Travel decision making during and after the COVID-2019 pandemic: Revisiting travel constraints, gender role, and behavioral intentions

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply influenced the tourism and hospitality industry, and it has also reshaped people’s travel preferences and related behaviors. As a result, how prospective travelers perceive travel constraints and their effects on future travel behaviors may have changed to some extent. Besides, such perception arguably varies across gender. Therefore, this research examines the interplay between travel constraints, gender, and travel intentions for facilitating robust tourism recovery by revisiting the Leisure Constraints Model (LCM) from a gender perspective. Data were collected through a survey from 357 Malaysian prospective travelers. By conducting path analysis and multigroup analysis (MGA), it is found that structural and interpersonal constraints impose indirect effects on travel intentions (mediated by intrapersonal constraints), and gender moderating the effect of structural cost on intrapersonal constraints and effect of intrapersonal constraints on travel intentions. Based on these findings, this research provides theoretical and practical implications into how to adjust their marketing strategies and travel products during the era of “new normal” for tourism policy makers, destination marketers, and related businesses.

Introduction

The tourism industry has been severely disrupted by the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in an unprecedented way. Many countries implemented travel restrictions or even border shutdowns to contain the spread of the airborne virus. At one point, travel activities almost ceased to exist in some destinations (WTTC, 2020). Even if many destinations eased travel restrictions, the outlook of the industry remains uncertain. According to McKinsey’s forecast, tourism may not fully recover until 2023, and the total tourism-related GDP losses may be as high as $3–8 trillion in the world (Binggeli et al., 2020). What are worse, prospective travelers may become reluctant to travel out of a variety of concerns even after the end of the current pandemic (Shin et al., 2022). Amid the era of “new normal,” post-crisis management focusing on tourist flow has been intensively discussed by researchers and practitioners for tourism survival and recovery purposes (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2021).

Tourist flow is a complex dynamic system that is collectively shaped by factors related to destinations and travelers (Jin et al., 2019). During the current pandemic, it is imperative for tourism marketers to gain a thorough understanding of all these factors so as to devise effective marketing strategies for restoring tourist flow. However, most relevant literature are mainly written from the angle of destinations (Hassan and Soliman, 2021), and factors related to prospective travelers are insufficiently discussed (Jin et al., 2019; Shin et al., 2022). Meanwhile, the pandemic has arguably made noticeable impacts on people’s travel behaviors, and thus some earlier assumptions on travel decision making are seriously challenged (Kock et al., 2020; Neuburger and Egger, 2020; Wen et al., 2020). Therefore, certain tourism knowledge drawn from previous studies should be further examined in the pandemic context.

Undoubtedly, individuals may perceive undesirable internal obstacles and external barriers restraining their intentions to travel (Crawford and Godbey, 1987). After the outbreak of the COVID-19 in December 2019, travel became more difficult and expensive due to various control measures (e.g., mandatory quarantine). As a result, travel constraints became more salient for prospective travelers (Aziz and Long, 2022). Following the taxonomy proposed by Crawford and Godbey (1987), this research focuses on three major travel constraints, including intrapersonal constraints, interpersonal constraints, and structural constraints. Although there are many prior studies discussing travel constraints, little is known about the interplay of the three major travel constraints and how travel constraints influence travel decision making in the midst of a world health crisis (Pan et al., 2021).

Normally, individuals are less likely to travel if they perceive a high level of travel constraints, but this association may vary depending on gender (Yamashita and Hallmann, 2021). In tourism literature, gender differences concerning travel behaviors are regrettably overlooked (Huang and van der Veen, 2019). However, we do find some evidence suggesting that gender could somehow explain differences of travel behaviors through a comprehensive literature review, including tourists’ perception of travel constraints (Hudson, 2000; Losada et al., 2016; Tavakoli and Mura, 2021). Specifically, a few studies indicate that female travelers are inclined to perceive more risks and constraints when they participate in travel activities due to gender roles expectations (Jackson and Henderson, 1995; Nyaupane and Andereck, 2008; De Pascale et al., 2022). Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine the possible moderating role of gender with regard to the relationship between travel constraints and travel decision making (Khan et al., 2019a).

Given the knowledge gap aforementioned, this research intends to examine the interplay of three major travel constraints and travel intentions, and whether the interplay is moderated by gender in the current crisis context. Specifically, this study (1) investigates how the three major travel constraints affect travel intentions, (2) whether the intrapersonal constraints mediate the relationship between interpersonal/structural constraints and travel intentions, and (3) whether gender moderate the interplay among the three major travel constraints and travel intentions. The findings of the research will provide tourism stakeholders with meaningful insights for tourism survival and recovery.

