [62] explore the influence of individual characteristics, personality traits, socio-demographic factors, and nationality on tourists’ behavior based on perceived risks, emphasizing the importance of understanding these factors in travel decision-making for risky destinations. It is interesting research that examines travel health risk perceptions and prevention behaviors among US study abroad students, identifies knowledge and behavior gaps, and highlights the need for educational interventions and web-based resources to enhance prevention efforts [63]. While Baker’s research focuses on the link between visitors’ risk perceptions and terrorism [64], Ingram et al. [65] examine how political instability in Thailand affects tourism, emphasizing the need for a strong destination image and collaboration between destination managers and governments to ensure continued tourism revenues.

Numerous studies show that natural disasters in tourist regions significantly impact the local tourism business. The Taiwan earthquake in 1999 resulted in a 15% decline in international visitor arrivals from September to December [66]. The earthquake in Kaikōura, New Zealand, contributed to a decline of 85% in the number of city visitors in December 2016 compared to December 2015 [67]. Earthquakes are among the most catastrophic and unavoidable natural disasters [68] in terms of severity and unpredictability. They can cause incalculable environmental damage [69], loss of life [70,71], injuries [72], financial losses [73], infectious diseases [73], psychological disorders resulting from traumatic experiences [74], and social impact [75]. Previous research on the subject suggests that risk perceptions among tourists have various dimensions. As a result, academics have expended great effort in discovering and quantifying the risks associated with tourist activities [7680]. A review of the literature revealed that researchers frequently use the financial/equipment risk, physical/health/personal/security risk, and social/socio-psychological risk dimensions to quantify the risks connected to various forms of tourism. Physical risk refers to the possibility of an accident, insecurity, an unstable environment and climate, natural disasters, life-threatening diseases, and other factors detrimental to the human body’s health [81]. Financial risk indicates that tourists may spend money to compensate for damage caused by natural hazards, not get value for their money, or spend or lose money if their travel expectations are not met [7678,82,83]. Social risk denotes the possibility that a tourist’s vacation choices or activities may be disapproved of by family, friends, or associates; that a traveler will lose or degrade personal and social status; or that a traveler will appear unfashionable. The probability that the travel experience will not match the traveler’s personality or self-image is referred to as a psychological risk. It also refers to the possibility of self-image damage [7681,84].

The subjective assessment of travel risk and the feeling of safety significantly impact travel intentions. Destinations that are considered overly perilous may be considered unappealing and may be omitted from the selection process [85]. According to Fuchs and Reichel [77], the perception of risk refers to the possibility of harm that is connected to a journey. This perception can influence the decision to travel if the risk is expected to surpass a threshold that the individual finds acceptable.

2.2 Disaster anxiety

Anxiety is a psychological state focused on anticipating and preparing for potential negative events in the future, while fear is a natural response triggered by an immediate or impending risk, whether actual or perceived [86]. Prior studies have demonstrated that a significant subset of individuals who have experienced natural disasters may develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), various anxiety disorders, and depression. PTSD is a psychiatric condition that arises from atypical threats or tragic occurrences [87]. Individuals who are directly exposed to disasters are prone to experiencing both physical and emotional ailments. Conversely, individuals who observe calamities frequently have psychological issues, including emotional volatility, stress responses, trauma, and anxiety [88]. Based on the idea that disaster anxiety is directed towards trait anxiety, Güzel [89] created the disaster anxiety scale, a tool for measuring anxiety related to disasters. According to the existing literature, state anxiety is a form of long-term anxiety that arises when an individual is faced with a dangerous or undesirable situation. Conversely, trait anxiety can occur with or without a specific reason and is a prolonged state of anxiety that is experienced independently of the current situation [89,90]. Anxiety regarding disasters is a subjective condition that can vary based on the danger’s perception [91]. It is often linked to a cognitive state that is focused on the future and external factors. This state involves constantly monitoring the surroundings for potential dangers and anticipating potential threats [92]. According to the findings of Gudykunst [92], a tourist will probably perceive a destination as less secure and disengage from it when their anxiety and risk levels are elevated and their confidence level is low.

2.3 Socio-demographic characteristics and past earthquake experiences

Perceptions of travel risk vary among individuals, leading to diverse reactions. For instance, certain research has demonstrated that older passengers exhibit a diminished sense of travel hazards in comparison to younger passengers [34,79,93]. Furthermore, the way visitors perceive natural disasters and travel risks varies based on their gender. Women have a greater awareness of the potential dangers associated with travel and the likelihood of encountering natural disasters compared to men [34,50,9496]. Research has shown that travelers’ perceptions of travel risks vary depending on their level of education, with those with higher levels of education typically having lower perceptions of travel hazards compared to those with lower levels of education [34,85,97].

Typically, when individuals are exposed to a natural hazard, their perception of the associated risk tends to increase. According to a study by Ahn et al. [98] in Sendai City (Japan), people who have previously experienced earthquakes estimate a higher likelihood of suffering injury from future earthquakes than people who have not. Doyle et al. [99] discovered a link between feelings of anxiety, uneasiness, and depression during an earthquake and perceived short-term aftershock probabilities, as well as perceived long-term earthquake probabilities.

This study continues the trend of analyzing travel risk perception and its influence on travel intention based on key socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, and education), disaster anxiety, and past earthquake experiences. In response to the prevailing views in the scientific literature, the following hypotheses are presented:

H1a,b,c: Women are more aware of travel risks than men.

H2a,b,c: Elderly travelers perceive less travel risk.

H3a,b,c: Tourists with more education perceive fewer travel risks.

H4a,b,c: Natural hazard experience raises travel risk perception.

H5a,b,c: Respondents’ disaster anxiety increases their perception of risk.

H6a,b,c: Perceived travel risks have a negative influence on travel intention (Figure 1).

Figure 1 
                  Proposed model of research with defined hypotheses.
Figure 1

Proposed model of research with defined hypotheses.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Questionnaire development

The questionnaire for this study consisted of five sections. The first segment assessed the gender, age, and education. The second segment of the questionnaire consists of one question pertaining to the respondents’ earthquake experiences (yes/no question) and one question pertaining to the Turkish destinations visited by Serbian tourists (open-ended question).

The third part involves items about earthquake risk perception in tourist destinations. The travel risk perception questionnaire was adjusted based on several previous investigations [7678,100102]. Due to a large number of statements and a variety of scales initially compiled, six expert judges in tourism, natural hazards, and environmental sciences from the participating research consortium were invited to screen and evaluate the items in this study to improve content validity. Expert evaluation modified the scale to 15 items and 3 scales (physical risks, financial risks, and socio-psychological risks, as listed in Table 3).

The fourth part of the questionnaire examined respondents’ anxiety about the disaster. The questionnaire was taken from the research conducted by Güzel [89]. The disaster anxiety scale consists of a total of six items (Table 3).

The final section of the questionnaire, which assessed the travel intentions of visitors from Serbia to Türkiye, included three items adapted from Lam and Hsu’s [103] research (Table 3).

In the questionnaire, a five-point Likert scale was employed, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

3.2 Procedure

The questionnaire was translated into Serbian, and some items were reworded and adjusted to study respondents’ perceptions of earthquake hazards in tourist locations, as well as their intention to visit Türkiye.

A pilot study (Study 1) was conducted in March 2023 in preparation for the main study to evaluate the validity of the measurement instruments and the precision of the research questions. Prior to the pilot study, a linguist examined the items’ grammatical and semantic consistency. A total of 110 respondents from the Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourism, and Hotel Management in Novi Sad participated in the pilot study, which utilized the conventional paper-and-pen survey. The obtained data were factor analyzed using the principal component method and varimax rotation procedure in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 23 (IBM, SPSS.23).

After confirming the validity and reliability of the measuring instrument, the second part of the research (Study 2) was conducted in the period from March to June 2023. Residents of Serbia over the age of 18 were of particular interest. Google Forms were used to collect the responses of participants online. The online questionnaire was disseminated through individual emails and social media channels by using a convenience sampling method. Furthermore, 523 individuals accepted the invitation to complete the questionnaire. Due to their incompleteness, 56 questionnaires (∼11%) were excluded from the analysis. Finally, the processing of 467 valid questionnaires was completed by the R-lavaan and semPlot packages (RStudio), which were used for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and path analyses. Additional analyses included regression analysis, t-tests, and analysis of variance (ANOVA), which were processed by the SPSS.23 statistical software. Participants were informed that the questionnaire was anonymous and that their participation was voluntary. Hence, the given approach assured the sample’s representativeness.

4 Results

4.1 Study sample

Table 1 contains the primary data from the pilot study’s sample. The sample comprises 110 students who are enrolled in the Department of Geography, Tourism, and Hotel Management within the Faculty of Sciences in Novi Sad. The sample consisted primarily of bachelor’s degree candidates, with females comprising 53.6% of the total. Approximately half of the respondents (48.6%) had personal experience with an earthquake.

