Measuring Risk Perception and Risk Compensation among Local Residents toward COVID-19 in the Tourism Sandbox Islands: Comparative Evidence from the Phuket Sandbox and Samui Plus Model in Thailand

UDC: 
614.7;316.472
DOI: 
10.21668/health.risk/2024.3.10.eng
Authors: 

P. Pholphirul

Organization: 

King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang International Demonstration School, 1 Chalong Krung Road, Ladkrabang, Bangkok, 10520, Thailand

Abstract: 

Since Thailand is a tourism-dependent country, its economy suffered tremendously during the COVID-19 lockdown. In a pioneering effort to re-open the country, two islands (Phuket and Koh Samui) began to welcome fully vaccinated international visitors in July 2021 under the “Phuket Sandbox”1 and “Samui Plus Model.” Even though the sandbox programs were found to create more income and some benefits for tourism businesses, they also generated concern among local people about contracting such an infectious disease as COVID-19.

The aim of this study was to measure perception of COVID-19 infection among local residents due to contacts with in-ternational tourists.
Using secondary data from a survey of 400 local residents living on the two islands, monetary compensation under the contingent valuation methods (CVM) and risk perception scale of 0–10 were analyzed to get an indication of the level of local residents’ risk perception toward COVID-19 possibly being transmitted by international tourists.

Our results show that the risk perception was found to be higher among those who believed that the coronavirus could possibly result in death. Older individuals, especially females, and those with higher incomes seemed to have a higher risk perception. Residents who were working in the tourism sector were found to have a lower risk level than those who were working in other branches.

There were also discordances in terms of education level and risk perception between residents in two islands. The paper suggests that awareness of residents’ risk perception and effective communication regarding such risk perception should be put in place to ensure appropriate practices that affect local residents in such sandbox areas in the future.