Literature review

Travel constraints and travel intentions

Travel constraints have been widely discussed in tourism literature since Crawford and Godbey (1987) introduced the hierarchical Leisure Constraints Model (LCM). The model is further enhanced by some following research, such as Crawford et al. (1991), Jackson and Dunn (1991), and Jackson (1993). In the past three decades, many studies have adopted the LCM to examine how travel constraints influence travel intentions, and much knowledge has been drawn from these research (Mei and Lantai, 2018; Yang and Tung, 2018; Jian et al., 2021). It is generally recognized that travel constraints, as obstacles and inhibitors, significantly affect individuals’ preferences and participation in tourism activities (Wong and Kuo, 2021). Therefore, most relevant studies assume that travel constraints have a negative impact on travel intentions (Nyaupane and Andereck, 2008; Hung and Petrick, 2012). Significantly, Shin et al. (2022) explicitly state that it is crucial to understand the impacts of travel constraints on travel intentions so as to devise effective marketing strategies for tourism recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additionally, structural constraints could negatively affect prospective travelers’ intentions to travel as well. Structural constraints are defined as perceived external barriers, including structural cost (i.e., limited financial resources), structural time (i.e., lack of time), and structural space (i.e., place attributes; Nyaupane and Andereck, 2008). These constraints are considered the most influential factors restricting individuals’ participation in leisure activities (Fredman and Heberlein, 2005). Specifically, it is found that prospective travelers’ intentions to travel will decrease under the negative impacts of structural constraints (Lai et al., 2013; Wong and Kuo, 2021). Conversely, Khan et al. (2019b) concluded that structural constraints have no significant relationship with travel intentions as Chen et al. (2021) explained that structural constraints are negotiable. In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, structural constraints are arguably more salient and powerful (Hall et al., 2020). Usually, people have to go through health screening or even mandatory quarantine if they need to travel far. As a result, prospective travelers are likely to compromise their travel plans. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

• H3: Structural cost negatively influences travel intentions among Malaysian travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• H4: Structural time negatively influences travel intentions among Malaysian travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• H5: Structural space negatively influences travel intentions among Malaysian travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Travel constraints do not definitely lead to non-participation but put restrictions on frequency, selection of activity, and destination (Mei and Lantai, 2018). Travel participation is mainly determined by the result of individuals’ negotiation process toward travel (Aziz and Long, 2022; Karl et al., 2022). The tripartite classification of travel constraints is a useful approach to understand the travel negotiation process from intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural perspectives (Crawford and Godbey, 1987), and it is also important to examine the interplay of the three constraints (Hawkins et al., 1999). Crawford et al. (1991) state that the LCM is organized in a hierarchical and sequential manner, and intrapersonal constraints are the starting point of travel negotiation. Prospective travelers will only consider interpersonal and structural constraints when intrapersonal constraints are not influential (Raymore et al., 1993). However, the sequence may change in different social contexts (Godbey et al., 2010; Hughes et al., 2015). Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, structural constraints become more salient due to various control measures, such as social distancing and mandatory quarantine (Hall et al., 2020; Chua et al., 2021). Meanwhile, it is more difficult to find companions because many people are reluctant to travel with a high level perception of travel constraints. Thus, interpersonal constraints become more conspicuous for some perspective travelers. As a result, prospective travelers are likely to encounter interpersonal and structural constraints before intrapersonal constraints, and their psychological states may be significantly affected by the two categories of constraints even if they are really interested to travel (Li et al., 2020). Besides, individuals’ negotiation process toward travel is largely decided by their own internal psychological factors rather than external ones (Xie and Ritchie, 2019; Karl et al., 2022). Therefore, intrapersonal constraints are the centrality of the LCM, and they probably also mediate the relationship between other constraints and travel intentions (Godbey et al., 2010). Then, the following hypotheses are proposed:

• H6: Interpersonal constraints negatively influence intrapersonal constraints among Malaysian travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• H7: Structural cost negatively influences intrapersonal constraints among Malaysian travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• H8: Structural time negatively influences intrapersonal constraints among Malaysian travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• H9: Structural space negatively influences intrapersonal constraints among Malaysian travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• H10: Intrapersonal constraints mediate the negative relationship between interpersonal constraints and travel intentions among Malaysian travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• H11: Intrapersonal constraints mediate the negative relationship between structural cost and travel intentions among Malaysian travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• H12: Intrapersonal constraints mediate the negative relationship between structural time and travel intentions among Malaysian travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• H13: Intrapersonal constraints mediate the negative relationship between structural space and travel intentions among Malaysian travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Moderating role of gender

Methodology

The authors used a self-administered survey for data collection via a convenience sampling method. By following Churchill (1979), the measurement items of this research are adopted or adapted from past studies in tourism literature. The questionnaire is made of three sections. The first section measures travel constraints (structural constraints, 11 items; interpersonal constraints, four items; and intrapersonal constraints, five items), and the measurement items were adapted from Nyaupane and Andereck (2008). The section “Literature review” includes questions for demographic information, such as gender and age. The section “Methodology” contains three items to measure travel intention, which are adapted from Khan et al. (2019a). The rationale to physically separate predictive and criterion variables is to minimize common method bias when the data are collected from a single source (Podsakoff et al., 2012). The survey items are measured by a six-point Likert scale from “1” (strongly disagree) to “6” (strongly agree; Aziz, 2018).

