Travelers’ Perceptions of Crisis Preparedness Certification in the United States

Abstract

This study aimed to understand travelers’ perceptions about the benefits of tourism crisis preparedness certification and its potential to positively influence the travelers’ destination decision-making process. A survey of U.S. households revealed that, in general, travelers are neutral or not sure about certification and its relationship to safety, benefits, and future travel. The main predictors of likelihood to travel to a certified tourism prepared destination were as follows: (1) I have a great deal of confidence in such a crisis certification process; (2) I would feel safer when visiting a certified crisis prepared travel destination; (3) A certified crisis prepared destination would be safer to visit than one that is not; and (4) a crisis prepared certification benefits the visitor. The findings imply a need for a clear definition and conceptualization of tourism crisis preparedness certification. By extension, the benefits of certification should be articulated to travelers so they can make informed travel decisions.

Keywords

tourism crisis management demand U.S. travel industry certification preparedness

Introduction

Crisis preparedness has become an important concern for communities and their stakeholders worldwide and it is now part of many government strategies (Lynch 2004). Tourism destinations have begun to realize that they are not immune from crises and that they must have workable plans in place to guide crisis response and recovery. Tourism crisis management is an actionable strategy that, ideally, should be woven into destination planning on an annual basis (Mintzberg 1994; Pearson and Mitroff 1993; Preble 1997). In the wake of recent crises that have had significant impacts on travel from regional to international levels (e.g., political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa region or H1N1), interest in tourism crisis management has grown. Further, destinations have expressed interest in a certification system that would solidify their commitment to safety planning for locals and visitors alike. Certification is the process through which an organization grants recognition to an individual, organization, process, service, or product that meets certain established standards (Conaghan and Hanrahan 2009). A certification is also known as a “stamp of approval,” which is indicated by labels, seals, certificates, marks, or trademarks (Buckley 2002; Harris 2007). Voluntary certification has become an increasingly popular tourism management tool for meeting both supply-side agendas and demand-side needs over and above regulatory requirements (Honey and Rome 2001). Certification programs establish the framework and an independent or third-party assesses, audits, and provides written assurance that a facility, product, process, or service meets or exceeds specific standards. In the context of crises, tourism crisis preparedness certification establishes that a destination, attraction, service, or other tourism-related business, has a crisis management plan to guide response and recovery and that this plan meets the highest standards.

Despite the growing interest in tourism crisis preparedness, this is a relatively new area of inquiry. There are no voluntary certification schemes in operation and, as such, the research is limited. A cursory review of the broader tourism certification literature reveals a primary focus on the application of organization, agency, and stakeholder theories, for example, to better understand the supply-side context of certification. While certification can present new challenges for governance, the research establishes that the benefits of both regulatory and voluntary certification are numerous for tourism operators and destination managers. Certification has been shown to increase a business’s credibility in world markets because of the public commitment to quality, safety, and risk management with accordant rises in sales, competitiveness, and profitability (Conroy 2001). Certification can raise the profile of a brand and/or destination and make it synonymous with sustainability, quality, and/or safety (Honey 2002; Philpott et al. 2007). For these reasons, certification is often credited as a beneficial marketing tool for tourism operators (Adanur and Allen 1995; Ho 1994; Honey 2002). From a demand-side perspective, the tourism research suggests that certification can guarantee consumers that a product or service meets certain conditions or measurable criteria and this can enhance customer trust and satisfaction (Dodds and Joppe 2005). However, the demand-side literature is lean and, as a consequence, very little is known about how consumers perceive tourism certification and how their perceptions of a destination and their travel choices may be affected by destination certification. Although it is possible to infer from this body of work that a traveler’s perceptions of the safety of a destination may affect their likelihood of selecting a “safe” destination over an “unsafe destination,” there has not yet been any research on demand-side perceptions of tourism crisis preparedness certification. It is within this context that the purpose of this study was to examine how U.S. travelers perceive the concept of tourism crisis preparedness certification, their confidence in a certification scheme, and the perceived benefits for travelers.

The theoretical approach of this study draws from several interrelated demand-side theories that are relevant to traveler decision-making and risk. Consumer and choice theories are concerned with how a rational consumer makes consumption decisions. Crompton (1977) suggests that destination choice is made after demographic constraints (e.g., time, money, family status, gender), internal (e.g., travel experience, risk perceptions, attitudes), and external (e.g., media, government, social networks) influences and past experiences are weighed against destination image. He additionally suggests that it is likely that perceptions of crime, terrorism, or health risk cause similar behavior. This idea is supported by Um and Crompton’s (1992) assertion that destinations perceived with high risk due to situational constraints or barriers may become undesirable. Within the tourism literature, the impact of crisis on destination demand has been noted (Arana and Leon 2008; Frey, Luechinger, and Stutzer 2007). In fact, many types of crises have been quantified on tourism demand arrivals from health-related crisis (Black, Sinclair, and Sugiyarto 2003) to climate change (Hamilton and Tol 2007) to terrorism (Pambudi, McCaughey, and Smyth 2009).

Understanding the impact of crisis on decision making can be understood by Prospect theory which describes the way people choose between alternatives that involve risk. The theory states that individuals make decisions based on an evaluation of the perceived gains and losses (informed by travelers risk perceptions and experiences). Next, individuals reduce the number of destinations based on substitutes and then evaluate those destinations based on various factors including tourist’s risk perceptions. Um and Crompton (1990) explain that potential tourists are likely to organize their decision making around facilitators (gains—perceptions of a destination’s attributes that help to satisfy potential travelers’ specific motives) and inhibitors (losses—attributes that are not congruent with traveler’s motives) and eliminate risky destination alternatives. Integration theory is a communication theory that posits that attitudes can be changed and decisions can be formed through the integration of new information with existing cognitions or thoughts (travelers’ risk perceptions and experiences) and this can influence the decision-making process. Anderson (1981, 1982) argues that a consumers’ decision making is based on a complex value judgment informed by motivation (need awareness), product image, information search, and the evaluation of alternatives.

