Digitalization and sustainability: virtual reality tourism in a post pandemic world

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed research model.

Table 1. Variable descriptions.

Variable	Operational description
Environmental impact of touristic travel (EIT)	EIT represents individuals’ concerns and worries associated with the adverse impact of their touristic travel on the environment in terms of waste generated, emissions and global warming. Broadly, it spans the concern individuals have about the ecological footprint of their touristic travel and the negative effect it has on sustainability goals.
Pandemic travel anxiety (PTA)	PTA is an expression of the anxiety, worry and fear that individuals have about undertaking touristic travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These fears and anxieties are related to crowded destinations, modes of travel, the need for precautionary measures before travelling, the need to avoid people while travelling, safety and risk to life.
Attitude towards VR tourism (AVT)	AVT represents individuals’ favourable cognitive assessment of VR tourism in terms of its ability to protect the environment at tourist destinations and its ability to protect them against exposure to and the spread of COVID-19 infection by helping them to maintain social distance. Individuals also perceive VR tourism as a mode of touristic travel that protects them from being stranded at a tourist destination due to COVID-19 related lockdowns.
Eco-guilt (EGT)	EGT captures the guilt that individuals harbour regarding the negative impact of their touristic travel. This affective internal state, which arises despite the pleasure and enjoyment individuals derive from travel, stems primarily from their assessment of the adverse impact that their touristic travel has in general and, in particular, on the environment in terms of pollution and sustainability issues. EGT also represents the remorse and mortification travellers experience when they engage in less environmentally friendly behaviour for touristic pleasure.
Willingness to forgo pleasure of in-situ tourism (WFP)	WFP extrapolates the well-researched concept of an individual’s willingness to make economic sacrifices to the concept of an individual’s willingness to make hedonic sacrifices for the sake of the environment. It is operationalised as the willingness of individuals to forgo the enjoyment of touristic travel and instead undertake VR tourism to protect the environment, support sustainability initiatives and reduce pollution. In sum, it represents the willingness to sacrifice self-interest when faced with environmental dilemmas.
Post-pandemic VR tourism continuance intentions (PVI)	PVI refers to the intent and willingness of individuals to continue undertaking VR tourism even after they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.
Mediators	Willingness to forgo the pleasure of in-situ tourism.
Moderators	(a) Travel mode is measured as a dichotomous categorical variable, which consists of two groups: solo or group traveller.(b) COVID-19 vaccination status is measured as a categoricalvariable with three levels: no vaccination/single shot/fully vaccinated.
Controls	Age, gender, educational background and household size.Age, educational background and household size are measured as ordinal variables and coded using sequential numbers. Gender is measured as a binary variable and coded (0, 1)

Table 2. Socio-demographic profile of respondents.

Variable	Percentage	Frequency
Gender
Female	32.9	118
Male	67.1	241
Age group
Below 20 years	0.3	1
21–25 years	7.2	26
26–30 years	24.8	89
31–35 years	32.3	116
36–40 years	20.6	74
41–45 years	8.6	31
46–50 years	6.1	22
Household size
Live alone	16.2	58
2 members	30.1	108
3 members	24.5	88
4 members	19.5	70
5 members	7.8	28
More than 5 members	1.9	7
Children
Don’t have children	57.7	207
1 child	17.8	64
2 children	16.7	60
3 children	7.2	26
More than 3 children	0.6	2
Educational background
High school	13.1	47
College	15.6	56
Professional degree	4.2	15
Bachelor’s	42.1	151
Master’s	20.3	73
Doctorate	4.7	17
Tourism destination preference
Domestic	48.2	173
International	51.8	186
Travel mode
Solo	39.8	143
Group	60.2	216
COVID-19 infection status
Infected	88.6	318
Not infected	11.4	41
COVID-19 vaccination status
Not vaccinated	46.2	166
Taken one shot	25.3	91
Fully vaccinated	28.4	102