Before collecting data, the authors conducted a small-scale pre-test with 10 Malaysians office workers via personal networks to check whether the respondents and the researchers understood the survey questions in the same way. Based on the feedback from the 10 respondents, some items were slightly modified to avoid any possible misunderstandings (Dillman, 2011). Then, the modified survey was sent to another 10 Malaysians office workers for the second round of pre-test, and no further feedback was reported. To expedite the data collection process, this research employed a snowballing sampling technique (Aziz, 2018). The authors persuaded the 20 respondents of the pre-tests who worked in the Klang valley of Malaysia to distribute the modified questionnaire to their colleagues, and 500 questionnaires were given out from June 15 to July 15, 2020.

The rationale to choose office workers as respondents is that they have stable income and thus they are capable to purchase travel-related products. Besides, Klang valley, as the largest metropolitan area of Malaysia, has the highest mean household income in the country (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2020). Klang valley (i.e., Greater Kuala Lumpur) is located at the center of the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia, and covers the federal territories of Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, and nearby cities/towns in the state of Selangor. Meanwhile, this region is diverse with regard to lifestyles and social classes. Thus, some researchers collect data from residents of Klang valley as they believe that these samples are likely to represent the general population of Malaysia (Aziz et al., 2010). Moreover, officer workers with disposable income usually make the purchase decisions and consume travel products/services. Therefore, this research draw samples from office workers of Klang valley.

To check whether the respondents are tourists, the survey has a filter question asking “Have you participated in leisure travel in the last 24 months” in the demographic information section. By the end of July 2020, 360 responses had been received, and three responses were excluded as they did not pass the filter question. Among the 357 usable responses, 163 and 194 were from males and females, respectively. This research targeted office workers for data collection because they are likely to purchase travel products with stable income.

Data analysis

The descriptive analysis of this study is summarized in Table 1. According to the mean values of the measurement items, it is found that males perceive slightly higher structural cost and time than females, and females perceive slightly higher structural space than males. The respondents generally perceive low interpersonal and intrapersonal constraints regardless of gender. More importantly, females have slightly higher intentions to travel than their male counterparts, which is consistent with the fact that males perceive higher intrapersonal constraints than females.

This research employed the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), and software SmartPLS 3.3.3 was adopted for data analysis. PLS-SEM, as a multivariate analysis approach, is suitable to perform multigroup analysis (MGA) to examine whether there are significant differences across gender in relation to the proposed structural paths (Henseler et al., 2016). In addition, it is found that the collected data are abnormally distributed by using an online tool available at https://webpower.psychstat.org/wiki/tools/index, which further justifies the application of PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2017). With regard to the minimum sample size of PLS-SEM, Reinartz et al. (2009) argues that 100 is the threshold. G*Power was also used to calculate the minimum sample size for the proposed framework. The sample size of this study (i.e., male and female groups) reaches the minimum threshold for data analysis via PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2017).

Measurement model

By following Hair et al. (2017), this research examined outer loadings, composite reliability (CR), average extracted (AVE), and heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) to confirm the reflective measurement model (complete and split datasets of male and female). As shown in Table 2, the CR values ranged between 0.70 and 0.95, which indicates internal consistency of the items (Chin, 2010). To confirm the convergent validity of the research, an item’s outer loading has to be no less than 0.40 and its associated AVE has to be higher than 0.50 (Hulland, 1999), so the third item measuring interpersonal travel constraints was deleted.

Besides, the Heterotrait and Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correction method is adopted to assess discriminant validity on complete and split datasets of male and female (Henseler et al., 2016). As shown in Table 3, all the HTMT values are lower than the threshold of 0.90, which indicates there is no multi-collinearity issue between latent variables of this research (Henseler et al., 2016).

With regard to the assessment of Goodness-of-Fit (GoF), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) was used as a measure. As shown in Table 4, the SRMR value of male, female, and complete datasets are 0.077, 0.080, and 0.068, respectively. All the values are no more than the threshold at 0.080, so all the three datasets satisfy the requirements for GoF (Henseler and Sarstedt, 2013).

Then, lateral collinearity (i.e., predictor-criterion collinearity) issue have to be ruled out before assessing the structural model of the research. Although the discriminant validity (vertical collinearity) of the research has been confirmed, lateral collinearity issue may exist and sometimes distort the findings (Kock and Lynn, 2012). Thus, Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is assessed identify possible multi-collinearity issues. As shown in Table 5, all the VIF scores are no higher than the threshold of 3.3, indicating the current study is not likely to have collinearity issue (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006).