Table 1

Sample characteristics of Study 1 (N = 110)

Level of study (%)
Bachelor students 61.8
Master students 29.1
PhD students 8.2
Gender
Male 46.4
Female 53.6
Prior experience
Yes 48.6
No 51.4

Sample 1 was used for principal component analysis (PCA) within Study 1, and Sample 2 was used for CFA within Study 2 to test and validate the measurement instruments. The second sample consists of 467 respondents from the Republic of Serbia who are over the age of 18. The majority of the sample was between the ages of 18 and 30, with females accounting for 52.2%. Further examination of the sample characteristics revealed that the largest percentage of individuals hold a university degree (40.3%). The majority of respondents (57.6%) have no personal experience with an earthquake (Table 2).

Table 2

Sample characteristics of Study 2 (N = 467)

Education (%) Gender (%)
Secondary school 20.8 Male 47.7
Higher school 15.4 Female 52.2
Faculty 40.3 Age
Master 16.3 18–30 27.4
PhD 7.3 31–40 20.3
Prior experience 41–50 15.8
Yes 42.4 51–60 19.5
No 57.6 61+ 16.9

Among the 467 participants, 204 indicated that they had visited tourist destinations in Türkiye. Respondents could list several destinations where they have been. The top three destinations with the highest response frequency are Alanya (84), Istanbul (72), and Kusadasi (63). Following them are Ankara (59), Antalya (54), Bodrum (31), Marmaris (25), Izmir (11), Kemer (4), Cesme (2), Bursa (2), Cappadocia (2), and Side (1) (Figure 2).

Figure 2 
                  Destinations with the highest response frequency of Serbian tourists overlapped with simplified tectonic properties of Türkiye.
Figure 2

Destinations with the highest response frequency of Serbian tourists overlapped with simplified tectonic properties of Türkiye.

4.2 Study 1 – The results of PCA

PCA was conducted on a sample of 110 students. The results of PCA combined with PCA with Varimax rotation (KMO = 0.837, Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 2512.610, df = 300, p < 0.000) suggested a five-factor solution, included 25 items, and explained 74.83% of the variance. All factors with eigenvalue >1 and with factor loadings >0.3 were retained. Cronbach’s values for each factor were >0.7, which demonstrates that the scales of the obtained questionnaire have considerable reliability [104] (Table 3).

Table 3

The results of PCA

Factors Items Factor loading Eigenvalue Variance explained α
Physical risks I am concerned about my life 0.740 9.674 38.697 0.732
I am concerned about the safety and health of my parents, children, spouse, and friends 0.830
I am worried about getting hurt due to encountering earthquakes in Türkiye’s destinations 0.892
I am concerned about my pets’ lives and wellbeing 0.806
Due to the occurrence of earthquakes, I am worried about a lack of potable and technically accurate water 0.587
I am concerned about a lack of food as a result of the occurrence of earthquakes 0.570
Disaster anxiety scale Thinking of disasters makes my hands shake 0.817 3.373 13.493 0.789
Thinking of disasters makes my heart palpitate 0.841
Thinking of/remembering disaster-related situations makes me suffer from stomach aches 0.838
Thinking of/remembering disaster-related situations makes me feel woozy and dizzy 0.835
Thinking of disasters makes me lose my sleep or have trouble falling asleep 0.739
Thinking of/remembering disaster-related situations makes me lose my appetite 0.613
Socio-psychological risk I worried that a trip to Türkiye would not be compatible with my self-image 0.505 2.303 9.210 0.701
I worried that my trip to Türkiye would change the way my friends think of me 0.750
I worried before my trip that I would not receive personal satisfaction from the trip to Türkiye 0.750
I worried that my trip to Türkiye would change the way my family thinks of me 0.875
I worried that my trip to Türkiye would not match my status in life (social class). 0.832
People who are important to me would disapprove of my visiting Türkiye 0.665
Some of my family members would disapprove of my visiting Türkiye 0.545
Travel intention Likelihood of visiting Türkiye in the next 12 months 0.957 2.155 8.620 0.823
Intend to visit Türkiye in the next 12 months 0.941
Want to visit Türkiye 0.569
Financial risks I am concerned that I won’t have enough money to recoup material losses resulting from earthquake hazards 0.868 1.204 4.816 0.847
I am concerned that the occurrence of earthquake hazards would result in the destruction and damage of my property (car, personal belongings, etc.) 0.793
I am worried that earthquake hazards at a certain tourist site will cause extra costs that were not planned for 0.745

4.3 Study 2 – Confirmatory factorial analysis

CFA was conducted on a sample of 467 participants. In order to ensure the validity of the analysis, two items with high residuals and a high degree of correlation among them were excluded from the analysis (refer to Table 4). The resulting model, after excluding these items, demonstrated a satisfactory fit to the data, as evidenced by the following fit indices: comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.952, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.958, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.060, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.063.

Table 4

CFA results

Factors Items β t-Value α AVE CR
Disaster anxiety scale Thinking of disasters makes my hands shake 0.843 * 0.889 0.619 0.771
Thinking of disasters makes my heart palpitate 0.872 29.532
Thinking of/remembering disaster-related situations makes me suffer from stomach aches 0.881 29.001
Thinking of/remembering disaster-related situations makes me feel woozy and dizzy 0.766 29.001
Thinking of disasters makes me lose my sleep or have trouble falling asleep 0.788 30.123
Thinking of/remembering disaster-related situations makes me lose my appetite 0.791 29.023
Physical risks I am concerned about my life 0.727 * 0.833 0.769 0.863
I am concerned about the safety and health of my parents, children, spouse, and friends 0.871 26.569
I am worried about getting hurt due to encountering earthquakes in Türkiye’s destinations 0.808 21.221
I am concerned about my pets’ lives and wellbeing 0.812 21.336
Due to the occurrence of earthquakes, I am worried about a lack of potable and technically accurate water 0.754 20.998
I am concerned about a lack of food as a result of the occurrence of earthquakes 0.862 20.987
Financial risks I am concerned that I won’t have enough money to recoup material losses resulting from earthquake hazards 0.844 * 0.885 0.637 0.719
I am concerned that the occurrence of earthquake hazards would result in the destruction and damage of my property (car, personal belongings, etc.) 0.811 20.222
I am worried that earthquake hazards at a certain tourist site will cause extra costs that weren’t planned for 0.765 26.971
Socio-psychological risk I worried that a trip to Türkiye would not be compatible with my self-image** 0.829 * 0.719 0.598 0.809
I worried that my trip to Türkiye would change the way my friends think of me 0.828 30.907
I worried before my trip that I would not receive personal satisfaction from the trip to Türkiye 0.709 29.001
I worried that my trip to Türkiye would change the way my family thinks of me 0.765 30.445
I worried that my trip to Türkiye would not match my status in life (social class)** 0.879 29.902
People who are important to me would disapprove of my visiting Türkiye 0.865 30.101
Some of my family members would disapprove of my visiting Türkiye 0.807 24.324
Travel intention I am concerned that I won’t have enough money to recoup material losses resulting from earthquake hazards 0.756 * 0.774 0.669 0.728
I am concerned that the occurrence of earthquake hazards would result in the destruction and damage of my property (car, personal belongings, etc.) 0.835 18.267
I am worried that earthquake hazards at a certain tourist site will cause extra costs that weren’t planned for 0.872 17.871

Notes:* Items fixed to 1 in CFA; ** item removed from CFA; β-Std. regression weights; α – Cronbach′s alpha; CR – composite reliability; AVE = average variance expected.

The reliability of the scale was assessed using average variance extracted (AVE) indices, composite reliability (CR), and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α). The assessment of convergent validity for each dimension was conducted by computing the AVE score. Convergent validity is considered to be achieved when all item-to-factor loadings are statistically significant, and the AVE score for each dimension exceeds 0.50 (following the approach of [105]). Table 4 shows that all dimensions had an AVE value of more than 0.50 and a CR value of more than 0.70. This suggests that there is strong convergent validity. The Cronbach’s coefficients for each factor are above 0.70, with a range of 0.719–0.889, indicating a high level of reliability for the questionnaire scales. The model was estimated with 389 degrees of freedom, and the statistical significance level was set at p < 0.000. The details of this model can be found in Table 4.

4.4 Study 2 – The findings of the path model analysis

The path model analysis was conducted using R and RStudio software to evaluate the hypotheses. The following fit indices were employed: Sattora–Bentler χ² (S-B χ²), which is expected to lack statistical significance, and the ratio χ 2/df, which is expected to be <3 [106]. Additionally, the fit indices RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, and TLI were utilized (Table 5).

Table 5

Model fit indicators of the proposed model

Model S–B χ 2 df χ 2/df RMSEA SRMR CFI TLI
1 698.160 179 3.9 0.097 0.109 0.875 0.862
2 227.541 82 2.8 0.059 0.079 0.956 0.951

Note: S-B χ 2 values are significant at the p < 0.001 level.

Since adequate fit indicators were not achieved after generating the initial model, necessary revisions should be made. The Wald test recommended the exclusion of the following variables from the analysis: education and physical risks and education and financial risks, resulting in the removal of the education variable from the model. Following that, all relationships with very low saturations (<0.1) were removed from the model, including gender and socio-psychological risks and gender and financial risks. As a result, gender was omitted from the model because it does not adequately explain the dependent variables. This resulted in good model fit indicators (model 2) and rejects hypotheses H1a,b,c and H3a,b,c.

