The concept of TDC is based on the rational tourist behavior, which comprises understanding the destination choice and eliminating the alternatives because of some non-psychological and socio-psychological aspects (Saito and Strehlau, 2018). It represents the aspirations of the latter for a certain action in a specific situation and could be implemented as the possibility of intention (Lai et al., 2018; Pan et al., 2021). When there is an incentive to have an intention, purpose leads to actions; it can provide the greatest indicator of behavior (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Researchers (Kim and Richardson, 2003) suggest that the picture of a destination influences tourism-related attitudes by reinforcing current attitudes, forming new attitudes, or changing attitudes. Likewise, Phillips and Jang (2008) have found that perception of a tourist of a destination can affect their attitude toward such a destination.

On the contrary, according to Hsu et al. (2009), various variables affect preference of destination of the tourists, including cultural accessibility, geographical location, natural encounters, personal protection, and entertainment attractions. When deciding where to go, safety and protection were regularly rated as the least significant aspect (Lu, 2019). This was expressed in the hospitality and tourism study, which focused on protecting tourist destination selection/choice. Residents, elected officials, and representatives of the restaurant industry in New Orleans increasingly voiced anxiety about community protection. They witnessed a decline in tourism market volume because of the growth rate of the city of violent crime (Sirakaya et al., 1997). Lu (2019) investigated whether the extent of perceived safety and support would influence the final decision to holiday at a specific location.

Tourist perceptions of safety is focused on a holistic assessment of security of the destination, including the expected level of safety for the physical self and personal property. In some way, TPS is perceived safety picture of a destination. Hence, TPS has been described as an influencing factor affecting travel decision-making procedures of tourists, significantly affecting satisfaction, confidence/trust, and revisit intentions. Furthermore, tourists develop safety judgments based on the variety of safety sources to which they are attracted (Seabra et al., 2013; Su et al., 2021); e.g., contacts between tourists and residents, natural environments, facilities and equipment, public security systems, and so on. Hence, this research conceptualized TPS as a multidimensional construct consisting of humans, facilities and equipment, environments, and management and the dimensions of tourist perceived safety.

According to Xie et al. (2021), PSSE means perceptions of environmental factors and safety assessments of destinations. They are the well-articulated optimistic environmental factors that support regular tourism operation. The natural world and the social-cultural background are divided into two sections. While their features and origins vary, information regarding protection issues in natural ecosystems and individual cultures positively affects TDC.

Politics, economies, history, and local populations also contribute to the socio-cultural framework, an urban structure formed through human social practices. Political unrest (Gartner and Shen, 1992), economic instability (Alegre et al., 2013), and foreign terrorism form travel protection perceptions at a macro stage, increasing the psychological pressure on visitors in unknown environments (Jenkin, 2006). People who have already arrived at their destinations might be a little more worried about certain threats and shape individualized safety expectations based on local knowledge about orderliness, disputes, and food safety. Tourists, according to Ryan (2013), are “displaced” people who ignore their usual responsibilities and are more vulnerable in new environments (Eitzinger and Wiedemann, 2008). Theft, burglary, misunderstandings, or violations of road laws resulting in traffic accidents can occur. As a result, they are more worried regarding public safety and travel statistics (Choocharukul and Sriroongvikrai, 2017). In terms of travel options and interactions, the consistency of food service and the selection of various rates play a significant role (Sheldon and Fox, 1988). Food protection and local hygiene practices are important factors in destination selection and safety expectations (Lee et al., 2019). In addition, when shopping, another important aspect of customer experience assessments is safety (Yuksel, 2004). Therefore, this research hypothesizes:

The PSFEs refers to perception of the facilities, safety assessments, and equipment within destinations (Xie et al., 2021). They are a demonstrable group of constructive facility and equipment factors that help to promote regular tourism operation. Destination services and equipment should be reviewed, checked, maintained, and upgraded regularly. Furthermore, the proper matching of products and services to individual visitors improves protection (Bentley et al., 2001).

The reliable and secure running of equipment and facilities is critical for visitors who have already arrived at their venue. People are worried about the safety conditions of specific services and appliances in hotels. When choosing a hotel, fire suppression devices, safety lighting systems, automatic door controls, food protection, and safety checking are also critical considerations (Chan and Lam, 2013).