Structural model

To confirm the structural model of the current research, the authors conducted a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 resamples to estimate the significance of the path coefficient (Hair et al., 2017). The path coefficients for the complete dataset are shown in Table 6. Based on the results, H1, H6, H7, H9, H10, H11, and H13 are supported at 95% CIs with one-tailed testing, and the rest are not supported. Specifically, only intrapersonal constraints directly influence travel intentions, interpersonal constraints, and structural constraints (except structural time) indirectly influence travel intentions via intrapersonal constraints. Meanwhile, interpersonal and structural constraints (except structural time) impose direct effects on intrapersonal constraints. Concerning the significant relationships (H1, H6, H7, and H9), it is necessary to check their effect sizes (f²; Hair et al., 2017). According to the f² values (see Table 7), it is found that interpersonal constraints (f² = 0.167) has a medium effect size on intrapersonal constraints; structural cost (f² = 0.076) and structural space (f² = 0.042) have a small effect size on intrapersonal constraints; intrapersonal constraints (f² = 0.038) have a small effect size on travel intentions for the complete dataset. Table 6 also shows information on the coefficient of determination (R²) and predictive relevance (Q²) of the exogenous variables and endogenous variables. The R² values of intrapersonal constraints and travel intentions are 0.350 and 0.048, respectively, for the complete dataset, indicating the model has a moderate and weak level of predictive accuracy (Hair et al., 2017). Lastly, all the Q² values are greater than 0, which indicates acceptable predictive quality of the model (Hair et al., 2017).

Multi-group analysis

Before comparing the proposed structural paths across gender, the measurement invariance of composites (MICOM) has to be conducted to confirm the measurement invariance of the reserach (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). Henseler et al. (2016) explained that there are three steps involved for MICOM, including (1) the assessment of configural invariance, (2) assessment of compositional invariance, and (3) assessment of equal composite means and variances. As shown in Table 8, the first and the second steps of MICOM procedure are confirmed, and the third step is not supported. Therefore, a partial measurement invariance between male and female groups is established, and which is adequate to compare the path coefficients across gender by MGA (Henseler et al., 2016).

Then, a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 re-samples was conducted to compare differences between the two groups (Hair et al., 2017). Based on Table 9, some interesting findings are revealed. Firstly, structural space (SS) and interpersonal travel constraints (IPTC) have a positive effect on intrapersonal travel constraints (ITTC) in both data groups. Secondly, structural cost (SC) has a positive effect on ITTC only among females, and ITTC has a negative effect on travel intentions (IN) only among males. Thirdly, ST has no significant influence on ITTC, and SC, ST, SS, and IPTC have no significant influence on IN regardless of gender. These results are also verified by coefficient of determination (R²), effect size (f²), and predictive relevance (Q²) indicated in Table 6 (Hair et al., 2017). Therefore, there are significant differences between the effects of SC on ITTC (H1) and between the effects of ITTC on IN (H9) across gender. Based on the findings, H14 is partially supported.

Discussion and conclusion

The current COVID-19 pandemic has imposed numerous challenges to the tourism industry, and travel constraints become very salient for prospective travelers. Through a critical interrogation on the literature of travel constraints, this study aims to gain a better understanding of the relationship between travel constraints and travel decision making by revisiting the Leisure Constraints Model (LCM) amid a global health crisis. Meanwhile, the role of gender is considered with regard to the interplay between travel constraints and travel intentions. This research adopted a self-administered survey, and collected data from Malaysians office workers in Klang valley. PLS-SEM was used for conducting path analysis and multi-group analysis (MGA) for hypothesis testing. Based on the results of statistical analysis, the revised Leisure Constraints Model (LCM) is valid to explain and predict Malaysian tourists’ travel behavior. The empirical findings of the research provide theoretical and practical implications to tourism marketing literature, which are meaningful for related stakeholders for tourism recovery.

Theoretical implications

By revisiting the Leisure Constraints Model (LCM), it is found that structural constraints (except structural time) and interpersonal constraints have a significant impact on intrapersonal constraints; intrapersonal constraints significantly influence travel intentions; intrapersonal constraints mediate the relationship between structural constraints (except structural space), interpersonal constraints, and travel intentions among Malaysian tourists. Besides, the empirical findings indicate that there are salient differences across gender with regard to the relationship between structural cost and intrapersonal constraints, and the relationship between intrapersonal constraints and travel intentions. Based on the aforementioned findings, this research makes some theoretical contributions to the body of tourism knowledge, especially concerning travel decision making in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Firstly, it is confirmed that the sequence of the Leisure Constraints Model (LCM) varies in different social contexts (Hughes et al., 2015), which contradicts some early research, such as Crawford et al. (1991) and Raymore et al. (1993). As per the original Leisure Constraints Model (LCM), individuals’ cognitive negotiation process on whether to participate in travel activities begin from intrapersonal constraints, then the negation process moves to structural and interpersonal constraints only when intrapersonal constraints are basically solved (Crawford et al., 1991). Specifically, prospective travelers have to get over intrapersonal constraints (e.g., attitude) before they can think over factors related to structural constraints (e.g., cost) and interpersonal constraints (e.g., social interactions). However, the starting point of the travel negotiation process is fluid rather than static in various social settings (Godbey et al., 2010). In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the sequence of the Leisure Constraints Model (LCM) changed from intrapersonal constraints to interpersonal and structural constraints. Due to related control measures, such as social distancing and mandatory quarantine, interpersonal and structural constraints become even more influential, especially in international travel (Hall et al., 2020). Consequently, individuals have to overcome interpersonal and structural constraints before intrapersonal constraints. Alternatively, prospective travelers’ psychological states are very likely to be influenced by external barriers and social interactions with other people even if they desire to travel.