Informed by these theories, Sönmez and Graefe (1998) proposed a Model of International Tourism Decision Making. Their model suggests that travelers’ decisions are influenced by pre-decision factors that are based on an individual’s demographics, previous travel experiences, and exposure to external information (e.g., media or government-issued advisories). It also suggests that the decision-making process can be influenced by destination image, perceived destination safety, as well as new information uncovered during the course of the travelers’ destination information search process. In the tourism crisis context, we can infer that new information about a destination’s crisis preparedness, safety record, and risk management may affect a traveler’s perceptions of destination safety (image) and, by extension, it may positively affect destination choice. Based on the aforementioned benefits of certification, it is possible to argue that tourism crisis preparedness certification can lead to perceptions of a safer destination because it ultimately achieves two goals: (1) it forces the destination to continually monitor safety in the destination and check for gaps in safe practices; (2) it “brands” the destination as a safe destination for the consumer. Therefore, Sönmez and Graefe’s (1998) model has been adapted to reflect the potential influence of tourism crisis preparedness certification in the decision makers’ processing of new information and re-evaluation of the perceived safety of destination alternatives (Figure 1). In the final stage and informed by the evaluation of a complex interaction of variables, including whether a destination is certified, it is proposed that the traveler will make an informed decision between destinations perceived as safe while those perceived as risky will be rejected (Sönmez and Graefe 1998). This model is highly relevant to the tourism crisis management context because it suggests that supply-side investments in crisis management certification [and marketing] may play a pivotal role in the travelers’ decision-making process, as well as the economic sustainability of a destination.

Figure 1.

The role of certification of crisis prepared destination in the travel decision-making process (adapted from Sönmez and Graefe 1998).

Literature Review

Certification in the Travel Industry: The Concept and Issues

Certification is sometimes referred to as a management tool that provides identification of businesses that fulfill standards through a credible process (Conaghan and Hanrahan 2009). The definition of certification has differed depending on the location, times, and scenarios. One common definition used by academics is “the measure of a certain body of knowledge known by an individual or entity” (Morrison, Hsieh, and Wang 1992). In addition, Honey and Rome (2001, p. 5) define certification as “a voluntary procedure that assesses audits and gives written assurance that a facility, product, process or service meets specific standards. It awards a marketable logo to those that meet or exceed baseline standards.” In fields outside of academia, a certification is also known as an independent or third-party “stamp of approval,” which is indicated by labels, certificates, marks, or Trademarks (Buckley 2002; Harris 2007). It is a series of assessments and standardized processes that can guarantee consumers that the products from any enterprise meet certain conditions or measurable criteria (Dodds and Joppe 2005). Honey and Stewart (2002), for example, report that in the United States, Europe, and Latin America logos or seals are granted to facilities, services, processes, products, or management systems upon fulfillment of the standards of tourism certification programs.

Certifications in tourism tend to be fragmented and uncoordinated, making it difficult to judge their importance and measure successes across certifying bodies (Black and Crabtree 2007; Font 2002; Rivera 2002). The travel industry at the macro level also suffers from fragmentation and lack of coordination; thus, it is more challenging to understand the scope of certifications available in the tourism industry. In the past decade, a wide variety of tourism certification programs have been developed (Ecotrans 2001; Font 2002; Font and Buckley 2001). Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in 1992, more than 100 eco-labels exist globally (Font 2002). However, the majority of these certification programs are focused on sustainability of products rather than the sustainability of destinations.

Tourism certification programs can be divided into two methodologies: process-based and performance-based (Honey and Stewart 2002). Process-based programs involve the utilization of internally generated management systems that monitor procedures and practices in order to improve them. On the other hand, performance-based programs use externally determined sociocultural and economic criteria or benchmarks. Because both types have their own unique drawbacks and advantages, there has been an increasing number of programs that include a combination of both methodologies (Honey and Stewart 2002).

One example of a certification process used in the tourism industry is the eco-labeling process (Sasidharan, Sirakaya, and Kerstetter 2002). The entire process includes six steps: (1) the tourism sector selection; (2) environmental impact evaluation; (3) criteria development; (4) final criteria selection; (5) eco-label award; and (6) periodic re-certification. Additionally, an example of a certification program is Australia’s Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program (NEAP) (Chester and Crabtree 2002). NEAP is a voluntary certification scheme that aims to not only provide nature and ecotourism businesses with the ability to ascertain best practice principles in order to continue to improve their products, but also to provide consumers, such as tourists, tour wholesalers, and local communities, with the means of genuine tourism and ecotourism product recognition. Because of geographical distance, on-site independent audits are not cost-effective for small businesses (Chester and Crabtree 2002). NEAP has developed an approach that relies on self-assessments backed by periodic, principle-focused audits. Those who are interested in being certified can learn about the criteria and then adjust and assess operations at their own pace without any cost in order to have the luxury of controlling their own budget and timeframe. Once an organization is ready, they then submit the established fee with the completed application. Independent referees check the submitted data for discrepancies. In addition, occasional on-site audits also take place. The operator is eligible to display NEAP logos next to their certified products once the application is approved (Chester and Crabtree 2002).

Certification has had its share of critics. In fact, LePree (2009, p. 60) has suggested that over the past decade, “the tourism industry has seen a milieu of differing certification schemes.” Others argue that voluntary certification programs are “driven by global, profit-driven, neo-liberal polices which advocate self-regulation and objective measures” (Jamal, Borges, and Stronza 2006, pp. 168-69).

Research on tourism certification programs have examined perceptions of the programs by consumers (Chafe and Honey 2005), eco-labeling (Buckley 2002; Mihalic 1999), sustainability (Honey and Rome 2001), demand for sustainable tourism certification (Black and Crabtree 2007; Conaghan, Hanrahan, and Sligo 2003), voluntary initiatives (Rivera 2001), and benefits of the process (Conaghan, Hanrahan, and Sligo 2003).

