디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제19권5호
  • /
  • Pages.81-92
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

COVID-19시대에 건강한 여행을 위한 Digital Health Passport에 대한 접근법

Approaches to Digital Health Passport for Healthy Travel in the the Era of COVID-19

  • 투고 : 2021.02.26
  • 심사 : 2021.05.20
  • 발행 : 2021.05.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 코로나-19가 몰고 온 갑작스러운 환경변화 중 여행산업의 변화에 있어서 가장 핵심이 될 디지털 건강/면역 여권(DHP, Digital Health Passport)에 대한 접근법을 제시하기 위해 수행되었다. 이를 위해, 최근 DHP에 관한 다양한 실증적 문헌 고찰을 통해 DHP에 대한 프레임워크를 제안했다. 본 프레임워크는 크게 여행 의도, 건강정보 제공 의도, 신기술 채택·수용 등으로 구성된다. 첫째, 여행 의도의 관점에서, DHP에 정보를 제공하는 것이 여행자의 여행 의도를 훼손하지 않아야 한다. 여행자로부터 받은 정보를 활용하여 여행자의 여행 즐거움을 배증 할 수 있어야 한다. 또한, 여행자에게 받은 데이터가 신뢰할 수 있는 방법으로 관리된다는 것을 확신시켜줄 필요가 있다. 둘째, 건강 관련 정보를 의무적 정보 제공의 관점에서만 보지 말고 여행자가 자신의 개인정보를 제공함으로써 얻을 수 있는 것이 무엇인지 인지시킬 필요가 있다. 마지막으로, 신기술의 관점에서 DHP에 대한 여행자들의 활용·수용 의도를 이해할 필요가 있다. 본 연구는 트래블 버블(Travel Bubble)을 실현하는 데 있어서 핵심기술인 DHP에 대한 여행자들의 반응을 예측하고 대응할 방안을 제안했다는 점에서 의의가 있다.