Secondly, it is reaffirmed that intrapersonal constraints play a significantly central role in the Leisure Constraints Model (LCM; Xie and Ritchie, 2019). Structural and interpersonal constraints do not have direct impacts on travel intentions though their impacts are literally magnified by the current pandemic. On the contrary, they (except structural time) impose indirect effects via intrapersonal constraints. That is, intrapersonal constraints mediate the negative relationship between these constraints and travel intentions, which suggests that structural and interpersonal constraints are not the determining factors influencing prospective travelers’ travel behaviors even if they are the starting point of the travel negotiation process. In other words, prospective travelers are unlikely to abandon their travel plans simply due to external barriers and lack of companionship to travel. Nevertheless, these constraints impose their impacts on travel intentions indirectly via prospective travelers’ inner psychological states (Chua et al., 2021). Out of expectation, structural time does not negatively affect travel intentions, and it does not influence travel intentions indirectly via intrapersonal constraints either. One possible explanation is that the data was collected in 2020 when Malaysians were not allowed to travel abroad for leisure purposes and most overseas destinations required mandatory quarantine (Hall et al., 2020). In such a case, barriers related to cost and space are more salient than structural time for many prospective travelers.

Thirdly, this research verifies that gender plays a significant role with regard to perception of travel constraints and travel decision making. By conducting multigroup analysis (MGA), it is found that gender moderates the positive association between structural cost and intrapersonal constraints, and the negative association between intrapersonal constraints and travel intentions. Comparatively, females perceived cost as a main structural constraints influencing their inner psychological attributes toward travel (i.e., intrapersonal constraints), and males perceived intrapersonal constraints as a dominant factor determining their travel intentions. Interestingly, intrapersonal constraints do not negatively influence travel intentions among females, which may be attributed to the fact that some consumers are likely to make purchase decisions mainly based on their attitudinal evaluations (Long et al., 2022b). Specifically, Uatay et al. (2019) found that intrapersonal constraints affect travel intentions via attitude for female travelers. There are no significant differences across gender concerning other proposed relationship of the research. These findings contradict some previous studies, such as Jackson and Henderson (1995) who argue that males are very likely to be influenced by structural constraints and females are more concerned about interpersonal and intrapersonal constraints.

Meanwhile, this study confirms that it is important to comprehend travel decision making from a gender perspective (Yamashita and Hallmann, 2021) as human behaviors, to some extent, are framed by socially and culturally constructed gender roles (Kozak et al., 2007; Khan et al., 2019a; Long et al., 2022a). Therefore, prospective travelers may have different perceptions about travel constraints and the effects of travel constraints on travel intentions, which highlight the necessity to examine the effect of gender in travel decision making. Based on limited literature supports, the current research attests that gender moderates the process of tourism decision making with empirical evidence. Therefore, the study makes a notable contribution in attracting attention to gender gap in the tourism literature. Moreover, we appeal for further investigations into gender differences in travel behaviors.

Practical implications

As per the theoretical contributions aforementioned, this research offers a few practical implications to tourism policy makers, destination marketers and related businesses. The empirical findings suggest that the starting point of the travel negotiation process shifted from intrapersonal constraints to structural and interpersonal constraints in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; the latter two types of constraints impose indirect effects on travel intentions (mediated by intrapersonal constraints); and gender role influences how individuals perceive travel constraints. Therefore, it is significant to revisit the interplay of travel constraints, gender role and travel intentions amid the “new normal.”

Firstly, tourism policy makers and related stockholders are advised to collaborate for reducing external barriers to travel (i.e., cost and time). As a matter of fact, some destinations, such as Thailand and Singapore, have already removed PCR test requirements and eased mandatory quarantine for vaccinated travelers (Mandal, 2022). To minimize the negative impacts of structural constraints and boost quick tourism recovery, destinations may take further efforts to exempt vaccinated travelers with valid medical insurance from mandatory quarantine if they are from countries/regions with low COVID-19 cases. With a perception of low external barriers, individuals are more likely to travel again, especially travel abroad.

Secondly, tourism authorities, destination marketers, and related businesses should take effective measures to ensure travelers’ health and make them believe that it is safe to travel to the destination. The COVID-19 pandemic has arguably changed many people’s travel preferences and related behaviors (Wen et al., 2020). Prospective travelers may have more health concerns when they ponder whether they should travel and where to travel. Thus, solely reducing structural constraints (i.e., cost and time) is far from enough to restore individuals’ confidence in travel. Even if some prospective travelers do not have a chance to travel in the near future, their opinions, as a form of interpersonal constraints, may influence their family and friends’ travel behaviors. Without sufficient support or companionship, prospective travelers may feel anxious about travel and eventually give their travel plans (Chua et al., 2021).