Furthermore, people with disabilities have higher safety standards and preferences regarding mobility, assistive technology, and specialized facilities (Tutuncu, 2017). High-risk activities such as whitewater rafting, mountain and rock climbing, hang gliding, and skydiving require safety. These are heavily reliant on the protective success of vehicles and services and those that accompany them in adventure travel. Mistakes in these areas result in injuries, giving destinations and providers a bad reputation for protection. Adding risk alert devices improves destination and employee protection expectations by efficiently communicating the degrees of threat and acceptable activities (Rittichainuwat, 2013). Therefore, this research hypothesizes:

The PSHEs refers to perceptions of individual behavior and safety assessments in the tourism context (Xie et al., 2021). It is a measurable collection of optimistic human characteristics linked to regular tourism behavior. This involves the behavior of tour guides, tourist destinations, locals, fellow travelers, and tourists. Differences in gender, age, perceived risk, risk-related capabilities, and prior experience can cause differences in the handling of destination safety information (Fourie et al., 2020). Misconduct, e.g., is a frequent occurrence in travel groups. This might contribute to verbal and physical abuse, bribery, fraud, and robbery, all of which interrupt source and a destination and degrade travel experiences, often resulting in accidents or the loss of personal assets (Tsaur et al., 2019). Furthermore, low service quality, high perishability, and inseparability of facilities worsen the dangers of tourism (Qin et al., 2021). In addition, relational unity (positive feelings for one another) of the citizens reinforces the sense of protection (Woosnam et al., 2015). Therefore, this research hypothesizes:

The PSMEs represent the perception of tourism safety management policies, safety assessments and actions, and related aspects at the organizational or managerial levels (Xie et al., 2021). They are examples of good management that promotes regular tourism events. Moreover, aspects such as protection infrastructure elements (Becken and Hughey, 2013) (security institutions, evacuation plans) and also behavioral safety elements (safety records, police, as well as emergency rescue services) need to be implemented by destinations (Gurtner, 2016). These management structures can be encountered at the destination and could be affecting views of people of protection of management. For example, many nations, including the United Kingdom, and Spain, have enacted safety laws to prevent accidents and deaths associated with diving tourism and coastal events (Coxon, 2006). Government protection programs, such as alerts, crisis prevention, and disaster response strategies, improve perceptions of safety of the tourists and help boost visitor interest during or after a crisis (Gurtner, 2016). According to Rittichainuwat (2013), inbound views of tourists of beach protection are based on the provision of an emergency response plan and a tsunami evacuation scheme (Rittichainuwat, 2013). In addition, several famous tourist attractions (such as South Korea and Turkey) have set up separate tourism policy divisions to comply with security concerns. Tourist protection standards and views of destinations are heavily influenced by police culture or service quality (Sharma et al., 2016). In general, tourism business protection monitoring such as preflight safety alerts on airlines (Lee et al., 2018), hotel security, safety services (Chan and Lam, 2013), and visitor attraction disaster management strategies (Rittichainuwat, 2013), enhances destination safety expectations. As a result, PSME explain the safety standards and attitudes of corporate safety activities of destinations. Therefore, this research hypothesizes:

The PSNEs relates to physical elements such as water reservoirs, mountains, trees, animals, and the atmosphere that make up the natural ecosystem (Xie et al., 2021). They serve as an attraction basis for resort construction and contain the knowledge to determine safety overall risk. Places to visit with high-quality and iconic natural environments such as pristine beaches, breathtaking scenery, and unique flora and fauna (Hosany et al., 2007), enable tourists to feel self-satisfied and comfortable, and enjoy themselves. Volcanoes and previous natural hazard sites are examples of areas vulnerable to natural disasters. People develop their first safety evaluations about these locations based on news reports and other evidence available, and their expectations of safety are shaped as a result (Rittichainuwat, 2013; Poon and Koay, 2021). Climate-sensitive locations are diverse and complex (Scott and Lemieux, 2010), and can influence experiences of the travelers differently. Extreme weather events (rising ocean levels, high temperatures) are becoming more common because of the climate change, which will have a detrimental effect on travel plans and expectations of comfort and protection (Hübner and Gössling, 2012; Robina-Ramírez et al., 2021). Global warming is a critical factor that presents threats to visitors and resorts so it must be addressed. Furthermore, destinations in or around desert areas pose a greater risk of damage and personal injuries, with individuals becoming more prone to suffer from heatstroke, hypothermia, or being lost (Eitzinger and Wiedemann, 2008). Therefore, this research hypothesizes:

Trust has been described in the tourism literature as the dependability and credibility of important components associated with perceptions of destinations of the tourists (Artigas et al., 2017). Related to tourism literature, the concept of trust started to be examined in the late 1990s (Crotts et al., 1998). Still, most of the experiments were collaborative and use trust concepts from sociology and psychology (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). With recent cases of trust crises in the tourism industry such as unfair or unethical treatment by travel agencies (Chang, 2014) and hotels failing to deliver the premium service promised (Lien et al., 2015), to mention a few, the definition of TT has now become a major topic among academics and practitioners, and further investigations have been conducted.