Examining the supply side of certification tends to be the dominant focus of the academic literature. Demand side or consumer demand for certification in the tourism industry is scantly addressed. However, according to the limited number of demand studies (i.e., Conaghan and Hanrahan 2010a; Font and Harris 2004; Honey 2002), tourists tend to be the primary beneficiaries of a certification program. Findings suggest that most tourists indicate an improvement in service if a product (e.g., hotel) were certified. The environment ranked second in terms of beneficiaries as a result of certification, while local communities were the third most likely beneficiary of certifications. Finally, according to the research, businesses, consumers, and governments were all additional beneficiaries of certification (Conaghan and Hanrahan 2010a).

Tourists benefit the most from certification because certification ensures good practices and encourages voluntary improvements (Parsons and Grant 2007), while benefits to the government have been linked to increased market position of the destination, increased market standards, increased benefits to the environment, and increased benefits to the economy (Conaghan and Hanrahan 2010b). Moreover, businesses benefit from certification because they engage in voluntary improvements which may lead to fewer customer complaints and, therefore, greater satisfaction (Toth 2002). Finally, local communities or environments have been said to benefit from certification because certification has led to greater protection of the environment and conservation of energy (Toth 2002). Certification programs often allow hoteliers to meet with environmentalists and health professionals to work together and share knowledge and experience (Toth 2002). From the standpoint of local communities, the advantage of certification is that they are protected from damage and certified businesses respect the local communities and the communities, in turn, acquire long-term economic, social, and environmental benefits (Conaghan and Hanrahan 2010b).

Given that the benefits of crisis certification have not been measured, the types of benefits are more difficult to determine; however, the receivers of the benefits have been conceptualized in line with the tourism certification literature. Therefore, the four aforementioned beneficiaries of certification will be measured in this study.

Recent Surveys on Consumer Demand for Certification

Very few studies have examined consumer demand for certification. Fewer have been conducted in the tourism industry. The few that have looked at consumer demand for certification have primarily focused on pricing, the relationship between quality and certification, and willingness to travel (i.e., Chafe 2005; Fairweather, Maslin, and Simmons 2005; Rivera 2002). For instance, Rivera (2002) found that certified hotels that achieved superior environmental performance in Costa Rica were able to command price premiums. Among international visitors to New Zealand, Fairweather, Maslin, and Simmons (2005) determined that although only 13% of interviewees were aware of tourism certification, most believed that tourism certification was necessary in New Zealand. Additionally, a majority of the sample would have chosen certified accommodations (Fairweather, Maslin, and Simmons 2005), thus suggesting that certification may provide a certain degree of market advantage.

However, Font (2007) claims that tourism certification is not synonymous with higher quality products and that the “buyer needs to beware.” In general, tourists cannot tell the difference between a certified tourism product/service and one that is not certified. Therefore, he argues that since profits are marginal in the tourism industry, companies may not be able to charge premium prices as a result of certification because it may not be very meaningful to tourists (Font 2007).

Chafe (2005) studied consumer demand for responsible tourism. Germans tended to agree that an environmental label for tourism was useful, while more than half indicated that the presence of an eco-label would have been influential in choosing a vacation (Chafe 2005). In another German survey, 14.2% of respondents stated that “easy access to information on all tourism products in Europe with certified environmental quality” was “of particular importance” to them (Chafe 2005).

In another study conducted by Tourism Queensland, respondents indicated that after receiving information about the NEAP eco-label, most would either be “a lot more likely” or “a little more likely” to select certified responsible businesses and products (Chafe 2005). Furthermore, visitors would pay at least 5% more to use a certified responsible business (Chafe 2005). In 2000, 90% of Italians surveyed favored tourism products with eco-labels (Chafe 2005). With little deviation from the research, most findings from around the world suggest that tourists are, to some extent, more likely to select certified environmental businesses and products, even when the cost is higher (Chafe 2005).

Tourism Crisis Management

The literature on tourism crisis management has increased recently, mostly as a response to an increasing number of natural- and man-made crises affecting the tourism industry. Crisis management planning is not only a good business practice but it is also a way for destinations to differentiate themselves from other destinations in terms of safety and security. However, planning for crises and understanding a destination’s commitment to an ongoing preparedness strategy is scant. Thus, research on the value, perceptions, and legitimacy of crisis preparedness is necessary.

Crisis management has received significant attention over the last decade. Scholarly research has developed a multitude of models, strategies, and management styles. Four fundamental areas have been used to develop approaches or models in tourism crisis management: (1) the lifecycle approach; (2) strategic approach; (3) action oriented approach; and (4) integrated approach (Huang, Tseng, and Petrick 2007). The four approaches tend to share commonalities related to phases, whereby the crisis moves from a preevent phase, to an emergency phase, to a postevent phase (Pennington-Gray et al. 2010). In the early 2000s, as the focus on crisis management in tourism grew, Faulkner (2002) extended a basic model to a six-stage model that included preevent, prodromal, emergency, intermediate, long-term, and resolution phases. The rationale for additional stages was to provide a more thorough explanation of crisis development as it relates to tourism. In contrast, the Asia Pacific Economic Corporation developed Pacific Asia Travel Association’s (PATA) four-phase model that incorporates four essential phases in managing a crisis, often referred to as the “four R’s:” reduction, readiness, response, and recovery. Huang, Tseng, and Petrick (2007) examined the differences among these four types of models and found that a combination of Faulkner’s (2001) and PATA’s (2003) models was the most effective in assisting Taiwan to prepare for future crises.

Conceptually, adopting PATA’s four R’s model will serve as the premise for a crisis prepared certification process. A certification process would evaluate a destination’s fully operational tourism crisis management plan, with attention being given to each of the four phases of a crisis. Maintaining certification would require reassessment on a three-year basis, which would include modifications and updates to the original plan. The certifying body would ensure that the written plan includes the necessary components for an effective four-phase tourism crisis management plan. Certification would include a “seal” indicating completion of the process and that the destination was crisis prepared.