Thirdly, destination marketers and tourism businesses should be aware of gendered differences with regard to perception of travel constraints and their effects on travel behaviors. Females are more concerned about structural cost and its effect on intrapersonal constraints is significant; and males are more concerned about intrapersonal constraints and its effect on travel intentions is significant. Based on these findings, destination marketers and tourism businesses may adjust their marketing strategies and travel products accordingly.

Limitation and future research

This research provides new insights on travel decision making amid the COVID-19 pandemic by revisiting the Leisure Constraints Model (LCM), but it has some limitations. Firstly, this study collected data from office workers of Klang valley by convenience sampling method, so it should be cautious to generalize the findings concerning tourists in other parts of Malaysia and the rest of the world. Future research is advised to collect data from different states/regions of Malaysia for improving data representativeness, and also examine whether there are significant differences among Malaysian tourists from different states/regions. Besides, future research is suggested to collect longitudinal data to compare if there are significant differences with regard to Malaysian tourists’ perception toward travel constraints and intentions to travel during and after the current global health crisis. Secondly, this study only examine the effects of travel constraints and gender role on travel intentions, but some other factors also have important effects on travel decision making, such as perceived risk (Aziz and Long, 2022), destination image (Caber et al., 2020), and crisis management (Rastegar et al., 2021). Thirdly, this study examines behavioral intentions rather than actual behaviors. It should be noted that people may not always behave in line with corresponding behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 2020). Thus, future research should expand the current research framework to actual travel behaviors.

Funding

This research is supported by UKM-GSB (project serial number: GSB-2021-009).

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

• 1

  AjzenI. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: frequently asked questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol.2, 314–324. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.195

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AzizA. N. (2018). The influence of coproduction’s factors and corporate image toward attitudinal loyalty: Islamic financial banking services delivery in Malaysia. J. Islam. Market.9, 421–438. doi: 10.1108/JIMA-10-2016-0080

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AzizN. A.LongF. (2022). To travel, or not to travel? The impacts of travel constraints and perceived travel risk on travel intention among Malaysian tourists amid the COVID-19. J. Consum. Behav.21, 352–362. doi: 10.1002/cb.2008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AzizA. N.MusaG.SulaimanA. (2010). The influence of travel motivations and social factors on travel web site usage among Malaysian travellers. Asian J. Bus. Account.3, 89–116.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BinggeliConstantinM.PollackC. (2020). COVID-19 tourism spend recovery in numbers. McKinsey & Company. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-infrastructure/our-insights/covid-19-tourism-spend-recovery-in-numbers

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  CaberM.González-RodríguezM. R.AlbayrakT.SimonettiB. (2020). Does perceived risk really matter in travel behaviour?J. Vacat. Mark.26, 334–353. doi: 10.1177/1356766720927762

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  ChenF.DaiS.XuH.AblizA. (2021). Senior’s travel constraint, negotiation strategy and travel intention: examining the role of social support. Int. J. Tour. Res.23, 363–377. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2412

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  ChinW. W. (2010). “How to write up and report PLS analyses,” in Handbook of Partial Least Squares. eds. Esposito VinziV.ChinW.HenselerJ.WangH. (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), 655–690.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  ChuaB. L.Al-AnsiA.LeeM. J.HanH. (2021). Impact of health risk perception on avoidance of international travel in the wake of a pandemic. Curr. Issue Tour.24, 985–1002. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1829570

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  ChurchillG. A.Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Mark. Res.16, 64–73. doi: 10.1177/002224377901600110

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  CrawfordD.GodbeyG. (1987). Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leis. Sci.9, 119–127. doi: 10.1080/01490408709512151

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  CrawfordD.JacksonE.GodbeyG. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leis. Sci.13, 309–320. doi: 10.1080/01490409109513147

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  De PascaleA.MeledduM.AbbateT.PellicanoM. (2022). Is there a gender gap in the propensity to travel of people with disabilities?. J. Travel Res. doi: 10.1177/00472875211073976 [Epub ahead of print].

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Department of Statistics Malaysia (2020). Household Income & Basic Amenities Survey Report 2019. Available at: https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=120&bul_id=TU00TmRhQ1N5TUxHVWN0T2VjbXJYZz09&menu_id=amVoWU54UTl0a21NWmdhMjFMMWcyZz09

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  DiamantopoulosA.SiguawJ. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration. Br. J. Manag.17, 263–282. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DillmanD. A. (2011). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method--2007 Update With New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  EaglyA. H.WoodW.DiekmanA. B. (2000). “Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: a current appraisal,” in The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender. eds. EckesT.TrautnerH. M. (New York: Psychology Press), 123–174.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  FredmanP.HeberleinT. A. (2005). Visits to the Swedish mountains: constraints and motivations. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour.5, 177–192. doi: 10.1080/15022250500266583

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  GodbeyG.CrawfordD. W.ShenX. S. (2010). Assessing hierarchical leisure constraints theory after two decades. J. Leis. Res.42, 111–134. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2010.11950197