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

		Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1	Age	4.16	1.28	1
2	Gender	1.33	0.47	0.02	1
3	Household size	2.79	1.26	0.11*	0.01	1
4	Educational background	3.55	1.43	0.04	0.00	−0.01	1
5	Travel mode	1.60	0.49	−0.08	0.12*	−0.16**	0.01	1
6	Vaccination status	1.82	0.85	−0.01	0.00	−0.04	0.11*	0.05	1
7	EIT	3.14	1.18	0.03	0.09	0.04	0.08	−0.07	0.10	1
8	PTA	3.82	1.13	0.05	0.03	0.06	0.07	0.01	0.15**	0.30**	1
9	AVT	3.56	1.14	0.05	0.07	0.07	0.02	−0.02	−0.09	0.26**	0.50**	1
10	EGT	2.53	1.16	−0.03	0.08	0.10*	−0.01	0.04	0.12*	0.74**	0.36**	0.35**	1
11	WFP	2.99	1.29	0.00	−0.01	0.16**	0.00	−0.07	−0.10	0.49**	0.34**	0.60**	0.55**	1
12	PVI	2.86	1.18	0.17**	−0.03	0.13*	0.04	−0.01	−0.14**	0.33**	0.32**	0.59**	0.41**	0.71**	1

Environmental impact of touristic travel (EIT), Pandemic travel anxiety (PTA), Attitude towards VR tourism (AVT), Eco-guilt (EGT),.

Willingness to forgo the pleasure of in-situ tourism (WFP), Post-pandemic VR tourism continuance intentions (PVI).

Table 4. Factor loadings.

Study measures (Reference)	Measurement items	CFA	SEM
Environmental impact of touristic travel (EIT)	EIT 1: I am concerned about global warming due to my touristic travel.	.81	.81
	EIT 2: I am concerned about my own ecological footprint due to my touristic travel.	.82	.82
	EIT 3: I am worried about the negative impact of touristic travel on the environment.	.87	.87
	EIT 4: I am worried about the impact of emissions caused by my touristic travel.	.91	.91
	EIT 5: I am concerned about the negative effect of touristic travel on sustainability goals.	.89	.89
	EIT 6: I am worried about the waste generated due to touristic travel.	.86	.86
Pandemic travel anxiety (PTA)	PTA 1: I am anxious about touristic travelling to crowded destinations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.	.91	.91
	PTA 2: The COVID-19 pandemic makes me worry a lot about my normal ways of touristic travelling.	.90	.90
	PTA 3: The COVID-19 pandemic makes me think a lot about taking precautionary measures before touristic travelling.	.86	.86
	PTA 4: Avoiding people when I undertake touristic travel is frequently on my mind due to the COVID-19 pandemic.	.87	.87
	PTA 5: I am afraid to risk my life when I undertake touristic travel because of the COVID-19 pandemic.	.82	.82
	PTA 6: I do not feel safe undertaking touristic travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic.	.80	.80
Attitude towards VR tourism (AVT)	AVT 1: VR tourism is essential since it helps protect the environment at tourist destinations.	.79	.79
	AVT 2: VR tourism is essential since it protects me from exposure to COVID-19 infection.	.92	.92
	AVT 3: VR tourism is essential since it helps me reduce the spread of COVID-19 infection.	.91	.91
	AVT 4: VR tourism is essential since it helps me maintain social distance.	.92	.92
	AVT 5: VR tourism is essential since it protects me from getting stuck at a tourist destination due to COVID-19 related lockdowns.	.85	.85
Eco-guilt (EGT)	EGT 1: I feel guilty about undertaking touristic travel despite its pleasure and enjoyment.	.79	.79
	EGT 2: I feel guilty about undertaking touristic travel since it causes so much pollution	.93	.93
	EGT 3: I feel guilty about the sustainability issues associated with my behaviour during touristic travel.	.93	.93
	EGT 4: I feel guilty about my less environmentally friendly ways while enjoying a tourist destination.	.93	.93
	EGT 5: I feel guilty about the generally negative impact of travelling for tourism.	.88	.88
	EGT 6: I feel guilty about behaving in non-green ways for touristic pleasure, given the public discourse in that regard in recent years.	.91	.91
Willingness to forgo the pleasure of in-situ tourism (WFP)	WFP 1: I am willing to forgo the enjoyment of touristic travel and instead undertake VR tourism to protect the environment.	.95	.95
	WFP 2: I am willing to forgo the enjoyment of touristic travel and instead undertake VR tourism to support sustainability initiatives.	.96	.96
	WFP 3: I am willing to forgo the enjoyment of touristic travel and instead undertake VR tourism to reduce pollution.	.95	.95
Post-pandemic VR tourism continuance intentions (PVI)	PVI 1: I will undertake VR tourism even after I am fully vaccinated against COVID-19.	.90	.90
	PVI 2: I will undertake VR tourism even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.	.95	.95
	PVI 3: I will frequently undertake VR tourism even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.	.86	.86
	PVI 4: I am willing to undertake VR tourism even after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.	.84	.84
	PVI 5: If I feel like travelling for tourism purposes after the COVID-19 pandemic, I will first think of undertaking VR tourism.	.75	.75
	PVI 6: I want to undertake VR tourism after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.	.88	.88

