The Association Between Smart Tourism Logistics, Supply Chain Resilience, and Attendee Behavioral Intentions in Bangkok’s MICE Industry
Main Article Content
Abstract
Smart Tourism Logistics (STL) including AI-enabled mobility tools, biometric entry systems, and event mobile applications has become increasingly embedded in Bangkok’s MICE ecosystem. However, empirical evidence remains limited regarding whether attendee engagement with these technologies is associated with perceived supply chain resilience (SCR) and loyalty-related outcomes. This study investigates STL adoption and examines group-level associations between STL usage, perceived SCR, and attendee behavioral intentions (revisit intention and word-of-mouth intention) in Bangkok’s primary MICE cluster (QSNCC, BITEC, and IMPACT Muang Thong Thani). Using a quantitative, descriptive-associational design, data were collected from 400 domestic and international delegates attending MICE events during 2025–2026. Variables were operationalized categorically and analyzed using Pearson’s Chi-Square Test of Independence, with effect sizes reported using Phi (φ). Results indicate high baseline STL engagement (77.5% biometric check-in; 70% event app use). Significant associations were found between STL usage and revisit intention, χ²(1, N = 400) = 45.21, p < 0.005, φ = 0.34, and between STL usage and word-of-mouth intention, χ²(1, N = 400) = 38.47, p < 0.005, φ = 0.31. Perceived SCR demonstrated stronger associations with revisit intention, χ²(1, N = 400) = 72.63, p < .005, φ = 0.43, and word-of-mouth intention, χ²(1, N = 400) = 65.18, p < 0.005, φ = 0.40. STL usage was also significantly associated with perceived SCR, χ²(1, N = 400) = 29.76, p < .001, φ = 0.27. Collectively, the findings suggest that perceived resilience is more strongly associated with loyalty outcomes than STL engagement alone, highlighting the strategic importance of integration quality and operational continuity across the attendee journey. The study contributes applied evidence for Smart MICE policy and provides a practical categorical framework for assessing technology-enabled logistics in disruption-prone urban environments.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
References
Borges-Tiago, M. T., & Avelar, F. (2025). Digital transformation in the MICE industry: An updated Technology Acceptance Model (TAM 3.0). Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 16(2), 145–160.
Buathong, K., & Sripan, R. (2022). Digital transformation of the MICE industry in Thailand: Post-pandemic adaptations. Journal of Thai Business Research, 4(1), 12–28.
Chen, J., Wang, L., & Zhang, H. (2023). Smart logistics and consumer loyalty in urban tourism: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(4), 1102–1120.
Chompupor, T. (2019). Destination selection factors for the Thai MICE industry: A situational analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches(6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Du, Y., & Wang, L. (2025). Supply chain resilience in mega-cities: An artificial intelligence perspective. International Journal of Logistics Management, 36(1), 88–105.
Ghaderi, Z., Hatamifar, P., & Henderson, J. C. (2025). Behavioral intentions in business tourism: The role of smart infrastructure. Tourism Management Perspectives, 42, Article 100982.
Hair, J. F., Page, M., & Brunsveld, N. (2024). Essentials of business research methods (5th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Hassan, S., Mohamed, M., & Saleh, A. (2023). Green logistics and brand loyalty in the convention industry: The mediating role of destination image. Sustainability, 15(3), 2145.
Kuo, Y. L., Chen, C. H., & Lin, H. Y. (2021). The adoption of contactless technology in MICE: A TAM perspective.Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 22(4), 312–330.
Lee, H., & Joo, D. (2022). Spatial anxiety and wayfinding in large convention centers: Impact on attendee satisfaction.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, Article 101802.
Marchesani, F., & Masciarelli, F. (2025). The nexus of mobility: Smart cities and the evolution of event management logistics. Journal of Business Research, 158, Article 113650.
McHugh, M. L. (2023). The Chi-square test of independence: Statistical best practices for tourism researchers.Biochemia Medica, 33(2), 105–118.
Office of the PDPC. (2025). Privacy guidelines for academic research and data collection under the Thailand Personal Data Protection Act. Ministry of Digital Economy and Society.
Radic, A., Lück, M., & Al-Ansi, A. (2024). The frictionless attendee: Biometric technology and identity management in the MICE industry. Journal of Travel Research, 63(2), 401–418.
Sándorová, Z., Repaská, G., & Švec, R. (2024). Data silos and trust in MICE digital platforms: A stakeholder perspective. Tourism Management, 101, Article 104845.
Somanas, A. (2026, January 12). Thailand’s shift to smart cities: The MICE roadmap. Bangkok Post.
Sriraksa, S. (2020). The evolution of MICE infrastructure in Southeast Asia: 2010–2020. Chulalongkorn University Press.
Suanmali, S. (2021). Urban traffic congestion and its impact on business tourism in Bangkok: A mixed-methods study.Thai Tourism Review, 7(2), 45–62.
Tan, B., Yan, J., & Chen, S. (2023). IoT and visibility in event logistics: Reducing the bullwhip effect through real-time data. Production and Operations Management, 32(5), 1540–1558.
Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau [TCEB]. (2026). Strategic roadmap for smart MICE cities: Building meaningful trust.
The Nation. (2026, February 5). Bangkok hosts Gastech 2026: A test for smart city logistics.
Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper & Row.
Yoon, S., & Wang, J. (2023). Information silos in MICE logistics: A framework for digital integration. International Journal of Information Management, 68, Article 102580.