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  GreenE.MitchellW.BuntonR. (2000). Contextualizing risk and danger: an analysis of young people’s perceptions of risk. J. Youth Stud.3, 109–126. doi: 10.1080/713684369

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  HairJ. F.ThomasG.HultM.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (2nd Edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  HallC. M.ScottD.GösslingS. (2020). Pandemics, transformations and tourism: be careful what you wish for. Tour. Geogr.22, 577–598. doi: 10.1080/14616688.2020.1759131

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  HassanS. B.SolimanM. (2021). COVID-19 and repeat visitation: assessing the role of destination social responsibility, destination reputation, holidaymakers’ trust and fear arousal. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.19:100495. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100495

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  HawkinsB. A.PengJ.HsiehC. M.EklundS. J. (1999). Leisure constraints: a replication and extension of construct development. Leis. Sci.21, 179–192. doi: 10.1080/014904099273066

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  HenselerJ.HubonaG.RayP. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.116, 2–20. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  HenselerJ.SarstedtM. (2013). Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Comput. Stat.28, 565–580. doi: 10.1007/s00180-012-0317-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  HuangS.van der VeenR. (2019). The moderation of gender and generation in the effects of perceived destination image on tourist attitude and visit intention: a study of potential Chinese visitors to Australia. J. Vacat. Mark.25, 375–389. doi: 10.1177/1356766718814077

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  HudsonS. (2000). The segmentation of potential tourists: constraint differences between men and women. J. Travel Res.38, 363–368. doi: 10.1177/004728750003800404

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  HughesK.WangJ.ShuM. (2015). Exploring the travel patterns, preferences and recommendations of Chinese university students living in Australia. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.23, 12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2015.03.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  HullandJ. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J.20, 195–204. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  HungK.PetrickJ. F. (2012). Testing the effects of congruity, travel constraints, and self-efficacy on travel intentions: an alternative decision-making model. Tour. Manag.33, 855–867. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.09.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  JacksonE. L. (1993). Recognizing patterns of leisure constraints: results from alternative analyses. J. Leis. Res.25, 129–149. doi: 10.1080/00222216.1993.11969914

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  JacksonE. L.DunnE. (1991). Is constrained leisure an internally homogeneous concept?Leis. Sci.13, 167–184. doi: 10.1080/01490409109513136

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  JacksonE. L.HendersonK. A. (1995). Gender-based analysis of leisure constraints. Leis. Sci.17, 31–51. doi: 10.1080/01490409509513241

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  JianY.LinJ.ZhouZ. (2021). The role of travel constraints in shaping nostalgia, destination attachment and revisit intentions and the moderating effect of prevention regulatory focus. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.19:100516. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100516

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  JinX.QuM.BaoJ. (2019). Impact of crisis events on Chinese outbound tourist flow: a framework for post-events growth. Tour. Manag.74, 334–344. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  KarlM.BauerA.RitchieW. B.PassauerM. (2020). The impact of travel constraints on travel decision-making: a comparative approach of travel frequencies and intended travel participation. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.18:100471. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100471

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  KarlM.SieL.RitchieB. W. (2022). Expanding travel constraint negotiation theory: an exploration of cognitive and behavioral constraint negotiation relationships. J. Travel Res.61, 762–785. doi: 10.1177/00472875211011547

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  KhanM. J.ChelliahS.AhmedS. (2019b). Intention to visit India among potential travellers: role of travel motivation, perceived travel risks, and travel constraints. Tour. Hosp. Res.19, 351–367. doi: 10.1177/1467358417751025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  KhanM. J.ChelliahS.KhanF.AminS. (2019a). Perceived risks, travel constraints and visit intention of young women travelers: the moderating role of travel motivation. Tour. Rev.74, 721–738. doi: 10.1108/TR-08-2018-0116

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  KockN.LynnG. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an illustration and recommendations. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst.13, 546–580. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00302

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  KockF.NørfeltA.JosiassenA.AssafA. G.TsionasM. G. (2020). Understanding the COVID-19 tourist psyche: the evolutionary tourism paradigm. Ann. Tour. Res.85:103053. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.103053

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  KoroniosK.TravlosA.DouvisJ.PapadopoulosA. (2020). Sport, media and actual consumption behavior: an examination of spectator motives and constraints for sport media consumption. Euro. Med. J. Bus.15, 151–166. doi: 10.1108/EMJB-10-2019-0130

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  KozakM.CrottsJ. C.LawR. (2007). The impact of the perception of risk on international travelers. Int. J. Tour. Res.9, 233–242. doi: 10.1002/jtr.607

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  LaiC.LiX.RobertHarrillR. (2013). Chinese outbound tourists’ perceived constraints to visiting the United States. Tour. Manag.37, 136–146. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.01.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  LiZ.ZhangS.LiuX.KozakM.WenJ. (2020). Seeing the invisible hand: underlying effects of COVID-19 on tourists’ behavioral patterns. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.18:100502. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100502

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  LongF.AzizN. A.NgahA. H. (2022a). Exploring the relationship between travel motivations and information sharing behaviors on social media: gendered differences of Chinese gen Y in a context of Confucianism. J. Chin. Tour. Res.1–21. doi: 10.1080/19388160.2022.2057377 [Epub ahead of print].