Table 5. Validity, reliability and Cronbach’s alpha.

	α	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	PVI	EIT	PTA	AVT	EGT	WFP
PVI	0.95	0.95	0.75	0.53	0.25	0.87
EIT	0.95	0.95	0.74	0.61	0.23	0.33	0.86
PTA	0.94	0.94	0.74	0.29	0.15	0.31	0.33	0.86
AVT	0.94	0.94	0.77	0.36	0.23	0.58	0.25	0.54	0.88
EGT	0.96	0.96	0.80	0.61	0.27	0.41	0.78	0.36	0.34	0.90
WFP	0.97	0.97	0.91	0.53	0.32	0.73	0.50	0.35	0.60	0.56	0.96

Environmental impact of touristic travel (EIT), Pandemic travel anxiety (PTA), Attitude towards VR tourism (AVT), Eco-guilt (EGT).

Willingness to forgo the pleasure of in-situ tourism (WFP), Post-pandemic VR tourism continuance intentions (PVI).

The bold-faced values represent the square root of AVE.

Table 6. HTMT analysis.

	EIT	PTA	AVT	EGT	WFP	PVI
EIT
PTA	0.32
AVT	0.28	0.53
EGT	0.78	0.38	0.37
WFP	0.51	0.36	0.63	0.57
PVI	0.35	0.34	0.63	0.43	0.74

Figure 2. Results of hypotheses testing.

Table 7. Results of mediation analysis.

AVT → WFP → PVI
	β	se	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
AVT → WFP	.67	.05	14.01	.00	.5791	.7682
AVT → PVI	.27	.05	5.87	.00	.1794	.3600
WFP → PVI	.51	.04	12.59	.00	.4310	.5906
Total effect of AVT → PVI	.61	.04	13.87	.00	.5268	.7009
EGT → WFP → PVI
	β	se	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
EGT → WFP	.61	.05	12.34	.00	.5109	.7045
EGT → PVI	.03	.05	.60	.55	-.0618	.1164
WFP → PVI	.64	.04	15.68	.00	.5592	.7196
Total effect of EGT → PVI	.42	.05	8.45	.00	.3190	.5127

Table 8. Indirect effects between dependent and independent variable.

	Effect	se	LLCI	ULCI
AVT → WFP → PVI	.34	.04	.2751	.4208
EGT → WFP → PVI	.39	.04	.3043	.4830

Figure 3. Moderation effect of travel mode (Solo versus group).

Table 9. Results of moderation analysis.

Travel mode
	β	t	p	LLCI	ULCI	R^2Δ	p	Moderation?
EIT → AVT	.06	.58	.56	−.1387	.2548	.0004	.710	No
EIT → EGT	.13	1.82	.07	−.0105	.2650	.091	.041	Yes
PTA → AVT	−.08	−.86	.39	−.2724	.1064	.001	.732	No
PTA → EGT	−.06	−.53	.60	−.2641	.1522	.000	.633	No
Vaccination status
	Β	t	p	LLCI	ULCI	R^2Δ	R^2Δ p	Moderation?
EIT → AVT	−.05	−.91	.36	−.1707	.0624	.001	.541	No
EIT → EGT	.02	.55	.58	−.0599	.1064	.000	.924	No
PTA → AVT	.00	.05	.96	−.1069	.1122	.004	.214	No
PTA → EGT	−.08	−1.36	.18	−.2060	.0377	.000	.544	No