Tourist faith/trust is intricately linked to profile of a destination. The brand of a tourist destination is seriously harmed if it is seen as distrustful, rendering it dangerous to visit. It is fair to assume that visitors who are dissatisfied with the destinations because of the experience they see and discover at the place will be guided by these experiences when building their trust structure (Williams and Baláž, 2013). Consequently, trust crisis events cause visitors to be concerned about their safety and potential dangers, and a negative impression of the destination is created in their perceptions (Chew and Jahari, 2014).

Many researchers in the tourism sector have shown that TT/confidence has a huge impact on destination choice of a traveler. For instance, according to Lepp et al. (2011), many of the documented travel risks in Africa, including a high-murder rate, unsafe food, and unwelcoming hosts, have severely harmed it as a destination choice. Furthermore, as Chew and Jahari (2014) demonstrated, Fukushima nuclear disaster of Japan in 2011 caused concerns of radioactive poisoning and polluted food and air, negatively impacting reputation of the country as a tourist destination. Put simply, destination trust ensures that tourists who want to visit a specific destination can receive services that are straightforward, dependable, risk-free, and hassle-free (Roodurmun and Juwaheer, 2010). Destination trust/confidence, according to Abubakar and Ilkan (2016), relates to readiness of a visitor to trust capacity of a tour destination to fulfill its advertised functions.

Williams and Baláž (2021) contend that trust of tourists’ in safety management of a tourist location is essential when estimating vacation risks. When tourists trust safety and protection of a destination point, their perceived danger could be lower. Negative knowledge about a visitor destination’s protection has a more significant influence on mistrust than positive information about travel safety has on trust, according to empirical findings for the asymmetry theory of trust specifically, and for a skepticism bias concerning uncertainty knowledge in general (Eitzinger and Wiedemann, 2008). In other words, disclosing the absence of appropriate security measures and circumstances (negative information) can lead to a far higher level of mistrust in safety management of a destination country than disclosing the existence of acceptable safety precautions and circumstances (positive information).

Therefore, this study has the following proposition:

Figure 1 shows study conceptual framework.

Perceived safety of human elements has five items with 0.862 Cronbach’α, PSFEs has five items with Cronbach’α = 0.882, PSSE has five items with Cronbach’α = 0.871, PSNEs has three items with Cronbach’α = 0.865 and PSMEs also has five items with Cronbach’α = 0.852 all were developed by Zhang et al. (2020). TT has six items with 0.87 Cronbach’α developed by Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold (2011). Furthermore, TDC has six items with Cronbach’α 0.87 developed by Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold (2011).

Factor loading, composite reliability CR, and average variance extracted (AVE) were used in the first part of the study (Hair et al., 2016). Factor lodgings will be greater than 0.5, and all items below 0.5 should be eliminated (Hair et al., 2016). The rule of thumb proposed by George and Mallery (2003) is that meaning of 0.7 is appropriate. In addition, the CR will be greater than 0.7. Moreover, AVE must be greater than or equivalent to 0.5 to obtain convergent validity and internal consistency. The findings of the calculation model evaluation are seen in Table 1. All the values are well beyond reasonable limits. Factor loading is greater than 0.7, and CR is also greater than 0.7. In addition, AVE is greater than 0.5, indicating convergent validity. Furthermore, Figure 2 shows the pictorial presentation of measurement assessment model (Figure 2).

The square root of AVE and cross-loadings is used to achieve discriminant validity. Following orders of Chin, cross-loadings were investigated (Chin, 1998). Following orders of Fornell and Larcker (1981), the square root of average variance was extracted and analyzed. Table 2 shows the discriminant validity between constructs and Table 3 displays the variance explained (R²) in endogenous variables. In addition to hypotheses testing, the value of R² of TDC is 0.285 is explained, and TT is IVs explained 48%. The value of R adjusted of TDC is 0.283, and TT is 0.453.