In order to understand the four phases in more detail, the four R’s are outlined below. In the reduction phase, the focus is on increasing crisis awareness through potential crisis identification, securing political awareness, and designing standard operating procedures to address the potential impact that the crisis will have on the tourism industry. These procedures are developed through a SWOT analysis.

The readiness phase refers to the development of a strategic, tactical plan to manage the potential crisis, including both an operational plan and a communication plan. In the readiness phase, destinations have three areas to manage: (1) the crisis management plan; (2) a community awareness plan; and (3) an operational plan to manage health and safety in order to protect lives and property.

The response phase refers to the planned strategies which are implemented during the actual crisis. This phase enables the implementation of the plan, as well as measuring its effectiveness. In the response phase, destinations test their emergency response, engage in research to measure changing attitudes and behaviors of consumers during the crisis, assist families and tourists in the destination and employees and their families, and facilitate a communication procedure.

Finally, the recovery phase refers to procedures and plans that are designed to return a community to normalcy through managing the effects of a crisis. This phase includes business continuity plans, human resource plans for employees affected by crises, and the evaluation process after the crisis is over. Lastly, a feedback loop allows for adjustments to the plan and applying newfound and tested strategies. Feedback is essential because by incorporating lessons learned from past crises, the overall quality of the plan can be improved.

Tourism Crisis and/or Safety Certification

Upon a thorough review of the literature, it was determined that no such research has been conducted on a tourism crisis preparedness certification. The authors did come across a certificate that was geared towards tourism safety at a micro-level, but not in the academic literature. Finland operates a safety certification program for individual services that operate in the tourism sector. This is done on an individual business basis (micro-level rather than entire destination at the macro-level). This certification is called a “safety passport.” The Occupational Safety Card (OSC) is a way to complete basic training in safety and health within the services sector and, more specifically, within the tourism industry. The OSC operates under the Centre for Occupational Safety at the federal level in Finland and administers courses. Trained instructors teach courses, provide practical experiences, and administer a two-day training course, as well as a one-day written exam to students. Similarly, at the individual level, The Personal Safety Training Group offers a 90-minute live webinar for travelers, vacationers, and students to learn about safety when traveling domestically and internationally. Students receive a certificate upon completion of the training.

On a macro-scale, certification on safety, crisis preparedness, and disaster management are nonexistent. Thus, given the lack of empirical data on the travel industry’s perceptions and actions related to tourism crisis preparedness, this study was conducted.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore the U.S. travel industry’s perceptions, the benefits derived, and confidence in tourism crisis preparedness certification as well as to determine which is the best predictor (safety, benefits of certification, confidence in the process, or demographics) of traveling to a certified crisis prepared destination. The research questions that drove this study were as follows:

How do U.S. travelers perceive the impact of certification on relative safety of certified tourism crisis prepared destinations?

How do U.S. travelers perceive the impact of certification on the relative benefits to stakeholders of certified tourism crisis prepared destinations?

Do U.S. travelers have confidence in the certification process related to tourism crisis preparedness?

Are U.S. travelers more likely to travel to a destination which is certified over one which is not?

What is the best predictor (safety, benefits of certification, confidence in the process, or demographics) of traveling to a destination that is certified over one which is not?

Methods and Procedures

Given the paucity of empirical research on the demand for certification in the travel industry in general, this study probes into the current perceptions of tourism crisis preparedness certification by examining the aforementioned five research questions. Sixteen questions were purchased on MMGY’s (formerly Y Partnership) quarterly Travel Horizons™ survey (wave 1 2012). Travelhorizons™, a joint product of MMGY Global and the U.S. Travel Association, is an online survey that has been conducted on a quarterly basis since March 2007. The 20-minute quarterly survey is distributed four times a year to monitor the impact of current events on the travel intensions of past and future leisure and business adult travelers among a nationally representative sample. Travelhorizons™ is an Internet poll of nearly 2,300 U.S. adults.

MMGY Global contracts with Ipsos to conduct the survey on its behalf using their managed panel of U.S. households. Surveys were sent to U.S. adults based on gender, age, and income quotas. The survey remains in the field until all quotas have been met and then the preliminary data are weighted to ensure that results are representative of the U.S. adult population. Sources of error in an online survey mainly have to do with coverage and selection bias. Coverage bias is the gap between the population and the web population; however, this has reduced considerably over the years. Selection bias is the gap between those online and those who end up as respondents. This is mitigated by an active targeted recruitment process (Farrer and Dayan 2009).

The total sample size for this study was 2,257. Table 1 outlines the sample profile. Most of the sample had no children living in the home at the time of the survey (89.3%) and were between the ages of 31 and 70 (75.1%). The sample was almost evenly split between males (47.9%) and females (52.1%).

Table 1.

Profile of Survey Respondents.

Demographic Variables	Frequency (n)	Valid Percent
Age
18–30	255	15.7
31–50	846	37.5
51–70	848	37.6
≥71	208	9.2
Gender
Male	1081	47.9
Female	1176	52.1
Presence of children in the home
Yes	230	10.2
No	2027	89.3
Employment status
Works for someone else full-time	845	37.4
Self-employed	180	8.0
Works for someone else part-time only	183	8.1
Temporarily unemployed	138	6.1
Retired and not employed	510	22.6
Disabled, student, etc. and not employed	176	7.8
Full-time homemaker	184	8.1
Not specified	41	1.8
Marital status
Married	1150	51.9
Widowed	157	6.9
Divorced	294	13.0
Separated	23	1.0
Never married	512	22.7
Domestic partner	121	5.4

Tourism Crisis Preparedness Certification Questions

A scenario was created for the respondents to read before answering 16 certification-related questions. The scenario read:

We are interested in getting your feedback on a new program travel destinations in the U.S. are considering. Some U.S. destinations are considering implementing a certification process which would better prepare the destination, its guests and its travel and tourism industry to better handle a crisis if one were to occur. The destination after completing a rigorous certification process would display a logo and signage which indicates to the traveler that the destination they are visiting is “crisis ready.” Using a scale from 1-5 where 1=“strongly disagree” and 5=“strongly agree” to what extent do you agree with the following statements?

