Tourists’ Perceived Risks Toward Overt Safety Measures

Abstract

This study aims to assess tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety measures. The study segments tourists into four different groups depending on their perceptions toward overt safety measures, type of accommodation, and purpose of visit. A total of 476 respondents were segmented into special occasion tourists, leisure mid-priced tourists, frequent business travelers, and backpackers. A two-step cluster analysis and ANOVA were used to analyze the data. The results show that, all clusters, except the backpacker segment, feel quite safe toward overt safety measures. Whereas the special occasion tourists at luxury hotels felt the safest toward overt safety measures, they concurrently were the most likely discouraged with too-stringent overt safety measures. Although most tourists feel safe about overt safety measures, a stringent increase in safety measures could frighten them because such measures could create a false perception that something untoward has previously happened at the destination. Hence, the old claim that stringent safety measures frighten tourists remains a classic rule of thumb. Therefore, hoteliers must find an appropriate balance in the extent of overt safety measures so as not to exceed the acceptable safety threshold of tourists.

Keywords

overt safety measures hotel safety servicescape safety concerns Thai hotels

There is no consensus among hospitality managers as to whether or not overt safety measures frighten tourists and alter their decision making. In this study, overt safety measures are defined as very high and very visible stringent safety measures openly shown to guests, such as obtrusive physical safety devices like metal detectors and behavioral measures like luggage checks and presence of uniformed guards at tourist attractions (Enz & Taylor, 2002; Feickert, Verma, Plaschka, & Dev, 2006; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). One school of thought believes that overt safety measures deter criminals from wrongdoing (Saied, 1990). However, another school of thought believes that overt safety measures create unwanted safety concerns and a negative image (Feickert et al., 2006; Groeneboom & Jones, 2003). Thus, when tourists visit with the assumption that the destination is safe, service providers should not cause them worry by informing their guests about a past tragedy at the site (Tarlow, 1999; Tarlow & Santana, 2002), because tourists tend to be sensitive to negative messages, which might be exaggerated and lead to negative repercussions (Kim & Wong, 2006). Consequently, general managers and security managers perceive that overt safety measures are inappropriate, especially at first-class hotels (Enz, 2009; Saied, 1990).

However, there has been as yet no empirical study testing whether or not such concerns exist among tourists. This study aims to (a) assess tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety and (b) segment tourists based on their perceptions toward overt safety. Understanding tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety is helpful in bridging any gap between service providers’ and tourists’ attitudes and assumptions and, as a result, in allowing managers to more effectively manage their safety budget.

Safety

Safety concern is a component of emotion, which includes a complex set of subjective and objective factors, mediated by neural and hormonal stimuli that provoke affective experience and are more intense in nature than moods (Bigne & Andreu, 2004). Safety concern is an overlapping emotion of worry, fear, and anxiety felt while experiencing an anxiety-producing situation (Cho & Jang, 2008; Hosany & Gilbert, 2009; Richins, 1997). In addition, safety concerns are closely associated with uncertainty avoidance, and safety prevails over other needs where uncertainty avoidance is strong (Hofstede, 2001). Specifically, those from high-uncertainty-avoidance cultures tend to be more safety sensitive than those from low- and medium-uncertainty-avoidance cultures (Money & Crotts, 2003; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005).

Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) define uncertainty avoidance as the extent to which a member of a culture feels threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations. Moreover, feeling of uncertainty is not just personal but culturally shared, transferred, and reinforced by other members of a society (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). However, uncertainty is a subjective and nonrational feeling, when an individual may feel reasonably comfortable in a situation that is familiar to him or her, but such a situation is perceived by others as risky (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

In the tourism context, safety and security are the most important travel considerations (Mansfeld & Pizam, 2006; Prideaux, 1996; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Ryan, 1993; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998). Since tourists travel to relax and to relieve stress or to conduct business, safety at tourist destinations is essential. To help ensure this, tourists rely on their government’s travel warnings, the media, and word of mouth when making travel decisions (Holcomb & Pizam, 2006). Safety is of concern both among tourists and travel intermediaries, such as meeting planners and tour operators (Holcomb & Pizam, 2006). Since tour operators are liable for their clients’ safety (Cavlek, 2002), they carefully select safe accommodation for their clients. In addition, corporations do not send their employees to risky places, and they do not trade off safety with discounts due to liability for their employees’ safety (Henderson, 2007).

Hotel Safety Features and Hoteliers’ Perceptions Toward Overt Safety

Hotel safety refers to “protecting employees and customers within hotel property from potential injury or death” (Enz 2009, p. 554), whereas hotel security goes beyond protecting employees and guests, to also include preserving guests’ possessions and property (Enz, 2009; Enz & Taylor, 2002). Hilliard and Baloglu (2008) surveyed 100 U.S. meeting planners and found that meeting planners are most concerned with visible safety features, which influence their overall perceptions of a hotel’s servicescape. During site inspection, meeting planners also consider visible safety features and staff training because hotel safety vary across size, age, and location (Enz, 2009; Enz & Taylor, 2002; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). For instance, Enz (2009) surveyed 5,487 U.S. hotels on their safety and security features and found that luxury and upscale hotels, newer hotels, larger hotels, and those located in urban and airport locations have the highest safety and security features, due to higher exposure to risks, than hotels located in small towns and resorts, which are designed to provide guests with a relaxing and welcoming environment. Specifically, 1 month after the 9/11 terrorist attack, Enz and Taylor (2002) surveyed 2,123 U.S. hotels and found that luxury and upscale hotels and airport and urban hotels possess a wider array of safety features than small, economy, and resort hotels. Although high rack rates of some hotels are often artificially set high so as to be used as a reference for calculating discounts, these hotels offer higher safety and security features than lower-priced hotels (Enz, 2009; Enz & Taylor, 2002).

Perceptions Toward Hotel Safety as Servicescape

According to the (U.S.) National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI; 1986) and Bach and Pizam (1996), intrusion detection systems, such as alarms, sensors, closed-circuit TV cameras, and metal detectors, are considered physical safety devices. Moreover, sprinklers, smoke detectors, electronic locks, in-room safes, spy holes, and deadlocks on guest room doors and interior corridors are common hotel safety and security features (Enz, 2009; Marshall, 1993; Sammons, Moreo, Benson, & DeMicco, 1999). Specifically, closed-circuit TV cameras create the greatest sense of safety and security among U.S. tourists (Milman, Jones, & Bach, 1999). Moreover, these visible physical safety features are part of the servicescape creating a safe hotel environment (Enz, 2009). Nonetheless, Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty (2011) found that tourists perceive closed-circuit TVs as unimportant in identifying criminals once an incident has occurred and ineffective in preventing future occurrences, though hotel managers perceive them as a hygiene safety feature, which must be present. However, closed-circuit TV cameras and electronic locks do not guarantee guests’ safety in the absence of appropriate equipment and trained security personnel in monitoring a fully developed safety plan (Enz, 2009). Nevertheless, these physical safety devices provide tourists with a greater sense of safety and security (Milman et al., 1999) and are critical components of the overall servicescape that helps define the service experience (Enz, 2009; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008; see Table 1).

Table 1

Literature on Overt Safety

Reference	Main Variables	Research Methodology	Study Context	Main Findings
Enz (2009)	Hotel safety and security indexes and average rack rate, age, and location	Survey, ANOVA	U.S. hotel industry	Strong correlations between safety and security amenities and average rack rate
Enz and Taylor (2002)	Safety and security indices	Mail survey, frequency distribution, descriptive statistics	All U.S. hotel general managers	Luxury and upscale hotels and airport and urban hotels were most likely to possess a full array of safety features, whereas small, economy, and resort motels were the least likely to provide safety and security features
Feickert, Verma, Plaschka, and Dev (2006)	Hotel guests’ perceptions on seven safety measures: metal detector, video surveillance, photo ID at check-in, armed security guard, checking guest ID against law enforcement records, and first-aid kits in each room	Mail survey, frequency distribution, and multiple regression	U.S. residents across the United States	All hotel guests were favorable to security cameras, requiring photo ID checks, but they were neutral toward metal detector and first-aid kits; respondents who stayed in upscale, mid-scale, and economy hotels were also neutral toward metal detectors, presence of armed guards, and first-aid kits
Groenenboom and Jones (2003)	Security managers’ perceptions on how to provide a balance between hospitality and hotel security	In-depth interviews	Security managers in top hotels in London, U.K.	There is no consensus as to whether uniformed security staff provide a greater or lesser sense of safety among guests; different security managers adopt different practices for assuring security with regard to patrolling the property
Hilliard and Baloglu (2008)	Importance of visible safety features, documentation and staff training, and general security features on meeting planners’ site selection	In-person survey at two meeting industry conferences, frequency distribution, means, factor analysis, multiple regression	U.S. meeting planners	Meeting planners were most concerned with visible safety features, which add to their overall perceptions of a hotel’s servicescape
Pinhey and Iverson (1994)	Seven assessments on perceptions of safety on: sightseeing, water sports, on beach, night life, in car, and on road	Random sample, multiple regression	Japanese visitors to Guam	Tourists somewhat felt safe while participating in activities that did not take them too far from their hotels; young (26-35 years of age) and higher income tourists felt less safe when participating in water- and beach-related activities
Saied (1990)	Approaches to risk management	Interview hotel companies	U.S. hotel corporate officials	Properties that implemented ongoing safety training programs had better risk-management programs

In contrast, behavioral safety measures are operational security practices used to provide safety and security for guests (NCPI, 1986). Examples of behavioral measures are clearly identifying emergency exits and evacuation signs on all guest room floors and in public areas (Drabek, 2000; Saied, 1990), posting multilingual safety warnings and evacuation procedures (Peattie, Clake, & Peattie, 2005), educating and reminding guests to attend to their safety via printed materials placed in guest rooms or at the front desk (Bach & Pizam 1996), and having uniformed tourist police patrols at destinations to deter criminals from wrongdoing (Pizam, Tarlow, & Bloom, 1997). In addition, employee background checks and presence of armed guards at tourist attractions are deemed essential behavioral safety measures (Kavanaugh, 1992; NCPI, 1986; Tarlow & Santana, 2002). Moreover, taking action on a written crisis management plan, fire safety training and loss prevention management (Ellis & Stipanuk, 1999), and employee training to improve the foreign language skills of security personnel (Tarlow & Santana, 2002) are other behavioral measures that are positively perceived as management’s commitment to provide reasonable care to protect guests (Bach & Pizam, 1996).

However, very high and very visible safety measures challenge the desired image of a hospitable and welcoming atmosphere (Enz & Taylor, 2002; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). Currently, there is no consensus as to whether overt safety measures maximize guests’ safety or create unwanted safety concern. Saied (1990) interviewed six hotel companies and found that three hotels perceive that overt safety measures would deter intruders from wrongdoing, reassure guests, and send a clear message that the hotel is serious about security. However, the other three perceive such measures as inappropriate in the service-oriented environment of first-class hotels by causing guests to think that there may be a security problem at the hotel (Saied, 1990). Similarly, Groeneboom and Jones (2003) interviewed security managers of eight upscale hotels in London and found that it is impossible to maximize security while maintaining hospitality in the hotel environment. In addition, hoteliers perceive that too much overt safety invites more criminals who want to challenge the safety system and “advertise” that there is a lot of crime in hotels (Groeneboom & Jones, 2003). Hence, even though advanced discrete and unobtrusive overt safety systems such as closed-circuit TVs make the issue of hospitality and security less troublesome, hotels must balance safety, convenience, and hospitality to achieve customer satisfaction, because too many overt safety measures may create perceptions that the hotel is unsafe (Enz & Taylor, 2002; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008).

Type of Accommodation and Tourists’ Perceptions Toward Overt Safety

Regardless of type of accommodation, guests place importance on safety (Weaver & Oh, 1993). For instance, Choi and Chu (1999) found that guests who stay at mid-priced hotels look for safety features in the same way as guests who stay at luxury and upscale hotels, which tend to invest more on safety measures than other types of hotels (Taylor & Enz, 2002). Backpackers also choose to stay at hostels because of safety considerations (Nash, Thyne, & Davies 2006). Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty (2009) found that during the destination selection process, 63% of international inbound leisure tourists would not overlook personal safety even if travel costs were low.

Likewise, business tourists do not overlook safety during hotel selection (Withiam, 1989). Knutson (1988) also notes that frequent business tourists consider a safe and secure environment an important criterion in hotel selection. More specifically, female business tourists are more concerned about safety than their male counterparts (McCleary, Pamela, Weaver, & Lan, 1994). For instance, business tourists tend to expect fewer safety features at beach resorts than at airports and urban hotels because they are aware that most resorts give greater attention to property aesthetics and ambience than to strict measures (Enz & Taylor, 2002). More especially, business tourists have no choice as to whether or not to travel to an affected destination (Holcomb & Pizam, 2006).

Holcomb and Pizam (2006) conducted a telephone survey of 1,017 U.S. residents about the impact of crime on respondents’ repeat visitation to areas where a crime has been perpetrated and found that half of the respondents would return despite their previous experience of crime. On the other hand, for those respondents who would not return, nothing would change their mind, the passage of time, one’s positive experience, or the media. Thus, they concluded that destinations afflicted by crime should not necessarily expect a decrease of tourist arrivals. Therefore, service providers should not cause tourists worry by informing them about a past wrongdoing at the site (Rittichainuwat, 2011; Tarlow, 1999; Tarlow & Santana, 2002). More important, stressing the high safety level at a destination does not greatly affect the likelihood of tourists traveling to that destination (Sirakaya, Sheppard, & McLellan, 1997). In contrast, stressing the safety issue creates unwanted safety concerns on travel intention; hence, destination marketers should not highlight the safety issue, unless to reverse a negative perception of the destination (Sirakaya et al., 1997).

Although both business and leisure tourists consider safety an important hotel selection criterion (Ananth, Demicco, Moreo, & Howey, 1992; Clow, Garretson, & Kurtz, 1994; McCleary et al., 1994), their responses to the intensity of safety measures vary according to place and situation. Regarding leisure tourists, after the September 11 terrorist attack in New Year, Feickert et al. (2006) surveyed 930 hotel guests on their perceptions toward overt safety measures such as metal detectors, presence of armed guards, video surveillance, checking guest ID against law enforcement records, and first-aid kits in each room. They found that leisure travelers were more accepting of these obtrusive safety measures than business travelers. However, guests at upscale hotels were less accepting of metal detectors and armed guards than were guests at economy hotels, who were more accepting of metal detectors, and as the frequency of travel increases, the acceptability of security features decreases (Feickert et al., 2006). Although hotel guests may perceive overt safety measure as a sign that the hotel is compensating for an unsafe environment, they were not so negative about metal detectors, which were responded to neutrally in research (Feickert et al., 2006).

The literature also shows that tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety are associated with demographic profile in categories such as age, education, purpose of the trip, cultural orientation, and past travel experience. For example, Pinhey and Iverson (1994) randomly surveyed 608 Japanese tourists to Guam to assess their perceptions of safety and found that older and honeymoon tourists feel safer than other respondents while participating in tourist activities (Pinhey & Iverson, 1994). Moreover, tourists with a higher education level and a higher social status are more concerned with safety than other respondents (Demos, 1992; Pinhey & Iverson, 1994). Sirakaya, Sheppard, and McLellan (1997) found that young undergraduate students are less concerned about safety than older adults. Likewise, Milman et al. (1999) found that education affects perceived safety at destinations. Specifically, the higher the education tourists have, the lower the level of safety concerns they have, because highly educated tourists are more likely to be exposed to print and electronic news media, which makes them more risk tolerant than tourists with lower education levels (Milman et al., 1999).

In addition, travelers with previous travel experience are more confident about destination safety than those who have not previously visited the place (Pinhey & Iverson, 1994). Likewise, Sirakaya et al. (1997) found that because of previous travel experience, frequent business travelers have less safety concerns than first-time leisure travelers.

Furthermore, due to the fact that tourists avoid traveling if they perceive terrorism risk (Floyd, Gibson, Pennington-Gray, & Thapa, 2003; Pizam & Fleischer, 2002), during and after any crisis, destination marketers should dissociate an unaffected destination from a problematic destination that has an undesirable safety image to avoid a spillover effect on nonaffected destinations (Beirman, 2003; Mansfeld & Pizam, 2006). Finally, Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992) stated that promoting destination safety is not enough to reduce safety concerns and that destinations must also address risk reduction to motivate safety-sensitive tourists to travel.

Method

Instrument

Consolidation of safety items from the literature review (Feickert et al., 2006; Groeneboom & Jones, 2003) allowed development of a self-administered questionnaire. Operationalization of overt safety concepts was tested by two questions: (a) “How would you feel if there were stringent safety measures (metal detectors and luggage check) at your hotel?” and (b) “Would the presence of overt safety measures such as metal detectors and luggage checks deter you from staying in the hotel?” The respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions toward the first question on a 5-point semantic differential scale that ranged from 1 (very worried) to 5 (very safe). A 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used for the second question. Five hotel security managers and faculty members in the field of hospitality management checked the content validity of the instrument. The questionnaire contained three sections: travel behaviors (purpose of trip and type of accommodation chosen), guests’ perceptions toward overt safety measures, and demographic profiles.

Data Collection

The target population was inbound international tourists who were waiting for departure flights at Bangkok International Airport. Thailand was used as a research setting because it experienced a series of bomb blasts in Bangkok on December 31, 2006, during the New Year countdown and has encountered terrorism in its three southern-most provinces since 2004. A single-stage cluster sampling was used to randomly select three departure flights at Bangkok International Airport, Thailand, from January 15 to January 31, 2007, soon after the bomb blasts. To collect data, seven research assistants were employed. The persons handing out questionnaires were in the departure area for 45 minutes to 2 hours prior to flight. In this way, 500 passengers who were checking in for selected flights were asked to participate in the survey. When a person agreed to fill out a questionnaire, research assistants asked him/her to complete the entire questionnaire.

Data Analysis

According to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2010), cluster analysis is an appropriate tool to classify respondents into groups with large enough sample size to include the true representative of the population and when the selection of variables is based on conceptual foundation. To meet the cluster analysis assumption, the number of clusters was determined based on the conceptual framework (the literature and interviews with hotel security managers). Additionally, a sample of 467 respondents and a single-stage cluster sampling was used to ensure the representation of small groups within the population.

Furthermore, the variable selection in the cluster analysis is guided by the literature suggesting that perceptions toward overt safety vary between leisure and business travelers (Feickert et al., 2006) as well as between type of accommodation and variables such as size, age, and location (Enz, 2009; Enz & Taylor, 2002; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). Hence, this study segments tourists based on tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety (continuous variables), purpose of visit, and type of accommodation chosen (categorical variables). Because of a combination of continuous variables and categorical variables, neither the hierarchical clustering nor the K-means clustering can perform this task (Norušis, 2006). Hence, the SPSS two-step cluster analysis procedure, which has been designed to handle a mixture of continuous and categorical variables (Norušis, 2006), was used in this study. In the two-step cluster analysis, cases were first assigned to preclusters; then, the preclusters were clustered using the hierarchical clustering algorithm (Norušis, 2006). Moreover, clustering variables were standardized with the use of Z scores to eliminate the bias introduced by the differences in the scales of the measured variables (Hair et al., 2010).

Because of a combination of categorical and continuous variables, only the log-likelihood criterion can be used (Norušis, 2006), as “the distance between two clusters depends on the decrease in the log-likelihood when they are combined into a single cluster” (Norušis 2006, p. 375). Then, the number of clusters was determined based on the number of clusters at which the Schwarz Bayesian information criterion (BIC) becomes small and the percentage changes in BIC between adjacent numbers of clusters is markedly larger than those occurring at other steps (Hair et al., 2010; Norušis, 2006). Then, ANOVA was used to assess any differences among the derived clusters across demographic profiles (not included in the cluster solution) to ensure criterion validity and practical significance and also to describe cluster profile after they have been identified (Hair et al., 2010).

Results

Out of 500 distributed questionnaires, 476 completed questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 95%. As for gender distribution, almost equal numbers of each gender participated in the study: male (46%) and female (44%). Regarding age distribution, 40% of tourists were between 20 and 29 years, followed by 36% of those who were between 30 and 39 years. With regard to education, more than 74% of both groups had college or graduate degrees, followed by 15% with secondary or high school diplomas. Regarding marital status, 44% were single, followed by 41% married and 8% divorced. In terms of occupation, 20% were students, 14% were office workers, 11% were technicians, 9% were entrepreneurs, 8% were government officers, and 8% were housewives or retired. As for country of residence, most respondents were Western tourists (26% were Scandinavian, 17% were German, 14% were Australian and New Zealander, 10% were American, and 9% were British), whereas Asian tourists (Thai, Chinese, Malaysian) represented only 7%.

More than half (59%) of the tourists were on holiday, followed by 23% who were business travelers and 12% were on honeymoon trips. About 35% of the tourists surveyed stayed at guest houses or bungalows, 24% chose budget hotels, 20% chose luxurious hotels, and 17% stayed at mid-price hotels.

Do Overt Safety Measures Discourage Guests?

The results show that only 15.6% of the guests were worried because of the presence of overt safety measures, whereas 46% felt safe and 38.4% were neutral. Also, although an increase of safety measures would frighten 32.8% of the respondents, only 13.7% indicated they would not be discouraged, and 53.5% were neutral with regard to staying at a hotel with a presence of overt safety measures.

Segmentation of Tourists by Their Perceptions Toward Overt Safety

A two-step cluster analysis using a log-likelihood criterion method was run to classify the tourists into segments based on their perceptions toward overt safety, purpose of trip, and type of accommodation. The two-step cluster analysis resulted in four clusters with the largest decreases of the Schwarz BIC change observed from three (BIC change = −334) to four clusters (BIC change = −227), with a ratio of BIC changes from .65 to .40. The four clusters had distinct and logical characteristics as predicted by the literature (Enz, 2009; Feickert et al., 2006; Pinhey & Iverson, 1994). The first cluster is composed of 107 observations (25%), the second cluster has 138 observations (32%), the third cluster consists of 73 observations (17%), and the fourth cluster is composed of 119 observations (27%; see Table 2).

Table 2

Cluster Profiles (Perceptions Toward Overt Safety Measure and Travel Information)

	Cluster 1: Special Occasion Tourists (N = 107)	Cluster 2: Leisure Mid-Priced Tourists (N = 138)	Cluster 3: Frequent Business Travelers (N = 73)	Cluster 4: Backpackers (N = 119)
How would you feel if there are stringent safety measures at your hotel?	3.67^a	3.55^b	3.37	3.02^c
Would stringent safety measures (metal detectors, luggage checks) deter you from staying at your hotel?	3.33 ns	3.15 ns	3.12 ns	3.17 ns
Purpose of visit
Holiday	27	111	0	119
Business	0	0	73	0
Holiday and business	1	27	0	0
Honeymoon	54	0	0	0
Visiting friend and relative	25	0	0	0
Type of accommodation
Guesthouse/bungalow	23	0	10	119
Budget hotel	9	64	30	0
Mid-price hotel	5	62	9	0
Luxury hotel/resort	70	9	24	0

Note. ns = nonsignificant. Means with different superscripts for each perceived safety are significantly different among each other at (p = .001).

Then, ANOVA was run to identify any significant difference among the cluster membership across demographic profile and also to describe characteristics of each derived cluster profile. The ANOVA showed significant difference among the four clusters (at the 5% level of significance) on marital status, age, education, and occupation, confirming the criterion validity. Also, ANOVA found a significant difference on the tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety measures (F = 11.25, p = .00) but not on the likelihood that overt safety measures would frighten tourists. A post hoc Bonferroni test found a significant difference between Clusters 1, 2, and 4 (at the 1% level of significance). Whereas the tourists in the first and second clusters felt safe toward overt safety measures, tourists in the fourth cluster were neutral. The four clusters were grouped and labeled as follows (see Table 3).

Table 3

Clusters’ Demographic Profiles

	Cluster 1: Special Occasion Tourists (N = 107)	Cluster 2: Leisure Mid-Priced Tourists (N = 138)	Cluster 3: Frequent Business Travelers (N = 73)	Cluster 4: Backpackers (N = 119)
Marital status
Single	41	82	32	88
Married	62	52	39	29
Age (years)
Less than 20	4	10	2	8
20-29	38	59	18	61
30-39	43	46	32	34
40-49	14	13	15	11
50-59	7	4	2	3
60 and older	1	6	3	1
Education
Primary/middle school or less	1	2	4	0
Secondary school/high school	21	16	15	20
College/university	43	65	18	63
Graduate/postgraduate	42	51	36	34
Occupation
Entrepreneur/manager	2	17	9	9
Government officer	10	10	8	5
Mass media	16	17	13	4
Sales/office worker	13	19	13	14
Technician	15	9	13	9
Student	18	32	5	35
Instructor	6	8	2	11
Retired/unemployed	6	6	2	2
Housewife	8	5	1	5
Other	13	15	7	24

Cluster 1 was called “special occasion tourists.” This cluster mainly comprises married couples, aged between 30 and 39 years; mostly on honeymoon, holiday, or visiting friends and relatives; and staying in luxury hotels. Most respondents were students, employees in mass media, and technicians. When compared with other leisure tourists, special occasion tourists felt safer regarding overt safety measures at their luxury hotels. However, special occasion tourists were also the most deterred by overt safety measures. This result is in line with the study by Enz and Taylor (2002), who noted that customers may say that they prefer hotels with high standards of safety, but at the same time they may be irritated with inconvenient measures. Similar to the study by Pinhey and Iverson (1994), older and honeymoon tourists were more concerned with safety than other respondents.

Cluster 2 was labeled “leisure mid-priced tourists.” This cluster is mainly composed of singles, aged between 20 and 29 years, with college degrees. Most respondents were on holiday. Almost the same proportions had stayed at either mid-priced or budget hotels. This group felt somewhat safe toward overt safety measures.

Cluster 3 was named “frequent business travelers.” This cluster mainly comprises either married or single business tourists, aged between 30 and 39 years, with graduate degrees. Most respondents had booked at budget or luxury hotels. Employees in mass media, sales/office workers, and technicians dominated this segment. They reported feeling quite safe when there were overt safety measures. When compared with the other clusters, they were the least likely to be deterred by stringent safety measures. The lower sensitivity toward risks of the business tourists may be due to their past travel experience (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005) and their higher level of education, which may lower the level of perceived risks (Milman et al., 1999). Moreover, since business tourists have no choice regarding their destination, they tend to return to a destination even if they had experienced a crime perpetrated there (Holcomb & Pizam, 2006). Frequent business travelers in this study are similar to Sirakaya and Woodside’s (2005) frequent business travelers, whose previous travel experience minimize perceived risks at destinations (see Table 4).

Table 4

Cluster Profiles

	Cluster 1: Special Occasion Tourists (N = 107)	Cluster 2: Leisure Mid-Priced Tourists (N = 138)	Cluster 3: Frequent Business Travelers (N = 73)	Cluster 4: Backpackers (N = 119)
Perceptions toward overt safety measures	Felt safe (with the highest mean when compared with the other clusters)	Felt safe	Quite safe	Neutral
Possibility of leaving the hotel with the presence of stringent safety measures (metal detectors, luggage checks)	Quite likely (with the highest mean when compared with the other clusters)	Somewhat likely	Somewhat likely (with the lowest mean when compared with the other clusters)	Somewhat likely
Purpose of visit	Honeymoon, holiday, visiting friends and relatives	Holiday	Business	Holiday
Type of accommodation	Luxury hotels	Budget hotels/mid-price hotels	Budget hotels/luxury hotels	Guest houses and bungalows
Age	30-39 years	20-29 years	30-39 years	20-29 years
Marital status	Married	Single	Married/single	Single
Education	College graduate	College	Graduate	College
Occupation	Student, mass media, technician	Student	Mass media, sales/office worker, technician	Student, other

Cluster 4 was categorized “backpackers.” This cluster is composed of single students, aged between 20 and 29 years. The occupation of most was classified as “other” (whose frequency is less than 5%). All these respondents were on holiday and were to stay at guest houses or bungalows. Backpackers were neutral regarding overt safety. Their travel style is similar to backpackers described in previous studies (Elsrud, 2001; Loker-Murphy & Pearce, 1995; Uriely, Yonay, & Simchai, 2002).

Conclusion and Implications

This study aims to assess tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety. The findings suggest that implementing overt safety measures immediately after terrorism makes leisure and business guests feel safe. The findings also suggest that tourists somewhat agreed that too many stringent safety measures would have deterred them from staying at their hotels. This finding is in concurrence with several hoteliers’ concerns that overt safety measures could frighten tourists. Similar to the study by Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty (in press), although security managers implemented overt safety measures during a crisis, they perceive such measures as creating unwanted safety concerns by guests. Although overt safety measures make tourists feel safe, because they are viewed as preventative safety measures, stringent safety measures could cause concern about a negative incident having taken place at the site. This confirms previous studies indicating that safety is an important element of hotel servicescape, but hotels must balance safety, convenience, and hospitality to achieve customer satisfaction, because too many overt safety measures may create perceptions that the hotel is unsafe (Enz, 2009; Enz & Taylor, 2002; Groeneboom & Jones, 2003; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008).

This study also segments tourists into four groups depending on their perceptions toward overt safety measures, type of accommodation, and purpose of visit. The findings suggest significant differences on tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety measures among the four clusters. Whereas the special occasion tourists at luxury hotels felt the safest toward overt safety measures, they concurrently were the most likely discouraged with too-stringent overt safety measures, as too-stringent safety measures create uncertainty and suspicion about negative incidents having occurred at the scene (Enz, 2009; Feickert et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005). This finding supports the literature that reveals overt safety measures create unwanted guest safety concerns and a negative image (Feickert et al., 2006; Groeneboom & Jones, 2003). As Hilliard and Baloglu (2008) note, too many stringent overt safety measures may elicit a guest perception that the hotel is unsafe.

As mentioned earlier, all clusters, except the backpacker segment, feel quite safe toward overt safety measures. Backpackers, on the other hand, perceive stringent safety measures as unusual at bungalows and guest houses. They would not expect to see metal detectors or luggage checks at small establishments such as guest houses and bungalows. Indeed, if such safety measures are present, guests would suspect that criminals or terrorists might be at the scene, causing police officers to install metal detectors to search for weapons or bombs. Backpackers in this study also have similar characteristics as Roehl and Fesenmaier’s (1992) risk neutral group, who do not perceive travel as a risky activity. According to Maoz (2007) and Nash et al. (2006), young backpackers who travel on a tight budget are more risk tolerant than any other type of tourist because of their longer stay and participation in more activities, which familiarize them with the environment and make them indifferent toward risks. As Sirakaya and Woodside (2005), Pinhey and Iverson (1994), and Sönmez and Graefe (1998) note, tourists who have more experience of a particular destination become more confident about the safety of the place.

Classic Rule of Thumb

This study suggests that overt safety measures should be present at budget, mid-priced, and luxury hotels (except guest houses and bungalows) because guests perceive such measures as a hygiene factor and an element of the hotel servicescape. Additionally, overt safety measures can be used as a marketing tool to assure guests about hotel safety standards. As Milman et al. (1999) suggest, overt safety measures have become a marketing tool of chain-affiliated hotels to assure safety-conscious guests. Also, regardless of size, hoteliers are responsible for providing safety measures as practiced by the industry to safeguard their guests (Palmer 1989). Specifically, metal detectors and luggage checks are expected during crisis when there are news alerts on terrorism. Hence, in turbulent times, hotels should have in place overt safety measures, such as screening guests and guests’ luggage with metal detectors, to make guests feel safe and perceive that hotel management cares about their safety. However, during normal times, overt safety measures should be avoided to not give rise to unwanted safety concerns.

More specifically, as special occasion tourists at luxury hotels are the most safety sensitive, management of luxury hotels targeting special occasion tourists should use overt safety measures to ensure guest safety during crisis but not during normal situations. Moreover, safety messages should be softened and be done in a narrative form rather than as bullet point listings so as not to frighten tourists. As Adaval and Wyer (1998) suggest, describing negative aspects in a narrative form results in fewer adverse effects on product evaluation than describing undesirable features in a list of features. More important, the top management must get involved and show employees and customers that they are serious in safeguarding their employees and customers (Stafford, Yu, & Armoo, 2002). Although “hoteliers find it awkward to maintain the highest possible standards of safety while preserving a hotel’s hospitable and welcoming image” (Enz, 2009, p. 554), hotels have a mission to provide their guests with a safe and secure environment while not interfering with their service concept (Enz & Taylor, 2002).

Limitations of the Study

The question “Would the presence of overt safety measures such as metal detectors and luggage checks deter you from staying in the hotel?” may be viewed as leading. However, it is a question requested by security managers (who checked content validity of this study’s instrument) to test whether or not their belief regarding this point is true. Thus, this question should remain as such. Moreover, the questionnaire was written in English, and so only tourists who understand English participated in the survey. Future research should focus on emerging safety issues such as tsunami safety measures at beach resorts and the impact of such measures on tourists’ sense of safety.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

The author would like to thank Professor Donald Sandage and Sanvicha Muttamara for their comments and Dr. Pornchai Mongkolvanit, President of Siam University in funding this research.

Bongkosh N. Rittichainuwat, PhD (e-mail: ngamson@gmail.com), is associate professor and program director at the International Program in Hotel and Tourism Management at Siam University. Her research focus is on destination recovery after tsunami.

References

Adaval

Wyer

R. S.

Jr. (1998). The role of narratives in consumer information processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(3), 207-245.

Ananth

DeMicco

Moreo

Howey

(1992). Marketplace lodging needs of nature tourists. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 33(4), 12-24.

Bach

Pizam

(1996). Crimes in hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 20, 59-75.

Beirman

(2003). United States: September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. The impact on American and global tourism. In Beirman

(Ed.), Restoring tourism destinations in crisis: A strategic marketing approach (pp. 43-68). Oxon, England: CABI.

Bigne

J. E.

Andreu

(2004). Emotions in segmentation: An empirical study. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 682-696.

Cavlek

(2002). Tour operators and destination safety. Journals of Travel Research, 29(2), 478-496.

Cho

Jang

(2008). Information value structure for vacation travel. Journal of Travel Research, 47, 72-82.

Choi

T. Y.

Chu

(1999). Consumer perception of the quality of services in three hotel categories in Hong Kong. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5, 176-189.

Clow

K. E.

Garretson

J. A.

Kurtz

D. L.

(1994). An exploratory study into the purchase decision process used by leisure tourists in hotel selection. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 2(4), 53-72.

10.

Demos

(1992). Concern for safety: A potential problem in the tourist industry. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(1), 81-88.

11.

Drabek

T. E.

(2000). Disaster evacuations: Tourist-business managers rarely act as customers expect. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 48-57.

12.

Ellis

R. C.

Stipanuk

D. M.

(1999). Security and loss prevention management. East Lansing, MI: Educational Institute of the AH and MA.

13.

Elsrud

(2001). Risk creation in traveling: Backpacker adventure narration. Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 597-617.

14.

Enz

(2009). The physical safety and security features of U.S. hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 50, 553-560. doi:10.1177/1938965509345963

15.

Enz

C. A.

Taylor

M. S.

(2002). The safety and security of U.S. hotels: A post September-11 report. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43, 119-136.

16.

Feickert

Verma

Plaschka

Dev

C. S.

(2006). Safeguarding your customers: The guest’s view of hotel security. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 47, 224-244.

17.

Floyd

M. F.

Gibson

Pennington-Gray

Thapa

(2003). The effect of risk perceptions on intentions to travel in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(2/3), 19-38.

18.

Groeneboom

Jones

(2003). Issues of security in hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality, 15(1), 14-19.

19.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

20.

Henderson

J. C.

(2007). Corporate social responsibility and tourism: Hotel companies in Phuket, Thailand, after the Indian Ocean tsunami. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 228-239.

21.

Hilliard

T. W.

Baloglu

(2008). Safety and security as part of the hotel servicescape for meeting planners. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 9(1), 15-34.

22.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Campaign values, behavior, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.

Hofstede

G. J.

(2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

24.

Hosany

Gilbert

(2009). Measuring tourists’ emotional experiences toward Hedonic holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49, 513-526.

25.

Holcomb

Pizam

(2006). Do incidents of theft at tourist destinations have a negative effect on tourists’ decision to travel to affected destinations? In Mansfeld

Pizam

(Eds.), Tourism, security and safety: From theory to practice (pp. 105-124). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Butterworth-Heinemann.

26.

Kavanaugh

R. R.

(1992). Security: Everyone on guard. Hotels, 26, 39.

27.

Kim

Wong

(2006). Effects of news shock on inbound tourist demand volatility in Korea. Tourism Management, 44, 457-466.

28.

Knutson

(1988). Frequent travelers: Making them happy and bringing them back. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, 29(1), 82-87.

29.

Loker-Murphy

Pearce

(1995). Young budget travelers: Backpackers in Australia. Annals of Tourism Research, 22, 819-843.

30.

Mansfeld

Pizam

(2006). Toward a theory of tourism security. In Mansfeld

Pizam

(Eds.), Tourism, security and safety: From theory to practice (pp.1-28). Burlington, MA: Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann.

31.

Maoz

(2007). Backpackers motivations the role of culture and nationality. Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 122-140.

32.

Marshall

(1993). Safety tops guest’s priority list: Sell security as no. 1 amenity. Hotel and Motel Management, 208(11), 21.

33.

McCleary

Pamela

Weaver

Lan

(1994). Gender-based differences in business travelers lodging preferences. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 51-58.

34.

Milman

Jones

Bach

(1999). The impact of security devices on tourists’ perceived safety: The Central Florida example. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 23, 371-386.

35.

Money

B. R.

Crotts

J. C.

(2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations. Tourism Management, 24(2), 191-202.

36.

Nash

Thyne

Davies

(2006). An investigation into customer satisfaction levels in the budget accommodation sector in Scotland: A case study of backpacker tourists and the Scottish Youth Hostels Association. Tourism Management, 27(3), 525-532.

37.

National Crime Prevention Institute. (1986). Understanding crime prevention. Boston, MA: Butterworth.

38.

Norušis

M. J.

(2006). SPSS 15.0 statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

39.

Palmer

R. A.

(1989). The hospitality customer as crime victim: Recent legal research. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 13, 225-229.

40.

Peattie

Clake

Peattie

(2005). Risk and responsibility in tourism: Promoting sun-safety. Tourism Management, 26, 399-408.

41.

Pinhey

T. K.

Iverson

T. J.

(1994). Safety concerns of Japanese visitors to Guam. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 3(2), 87-94.

42.

Pizam

Tarlow

P. E.

Bloom

(1997). Making tourists feel safe: Whose responsibility is it? Journal of Travel Research, 36(1), 23-28.

43.

Prideaux

(1996). The tourism crime cycle: A beach destination case study. In Pizam

Mansfeld

(Eds.), Tourism, crime, and international security issues (pp. 77-90). London, England: Wiley.

44.

Reisinger

Mavondo

F. T.

(2005). Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk perception. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 212-225.

45.

Richins

M. L.

(1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 127-146.

46.

Rittichainuwat

N. B.

(2011). Ghosts: A travel barrier to tourism recovery. Annals of Tourism Research, 38, 437-459.

47.

Rittichainuwat

B. N.

Chakraborty

(2009). Perceived travel risks regarding terrorism and disease: The case of Thailand. Tourism Management, 30, 410-418.

48.

Rittichainuwat

B. N.

Chakraborty

(2011). Perceptions and how much safety is enough. In Huan

T. C.

Chon

Hsu

C. H.

(Eds.), Special Issue on Work, Leisure, and Tourism in the Pacific. Journal of Business Research. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.013

49.

Rittichainuwat

B. N.

Chakraborty

(in press). Perceptions of importance and what safety is enough. Journal of Business Research. doi:10.1016/j.j.busres.2011.07.013

50.

Roehl

W. S.

Fesenmaier

D. R.

(1992). Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 2(4), 17-26.

51.

Ryan

(1993). Crime, violence, terrorism, and tourism: An accident or intrinsic relationship. Tourism Management, 14, 173-183.

52.

Saied

(1990). Approaches to risk management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 45-55.

53.

Sammons

Moreo

Benson

L. F.

DeMiciio

(1999). Analysis of female business travelers’ selection of lodging accommodations. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8(1), 65.

54.

Sirakaya

Sheppard

McLellan

(1997). Assessment of the relationship between perceived safety at a vacation site and destination choice decisions: Extending the behavioral decision-making model. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(2), 1-10.

55.

Sönmez

S. F.

Graefe

A. R.

(1998). Determining future travel behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 171-177.

56.

Stafford

Armoo

K. A.

(2002). Crisis management and recovery how Washington, D.C., hotels responded to terrorism. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 27-40.

57.

Tarlow

(1999). The seventh annual Las Vegas tourism security seminar. International Journal of Tourism research, 1(1), 69-70.

58.

Tarlow

Santana

(2002). Providing safety for tourists: A study of a selected sample of tourist destinations in the United States and Brazil. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 424-431.

59.

Taylor

Enz

(2002). GMs’ responses to the events of September 11, 2001: Voices from the field. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43, 7-20.

60.

Uriely

Yonay

Simchai

(2002). Backpacking experiences: A type and form analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 520-538.

61.

Weaver

P. A.

H. C.

(1993). Do American business travelers have different hotel service requirements? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5, 16-21.

62.

Withiam

(1989). Troubled hotels: The workout. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, 30(3), 8-13.