Further analyses were performed to investigate the relationships between category-independent factors and dependent variables. The model suggests that prior experience with earthquakes has a positive impact on perceived travel risk. Furthermore, a t-test was performed to provide a more comprehensive explanation of this discovery. The findings from the t-test demonstrate that individuals who have previous experience tend to have a stronger perception of physical (t = 2.832; p < 0.01), financial (t = 3.934; p < 0.01), and socio-psychological risks (t = 3.852; p < 0.01). These results provide support for hypotheses H4a, H4b, and H4c.

The ANOVA test yielded results that indicate a statistically significant distinction (F = 6.008; p < 0.01) among respondents when categorized by age. The results of the LSD post hoc test indicate that individuals in the age group 61+ have a lower perception of physical risk compared to those in the age group of 31–40 (MD = −0.885; p < 0.01), 41–50 (MD = −0.902; p < 0.01), and 51–60 (MD = −0.792; p < 0.01). Additionally, respondents who are 61+ perceive less financial risk compared to individuals who are 41–50 years old (MD = −0.791; p < 0.01). The results of the model indicate that there was no statistically significant relationship between the age of the respondents and the perceived risks associated with socio-psychological risks. The findings of the study provided support for hypotheses H2a and H2b, but hypothesis H2c was found to be unsupported.

To examine the relationship between disaster anxiety and perceived travel risks, a standard linear regression analysis was conducted. The results indicate that disaster anxiety has a significant positive effect on physical (β = 0.378, p < 0.000), financial (β = 0.218, p < 0.000), and socio-psychological (β = 0.189, p < 0.000) risks, thus confirming hypotheses H5a, H5b, and H5c.

In addition, standard linear regression analysis was used to investigate the impact of perceived travel risks on travel intention. The findings revealed that physical (β = −0.378, p < 0.000), financial (β = −0.231, p < 0.000), and socio-psychological risks (β = −0.192, p < 0.000) have a negative effect on travel intention, that confirmed hypotheses H6a, H6b, and H6c. The acquired findings are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 
                  The results of the path model.
Figure 3

The results of the path model.

5 Discussion and concluding remarks

The perceived risks linked to natural hazards exert a notable influence on travel intentions, particularly following a significant disaster [107], with certain types of natural disasters (i.e., earthquakes) having a particularly pronounced effect [108]. The objective of this research endeavor was to determine the perspectives of Serbian respondents on the risks associated with earthquakes in tourist areas of Türkiye. Therefore, this research examines the variations in the responses of participants concerning their socio-demographic characteristics, along with the relationship between previous experience and anxiety regarding disasters. The evaluated outcome pertains to the perception of three distinct categories of risk that impact tourists while traveling in destinations with a high risk of natural disasters: physical, financial, and socio-psychological risks [7678,100102].

Following previous research, the respondents’ age had a considerable influence on the perceived travel risks. Studies investigating the correlation between age and perceptions of travel risk have produced inconsistent findings. The findings of this study indicate that older respondents perceive less physical and financial travel risk. However, the impact of age on the perception of socio-psychological risks was not confirmed. For instance, Simpson and Siguaw [79], who obtained similar results, concluded in their study that the youngest age group was the most concerned about financial risks. Similar to the aforementioned research, Boksberger et al. [109] observed variations in the perceived dimensions of travel risk based on age and concluded that respondents aged 55 and older perceive a lower level of risk than younger age groups, except for social concerns. Sarman et al. [110] underscored the significance of risk perception, demonstrating that it can impact young travelers’ acceptance of dangers that could endanger their lives. Elderly adults frequently possess a greater accumulation of life experiences, which may include extensive travel to other areas. Adopting this wider viewpoint can result in a more accurate evaluation of risks and a sophisticated comprehension of the probability and consequences of natural disasters. In addition, older persons may have acquired robust coping mechanisms and resilience via a lifetime of experiences. This could empower individuals to effectively cope with stress and anxiety, especially in potentially demanding travel circumstances. Contrary to the mentioned results, Osland et al. [111] discovered that age is an important determinant, with older tourists having a lower tolerance for safety risks. Correia et al. [112] observed that younger tourists are more prone to seek out new experiences and are less risk-averse. Younger individuals might exhibit a greater propensity for risk-taking, whereas elderly individuals might develop a greater aversion to risk, which could impact their level of anxiety when contemplating travel to regions with elevated risk factors. The aforementioned studies indicate that age is a substantial determinant in influencing how travelers perceive the risks associated with natural hazards in various destinations.

As expected, people with prior experience have a stronger awareness of physical, financial, and socio-psychological risks. Existing research suggests that individuals who have had previous encounters with earthquakes are more cognizant of the physical, financial, and socio-psychological hazards that may be present in tourist destinations [113116]. Almost certainly, those who have experienced a direct impact of a natural disaster have had to deal with the immediate and frequently life-altering consequences. The enduring memory and emotional connection that this personal impact creates result in increased awareness. Previous earthquake experiences offer individuals significant insights into decision-making and actions that resulted in favorable or negative effects. Learning from past failures helps them identify and negotiate the physical, financial, and socio-psychological issues that come with seismic events.

Research consistently shows that disaster anxiety has a major impact on perceived travel risks. Reisinger and Mavondo [82,117] discovered that terrorism and sociocultural risk are important predictors of travel anxiety, with the later study emphasizing the impact of cultural orientation. Park and Reisinger [108] emphasized the impact of natural disaster anxiety on travel risk perception, particularly in international travel. The perception of travel risk creates a sense of anxiety and worry of unknown repercussions [117]. Natural disasters are one of the primary travel risks experienced by visitors, as regularly reported in previous research studies [118]. The occurrence of sudden and unexpected natural disasters, such as earthquakes, increases people’s perception of travel danger. Individuals have anxiety regarding travel because of concerns about mortality and/or potential financial loss. Consequently, they frequently opt to refrain from visiting areas that are affected to mitigate the risk associated with travel [108].

This study confirmed that the perceived travel risk and potential impact of geophysical natural hazards influence travel intentions. Individuals who perceive a high possibility of severe repercussions, such as serious harm to health and property or loss and degradation of personal and social status, may be more inclined to avoid or reconsider traveling to locations with known natural hazards. In a similar vein, Kaushik and Chakrabarti [107] revealed several risk characteristics that influence tourists’ desire to return, particularly following a natural disaster. Tavitiyaman and Qu [119] found that perceived risk moderated the association between overall satisfaction and behavioral intention, with low perceived risk resulting in a more favorable destination image and intention.

Managing destinations devastated by earthquakes entails dealing with not just the physical aftermath but also the psychological impact on travelers and stakeholders. Destination managers should prioritize fostering a sense of safety and security, mitigating disaster anxiety, establishing clear and transparent communication channels for conveying accurate and timely information, and regularly updating visitors on safety measures, recovery progress, and potential hazards. Clarity in communication can reduce fear and foster confidence among travelers. In addition to the above stated, they should conduct regular safety audits of tourism infrastructure, lodgings, and public spaces to detect and mitigate any dangers. This proactive strategy reduces dangers and guarantees that the destination is safe for tourists. Embracing sustainable tourism practices may help the destination’s long-term sustainability. A dedication to sustainability can improve tourists’ sense of safety and contribute to disaster resilience.

Past experience with natural disasters has been found to be one of the important factors that strongly influence risk perception of such catastrophic events [120], mostly positively [121123]. According to Ivkov et al. [61], hotel managers who have previous experience with a natural disaster (or even if they had such experience before they became hotel managers) have a better perception of potential threats and therefore are better prepared for these unwilling events. Similarly, business organizations with previous experience with natural disasters that have struggled with its negative effects are more likely to focus on this topic. Such business activities include communication protocols, emergency plan development, relocation of all available resources, etc. [121,124,125].

A range of studies have emphasized the importance of effective safety measures and transparent communication in the tourism industry. Becken and Hughey [68] emphasize the need to integrate tourism into disaster management structures, as demonstrated in the Northland region of New Zealand. Bird and Gísladóttir [126] stress the necessity of accessible and consistent risk communication initiatives, especially in natural hazard-prone areas such as Iceland. Furthermore, the work of AlBattat and Som [127] underscores the significance of emergency preparedness in the hotel industry, focusing on crisis management and recovery. Phillip and Hodgkinson [128] emphasize the need for a systematic approach to managing health and safety hazards in tourist resorts, highlighting the responsibilities of various stakeholders. These studies emphasize the crucial role of proactive safety measures and transparent communication channels in the tourism industry.

6 Limitations and suggestions for future research

Although the present study represents pioneering research aimed at analyzing the impact of perceived travel risks on travel intentions among Serbian tourists in the event of geophysical hazard occurrence, it is important to highlight several limitations of this investigation. First, it is important to note that the results supplied cannot be regarded as generic because the data were acquired using a convenient method. Subsequent investigations should utilize a more stratified sample, comprising the strata that constitute the ultimate sample uniformly. The study was conducted in the context of Serbian respondents and destinations in Türkiye, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings to other destinations. Furthermore, we solely focus on the impact of socio-demographic factors (such as gender, age, and education), prior experience, and disaster anxiety. Several characteristics, including marital status, family size, diverse cultural origins, and personality traits, might be regarded as important potential predictors. Future studies could focus on exploring the relationship between the population that has experienced an earthquake and the severity of the event. Additionally, further investigation into the relationships between the location of occurrence and its direct consequences could be undertaken.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 451-03-66/2024-03/200125, 451-03-65/2024-03/200125, and 451-03-66/2024-03/200172), the Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research of Vojvodina (Grant No. 142-451-3466/2023-03) and the RUDN University (Grant No. 060509-0-000).