The purpose of this study is to present an approach to the "Digital Health Passport" (DHP), which will be the most important in the change of the travel industry among the sudden environmental changes brought about by COVID-19. To this end, this study reviewed a variety of empirical literature on DHP, and proposed a framework for DHP based on literature review. The framework is composed of travel intention, health information provision intention, and new technology acceptance/adoption of tourists. First, in terms of travel intention, providing information to DHP should not undermine the travel intention of the travelers. It should be possible to facilitate the travelers' enjoyment by using the information provided by the traveler. In addition, there is a need to assure that the data provided by travelers is managed in a reliable way. Second, it is necessary to understand why the travelers want to provide additional personal information (information disclosure), rather than seeing healthcare information only in terms of mandatory information provision. Finally, from the perspective of new technology, it is necessary to understand the intention of travelers to use/adopt DHP. The key implication of this work is that it proposed a DHP framework for realizing the travel bubble to predict and respond to foreign travelers' behaviors.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. C. M. Angelopoulos, A. Damianou & V. Katos. (2020). DHP Framework: Digital Health Passport Using Blockchain. arXiv, 2020.10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08922.x
  2. World Economic Forum. (2020). Here's What Travelling Could Be Like after COVID-19, 06 May 2020. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/this-is-what-travelling-will-be-like-after-covid-19/
  3. R. Diego. (2020). Mass-Tracking COVI-PASS Immunity Passports Slated to Roll Out in 15 Countries. MintPress News, 26 June 2020. https://www.mintpressnews.com/mass-tracking-covipass-immunity-passports-slated-roll-15-countries/269006/
  4. M. A. Hossain & M. Quaddus. (2013). Does Mandatory Pressure Increase RFID Adoption? A Case Study of Western Australian Livestock Industry. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, 184-202. 10.1007/978-3-642-38862-0_12
  5. P. H. O'Neill, T. Ryan-Mosley & B. Johnson. (2020). A Flood of Coronavirus Apps Are Tracking Us. Now It's Time to Keep Track of Them. MIT Technology Review, 7 May 2020. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/07/1000961/launching-mittr-covid-tracing-tracker/
  6. H. Xu, H. H. Teo, B. C. Y. Tan & R. Agarwal. (2009). The Role of Push-Pull Technology in Privacy Calculus: The Case of Location-Based Services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 135-173. 10.2753/MIS0742-1222260305
  7. Lowry & C. Greer. (2013). Information Disclosure on Mobile Devices: Re-examining Privacy Calculus with Actual User Behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(12), 1163-1173. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.016
  8. M. S. Featherman, A. D. Miyazaki & D. E. Sprott. (2010). Reducing Online Privacy Risk to Facilitate e-Service Adoption: The Influence of Perceived Ease of Use and Corporate Credibility. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(3), 219-229. 10.1108/08876041011040622
  9. S. Y. Yousafzai, J. G. Pallister & G. R. Foxall. (2003). A Proposed Model of e-Trust for Electronic Banking. Technovation, 23, 847-860. 10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00130-5
  10. Y. Hwang. (2005). Investigating Enterprise Systems Adoption: Uncertainty Avoidance, Intrinsic Motivation, and the Technology Acceptance Model. European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 150-161. 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000532
  11. W. Wang & P. A. Hsieh. (2006). Beyond Routine: Symbolic Adoption, Extended Use, and Emergent Use, and Emergent Use of Complex Information Systems in the Mandatory Orgnizational Context. ICIS 2006 Proceedings, Paper 48. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2006/48
  12. X. Tan, L. Qin, Y. Kim & J. Hsu. (2012). Impact of Privacy Concern in Social Networking Web Sites. Internet Research, 22(2), 211-233. 10.1108/10662241211214575
  13. D. Mather, P. Caputi & R. Jayasuriya. (2002). Is the Technology Acceptance Model a Valid Model of User Satisfaction of Information Technology in Environments Where Usage is Mandatory?. ACIS 2002 School of Information Sysetms, 1241-1250. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2002/49
  14. F. D. Davis, (1993). User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475-487. 10.1006/imms.1993.1022
  15. M. Igbaria, N. Zinatelli, P. Cragg & A. L. M. Cavaye. (1997). Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 279-303. 10.2307/249498
  16. F. K. Y. Chan, J. Y. L. Thong, V. Venkatesh, S. A. Brown, P. J. H. Hu & K. Y. Tam. (2010). Modeling Citizen Satisfaction with Mandatory Adoption of an E-Government Technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(10), 519-549. 10.17705/1jais.00239
  17. S. A. Brown, A. P. Massey, M. M. Montoya-Weiss & J. R. Burkman. (2002). Do I Really Have To? User Acceptance of Mandated Technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(4), 283-295. 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000438
  18. D. Roback & R. L. Wakefield. (2013). Privacy Risk versus Socialness in the Decision to Use MObile Location-based Applications. DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 44(2), 19-38. 10.1145/2488968.2488971
  19. P. Rawstorne, R. Jayasuriya, P. Caputi. (2000). Issues in Predicting and Explaining Usage Behaviors with the Technology Acceptance Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior When Usage Is Mandatory, ICIS 2000 Proceedings, 37-46. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2000/5
  20. V. Venkatesh & F. D. Davis. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  21. J. Hartwick & H. Barki. (1994). Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use. Management Science, 40(4), 440-465. 10.1287/mnsc.40.4.440
  22. C. Liao, C. C. Liu & K. Chen. (2011). Examining the Impact of Privacy, Trust and Risk Perceptions beyond Monetary Transactions: An Integrated Model. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10, 702-715. 10.1016/j.elerap.2011.07.003
  23. T. Zhou. (2012). Examining Location-based Services Usage from the Perspectives of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and Privacy Risk. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 135-144. http://www.jecr.org/node/50
  24. H. Xu & S. Gupta. (2009). The Effects of Privacy Concerns and Personal Innovativeness on Potential and Experienced Customers' Adoption of Location-based Services. Electronic Markets, 19, 137-149. 10.1007/s12525-009-0012-4
  25. S. L. Jarvenpaa, N. Tractinsky & M. Vitale. (2000). Consumer Trust in an Internet Store. Information Technology and Management, 1, 45-71. 10.1023/A:1019104520776
  26. T. Dinev & P. Hart. (2006). An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61-80. 10.1287/isre.1060.0080
  27. M. J. Culnan & P. Amstrong. (1999). Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation. Organization Science, 10(1), 104-115. 10.1287/orsc.10.1.104
  28. N. Hajli & X Lin. (2016). Exploring the Security of Information Sharing on Social Networking Sites: The Role of Perceived Control of Information. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 111-123. 10.1007/s10551-014-2346-x
  29. T. Dinev, H. Xu, J. H. Smith & P. Hart. (2013). Information Privacy and Correlates: An Empirical Attempt to Bridge and Distinguish Privacy-related Concepts. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 295-316. 10.1057/ejis.2012.23
  30. H. S. Byeon & M. S. Yim. (2014). The Impact of Users' Congruity and Emotion on Intention to Game Use. Journal of Digital Convergence, 12(11), 89-98. DOI : 10.14400/JDC.2014.12.11.89
  31. M. S. Yim. (2014). Understanding the Technostress: An Individual Difference Investigation. Journal of Digital Convergence, 12(3), 17-27. DOI : 10.14400/JDC.2014.12.3.17
  32. M. S. Yim. (2013). Understanding an Employee Information Systems Security Violations. Journal of Digital Convergence, 11(2), 19-32. 10.14400/JDPM.2013.11.2.019
  33. M. S. Yim. (2013). The Effect of Characteristics of Information Security Policy on Security Policy Compliance Intention of Employees. Journal of Digital Convergence, 11(1), 27-38. 10.14400/JDPM.2013.11.1.027