Keywords: 
risk perception, contingent valuation method, tourism sandbox, local residents, COVID-19, Thailand
Pholphirul P. Measuring Risk Perception and Risk Compensation among Local Residents toward COVID-19 in the Tourism Sandbox Islands: Comparative Evidence from the Phuket Sandbox and Samui Plus Model in Thailand. Health Risk Analysis, 2024, no. 3, pp. 89–103. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2024.3.10.eng
References: 
  1. An updated assessment of the economic impact of COVID-19. ADB Briefs, no. 133. Manila, Asian Development Bank, 2020, 16 p.
  2. McKibbin W.J., Fernando R. The global macroeconomic impacts of COVID-19: Seven scenarios. CAMA Working Papers, 2020, no. 19. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3547729
  3. Wren-Lewis S. The economic effects of a pandemic. In book: Economics in the Time of COVID-19. In: R. Baldwin, B.W. Di Mauro eds. London, CEPR Press Publ., 2020.
  4. Adams-Prassl A., Boneva T., Golina M., Rauh C. Inequality in the impact of the Coronavirus shock: Evidence from real time surveys. Journal of Public Economics, 2020, vol. 189, no. 13183, pp. 104245. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104245
  5. Fana M., Pérez S.T., Fernández-Macías E. Employment impact of Covid-19 crisis: From short term effects to long terms prospects. J. Ind. Bus. Econ., 2020, vol. 47, pp. 391–410. DOI: 10.1007/s40812-020-00168-5
  6. Crossley T.F., Fisher P., Low H. The heterogeneous and regressive consequences of COVID-19: Evidence from high quality panel data. J. Public Econ., 2021, vol. 193, pp. 104334. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104334
  7. Laborde D., Martin W., Vos R. Impacts of COVID-19 on global poverty, food security and diets: Insights from Global Model Scenario Analysis. Agric. Econ., 2021, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 375–390. DOI: 10.1111/agec.12624
  8. Palomino J.C., Rodríguez J.G., Sebastian R. Wage inequality and poverty effects of lockdown and social distancing in Europe. Eur. Econ. Rev., 2020, vol. 129, pp. 103564. DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103564
  9. Sudsawasd S., Charoensedtasin T., Laksanapanyakul N., Pholphirul P. Modelling the overall impacts of COVID-19 on the Thai economy. Cogent Economics and Finance, 2023, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 2242171. DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2023.2242171
  10. Monitoring the impact of COVID-19 in Thailand. Bangkok, World Bank, 2021.
  11. Rukumnuaykit P., Pholphirul P., Kwanyou A. Business survival in times of COVID-19: Empirical evidence from tourism enterprises in Thailand. Global Business Review, 2022. DOI: 10.1177/09721509221116002
  12. Oxford Policy Management and United Nations. Social Impact Assessment of COVID-19 in Thailand. Oxford, Oxford Policy Management Limited Publ., 2020.
  13. Sjöberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal., 2000, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–11.
  14. Brug J., Aro A.R., Richardus J.H. Risk perceptions and behavior: Towards pandemic control of emerging infectious diseases. Int. J. Behav. Med., 2009, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3–6. DOI: 10.1007/s12529-008-9000-x
  15. Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Sarr B. Effect of salient role models on the motivation to undergo screening for diseases that disproportionately affect African Americans. Journal of Health Psychology, 2010, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 825–835.
  16. Myers T.A., Goodbye M.C. Objective and subjective knowledge indicators: Their impact on perceived risk of sexually transmitted infections. Journal of Health Communication, 2010, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 762–775.
  17. Smith T.C., Frank E., Schneider M., Nadig S., Smith B., White D., Amon J., Pagac D., Phillips C. Type of medical school and student perceptions of the quality of their medical education in the United States. Academic Medicine, 2018, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 280.
  18. Berkman N.D., Sheridan S.L., Donahue K.E., Halpern D.J., Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: An updated systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med., 2011, vol. 155, no. 2, pp. 97–107. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005
  19. Van Der Weerd W., Timmermans D.R., Beaujean D.J., Oudhoff J., van Steenbergen J.E. Monitoring the level of gov-ernment trust, risk perception and intention of the general public to adopt protective measures during the influenza: A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health, 2011, vol. 11, pp. 575. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-575
  20. Klein S.L., Flanagan K.L. Sex differences in immune responses. Nat. Rev. Immunol., 2016, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 626–638. DOI: 10.1038/nri.2016.90
  21. Bertakis K.D., Azari R., Helms L.J., Callahan E.J., Robbins J.A. Gender differences in the utilization of health care services. J. Fam. Pract., 2000, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 147–152.
  22. Addis M.E., Mahalik J.R. Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. Am. Psychol., 2003, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 5–14. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066x.58.1.5
  23. Renahy E., Parizot I., Chauvin P. Health information seeking on the Internet: A double divide? Results from a representative survey in the Paris metropolitan area, France, 2005–2006. BMC Public Health, 2008, vol. 8, pp. 69. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-69
  24. Leppin A., Aro A.R. Risk perceptions related to SARS and avian influenza: Theoretical foundations of current empirical research. Int. J. Behav. Med., 2009, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 7–29. DOI: 10.1007/s12529-008-9002-8
  25. Al-Rasheed M. Public risk perception of COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 2020, vol. 13, pp. 733–742.
  26. Dryhurst S., Schneider C.R., Kerr J., Freeman A.L.J., Recchia G., van der Bles A.M., Spiegelhalter D., van der Linden S. Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. Journal of Risk Research, 2020, vol. 23, no. 7–8, pp. 994–1006. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1758193
  27. Harper C.A., Satchell L.P., Fido D., Latzman R.D. Functional fear predicts public health compliance in the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict., 2020, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1875–1888. DOI: 10.1007/s11469-020-00281-5
  28. Nicola M., Alsafi Z., Sohrabi C., Kerwan A., Al-Jabir A., Iosifidis C., Agha M., Agha R. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. Int. J. Surg., 2020, vol. 78, pp. 185–193. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018
  29. Gössling S., Scott D., Hall C.M. Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2020, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
  30. Phuong T.N.T., Nguyen N.T.K., Tran T.V.A. Tourism stakeholders’ perceptions of COVID-19 pandemic impact and recovery policies in a developing island destination. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2021, vol. 19, pp. 100528.
  31. Abbas J., Mubeen R., Terhemba Iorember P., Raza S., Mamirkulova G. Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on tourism: Transformational potential and implications for a sustainable recovery of the travel and leisure industry. Curr. Res. Behav. Sci., 2021, vol. 2, pp. 100033. DOI: 10.1016/j.crbeha.2021.100033
  32. Coombs W.T., Holladay S.J., Frandsen F. COVID-19 communication as community: Thoughts on accountability, credibility, and transparency. Public Relations Review, 2021, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 101989
  33. Mowforth M., Munt I. Tourism and sustainability: Development, globalization and new tourism in the third world. UK, Routledge Publ., 2020.
  34. Whitehead J.C., Haab T.C. Contingent valuation method. Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics, 2013, vol. 3, pp. 331–341.
  35. Diener E., Wirtz D., Biswas-Diener R., Tov W., Kim-Prieto C., Choi D., Oishi S. New Measures of Well-Being. In book: Assessing Well-Being: The Collected Works of Ed Diener. Social Indicators Research Series, 2009, vol. 39, pp. 247–266. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_12
  36. Taghrir M.H., Borazjani R., Shiraly R. COVID-19 and Iranian medical students; A survey on their related-knowledge, preventive behaviors and risk perception. Arch. Iran. Med., 2020, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 249–254. DOI: 10.34172/aim.2020.06
  37. Lanciano T., Graziano G., Curci A., Costadura S., Monaco A. Risk perceptions and psychological effects during the Italian COVID-19 Emergency. Front. Psychol., 2020, vol. 11, pp. 580053. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580053
Received: 
17.05.2024
Approved: 
17.09.2024
Accepted for publication: 
20.09.2024

You are here

Home