  1. Author contributions: IB, MI, MDP, and TL designed the experiments, and IB carried them out. TG, MMR, SMM, MV, and JPR helped with the interpretation of the results. IB, AV, DP, and TL helped with the visualization of the results. IB, MI, MDP, JPR, DP, and TL prepared the manuscript with contributions from all co-authors.

  2. Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.

References

[1] Caglar N, Vural I, Kırtel O, Saribiyik A, Sumer Y. Structural damages observed in buildings after the January 24, 2020 Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake in Türkiye. Case Stud Constr Mater. 2023;18:e01886. 10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e01886.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Bayrak Y, Öztürk S, Çınar H, Kalafat D, Tsapanos MT, Koravos GC, et al. Estimating earthquake hazard parameters from instrumental data for different regions in and around Turkey. Eng Geol. 2009;105(3–4):200–10. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.02.004.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Baytiyeh H, Öcal A. High school students’ perceptions of earthquake disaster: A comparative study of Lebanon and Turkey. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016;18:56–63. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.06.004.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Sayın E, Yön B, Calayır Y, Karaton M. Failures of masonry and adobe buildings during the June 23, 2011 Maden-(Elazığ) earthquake in Turkey. Eng Fail Anal. 2013;34:779–91. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2012.10.016.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Doğangün A, Yön B, Onat O, Öncü ME, Sağıroğlu S. Seismicity of East Anatolian of Turkey and failures of infill walls induced by major earthquakes. J Earthq Tsunami. 2021;15(4):2150017. 10.1142/s1793431121500172.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Yon B. Identification of failure mechanisms in existing unreinforced masonry buildings in rural areas after April 4, 2019 earthquake in Turkey. J Build Eng. 2021;43:102586. 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102586.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Sakariyahu R, Lawal R, Oyekola O, Dosumu OE, Adigun R. Natural disasters, investor sentiments and stock market reactions: Evidence from Turkey–Syria earthquakes. Econ Lett. 2023;228:111153.10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111153Search in Google Scholar

[8] Gökçe O, Özden Ş, Demir A. Türkiye’de afetlerin mekansal ve istatistiksel dağılımı afet bilgileri envanteri [The Spatial and Statistical Distribution of Disasters in Turkey: the Inventory of Disaster Information]. Ankara: General Directorate Of Disaster Affairs; 2008.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Sür Ö. Türkiye’nin deprem bölgeleri [Earthquake regions of Turkey]. Üniversitesi Türkiye Coğrafyası Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi; 1993. p. 53–65.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Levy M, Salvori M. Deprem Kuşağı: Deprem Nedir? Ne Değildir? [Seismic Zone: What is an Earthquake and What is Not?]. İstanbul: Doğan Kitapçılık A.Ş; 2000.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Türkoğlu N. Türkiye’nin yüzölçümü ve nüfusunun deprem bölgelerine dağılışı (Turkey’s area and distribution of population in earthquake regions). Üniversitesi Türkiye Coğrafyası Araştırma ve Uygul Merkezi Derg. 2001;133–48 (in Turkish).Search in Google Scholar

[12] Sunkar M. Major Earthquakes in The Historical and Instrumental Periods on Palu (Elazıg) and Effects on Settlements. International Palu Symposium Proceedings. Elazığ, Turkey: Firat University, Harput Applied and Research Center; 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Yolsal-Çevikbilen S, Taymaz T. Earthquake source parameters along the Hellenic subduction zone and numerical simulations of historical tsunamis in the Eastern Mediterranean. Tectonophysics. 2012;536–537:61–100.10.1016/j.tecto.2012.02.019Search in Google Scholar

[14] Aydın B, Sharghivand N, Bayazıtoğlu Ö. Potential tsunami hazard along the southern Turkish coast. Coast Eng. 2020;158:103696. 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103696.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Dolu A, İkizler H. The effects of major earthquakes on the labor market: evidence from Turkey. Int J Soc Econ. 2022;50(5):662–74. 10.1108/ijse-08-2022-0568.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Çiftci G, Bayram S. The effects of earthquakes on tourism: Evidence from Turkey. J Tourism Leisure Hospitality. 2021;3(2):82–94. 10.48119/toleho.851669.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Karamelikli H, Khan AA, Karimi MS. Is terrorism a real threat to tourism development? Analysis of inbound and domestic tourist arrivals in Turkey. Curr Issues Tour. 2020;23(17):2165–81.10.1080/13683500.2019.1681945Search in Google Scholar

[18] Aslan A. Does tourism cause growth? Evidence from Turkey. Curr Issues Tour. 2015;19(12):1176–84. 10.1080/13683500.2015.1015970.Search in Google Scholar

[19] WTTC. Turkey tops European Travel & Tourism growth ranking in 2018. World Tourism & Travel Council Media Release; 2019. https://www.wttc.org/about/media-centre/press-releases/press-releases/2019/turkey-tops-european-travel-and-tourism-growth-ranking-in-2018/.Search in Google Scholar

[20] TurkStat. Nevsehir with selected indicators; 2020. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/bolgeselistatistik/degiskenlerUzerindenSorgula.do#.Search in Google Scholar

[21] Al-Ansi A, Han H. Role of halal-friendly destination performances, value, satisfaction, and trust in generating destination image and loyalty. J Destination Mark Manag. 2019;13:51–60. 10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.05.007.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Pizam A, Mansfeld Y. Tourism, crime and international security issues. Chichester: Wiley; 1996. https://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19961801936.html.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Beirman D. Marketing of tourism destinations during a prolonged crisis: Israel and the Middle East. J Vacat Mark. 2002;8(2):167–76. 10.1177/135676670200800206.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Coshall JT. The threat of terrorism as an intervention on international travel flows. J Travel Res. 2003;42(1):4–12. 10.1177/0047287503253901.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Kozak M, Crotts JC, Law R. The impact of the perception of risk on international travellers. Int J Tour Res. 2007;9(4):233–42. 10.1002/jtr.607.Search in Google Scholar

[26] Kovačić S, Jovanović T, Miljković Đ, Lukić T, Marković SB, Vasiljević ĐA, et al. Are Serbian tourists worried? The effect of psychological factors on tourists’ behaviour based on the perceived risk. Open Geosci. 2019;11(1):273–87. 10.1515/geo-2019-0022.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Khan MJ, Chelliah S, Ahmed S. Factors influencing destination image and visit intention among young women travellers: role of travel motivation, perceived risks, and travel constraints. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2017;22(11):1139–55. 10.1080/10941665.2017.1374985.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Khan MJ, Chelliah S, Khan F, Amin S. Perceived risks, travel constraints and visit intention of young women travelers: the moderating role of travel motivation. Tour Rev. 2019;74(3):721–38. 10.1108/tr-08-2018-0116.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Estrada MAR, Park D, Kim J, Khan A. The economic impact of terrorism: A new model and its application to Pakistan. J Policy Modeling. 2015;37(6):1065–80. 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2015.08.004.Search in Google Scholar

[30] Beirman D. United States: September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. In: The impact on American and global tourism. Restoring tourism destinations in crisis: A strategic marketing approach. Oxon, Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2003. p. 43–68.10.4324/9781003117148-5Search in Google Scholar

[31] Seabra C, Dolničar S, Abrantes JL, Kastenholz E. Heterogeneity in risk and safety perceptions of international tourists. Tour Manag. 2013;36:502–10. 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.008.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Demir E, Simonyan S, Chen MH, Lau CKM. Asymmetric effects of geopolitical risks on Turkey’s tourist arrivals. J Hospitality Tour Manag. 2020;45:23–6. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.04.006.Search in Google Scholar

[33] George R. Tourists’ perceptions of safety and security while visiting Cape Town. Tour Manag. 2003;24(3):575–85.10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00003-7Search in Google Scholar

[34] Blešić I, Ivkov M, Tepavčević J, Raljić JP, Petrović MD, Gajić T, et al. Risky travel? subjective vs objective perceived risks in travel behaviour – influence of hydro-meteorological hazards in South-Eastern Europe on Serbian tourists. Atmosphere. 2022;13(10):1671. 10.3390/atmos13101671.Search in Google Scholar

[35] Shoemaker S. Segmenting the U.S. travel market according to benefits realized. J Travel Res. 1994;32(3):8–21. 10.1177/004728759403200303.Search in Google Scholar

[36] Rittichainuwat BN, Chakraborty G. Perceived travel risks regarding terrorism and disease: The case of Thailand. Tour Manag. 2009;30(3):410–8. 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.08.001.Search in Google Scholar

[37] Baloglu S. A path analytic model of visitation intention involving information sources, Socio-Psychological motivations, and destination image. J Travel & Tour Mark. 2000;8(3):81–90, https://doi.org/10.1300/j073v08n03_05.10.1300/J073v08n03_05Search in Google Scholar

[38] Hosany S, Buzova D, Sanz-Blas S. The influence of place attachment, evoked positive affect, and motivation on intention to visit: Imagination proclivity as a moderator. J Travel Res. 2020;59(3):477–95. 10.1177/0047287519830789.Search in Google Scholar

[39] Dedeoğlu BB, Mariani MM, Shi F, Okumuş B. The impact of COVID-19 on destination visit intention and local food consumption. Br Food J. 2022;124(2):634–53. 10.1108/bfj-04-2021-0421.Search in Google Scholar

[40] Tan WK, Wu CE. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image and future visit intention. J Destination Mark Manag. 2016;5(3):214–26. 10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008.Search in Google Scholar

[41] Tasci ADA, Uslu A, Stylidis D, Woosnam KM. Place-oriented or people-oriented concepts for destination loyalty: destination image and place attachment versus perceived distances and emotional solidarity. J Travel Res. 2021;61(2):430–53. 10.1177/0047287520982377.Search in Google Scholar

[42] Abbasi AZ, Schultz CD, Ting DH, Ali F, Hussain K. Advertising value of vlogs on destination visit intention: the mediating role of place attachment among Pakistani tourists. J Hospitality Tour Technol. 2022;13(5):816–34. 10.1108/jhtt-07-2021-0204.Search in Google Scholar

[43] Davari D, Jang S. Visit intention of non-visitors: A step toward advancing a people-centered image. J Destination Mark Manag. 2021;22:100662. 10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100662.Search in Google Scholar

[44] Joo D, Cho H, Woosnam KM, Suess C. Re-theorizing social emotions in tourism: applying the theory of interaction ritual in tourism research. J Sustain Tour. 2023;31(2):367–82. 10.1080/09669582.2020.1849237Search in Google Scholar

[45] Afshardoost M, Eshaghi MS. Destination image and tourist behavioural intentions: A meta-analysis. Tour Manag. 2020;81:104154. 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104154.Search in Google Scholar

[46] Chen CF, Tsai DC. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioural intentions? Tour Manag. 2007;28(4):1115–22. 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.007.Search in Google Scholar

[47] Tavitiyaman P, Qu H, Tsang WSL, Lam R. The influence of smart tourism applications on perceived destination image and behavioural intention: The moderating role of information search behaviour. J Hospitality Tour Manag. 2021;46:476–87. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.003.Search in Google Scholar

[48] Tong Z, Yu R, Xiao H. How should cities communicate? The interaction effect of city stereotypes and advertising language on travel intention. J Destination Mark Manag. 2023;27:100755. 10.1016/j.jdmm.2022.100755.Search in Google Scholar

[49] Woosnam KM, Stylidis D, Ivkov M. Explaining conative destination image through cognitive and affective destination image and emotional solidarity with residents. J Sustain Tour. 2020;28(6):917–35. 10.1080/09669582.2019.1708920.Search in Google Scholar

[50] Lepp A, Gibson H. Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Ann Tour Res. 2003;30(3):606–24. 10.1016/s0160-7383(03)00024-0.Search in Google Scholar

[51] Jie W, Liu-Lastres B, Ritchie BW, Mills D. Travellers’ self-protections against health risks: An application of the full Protection Motivation Theory. Ann Tour Res. 2019;78:102743. 10.1016/j.annals.2019.102743.Search in Google Scholar

[52] Zheng D, Luo Q, Ritchie BW. Afraid to travel after COVID-19? Self-protection, coping and resilience against pandemic ‘travel fear’. Tour Manag. 2021;83:104261. 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104261.Search in Google Scholar

[53] Vujović S, Ćurčić NV, Miletić V. Impact of tourism on roundabout of economic process. Ekonomika Poljoprivrede. 2016;63(1):323–37. 10.5937/ekopolj1601323v.Search in Google Scholar

[54] Milošević S. Importance of satisfaction and guests experience in hotel business organizations. TIMS Acta/Tims Acta. 2012;6(1):1–9. 10.5937/timsact1201001m.Search in Google Scholar

[55] Ćurčić N, Miletić V, Grubor A. Serbian consumers’ attitudes towards tourism destinations in croatia from the safety aspect. Int J Qual Res. 2022;16(2):449–60. 10.24874/ijqr16.02-08.Search in Google Scholar

[56] Bauer RA. Consumer behavior as risk taking. In: Hancock RS, editor. Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the American Marketing Association; 1960. p. 389–98.Search in Google Scholar

[57] Neuburger L, Egger R. Travel risk perception and travel behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: a case study of the DACH region. Curr Issues Tour. 2020;24(7):1003–16. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1803807.Search in Google Scholar

[58] Karl M, Muskat B, Ritchie BW. Which travel risks are more salient for destination choice? An examination of the tourist’s decision-making process. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management. 2020;18:100487. 10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100487.Search in Google Scholar

[59] Sharifpour M, Walters G, Ritchie BW, Winter C. Investigating the role of prior knowledge in tourist decision making: A structural equation model of risk perceptions and information search. J Travel Res. 2014;53(3):307–22.10.1177/0047287513500390Search in Google Scholar

[60] Ma H, Chiu Y, Tian X, Zhang J, Guo Q. Safety or travel: Which is more important? The impact of disaster events on tourism. Sustainability. 2020;12(7):3038. 10.3390/su12073038.Search in Google Scholar

[61] Ivkov M, Blešić I, Janićević S, Kovačić S, Miljković Đ, Lukić T, et al. Natural disasters vs hotel industry resilience: An exploratory study among hotel managers from Europe. Open Geosci. 2019;11(1):378–90. 10.1515/geo-2019-0030.Search in Google Scholar

[62] Kovačić S, Mărgărint MC, Ionce R, Miljković Đ. What are the factors affecting tourist behaviour based on the perception of risk? Romanian and Serbian tourists’ perspective in the aftermath of the recent floods and wildfires in Greece. Sustainability. 2020;12(16):6310. 10.3390/su12166310.Search in Google Scholar

[63] Hartjes LB, Baumann LC, Henriques JB. Travel health risk perceptions and prevention behaviours of US study abroad students. J Travel Med. 2009;16(5):338–43. 10.1111/j.1708-8305.2009.00322.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[64] Baker D. The effects of terrorism on the travel and tourism industry. Int J Religious Tour Pilgrimage. 2014;2(1):9. https://arrow.dit.ie/ijrtp/vol2/iss1/9/.Search in Google Scholar

[65] Ingram H, Tabari S, Watthanakhomprathip W. The impact of political instability on tourism: case of Thailand. Worldw Hospitality Tour Themes. 2013;5(1):92–103. 10.1108/17554211311292475.Search in Google Scholar

[66] Huang JH, Min JCH. Earthquake devastation and recovery in tourism: the Taiwan case. Tour Manag. 2002;23(2):145–54. 10.1016/s0261-5177(01)00051-6.Search in Google Scholar

[67] Fountain J, Cradock-Henry NA. Recovery, risk and resilience: Post-disaster tourism experiences in Kaikōura, New Zealand. Tour Manag Perspect. 2020;35:100695. 10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100695.Search in Google Scholar

[68] Becken S, Hughey KFD. Linking tourism into emergency management structures to enhance disaster risk reduction. Tour Manag. 2013;36:77–85. 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.006.Search in Google Scholar

[69] King TR, Quigley M, Clark D. Surface-rupturing historical earthquakes in Australia and their environmental effects: New insights from re-analyses of observational data. Geosciences. 2019;9(10):408. 10.3390/geosciences9100408.Search in Google Scholar

[70] Shultz JM, Marcelin LH, Madanes S, Espinel Z, Neria Y. The “Trauma Signature:” Understanding the psychological consequences of the 2010 Haiti Earthquake. Prehospital Disaster Med. 2011;26(5):353–66. 10.1017/s1049023x11006716.Search in Google Scholar

[71] Zhang S, Li C, Zhang L, Peng M, Zhan L, Liu F. Quantification of human vulnerability to earthquake-induced landslides using Bayesian network. Eng Geol. 2020;265:105436. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105436.Search in Google Scholar

[72] Çakır İM, Şengül İ, Bekçi T, Tonkaz G, Eryuruk U, Önder RO, et al. A needful, unique, and in-place evaluation of the injuries in earthquake victims with computed tomography, in catastrophic disasters! The 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquakes: part I. Rev Da Associacao Medica Brasileira. 2023;69(8):e20230399. 10.1590/1806-9282.20230399.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[73] Shao J, Pantelous AA, Papaioannou AD. Catastrophe risk bonds with applications to earthquakes. Eur Actuarial J. 2015;5(1):113–38. 10.1007/s13385-015-0104-9.Search in Google Scholar

[74] Dai W, Chen L, Lai ZW, Li Y, Wang J, Liu A. The incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder among survivors after earthquakes:a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16(1):188. 10.1186/s12888-016-0891-9.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[75] Toya H, Skidmore M. Do natural disasters enhance societal trust? Kyklos. 2014;67(2):255–79. 10.1111/kykl.12053.Search in Google Scholar

[76] Fuchs G, Reichel A. Cultural differences in tourist destination risk perception: an exploratory study. Tour (Zagreb). 2004;52(1):21–37. https://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20043079119.html.Search in Google Scholar

[77] Fuchs G, Reichel A. Tourist destination risk perception: the case of Israel. J Hospitality Leisure Mark. 2006;14(2):83–108. 10.1300/j150v14n02_06.Search in Google Scholar

[78] Fuchs G, Reichel A. An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies of first time vs repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination. Tour Manag. 2011;32(2):266–76. 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.01.012.Search in Google Scholar

[79] Simpson PM, Siguaw JA. Perceived travel risks: the traveller perspective and manageability. Int J Tour Res. 2008;10(4):315–27. 10.1002/jtr.664.Search in Google Scholar

[80] Maser B, Weiermair K. Travel decision-making: from the vantage point of perceived risk and information preferences. J Travel Tour Mark. 1998;7(4):107–21. 10.1300/j073v07n04_06.Search in Google Scholar

[81] Hasan MK, Ismail AR, Islam M. Tourist risk perceptions and revisit intention: A critical review of literature. Cogent Bus Manag. 2017;4(1):1412874. 10.1080/23311975.2017.1412874.Search in Google Scholar

[82] Reisinger Y, Mavondo FT. Cultural consequences on traveler risk perception and safety. Tour Anal. 2006;11(4):265–84. 10.3727/108354206778814736.Search in Google Scholar

[83] Reisinger Y, Mavondo FT. Cultural differences in travel risk perception. J Travel Tour Mark. 2006;20(1):13–31. 10.1300/j073v20n01_02.Search in Google Scholar

[84] Mowen JC, Minor M. Consumer behaviour. 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1998.Search in Google Scholar

[85] Sönmez S, Graefe AR. Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Ann Tour Res. 1998;25(1):112–44. 10.1016/s0160-7383(97)00072-8.Search in Google Scholar

[86] Barlow DH. Anxiety and its disorders: the nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press; 2002.Search in Google Scholar

[87] Neria Y, Nandi A, Galea S. Post-traumatic stress disorder following disasters: a systematic review. Psychol Med. 2008;38(4):467–80. 10.1017/s0033291707001353.Search in Google Scholar

[88] Makwana N. Disaster and its impact on mental health: A narrative review. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019;8(10):3090. 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_893_19.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[89] Güzel A. Development of the disaster anxiety scale and exploring its psychometric properties. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2022;41:175–80. 10.1016/j.apnu.2022.07.028.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[90] Saviola F, Pappaianni E, Monti A, Grecucci A, Jovicich J, De Pisapia N. Trait and state anxiety are mapped differently in the human brain. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):11112. 10.1038/s41598-020-68008-z.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[91] Tellegen A. Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In: Tuma AH, Maser JD, editors. Anxiety and the anxiety disorders. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1985. p. 681–706. http://doi.apa.org/psycinfo/1985-97708-037.10.4324/9780203728215-49Search in Google Scholar

[92] Gudykunst WB. Applying anxiety\uncertainty management (AUM) Theory to intercultural adjustment training. Int J Intercultural Relat. 1998;22(2):227–50. 10.1016/s0147-1767(98)00005-4.Search in Google Scholar

[93] Gibson H, Yiannakis A. Tourist roles. Ann Tour Res. 2002;29(2):358–83. 10.1016/s0160-7383(01)00037-8.Search in Google Scholar

[94] Brug J, Aro AR, Oenema A, De Zwart O, Richardus JH, Bishop GD. SARS risk perception, knowledge, precautions, and information Sources, The Netherlands. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10(8):1486–9. 10.3201/eid1008.040283.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[95] Armaş I, Avram E. Perception of flood risk in Danube Delta, Romania. Nat Hazards. 2009;50(2):269–87. 10.1007/s11069-008-9337-0.Search in Google Scholar

[96] Karancı AN, Akşit B, Dirik G. Impact of a community disaster awareness training program in Turkey: Does it influence hazard-related cognitions and preparedness behaviours. Soc Behav Personality. 2005;33(3):243–58. 10.2224/sbp.2005.33.3.243.Search in Google Scholar

[97] Blanch LP, Prats LBI, Subirana RC. Investigating perceived risks in international travel. Tourismos. 2017;12(2):104–32. https://dugi-doc.udg.edu/handle/10256/16445.Search in Google Scholar

[98] Ahn AYE, Takikawa H, Maly E, Bostrom A, Kuriyama S, Matsubara H, et al. Perception of earthquake risks and disaster prevention awareness: A comparison of resident surveys in Sendai, Japan and Seattle, WA, USA. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021;66:102624. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102624.Search in Google Scholar

[99] Doyle EEH, McClure J, Potter SH, Lindell MK, Becker J, Fraser S, et al. Interpretations of aftershock advice and probabilities after the 2013 Cook Strait earthquakes, Aotearoa New Zealand. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020;49:101653. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101653.Search in Google Scholar

[100] Moutinho L. Consumer behaviour in tourism. Eur J Mark. 1987;21(10):5–44. 10.1108/eum0000000004718.Search in Google Scholar

[101] Roehl WS, Fesenmaier DR. Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: an exploratory analysis. J Travel Res. 1992;30(4):17–26. 10.1177/004728759203000403.Search in Google Scholar

[102] Cvetković VM, Öcal A, Ivanov A. Young adults’ fear of disasters: A case study of residents from Turkey, Serbia and Macedonia. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019;35:101095. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101095.Search in Google Scholar

[103] Lam T, Hsu C. Predicting behavioural intention of choosing a travel destination. Tour Manag. 2006;27(4):589–99. 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.02.003.Search in Google Scholar

[104] Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York, NY, USA: Mcgraw Hill Book Company; 1978.Search in Google Scholar

[105] Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. 10.1177/002224378101800104.Search in Google Scholar

[106] Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th edn. New York: Guilford Publications; 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[107] Kaushik AK, Chakrabarti D. Does perceived travel risk influence tourist’s revisit intention? Int J Bus Excell. 2018;15(3):352. 10.1504/ijbex.2018.092575.Search in Google Scholar

[108] Park K, Reisinger Y. The influence of natural disasters on travel risk perception. Tour Anal. 2008;13(5):615–27. 10.3727/108354208788160469.Search in Google Scholar

[109] Boksberger P, Bieger T, Laesser C. Multidimensional analysis of perceived risk in commercial air travel. J Air Transp Manag. 2007;13(2):90–6. 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2006.10.003.Search in Google Scholar

[110] Sarman I, Scagnolari S, Maggi R. Acceptance of life-threatening hazards among young tourists: A stated choice experiment. J Travel Res. 2016;55(8):979–92.10.1177/0047287515612595Search in Google Scholar

[111] Osland GE, Mackoy R, McCormick M. Perceptions of personal risk in tourists’ destination choices: nature tours in Mexico. Eur J Tourism Hospitality Recreat. 2017;8(1):38–50. 10.1515/ejthr-2017-0002.Search in Google Scholar

[112] Correia A, Pimpão A, Crouch GI. Perceived risk and novelty-Seeking behaviour: The case of tourists on low-Cost travel in Algarve (Portugal). In: Woodside AG, editor. Advances in culture, tourism and hospitality research. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2008. p. 1–26. 10.1016/s1871-3173(08)02001-6.Search in Google Scholar

[113] Tekeli-Yeşil S, Dedeoğlu N, Braun-Fahrlaender C, Tanner M. Earthquake awareness and perception of risk among the residents of Istanbul. Nat Hazards. 2011;59(1):427–46. 10.1007/s11069-011-9764-1.Search in Google Scholar

[114] Qian L, Zhang J, Zhang H, Zheng C. Hit close to home: the moderating effects of past experiences on tourists’ on-site experiences and behavioural intention in post-earthquake site. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2017;22(9):936–50. 10.1080/10941665.2017.1362019.Search in Google Scholar

[115] Kung YW, Chen SH. Perception of earthquake risk in Taiwan: Effects of gender and past earthquake experience. Risk Anal. 2012;32(9):1535–46. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01760.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[116] Huan T, Beaman J, Shelby LB. No-escape natural disaster. Ann Tour Res. 2004;31(2):255–73. 10.1016/j.annals.2003.10.003.Search in Google Scholar

[117] Reisinger Y, Mavondo FT. Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk Perception. J Travel Res. 2005;43(3):212–25. 10.1177/0047287504272017.Search in Google Scholar

[118] Law R. The perceived impact of risks on travel decisions. Int J Tour Res. 2006;8(4):289–300. 10.1002/jtr.576.Search in Google Scholar

[119] Tavitiyaman P, Qu H. Destination image and behaviour intention of travelers to Thailand: The moderating effect of perceived risk. J Travel Tour Mark. 2013;30(3):169–85. 10.1080/10548408.2013.774911.Search in Google Scholar

[120] Bronfman NC, Cisternas PC, López-Vázquez E, Cifuentes LA. Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile. Nat Hazards. 2016;81(1):307–27. 10.1007/s11069-015-2080-4.Search in Google Scholar

[121] Ritchie BW. Chaos, crises and disasters: a strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism industry. Tour Manag. 2004;25(6):669–83. 10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.004.Search in Google Scholar

[122] Dahles H, Susilowati TP. Business resilience in times of growth and crisis. Ann Tour Res. 2015;51:34–50. 10.1016/j.annals.2015.01.002.Search in Google Scholar

[123] Ruin I, Gaillard JC, Lutoff C. How to get there? Assessing motorists’ flash flood risk perception on daily itineraries. Environ Hazards. 2007;7(3):235–44. 10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.07.005.Search in Google Scholar

[124] Guth DW. Organizational crisis experience and public relations roles. Public Relat Rev. 1995;21(2):123–36. 10.1016/0363-8111(95)90003-9.Search in Google Scholar

[125] Pearson CM, Mitroff II. From crisis prone to crisis prepared: a framework for crisis management. Acad Manag Perspect/Academy Manag Perspectives. 1993;7(1):48–59. 10.5465/ame.1993.9409142058.Search in Google Scholar

[126] Bird DK, Gísladóttir G. Enhancing tourists’ safety in volcanic areas: An investigation of risk communication initiatives in Iceland. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020;50:101896. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101896.Search in Google Scholar

[127] AlBattat AR, Som APM. Emergency preparedness for disasters and crises in the hotel industry. SAGE Open. 2013;3(3):215824401350560. 10.1177/2158244013505604.Search in Google Scholar

[128] Phillip R, Hodgkinson G. The management of health and safety hazards in tourist resorts. World Tourism Organization. 1994;7(3);207–19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7842235.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2024-03-10
Revised: 2024-05-25
Accepted: 2024-06-04
Published Online: 2024-08-12

© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Theoretical magnetotelluric response of stratiform earth consisting of alternative homogeneous and transitional layers
  3. The research of common drought indexes for the application to the drought monitoring in the region of Jin Sha river
  4. Evolutionary game analysis of government, businesses, and consumers in high-standard farmland low-carbon construction
  5. On the use of low-frequency passive seismic as a direct hydrocarbon indicator: A case study at Banyubang oil field, Indonesia
  6. Water transportation planning in connection with extreme weather conditions; case study – Port of Novi Sad, Serbia
  7. Zircon U–Pb ages of the Paleozoic volcaniclastic strata in the Junggar Basin, NW China
  8. Monitoring of mangrove forests vegetation based on optical versus microwave data: A case study western coast of Saudi Arabia
  9. Microfacies analysis of marine shale: A case study of the shales of the Wufeng–Longmaxi formation in the western Chongqing, Sichuan Basin, China
  10. Multisource remote sensing image fusion processing in plateau seismic region feature information extraction and application analysis – An example of the Menyuan Ms6.9 earthquake on January 8, 2022
  11. Identification of magnetic mineralogy and paleo-flow direction of the Miocene-quaternary volcanic products in the north of Lake Van, Eastern Turkey
  12. Impact of fully rotating steel casing bored pile on adjacent tunnels
  13. Adolescents’ consumption intentions toward leisure tourism in high-risk leisure environments in riverine areas
  14. Petrogenesis of Jurassic granitic rocks in South China Block: Implications for events related to subduction of Paleo-Pacific plate
  15. Differences in urban daytime and night block vitality based on mobile phone signaling data: A case study of Kunming’s urban district
  16. Random forest and artificial neural network-based tsunami forests classification using data fusion of Sentinel-2 and Airbus Vision-1 satellites: A case study of Garhi Chandan, Pakistan
  17. Integrated geophysical approach for detection and size-geometry characterization of a multiscale karst system in carbonate units, semiarid Brazil
  18. Spatial and temporal changes in ecosystem services value and analysis of driving factors in the Yangtze River Delta Region
  19. Deep fault sliding rates for Ka-Ping block of Xinjiang based on repeating earthquakes
  20. Improved deep learning segmentation of outdoor point clouds with different sampling strategies and using intensities
  21. Platform margin belt structure and sedimentation characteristics of Changxing Formation reefs on both sides of the Kaijiang-Liangping trough, eastern Sichuan Basin, China
  22. Enhancing attapulgite and cement-modified loess for effective landfill lining: A study on seepage prevention and Cu/Pb ion adsorption
  23. Flood risk assessment, a case study in an arid environment of Southeast Morocco
  24. Lower limits of physical properties and classification evaluation criteria of the tight reservoir in the Ahe Formation in the Dibei Area of the Kuqa depression
  25. Evaluation of Viaducts’ contribution to road network accessibility in the Yunnan–Guizhou area based on the node deletion method
  26. Permian tectonic switch of the southern Central Asian Orogenic Belt: Constraints from magmatism in the southern Alxa region, NW China
  27. Element geochemical differences in lower Cambrian black shales with hydrothermal sedimentation in the Yangtze block, South China
  28. Three-dimensional finite-memory quasi-Newton inversion of the magnetotelluric based on unstructured grids
  29. Obliquity-paced summer monsoon from the Shilou red clay section on the eastern Chinese Loess Plateau
  30. Classification and logging identification of reservoir space near the upper Ordovician pinch-out line in Tahe Oilfield
  31. Ultra-deep channel sand body target recognition method based on improved deep learning under UAV cluster
  32. New formula to determine flyrock distance on sedimentary rocks with low strength
  33. Assessing the ecological security of tourism in Northeast China
  34. Effective reservoir identification and sweet spot prediction in Chang 8 Member tight oil reservoirs in Huanjiang area, Ordos Basin
  35. Detecting heterogeneity of spatial accessibility to sports facilities for adolescents at fine scale: A case study in Changsha, China
  36. Effects of freeze–thaw cycles on soil nutrients by soft rock and sand remodeling
  37. Vibration prediction with a method based on the absorption property of blast-induced seismic waves: A case study
  38. A new look at the geodynamic development of the Ediacaran–early Cambrian forearc basalts of the Tannuola-Khamsara Island Arc (Central Asia, Russia): Conclusions from geological, geochemical, and Nd-isotope data
  39. Spatio-temporal analysis of the driving factors of urban land use expansion in China: A study of the Yangtze River Delta region
  40. Selection of Euler deconvolution solutions using the enhanced horizontal gradient and stable vertical differentiation
  41. Phase change of the Ordovician hydrocarbon in the Tarim Basin: A case study from the Halahatang–Shunbei area
  42. Using interpretative structure model and analytical network process for optimum site selection of airport locations in Delta Egypt
  43. Geochemistry of magnetite from Fe-skarn deposits along the central Loei Fold Belt, Thailand
  44. Functional typology of settlements in the Srem region, Serbia
  45. Hunger Games Search for the elucidation of gravity anomalies with application to geothermal energy investigations and volcanic activity studies
  46. Addressing incomplete tile phenomena in image tiling: Introducing the grid six-intersection model
  47. Evaluation and control model for resilience of water resource building system based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method and its application
  48. MIF and AHP methods for delineation of groundwater potential zones using remote sensing and GIS techniques in Tirunelveli, Tenkasi District, India
  49. New database for the estimation of dynamic coefficient of friction of snow
  50. Measuring urban growth dynamics: A study in Hue city, Vietnam
  51. Comparative models of support-vector machine, multilayer perceptron, and decision tree ‎predication approaches for landslide ‎susceptibility analysis
  52. Experimental study on the influence of clay content on the shear strength of silty soil and mechanism analysis
  53. Geosite assessment as a contribution to the sustainable development of Babušnica, Serbia
  54. Using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for road transportation services management based on remote sensing and GIS technology
  55. Accumulation mechanism of multi-type unconventional oil and gas reservoirs in Northern China: Taking Hari Sag of the Yin’e Basin as an example
  56. TOC prediction of source rocks based on the convolutional neural network and logging curves – A case study of Pinghu Formation in Xihu Sag
  57. A method for fast detection of wind farms from remote sensing images using deep learning and geospatial analysis
  58. Spatial distribution and driving factors of karst rocky desertification in Southwest China based on GIS and geodetector
  59. Physicochemical and mineralogical composition studies of clays from Share and Tshonga areas, Northern Bida Basin, Nigeria: Implications for Geophagia
  60. Geochemical sedimentary records of eutrophication and environmental change in Chaohu Lake, East China
  61. Research progress of freeze–thaw rock using bibliometric analysis
  62. Mixed irrigation affects the composition and diversity of the soil bacterial community
  63. Examining the swelling potential of cohesive soils with high plasticity according to their index properties using GIS
  64. Geological genesis and identification of high-porosity and low-permeability sandstones in the Cretaceous Bashkirchik Formation, northern Tarim Basin
  65. Usability of PPGIS tools exemplified by geodiscussion – a tool for public participation in shaping public space
  66. Efficient development technology of Upper Paleozoic Lower Shihezi tight sandstone gas reservoir in northeastern Ordos Basin
  67. Assessment of soil resources of agricultural landscapes in Turkestan region of the Republic of Kazakhstan based on agrochemical indexes
  68. Evaluating the impact of DEM interpolation algorithms on relief index for soil resource management
  69. Petrogenetic relationship between plutonic and subvolcanic rocks in the Jurassic Shuikoushan complex, South China
  70. A novel workflow for shale lithology identification – A case study in the Gulong Depression, Songliao Basin, China
  71. Characteristics and main controlling factors of dolomite reservoirs in Fei-3 Member of Feixianguan Formation of Lower Triassic, Puguang area
  72. Impact of high-speed railway network on county-level accessibility and economic linkage in Jiangxi Province, China: A spatio-temporal data analysis
  73. Estimation model of wild fractional vegetation cover based on RGB vegetation index and its application
  74. Lithofacies, petrography, and geochemistry of the Lamphun oceanic plate stratigraphy: As a record of the subduction history of Paleo-Tethys in Chiang Mai-Chiang Rai Suture Zone of Thailand
  75. Structural features and tectonic activity of the Weihe Fault, central China
  76. Application of the wavelet transform and Hilbert–Huang transform in stratigraphic sequence division of Jurassic Shaximiao Formation in Southwest Sichuan Basin
  77. Structural detachment influences the shale gas preservation in the Wufeng-Longmaxi Formation, Northern Guizhou Province
  78. Distribution law of Chang 7 Member tight oil in the western Ordos Basin based on geological, logging and numerical simulation techniques
  79. Evaluation of alteration in the geothermal province west of Cappadocia, Türkiye: Mineralogical, petrographical, geochemical, and remote sensing data
  80. Numerical modeling of site response at large strains with simplified nonlinear models: Application to Lotung seismic array
  81. Quantitative characterization of granite failure intensity under dynamic disturbance from energy standpoint
  82. Characteristics of debris flow dynamics and prediction of the hazardous area in Bangou Village, Yanqing District, Beijing, China
  83. Rockfall mapping and susceptibility evaluation based on UAV high-resolution imagery and support vector machine method
  84. Statistical comparison analysis of different real-time kinematic methods for the development of photogrammetric products: CORS-RTK, CORS-RTK + PPK, RTK-DRTK2, and RTK + DRTK2 + GCP
  85. Hydrogeological mapping of fracture networks using earth observation data to improve rainfall–runoff modeling in arid mountains, Saudi Arabia
  86. Petrography and geochemistry of pegmatite and leucogranite of Ntega-Marangara area, Burundi, in relation to rare metal mineralisation
  87. Prediction of formation fracture pressure based on reinforcement learning and XGBoost
  88. Hazard zonation for potential earthquake-induced landslide in the eastern East Kunlun fault zone
  89. Monitoring water infiltration in multiple layers of sandstone coal mining model with cracks using ERT
  90. Study of the patterns of ice lake variation and the factors influencing these changes in the western Nyingchi area
  91. Productive conservation at the landslide prone area under the threat of rapid land cover changes
  92. Sedimentary processes and patterns in deposits corresponding to freshwater lake-facies of hyperpycnal flow – An experimental study based on flume depositional simulations
  93. Study on time-dependent injectability evaluation of mudstone considering the self-healing effect
  94. Detection of objects with diverse geometric shapes in GPR images using deep-learning methods
  95. Behavior of trace metals in sedimentary cores from marine and lacustrine environments in Algeria
  96. Spatiotemporal variation pattern and spatial coupling relationship between NDVI and LST in Mu Us Sandy Land
  97. Formation mechanism and oil-bearing properties of gravity flow sand body of Chang 63 sub-member of Yanchang Formation in Huaqing area, Ordos Basin
  98. Diagenesis of marine-continental transitional shale from the Upper Permian Longtan Formation in southern Sichuan Basin, China
  99. Vertical high-velocity structures and seismic activity in western Shandong Rise, China: Case study inspired by double-difference seismic tomography
  100. Spatial coupling relationship between metamorphic core complex and gold deposits: Constraints from geophysical electromagnetics
  101. Disparities in the geospatial allocation of public facilities from the perspective of living circles
  102. Research on spatial correlation structure of war heritage based on field theory. A case study of Jinzhai County, China
  103. Formation mechanisms of Qiaoba-Zhongdu Danxia landforms in southwestern Sichuan Province, China
  104. Magnetic data interpretation: Implication for structure and hydrocarbon potentiality at Delta Wadi Diit, Southeastern Egypt
  105. Deeply buried clastic rock diagenesis evolution mechanism of Dongdaohaizi sag in the center of Junggar fault basin, Northwest China
  106. Application of LS-RAPID to simulate the motion of two contrasting landslides triggered by earthquakes
  107. The new insight of tectonic setting in Sunda–Banda transition zone using tomography seismic. Case study: 7.1 M deep earthquake 29 August 2023
  108. The critical role of c and φ in ensuring stability: A study on rockfill dams
  109. Evidence of late quaternary activity of the Weining-Shuicheng Fault in Guizhou, China
  110. Extreme hydroclimatic events and response of vegetation in the eastern QTP since 10 ka
  111. Spatial–temporal effect of sea–land gradient on landscape pattern and ecological risk in the coastal zone: A case study of Dalian City
  112. Study on the influence mechanism of land use on carbon storage under multiple scenarios: A case study of Wenzhou
  113. A new method for identifying reservoir fluid properties based on well logging data: A case study from PL block of Bohai Bay Basin, North China
  114. Comparison between thermal models across the Middle Magdalena Valley, Eastern Cordillera, and Eastern Llanos basins in Colombia
  115. Mineralogical and elemental analysis of Kazakh coals from three mines: Preliminary insights from mode of occurrence to environmental impacts
  116. Chlorite-induced porosity evolution in multi-source tight sandstone reservoirs: A case study of the Shaximiao Formation in western Sichuan Basin
  117. Predicting stability factors for rotational failures in earth slopes and embankments using artificial intelligence techniques
  118. Origin of Late Cretaceous A-type granitoids in South China: Response to the rollback and retreat of the Paleo-Pacific plate
  119. Modification of dolomitization on reservoir spaces in reef–shoal complex: A case study of Permian Changxing Formation, Sichuan Basin, SW China
  120. Geological characteristics of the Daduhe gold belt, western Sichuan, China: Implications for exploration
  121. Rock physics model for deep coal-bed methane reservoir based on equivalent medium theory: A case study of Carboniferous-Permian in Eastern Ordos Basin
  122. Enhancing the total-field magnetic anomaly using the normalized source strength
  123. Shear wave velocity profiling of Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia, utilizing the multi-channel analysis of surface waves method
  124. Effect of coal facies on pore structure heterogeneity of coal measures: Quantitative characterization and comparative study
  125. Inversion method of organic matter content of different types of soils in black soil area based on hyperspectral indices
  126. Detection of seepage zones in artificial levees: A case study at the Körös River, Hungary
  127. Tight sandstone fluid detection technology based on multi-wave seismic data
  128. Characteristics and control techniques of soft rock tunnel lining cracks in high geo-stress environments: Case study of Wushaoling tunnel group
  129. Influence of pore structure characteristics on the Permian Shan-1 reservoir in Longdong, Southwest Ordos Basin, China
  130. Study on sedimentary model of Shanxi Formation – Lower Shihezi Formation in Da 17 well area of Daniudi gas field, Ordos Basin
  131. Multi-scenario territorial spatial simulation and dynamic changes: A case study of Jilin Province in China from 1985 to 2030
  132. Review Articles
  133. Major ascidian species with negative impacts on bivalve aquaculture: Current knowledge and future research aims
  134. Prediction and assessment of meteorological drought in southwest China using long short-term memory model
  135. Communication
  136. Essential questions in earth and geosciences according to large language models
  137. Erratum
  138. Erratum to “Random forest and artificial neural network-based tsunami forests classification using data fusion of Sentinel-2 and Airbus Vision-1 satellites: A case study of Garhi Chandan, Pakistan”
  139. Special Issue: Natural Resources and Environmental Risks: Towards a Sustainable Future - Part I
  140. Spatial-temporal and trend analysis of traffic accidents in AP Vojvodina (North Serbia)
  141. Exploring environmental awareness, knowledge, and safety: A comparative study among students in Montenegro and North Macedonia
  142. Determinants influencing tourists’ willingness to visit Türkiye – Impact of earthquake hazards on Serbian visitors’ preferences
  143. Application of remote sensing in monitoring land degradation: A case study of Stanari municipality (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
  144. Optimizing agricultural land use: A GIS-based assessment of suitability in the Sana River Basin, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  145. Assessing risk-prone areas in the Kratovska Reka catchment (North Macedonia) by integrating advanced geospatial analytics and flash flood potential index
  146. Analysis of the intensity of erosive processes and state of vegetation cover in the zone of influence of the Kolubara Mining Basin
  147. GIS-based spatial modeling of landslide susceptibility using BWM-LSI: A case study – city of Smederevo (Serbia)
  148. Geospatial modeling of wildfire susceptibility on a national scale in Montenegro: A comparative evaluation of F-AHP and FR methodologies
  149. Geosite assessment as the first step for the development of canyoning activities in North Montenegro
  150. Urban geoheritage and degradation risk assessment of the Sokograd fortress (Sokobanja, Eastern Serbia)
  151. Multi-hazard modeling of erosion and landslide susceptibility at the national scale in the example of North Macedonia
  152. Understanding seismic hazard resilience in Montenegro: A qualitative analysis of community preparedness and response capabilities
  153. Forest soil CO2 emission in Quercus robur level II monitoring site
  154. Characterization of glomalin proteins in soil: A potential indicator of erosion intensity
  155. Power of Terroir: Case study of Grašac at the Fruška Gora wine region (North Serbia)
  156. Special Issue: Geospatial and Environmental Dynamics - Part I
  157. Qualitative insights into cultural heritage protection in Serbia: Addressing legal and institutional gaps for disaster risk resilience
Downloaded on 7.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/geo-2022-0670/html
Scroll to top button