Passenger Perceptions of the COVID-19 Epidemic Prevention Measures at U-Tapao Rayong-Pattaya

Main Article Content

Woraprawan Thokaew
Burapha Yotarach
Noppawan Mueanprasat
Rachatathamrongk Pacharamonchai

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to identify and compare the level of perception of passengers towards the preventive measures against the spread of COVID-19 in the U-Tapao International Airport, Rayong - Pattaya. The study is conducted based on the concepts and theories related to perception, factors derived from individuals and environmental characteristics, as well as the roles and responsibilities of airports. Additionally, it examines the preventive measures and the impact of COVID-19 on the economy and society. Data is collected through an online questionnaire using random sampling from 400 service users. The analysis involves an independent sample t-test and one-way ANOVA.


            The study findings indicate that (1) passengers' perception of the preventive measures against the spread of COVID-19 at the airport is generally good, both when analyzed by specific aspects and overall, and (2) only the personal traits categorized by the place of residence have an impact on the perception of the preventive measures, while other personal characteristics and the type of airline used do not significantly affect the perception. The majority of respondents were male, aged 40 years or older, with a monthly income of over 30,000 baht, holding a bachelor's degree, employed in private companies, and residing in the Eastern Region. They often choose AirAsia for their travels.

Article Details

How to Cite
Thokaew, W., Yotarach, B. ., Mueanprasat, N. ., & Pacharamonchai, R. (2025). Passenger Perceptions of the COVID-19 Epidemic Prevention Measures at U-Tapao Rayong-Pattaya. Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok Social Science Journal, 14(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.63271/rmuttosj.v14i2.273730
Section
Research Article
Author Biographies

Woraprawan Thokaew, Institute of Aviation and Aerospace Technology, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok

Institute of Aviation and Aerospace Technology, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok, Chonburi,Thailand

Burapha Yotarach, Institute of Aviation and Aerospace Technology, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok

Institute of Aviation and Aerospace Technology, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok, Chonburi,Thailand

Noppawan Mueanprasat, Institute of Aviation and Aerospace Technology, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok

Institute of Aviation and Aerospace Technology, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok, Chonburi,Thailand

Rachatathamrongk Pacharamonchai, Institute of Aviation and Aerospace Technology, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok

Institute of Aviation and Aerospace Technology, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok, Chonburi,Thailand

References

Best, J. W. (1977). Research in Education (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bunyarat, S., Temkaew, W., & Namsang, A. (2021). Basic rules and regulations perception of generation x and generation y with traveling by low-cost airlines. Ratchaphruek Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 15, 324–341.

Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition (1st ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740218

Lee, C. C., Wang, S. W., Hsu, M. K., & Jan, S. M. (2018). Air passenger’s perception toward pre-flight safety briefing videos: Does it matter? Journal of Air Transport Management, 72, 20–31.

Slovic, P. (2016). Perception of risk. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp. 220–231). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315661773

U-Tapao International Airport, Rayong–Pattaya. (2021). History of the airport. Retrieved from https://www.utapao.com/corporate/th/about-us/OurStory

Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper & Row.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302