The questions were developed based on certification issues identified in the literature and consisted of 16 questions in four sections (perceptions, benefits, confidence, and likelihood to travel). Each question was designed to answer an aspect of the five research propositions listed above.

The first section contained descriptive questions about perceptions of safety certification. Work by Ozanne and Vlosky (2003) examined certification from the U.S. consumer perspective. Although their works dealt with certification of products, the operationalization of the questions related to perception were what was important. They had five questions on perceptions of certification which ranged from understanding the concept of certification, believing that certification would help, seeking out certified products as a consumer, paying a premium as a consumer for certified products, and trust claims by the government about certified products. Thus, the six questions related to perceptions were adapted and rephrased to reflect a safety certification context. The items were labeled: (1) “A certified crisis prepared destination would be safer to visit than one that is not certified”; (2) “A certified destination would be better prepared to handle a crisis than a destination that is not certified”; (3) “A certified crisis prepared destination would be in a better position to handle a crisis than a destination that has not completed the certification process”; (4) “Response to a crisis by a certified crisis prepared destination will be better than response by destinations that have not gone through the crisis certification process”; (5) “I would feel safer when visiting a certified crisis prepared travel destination”; and (6) “The government of a certified crisis prepared destination would be better prepared to handle a crisis.”

Section two contained four questions on benefits of certification. Several stakeholders can benefit from certification, according to Conaghan, Hanrahan, and Sligo (2010). In their study of sustainable tourism certification in Ireland, stakeholders were classified into three groups: tourists, the environment, local communities. In a later study, they extended their work to include one additional stakeholder group—the destination’s tourism businesses (Conaghan and Hanrahan 2010a, 2010b). Thus, four groups were examined in our study: the tourist, local government, the destination’s tourism businesses, and the local community.

Section three asked about confidence in the certification process. Based on Ghazoul’s work (2001), one question was included in the confidence section. Ghazoul (2001) believed that there are two main constraints to achieving end goals of certification: (1) confidence in the certification process and (2) conceptual and practical difficulties. For the purpose of this paper, we measured confidence in the certification process. The following statement was used: “I have a great deal of confidence in such a crisis certification process.”

Finally, likelihood to travel to a certified destination was measured by two questions: (1) “I would be more likely to visit a certified crisis prepared travel destination over another U.S. travel destination that has not received a certification in crisis preparedness” and (2) “In deciding a U.S. destination to visit, I would be more likely to select a certified crisis prepared destination over one that is not certified.” The data were analyzed using IBM version 20 SPSS for quantitative data.

Results

This section presents the survey results in order of the five abovementioned research questions.

Perceptions of Safety Because of Tourism Crisis Preparedness Certification

As presented in Table 2, all six items were dominated by a neutral response (3 on a 5-point scale). The most agreed upon statements were “A certified destination would be better prepared to handle a crisis than a destination that is not certified” (μ = 3.47) and “A certified crisis prepared destination would be in a better position to handle a crisis than a destination that has not completed a certification process” (μ = 3.47). The most neutral (closest to 3) response was that “A certified crisis prepared destination would be safer to visit than one that is not certified” (μ= 3.28).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics Related to Perceptions of Safety (n=2257).

	1	2	3	4	5
Perceptions of Safety as a Result of Certification Process	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree	Mean
A certified destination would be better prepared to handle a crisis than a destination that is not certified.	8.0	5.4	36.5	32.4	17.7	3.47
A certified crisis prepared destination would be in a better position to handle a crisis than a destination that has not completed the certification process.	8.4	5.2	35.0	33.3	18.1	3.47
The local government of the certified destination would be better prepared to handle a crisis	9.0	4.3	36.7	33.4	16.7	3.45
Response to a crisis by a certified crisis prepared destination will be better than response by destinations that have not gone through the crisis certification process.	9.0	5.1	38.9	31.9	15.1	3.39
I would feel safer when visiting a certified crisis prepared travel destination	10.9	7.1	37.7	28.9	15.4	3.30
A certified crisis prepared destination would be safer to visit than one that is not certified	9.6	7.8	40.7	28.5	13.4	3.28

Benefits of Crisis Certification

Similar to the responses to the levels of safety as a result of certification, the accrued benefits of certification were fairly neutral (Table 3). However, the benefits were positive across all four categories. The most agreed upon benefit was to the destination’s tourism businesses (μ= 3.53), followed by to the local community (μ= 3.51). Interestingly, the respondents viewed the visitor as receiving the least benefits of certification among the four stakeholder groups (μ = 3.47).

Table 3.

Descriptives of Responses to the Benefits of Certification.

	1	2	3	4	5
Benefits of Certification	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree	Mean
The crisis prepared certification benefits the destination’s tourism business.	7.6	3.7	35.7	34.3	18.7	3.53
The crisis prepared certification benefits the local community.	7.5	3.8	34.8	38.4	15.6	3.51
The crisis prepared certification benefits the local government.	8.3	3.8	36.3	35.4	16.2	3.48
The crisis prepared certification benefits the visitor.	8.4	4.8	36.6	31.5	18.8	3.47

Confidence in a Crisis Certification Process

Respondents were neutral on their level of confidence in the certification process (μ = 3.00) (Table 4). The majority (46.2%) said they were “neutral” on the statement of confidence.

Table 4.

Descriptives of Confidence in the Certification Process.

	1	2	3	4	5
Confidence in Certification	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree	Mean
I have a great deal of confidence in such a crisis certification process.	12.7	12.8	46.2	18.2	10.1	3.00

Likelihood to Travel to a Crisis Certified Destination

Responses to the likelihood of traveling to a certified crisis prepared destination were positive (Table 5). Even though the majority were neutral on the statements “In deciding a U.S. travel destination to visit, I would be more likely to select a certified crisis prepared destination over one that is not certified” and “I would be more likely to visit a certified crisis prepared travel destination over another U.S. travel destination that has not received a certificate in crisis preparedness” (41.0% and 46.9%, respectively), more than one-third of respondents fell in the top two boxes of agreement (32.1% and 36.9%, respectively).

Table 5.

Likelihood of Traveling to a Certified Destination over a Noncertified Destination.

	1	2	3	4	5
Likelihood of Travel to a Certified Destination	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree	Mean
I would be more likely to visit a certified crisis prepared travel destination over another U.S. travel destination that has not received a certificate in crisis preparedness	5.4	10.8	46.9	22.1	14.8	3.30
In deciding a U.S. travel destination to visit, I would be more likely to select a certified crisis prepared destination over one that is not certified	13.4	13.4	41.0	19.3	12.8	3.05

Predictors of Likelihood to Travel to a Certified Crisis Prepared Travel Destination

Multiple linear regression was used to explain how well the data fit the model. A multiple regression was used to understand the relationship between the predictor variables and the dependent variable. The regression model used 14 observations to fit the data. Two items were dummy variables (gender and presence of children). The remainder of the variables were continuous variables (age, perceptions of safety [6], benefits of certification [4], confidence in the certification process [1]).

The adjusted R² was analyzed to determine which of the models best fit the data. The adjusted R² is simply an adjustment of R² that allows comparisons to be made between models with different numbers of predictor variables. This is a more unbiased estimate than R². The final R² was .697 suggesting that the predictor variables explain almost 70% of the variance in the dependent variable likelihood to travel to a certified crisis prepared destination.

Results of the regression indicated that 4 of the 11 variables were significant predictors of the likelihood to travel to a certified crisis prepared travel destination. Overall, two safety variables, one confidence variable, and one benefit variable were significant predictors of the likelihood to travel to a certified travel destination (Table 6 and Figure 2). The largest predictor of the likelihood to travel to a certified travel destination was “I have a great deal of confidence in such a crisis certification process” (β = .269, p = .000), followed by “I would feel safer when visiting a certified crisis prepared travel destination” (β = .236, p = .000), and “A certified crisis prepared destination would be safer to visit than one that is not” (β = .216, p = .000). The smallest predictor of the likelihood to travel to a certified crisis prepared destination was “a crisis prepared certification benefits the visitor” (β = .071, p = .023).

Table 6.

Results of Regression Analysis: Influence of Independent Variables on Traveling to a Certified Travel Destination (n = 1,808).

Independent Variables	Beta	Standardized Coefficient	t-Statistic	p
(Constant)	1.359		9.803	.000
I have a great deal of confidence in such a crisis certification process	0.269	0.255	10.486	.000
I would feel safer when visiting a certified crisis prepared travel destination	0.236	0.234	8.171	.000
A certified crisis prepared destination would be safer to visit than one that is not	0.216	0.205	7.558	.000
The crisis prepared certification benefits the visitor	0.071	0.069	2.267	.023

Note: R = .836, R² = .700, adjusted R² = .697, F = 253.344, p = .000.

Figure 2.

Final model of predictors of increased travel to a certified destination.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study explored U.S. travelers’ perceptions of tourism crisis preparedness certification. It was a first attempt to explore the topic in the United States and was intended to stimulate further interest in the concept of crisis management certification. Findings from this study provide a benchmark for understanding perceptions of the U.S. travel population on certification of destination crisis preparedness. Results indicate that, in general, individuals are neutral or not sure about certification and its relationship to perceptions, safety, benefits, and future travel. Although the majority of responses fell in the neutral category, when the top two boxes (4–5 on a 5-point Likert-type scale) were collapsed, more than half of the respondents indicated positive responses across half of the statements. Given that this is preliminary work, it may have been better to ask if people were familiar with a certification process in general. In addition, perhaps more qualitative work could have better revealed the benefits of certification.

The least agreed upon statement was related to confidence in the certification process. This may make sense. In fact, if we consider the high numbers of neutral responses, it is not surprising that these answers are probably driven by a lack of understanding of the certification process (i.e., who is the certifying body, is it paid for, is it merely a label, who monitors it, etc.), rather than a negative opinion. This study’s results indicated that the travel industry needs leadership in defining and implementing a tourism crisis preparedness certification process, mostly because the results suggest that there is a general greater likelihood of traveling to a certified destination over a noncertified destination. Education on this topic is necessary for those who are employed in the travel industry, as well as general audiences (e.g., prospective tourists). As the conceptualization of a tourism crisis preparedness certification is better advanced and consumer knowledge on the topic increases through educational efforts, one would expect more variation in responses to occur.

We would be remiss if we failed to address the issue of social desirability. Given the nature of the topic, respondents may have responded the way the questioner wanted them to answer, rather than their true beliefs. For example, who would be willing to agree that a safe destination is a negative thing? Our results may have indicated a moderacy bias (preference for middle range); however, because this is a new concept and has not been tested before, we are unsure whether it is merely lack of understanding of the concept or a true moderacy bias. Future research is necessary to test this; however, given this is an exploratory study on a new concept, we are willing to accept some level of uncertainty as a starting point for measuring these concepts.

Interestingly, U.S. travelers indicated that they believed that certification would help the destination be better prepared and safer. Similarly, these statements were two of the significant drivers of the likelihood to travel to a certified destination. Thus, even though respondents may not have indicated confidence in the process, they did indicate positive feelings about the outcomes of such a certification. Given that certification may essentially imply a change in the destination image, this may make sense. There is a long history of research on the effects of destination image on tourism demand and therefore these findings are promising and further highlight the need to develop a crisis preparedness certification process in the United States. Additionally, consistent with the theoretical framework, a greater likelihood to travel to a certified tourism crisis prepared destination was associated with items related to perceptions of safety, confidence in the certification process, and benefits.

Results of this study reveal areas for further research. First, a clear conceptualization and definition of a crisis-ready destination and certification process is called for to enhance the understanding about crisis preparedness in the travel industry. This will help destinations to continue to invest in crisis preparedness and allow for further measurement of the impacts of certification on response actions, as well as recovery time and impact.

Another area of future research is to identify and measure drivers of tourism crisis preparedness certification by destinations. On the supply-side, why would destinations engage in a certification process for crisis preparedness? What motivates them to do so? What hinders their engagement in the process? How do destinations feel about marketing that they are certified “prepared”? The certification literature could clarify our understanding of how destinations may view certification in general and how education can assist in this adoption. Another rich area of research is the characteristics of destinations, which are related to the adoption of certification. For example, are tier one, two, or three level destinations more likely to engage in a certification process? How does the visitor profile of a destination impact their likelihood to adopt an ongoing commitment to tourism crisis preparedness through a certification process?

In summary, this study showed that U.S. travelers are neutral in their agreement of the majority of statements related to tourism crisis preparedness certification. Although there are still many questions left unanswered, this is an area that deserves further attention, particularly given the recent frequency and intensity of crises around the globe. The fact that there were drivers of a greater likelihood to travel to a certified crisis prepared destination indicates that certified crisis prepared destinations may have a market advantage. Therefore, investment in the process may not only help with sustainability in times of crisis, but also as a driver of visitation in general. Future qualitative research may be able to garner a deeper understanding of what people think of this concept and their perceptions of this concept related to safe destinations. Tourism crisis preparedness certification may be a new standard for destinations whereby, similar to green travel, safe travel (as designated by a certified travel prepared seal) will be driven by the consumer.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Lori Pennington-Gray, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the University of Florida and the Director of the Tourism Crisis Management Institute at the University of Florida. She specializes in tourism crisis management.

Ashley Schroeder is a PhD student at the University of Florida and is a research assistant in the Tourism Crisis Management Institute. She specializes in social media and crisis.

Betty Wu is graduated with her master’s in tourism from the University of Florida’s Tourism, Recreation and Sport Managment Program in 2012.

Holly Donohoe is an assistant professor at the University of Florida in the department of Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management. She is an affiliate faculty in the Tourism Crisis Management Institute.

Ignatius Cahyanto is an Assistant Professor of Tourism at Black Hills State University. He is a recent graduate of the University of Florida and an affiliate faculty of the Tourism Crisis Management Institute.

References

Adanur

Allen

(1995). “First Results of the Effects of ISO 9000 in the US Textiles Industry.” Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, 110 (8): 829-39.

Anderson

N. H.

(1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.

Anderson

N. H.

(1982). Methods of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.

Arana

Leon

(2008). “The Impact of Terrorism on Tourism Demand.” Annals of Tourism Research, 35 (2): 299-315.

Black

Crabtree

(eds.). (2007). Quality Assurance and Certification in Ecotourism, Vol. 5. Wellington, UK: CABI.

Blake

Sinclair

M. T.

Sugiyarto

(2003). “Quantifying the Impact of Foot and Mouth Disease on Tourism and the UK Economy.” Tourism Economics, 9 (4): 449-65.

Buckley

(2002). “Tourism Ecolabels.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29: 183-208.

Chafe

(2005). Consumer Demand and Operator Support for Socially and Environmentally Responsible Tourism. Center on Ecotourism and Sustainable Development & The International Ecotourism Society. http://www.responsibletravel.org/resources/documents/reports/Consumer_Demand_April_2005.pdf (accessed February 15, 2012).

Chafe

Honey

Martha

. (2005). “Consumer Demand and Operator Support for Socially and Environmentally Responsible Tourist.” http://www.responsibletravel.org/resources/documents/reports/Consumer_Demand_April_2005.pdf

10.

Chester

Crabtree

(2002). “Australia: The Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program.” In Ecotourism and Certification: Setting Standards in Practice, edited by Honey

Washington, DC: Island Press.

11.

Conaghan

Hanrahan

Sligo

I. T.

(2003). “Demand for and Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism Certification in Ireland.” Tourism and Hospitality Research in Ireland Conference: Dublin Institute of Technology.

12.

Conaghan

Hanrahan

(2009). “Global Conformity of Indicators for Eco-Certification Programs.” Tourism and Hospitality Research in Ireland Conference: Dublin Institute of Technology.

13.

Conaghan

Hanrahan

(2010a). “Demand for and Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism Certification in Ireland.” Institute of Technology of Sligo. http://www.shannoncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/THRIC-2010-Full-Paper-A.-Conaghan-and-J.-Hanrahan.pdf (accessed May 10, 2011).

14.

Conaghan

Hanrahan

(2010b). “Global Conformity of Indicators for Eco-Certification Programmes.” In Contemporary Issues in Irish and Global Tourism and Hospitality, edited by Gorham

Mottiar

http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=tfschhmtbook (accessed June 13, 2013).

15.

Conroy

(2001). “Can Advocacy-Led Certification Systems Transform Global Corporate Practices? Evidence from Some Theory.” Working Paper Series, 21. Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

16.

Crompton

J. L.

(1977). “A Systems Model of the Tourist’s Destination Selection Decisions Process with Particular Reference to the Role of Image and Perceived Constraints.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.

17.

Dodds

Joppe

(2005). CSR in the Tourism Industry? The Status of and Potential for Certification, Codes of Conduct and Guidelines. Washington, DC: CSR Practice, Foreign Investment Advisory Service, Investment Climate Department.

18.

Ecotrans. (2001). “Ecolabels and Awards in Tourism in Europe.” http://www.eco-tip.org/eco-labels/ecolabels.htm (accessed June 12, 2012).

19.

Fairweather

J. R.

Maslin

Simmons

D. G.

(2005). “Environmental Values and Response to Ecolabels among International Visitors to New Zealand.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13 (1): 82-98.

20.

Farrer

Dayan

(2009). “A Structured Approach for Reducing Bias in Surveys Using Online Access Panels.” www.printanddigitalresearchforum.com (accessed February 1, 2013).

21.

Faulkner

(2001). “Towards a framework for tourism disaster management.” Tourism Management, 22: 135-147.

22.

Faulkner

(2002). “Rejuvenating a Maturing Tourist Destination: The Case of the Gold Coast.” Current Issues in Tourism, 5 (6): 472-520.

23.

Font

(2002). “Environmental Certification in Tourism and Hospitality: Progress, Process and Prospects.” Tourism Management, 23: 197-205.

24.

Font

(2007). “Ecotourism Certification: Potential and Challenges.” In Critical Issue in Ecotourism: Understating the Complex Tourism Phenomena, edited by Higham

Burlington, MA: Elsevier. http://www.nubkk.nu.ac.th/picnews/s_1264237581.0750668784.pdf#page=405 (accessed February 20, 2012).

25.

Font

Buckley

(eds.). (2001). Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

26.

Font

Harris

(2004). “Rethinking Standards from Green to Sustainable.” Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (4):986-1007.

27.

Frey

B. S.

Luechinger

Stutzer

(2007). “Calculating Tragedy Assessing the Costs of Terrorism.” Journal of Economic Surveys, 21 (1): 1-24.

28.

Ghazoul. (2001). “Barriers to Biodiversity Conservation in Forest Certification.” Conservation Biology, 15 (2): 315-17.

29.

Hamilton

J. M.

Tol

R. S. J.

(2007). “The Impact of Climate Change on Tourism in Germany, the UK and Ireland: A Simulation Study.” Regional Environmental Change, 7 (3): 161-72.

30.

Harris

S. M.

(2007). “Green Tick™: An Example of Sustainability Certification of Goods and Services.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 18 (2): 167-78.

31.

(1994). “Is the ISO 9000 Series for Total Quality Management?” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 11 (9): 74-89.

32.

Honey

(ed.). (2002). Ecotourism and Certification, Setting Standards in Practice. Washington, DC: Island Press.

33.

Honey

Rome

(2001). Protecting Paradise: Certification Programs for Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism. Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies. Also available online at www.ips-dc.org.

34.

Honey

Stewart

(2002). “Introduction.” In Ecotourism and Certification: Setting Standards in Practice, edited by Honey

Washington, DC: Island Press.

35.

Huang

Tseng

Petrick

(2007). “Crisis Management Planning to Restore Tourism after Disasters: A Case Study from Taiwan.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23 (2/3/4): 203-21.

36.

Jamal

Borges

Stronza

(2006). “The Institutionalization of Ecotourism: Certification, Cultural Equity and Praxis.” Journal of Ecotourism, 5 (3): 145-75.

37.

LePree

J. G.

(2009). “Certifying Sustainability: The Efficacy of Costa Rica’s Certification for Sustainable Tourism.” Florida Atlantic Comparative Studies Journal, 11 (2008-2009): 57-78.

38.

Lynch

(2004). Weathering the Storm. A Crisis Management Guide for Tourism Businesses. Leicester: Matador.

39.

Mihalic

(1999). “Emerald Article: Equity in Outgoing Tourism through Tourist Certificates.” Management, 11 (2/3): 128-31.

40.

Mintzberg

(1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles for Planning, Plans, Planners. New York: Free Press.

41.

Morrison

Hsieh

Wang

(1992). “Certification in the Travel and Tourism Industry.” Journal of Tourism Studies, 3 (2): 32-40.

42.

Ozanne

L. K.

Vlosky

R. P.

(2003). “Certification from the U.S. Consumer Perspective: A Comparison from 1995 and 2000.” Forest Products Journal, 53 (3): 13-21.

43.

Pambudi

McCaughey

Smyth

(2009). “Computable General Equilibrium Estimates of the Impact of the Bali Bombing on the Indonesian Economy.” Tourism Management, 30: 232-39.

44.

Parsons

Grant

(2007). “Green Globe: A Global Environmental Certification Programme for Travel and Tourism.” In Quality Assurance and Certification in Ecotourism, edited by Black

Crabtree

Wallingford, Oxon: CABI, pp. 81-100.

45.

PATA Pacific Asia tourism Association. (2003). “A Guide to Developing Crisis Management Plans.” www.pata.org (accessed June 17, 2013).

46.

Pearson

Mitroff

(1993). “From Crisis-Prone to Crisis-Prepared.” Academy of Management Executive, 7: 48-59.

47.

Pennington-Gray

Cahyanto

Thapa

McLaughlin

Willming

Blair

(2010). “Destination Management Organization and Tourism Crisis Management Plans in Florida.” Tourism Review International, 13: 247-61.

48.

Philpott

Bichier

Rice

Greenberg

(2007). “Field-Testing Ecological and Economic Benefits of Coffee Certification Programs.” Conservation Biology, 21 (4): 974-85.

49.

Preble

J. F.

(1997). “Integrating the Crisis Management Perspective into the Strategic Management Process.” Journal of Management Studies, 34 (5): 769-91.

50.

Rivera

(2002). “Assessing a Voluntary Environmental Initiative in the Developing World: The Costa Rican Certification for Sustainable Tourism.” Policy Sciences, 35 (4), 333-60.

51.

Sasidharan

Sirakaya

Kerstetter

(2002). “Developing Countries and Tourism Ecolabels.” Tourism Management, 23: 161-74.

52.

Sönmez

Graefe

A. R.

(1998). “Influence of Terrorism Risk on Foreign Tourism Decisions.” Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (1): 112-44.

53.

Toth

(2002). “Exploring the Concepts Underlying Certification.” In Ecotourism and Certification: Setting Standards in Practice, edited by Honey

Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 73-101.

54.

Crompton

J. L.

(1990). “Attitude Determinants in Tourism Destination Choice.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17 (3): 432-48.

55.

Crompton

J. L.

(1992). “The Roles of Perceived Inhibitors and Facilitators in Pleasure Travel Destination Decisions.” Journal of Travel Research, 30 (3): 18-25.