The measurement of hypotheses was the focus of the second part of the study. Direct and mediation hypotheses are used. First, as seen in Table 4, direct hypotheses have been examined. A p-value of 1.96 was used to endorse or refute the hypotheses. Both partnerships with a t-value less than 1.96 would be refused, whereas any with a t-value greater than 1.96 (t-value > 1.96) should be approved. Table 4 indicates that all of the relationships have a t-value greater than 1.96, indicating meaningful. As a result, the direct hypotheses have been accepted. H2, on the other hand, is rejected. Figure 3 shows structural model.

This study found a significant result between PSEE and TT (β = 0183, t = 2.547, p = 0.011). So, H1 is accepted. Hypothesis 2 predicted that PSFE is positively related to TT. Table 4 established a non-significant and positive relationship between PSFE and TT (β = 0.137, t = 1.928 < 1.96, p = 0.054 > 0.05) rejecting hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 predicted that PSHE is positively related to TT. Table 4 established a significant and positive relationship between PSHE and TT (β = 0.145, t = 2.525 > 1.96, p = 0.012 < 0.05) accepting hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 4 predicted that PSME is positively related to TT. Table 4 established a significant and positive relationship between PSME and TT (β = 0.174, t = 2.981 > 1.96, p = 0.003 < 0.05) accepting hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 5 predicted that PSNE is positively related to TT. Table 4 established a significant and positive relationship between PSNE and TT (β = 0.218, t = 3.476 > 1.96, p = 0.001 < 0.05) accepting hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 6 predicted that TT is positively related to TDC. Table 4 established a significant and positive relationship between TT and TDC (β = 0.534, t = 10.619 > 1.96, p = 0.000 < 0.05), accepting hypothesis 6.

In Table 5, hypothesis 7 predicts that the mediating effect of tourism trust between the relationship of PSSE and TDC is significant (β = 0.098, t = 2.480 > 1.96, p = 0.013 < 0.05), therefore, accepted hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 8 predicts that the mediating effect of tourism trust between the relationship of PSFE and TDC is non-significant (β = 0.073, t = 1.888 < 1.96, p = 0.059 > 0.05), therefore, rejected hypothesis 8. Hypothesis 9 predicts that the mediating effect of tourism trust between the relationship of PSHE and TDC is significant (β = 0.077, t = 2.147 > 1.96, p = 0.032 < 0.05); therefore, it accepted hypothesis 9. Hypothesis 10 predicts that the mediating effect of tourism trust between the relationship of PSME and TDC is significant (β = 0.093, t = 3.063 > 1.96, p = 0.002 < 0.05), therefore, accepted hypothesis 10. Hypothesis 11 predicts that the mediating effect of tourism trust between the relationship of PSNE and TDC is significant (β = 0.116, t = 3.204 > 1.96, p = 0.001 < 0.05), therefore, accepted hypothesis 11.

Finally, the quality of the model was observed through predictive relevance (Q²). The measurement is exchanged to goodness-of-fit. Chin (1998) argued that the value of Q² should be above zero. Table 6 shows that the value of Q² of TDC 0.201 > 0 and TT is 0.303 > 0.

This research has examined the role of tourist perceived safety in TDC along with the mediating role of TT. This study also examined the factors of TT, which is a useful contribution to the literature on tourist destinations. This study offers perceived safety factors of the tourists as related to the technological element as a theoretical contribution. These factors enhance the literature of perceived safety toward tourism destination choice. Furthermore, the mediating variable TT plays a pivotal role to explain the relationship between perceived safety factors and TDC.

This study has many practical consequences. First, destination management organizations (DMOs) can use the TPS scale to understand safety perspectives better and to create customized strategies to sustain a healthy tourist destination environment based on individual dimensions. Technological advancement is contributing to tourism; in addition, DMOs must consider the actions of a tourist guide, locals, tourism operators, and even tourists themselves when managing human safety with technology. Furthermore, DMOs can improve the relationship between tourists and these safety elements, thus, increasing trust of people in new environments and traveling safely.

This study has some limitations and leaves scope for future studies. First, this study is limited to the context of China. In the future, the context of other countries can be included. Second, the study used the cross-sectional approach, but the longitudinal or mixed methodology could be adopted to examine the behavior of tourists more deeply. Third, in this study, TT has been examined as a mediator, but in the future, moderating variables (characteristics of tourists) could also be examined to study the relationship between independent and dependent variables.