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  LongF.BhuiyanM.A.RahmanM.K.AzizN.A. (2022b). How CSR influences young Chinese consumers’ purchase decisions towards Western brands: the moderating effect of consumer ethnocentrism. Kybernetes doi: 10.1108/K-04-2022-0484 [Epub ahead of print].

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  LosadaN.AlénE.DomínguezT.NicolauJ. L. (2016). Travel frequency of seniors tourists. Tour. Manag.53, 88–95. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.09.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  MandalS. (2022). Thailand and Singapore lift test-quarantine rule, travel hopes brighten for Kolkatans. Telegraphindia. Available at: https://www.telegraphindia.com/my-kolkata/news/thailand-and-singapore-lift-test-quarantine-rule-travel-hopes-brighten-for-kolkatans/cid/1861878

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  MeiX. Y.LantaiT. (2018). Understanding travel constraints: an exploratory study of mainland Chinese international students (MCIS) in Norway. Tour. Manag. Perspect.28, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2018.07.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  NeuburgerL.EggerR. (2020). Travel risk perception and travel behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: a case study of the DACH region. Curr. Issue Tour.24, 1003–1016. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1803807

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  NyaupaneG. P.AndereckK. L. (2008). Understanding travel constraints: application and extension of a leisure constraints model. J. Travel Res.46, 433–439. doi: 10.1177/0047287507308325

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  PanT.ShuF.Kitterlin-LynchM.BeckmanE. (2021). Perceptions of cruise travel during the COVID-19 pandemic: market recovery strategies for cruise businesses in North America. Tour. Manag.85:104275. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104275

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  PodsakoffP. M.Mac KenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol.63, 539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  RasoolimaneshS. M.RingleC. M.JaafarM.RamayahT. (2017). Urban vs. rural destinations: Residents’ perceptions, community participation and support for tourism development. Tour. Manag.60, 147–158.

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  RasoolimaneshS. M.SeyfiS.RastegarR.HallC. M. (2021). Destination image during the COVID-19 pandemic and future travel behavior: the moderating role of past experience. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.21:100620. doi: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100620

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  RastegarR.SeyfiS.RasoolimaneshS. M. (2021). How COVID-19 case fatality rates have shaped perceptions and travel intention?J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.47, 353–364. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.04.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  RaymoreL. A.GodbeyG.CrawfordD. W.Von EyeA. (1993). Nature and process of leisure constraints: an empirical test. Leis. Sci.15, 99–113. doi: 10.1080/01490409309513191

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  ReinartzW.HaenleinM.HenselerJ. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. Int. J. Res. Mark.26, 332–344. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  ShinH.NicolauJ. L.KangJ.SharmaA.LeeH. (2022). Travel decision determinants during and after COVID-19: the role of tourist trust, travel constraints, and attitudinal factors. Tour. Manag.88:104428. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104428

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  TavakoliR.MuraP. (2021). “Muslim women travellers’ constraints: a critical review,” in Women in Tourism in Asian Muslim Countries. Perspectives on Asian Tourism. eds. Slak ValekN.AlmuhrziH. (Singapore: Springer)

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  UatayG.ReidE. L.LeeH. Y. (2019). The impact of female travelers’ travel constraints on attitude toward solo travel and travel intention. Culin. Sci. Hospital. Res.25, 102–110. doi: 10.20878/cshr.2019.25.9.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  WenJ.KozakM.YangS.LiuF. (2020). COVID-19: potential effects on Chinese citizens’ lifestyle and travel. Tour. Rev.76, 74–87. doi: 10.1108/TR-03-2020-0110

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  WongJ. Y.KuoC. Y. (2021). How Chinese students’ travel constraints influence their travel intentions in Thailand: moderating role of cross-cultural adaptation. Sustain. For.13:1665. doi: 10.3390/su13041665

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  WTTC (2020). To recovery & beyond: the future of travel & tourism in the wake of COVID-19. Availablae at: https://wttc.org/Research/To-Recovery-beyond

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  XieL.RitchieB. W. (2019). The motivation, constraint, behavior relationship: a holistic approach for understanding international student leisure travelers. J. Vacat. Mark.25, 111–129. doi: 10.1177/1356766717750421

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  YamashitaR.HallmannK. (2021). Interdependencies of structural constraints, attachment and behavioural intentions of sport spectators. Manag. Sport Leisure26, 287–300. doi: 10.1080/23750472.2020.1765845

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  YangE. C. L.NimriR.LaiM. Y. (2022). Uncovering the critical drivers of solo holiday attitudes and intentions. Tour. Manag. Perspect.41:100913. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100913

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  YangR.TungV. W. S. (2018). How does family influence the travel constraints of solo travelers? Construct specification and scale development. J. Travel Tour. Mark.35, 507–516. doi: 10.1080/10548408.2017.1363685

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar