Risk,safety and security among visitors to Istanbul

Abstract

Discourses concerning risk have become increasingly popular among tourism academics. While these cover a wide range of safety and security concerns, there is rather less of a focus on risk from conventional crime than on terrorist threats. In contrast, criminologists have written extensively about the actual and perceived risk of crime. Both tourism academics and criminologists have addressed the question of who is most concerned about crime, but in each case this analysis has focused on questioning people at one point in time. This paper differs in that it compares the perceptions of risk of those arriving on a visit to Istanbul with perceptions of safety among a similar sample of those returning from their trip. In the former case, we consider tourists’ perceptions of risk prior to their arrival. In the latter case, their perceptions of safety after their trip, and the consequences of this for future visits, a key concern within the tourism industry.

Keywords

Risk of crime perceptions of safety changing perceptions future travel plans

Introduction

The relationship between tourism and crime has been addressed by both tourism researchers and criminologists (Botterill and Jones, 2010; Pizam and Mansfeld, 1996). One aspect of this is perceptions of risk and safety held by tourists, both in general and with regard to particular resorts or countries. However, while perceptions of terrorism have been extensively reviewed (Korstanje and Clayton, 2012; Mansfeld and Pizam, 2006; Sonmez and Graefe, 1998a; Walters et al., 2019), research on tourists’ views on crime and concern over crime and disorder in resort areas has received relatively less attention. There are of course, exceptions. For example, Mawby et al.’s (1999) victim survey comparing tourists’ views and direct experience of crime (see also Mawby, 2000), found that while British tourists experienced higher than average levels of victimisation, they expressed low levels of concern during their vacation. Similarly, a small survey of visitors to Florida by Milman et al. (1999) suggested that tourists did not see security as a problem, but valued crime prevention measures where they were in place. More common are studies using secondary analysis to assess the impact of crime in resorts/countries on tourism numbers. Thus awareness of crime problems in resort areas can impact on tourism by provoking a decline in the number of tourist going to that destination (Albuquerque and McElroy, 1999; Alleyne and Boxill, 2003a; Holcomb and Pizam, 2006). Most notable, perhaps, is Brayshaw’s (1995) account of the impact of a high profile series of robberies and homicides in Florida on tourist numbers.

On the other hand, while an increasing number of tourism researchers have addressed ‘risk’, they have generally done so with scant reference to crime. Moreover, the ways in which tourism researchers conceptualise risk is in contrast to criminological discourses. In the following section, we compare the perspectives of tourism academics and criminologists. We then move on to consider our own research and how it informs both the tourism and criminological literature on risk, fear, concern and perceptions of safety.

Literature review

Tourism discourses

Within tourism discourses, risk – as broadly defined – has become a common research theme (Chew and Jahari, 2014; Floyd et al., 2004; Roehl and Fesenmaier, 1992; Seabra et al., 2013). Natural disasters and environmental risks, health problems, and threats to security have provoked a wide range of research studies, focusing particularly on the impact of heightened risk on travel decisions and the consequences of this for demand, specifically negative impacts on tourist resorts and the tourist industry (Walters and Mair, 2019). While it is accepted that some subgroups of tourists might be attracted by the thrill of risky activities in high risk environments (Lepp and Gibson, 2008; Mura, 2010), generally risk is viewed as a cost, inhibitor or constraint, to be balanced against the perceived benefits, or facilitators, of travel, which coalesce to form the image of particular resorts or regions.

How precisely risk is categorised, however, varies between researchers. Risks to health, and ultimately death seem incontestible. However, arguably influenced by early pychological research on consumer behaviour by, for example, Jacoby and Kaplan (1972), many have expanded the concept to include ‘risks’ such as vacation costs, transport inconveniences, perceptions of peers’ disapproval of one’s choice of holiday etc. (Fuchs and Reichel, 2011; Karamustafa et al., 2013; Pennington-Gray and Schroeder, 2013; Reisinger and Mavondo, 2006; Seabra et al., 2013). For some, a distinction is made between safety risks and security risks, where the latter include terrorism (Sonmez and Graefe, 1998a, 1998b), political instability (Carter, 1998; Lanouar and Goaied, 2019) and crime (George, 2003; Holcomb and Pizam, 2006). Here, the risk of terrorism has attracted considerable research interest (Korstanje and Clayton, 2012; Lanouar and Goaied, 2019; Mansfeld and Pizam, 2006; Pizam and Mansfeld, 2006; Pizam and Smith, 2000; Sonmez and Graefe, 1998a, 1998b; Walters et al., 2019). Less has been written by tourism academics about crime risks, albeit there is more written about perceived risk of crime than about actual victimisation.

One further distinction made in the tourism literature is between actual and perceived risk (Sjöberg, 2002). However, while actual risk can be measured by the recent extent of terrorist incidents or political protests, that is it may be possible to disaggregate the figures for injuries and deaths involving tourists compared with the local population (Pizam and Smith, 2000), this is uncommon for crime, where police figures rarely distinguish between visitors and locals as victims (Mawby, 2017). Most researchers, though, prefer to consider perceived risk, i.e. how safe or secure tourists feel a country or area is, where the emphasis is more on safety than security, and where in the latter case security from crime takes second place behind security from terrorist attacks.

Accepting this, the assumption made in the literature is that tourists’ decisions to avoid places they perceive to be high risk may be rational but that in many cases – terrorism being a good example – it is not. Essentially, some travelers are more risk-aware and risk-averse than others (Seabra et al., 2013). In offering an explanation for these differences in perception, Sonmez and Graefe (1998b) suggested that external influences, such as media portrayals of risk, internal factors, such as travel experience and internalised perceptions of risk, and demographic variables, combined to influence destination image and perceptions of a destination as unsafe or risky, which in turn influenced the decision on whether or not to travel there. In this respect, it is evident that external factors, such as media portrayals and government travel advisories, provide a framework to perceptions of risk (Pennington-Gray et al., 2011; Sharifpour et al., 2014; Walters and Mair, 2019; Walters et al., 2019).

Travel experience, both generally and vis a vis a specific location, has also been shown to be important. More experienced travellers (Mazursky, 1989) and those who have previously visited an area are generally less risk-averse than first time visitors (Fuchs and Reichel, 2011; Karamustafa et al., 2013; Kozak et al., 2007; Lepp and Gibson, 2003; Sönmez and Graefe, 1998c). Research also suggests that visitors may be detered from returning if they perceive the destination a risky place (Artuğer, 2015; Cetinsoz and Ege, 2013; Sonmez and Graefe, 1998b), albeit much of this research relates to terrorism rather than conventional crime.

Equally, perceptions vary between different subgroups of tourists (Floyd et al., 2004; Floyd and Pennington-Gray, 2004; Seabra et al., 2013; Sonmez et al., 1999; Sonmez and Graefe, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). Thus cultural differences (Reisinger and Mavondo, 2006; Weber and Hsee, 1998), age (Floyd and Pennington-Gray, 2004), and gender (at least regarding risk of violence) (Carr, 2001; Floyd and Pennington-Gray, 2004; Kozak et al., 2007; Lepp and Gibson, 2003) have all been found to influence perceived risk.

Two further points are worth noting here. Firstly, the emphasis on perceived risk among tourism researchers focuses on its effects on the tourism industry and how these can be addressed rather than on tourists (Hajibaba et al., 2016): for example, there is scant discussion of whether tourists who are risk-averse are actually safer, and how their safety might be improved (for an exception see Agarwal, 2016). Secondly, the focus is largely on perceptions of risk at one point of time, for example when planning a vacation, during their holiday, or in retrospect. There is little on how tourists may alter their perceptions of risk over time.

Risk, fear and concern in criminological discourses

Within criminological discourses, security and safety tend to be used interchangeably. As among tourism academics, though, a distinction is drawn between actual and perceived risk.

In each case, risk of being the victim of crime received increased research interest following the introduction of victim surveys in the 1970s. Governments in the USA, UK and elsewhere began to suppliment recorded crime statistics with surveys of the general public, ultimately leading to cross-national surveys, especially the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS). These allowed for more valid measures of victimisation than the increasingly discredited police statistics offered. The Crime Survey England and Wales (CSEW),¹ for example, found that in the year ending March 2019, just over 21% of respondents experienced a crime (Office for National Statistics, 2019). However risk varies for different subgroups of the population. For example, males and younger people have higher levels of risk, and in general more vulnerable sections of the population experience the highest levels of risk (Dixon et al., 2006; Mawby and Walklate, 1994; Office for National Statistics, 2019).

In addition, surveys like the CSEW include a variety of questions measuring perceptions of risk (Office for National Statistics, 2017). These include questions asking about risk directly and others tapping anxiety, concern, worry, feelings of a lack of safety (e.g. when out alone after dark), and views on the frequency of crime and disorder problems in their neighbourhood (Gray et al., 2008; Hough, 1995; Lane et al., 2014; Warr, 2000).

These allow the sorts of direct comparson of actual and perceived risk that are generally unavailable to tourism researchers. While the findings vary depending on which questions are used, two consistent findings are of particular relevance. Firstly, the proportion of the population feeling unsafe, seeing themselves as at high risk of various offences, worrying about crime etc., far exceeds the percentage who are actually victimised within a year. This has traditionally encouraged criminologists to view public perceptions of risk as irrational. Secondly, risk/fear varies for different subgroups of the population, although the precise relationship differs for different measures of risk or fear. Thus an association between fear and demographic variables (e.g. age, sex, affluence, state of health), neighbourhood characteristics (e.g. incivilities and disorder, neighbourhood cohesion) and experience of crime (direct or indirect) has been identified. In general, the most vulnerable members of society and/or those most at risk of being victimised are the most fearful (Dixon et al., 2006; Mawby and Walklate, 1994; Office for National Statistics, 2017). This suggests a degree of rationality in perceptions of risk. Notably, and paraleling the findings of tourism researchers (Milman et al., 1999), direct personal experience informs perceptions of risk.

In an early attempt to explain these findings, Hough (1995) used BCS data to develop a model that broadly parallels that of Sonmez and Graefe (1998b) described earlier. Thus Hough argued that fear of crime was influenced by perceptions of risk and feelings of vulnerability. The latter were the result of social and physical vulnerability: isolation, deprivation, poor health etc., and personality (being naturally ‘a worrier’²). Perceptions of risk were moulded by: direct experience (recent victimisation); indirect experience (based on social networks, media etc.); and cues about the environment.

Two further points are worth noting and comparing with the findings of tourism researchers. Firstly, for criminologists the emphasis is very much on how actual risk and perceptions of safety impact upon individuals and their families. That is, arguably, ‘fear’ may affect lifestyle by discouraging citizens from fully participating in society, at the extreme making them virtual ‘prisoners in their own homes' (Dixon et al., 2006). On the one hand, this raises the question of whether risk and fear impair citizens quality of life, a point traditionally raised in the tourism literature vis a vis residents of tourism hotspots rather than tourists themselves (Davis et al., 1988; King et al., 1993; Ross, 1992; Teye et al., 2002), albeit much of the more recent literature addresses residents’ wider concerns (Deery et al., 2012; Jaafar et al., 2017; UNWTO, 2019a). On the other hand, it raises the question of whether the risk-averse alter their behaviour in a way that successfully reduces their actual risk. Secondly, like tourism research the focus is largely on perceptions of risk at one point of time; there is little on how citizens may have altered their perceptions of risk after changing their routine activities.

Methodology

The research model

The current research, rather differently, involved surveying tourists at the onset and conclusion of their holiday. It was carried out in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2013 with two samples of visitors arriving (Phase 1) and leaving (Phase 2) the country. While the two samples were of different tourists, they provide a proxy measure of change. We can consequently measure the impact of experience (of their vacation) on their feelings about Istanbul as a holiday destination, by comparing the views of tourists at the outset and conclusion of their vacation. Drawing on the findings from Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the research, the current article addresses four questions:

How do tourists’ concern about their risk of being victimised while in Istanbul vary between those arriving and those departing from the city?

How can we explain changes to tourists’ perspectives?

How are their views mitigated by other aspects of the holiday experience?

What are the consequences for their future decisions on holiday locations?

However, before addressing these four questions, the following sections provide an overview of Istanbul and an account of the research that was carried out.

Istanbul

Istanbul is the largest city in Turkey and one of the largest cities in the world, with a population of some 15 million inhabitants (United Nations, 2016). Although Ankara is the capital of Turkey, Istanbul is regarded as the country’s cultural and economic centre. It straddles Europe and Asia, with about two thirds of its population living in Europe and a third in Asia. Tourism is crucial to Turkey’s economic growth (Ongan and Demiröz, 2005) and in 2018 Turkey was the sixth most commonly visited country in the world, with 46 million international visitors (UNWTO, 2019b).

Partly because of this, Turkey, has become a focal point for terrorist attacks in recent years, notably from the Kurdish PKK, Daesh and TAK (Marsh, 2017; Morris, 2017),³ with a consequential impact on tourism demand (Bilgel and Karahasan, 2017; Feridun, 2011). Since our research was carried out Turkey has experienced further terrorism incidents, including attacks in Istanbul and at Ataturk International Airport (Morris, 2017), which has subsequently (April 2019) been replaced. As a result, tourist numbers fell in 2016, albeit they rose again in 2017 and reached an all-time high in 2018 (TUIK, 2018).

Alongside the risk of terrorist attacks is the risk from conventional crime, including both violence and property crime. Here the picture is mixed. Official crime figures are of particularly questionable validity (Akdeniz, 2019), albeit homicide statistics suggest that homicide is high by European standards but not excessively so (Akdeniz, 2019). The Economist (2019) Safer Cities Index personal security scale, which includes both crime prevention and criminal incidence data, ranks Istanbul as 48th out of sixty cities, with a score of 65.2 (scale mean 77).⁴ Data from victim surveys are dated, with the international crime victim survey (ICVS) conducted in Istanbul in 2004/2005. Nevertheless, it suggested that both risk and fear of crime – at least against local residents – were high.

One additional aspect of public – and tourists’ – feelings of safety is their perceptions of the police. Turkey has a reputation for a repressive police system (Aydin, 1996; Cerrah, 2005; Ozcan and Gultekin, 2000), which has been accentuated in recent years with the increased threat of political violence. Recently the gendarmerie, which is essentially comprised of military personnel, has become more firmly established in urban centres, including Istanbul (Cerrah, 2005). On the other hand, the Office of Community Oriented Policing was established in Istanbul in 2013. And some researchers report positive perceptions of the police among both the indigenous population (Cao and Burton, 2006) and refugees (Özaşçılar et al., 2018). However at the time of our study there was no dedicated tourist-oriented police unit, as is found in some tourist areas (Mawby et al., 2015), albeit in Istanbul, a tourist-oriented police unit., located in Sultanahmet, was subsequently established (in 2017).

The research

This research involved a two phase survey of tourists visiting Istanbul in 2013. Permission was obtained from Ataturk International Airport to distribute questionnaires to international tourists. In Phase 1, questionnaires were distributed to tourists arriving at the airport in June, 2013. Phase 2 involved a similar cross-selection of tourists departing from Ataturk from mid-June to early July 2013. We aimed to obtain a representative cross-section of tourists. Due to limited resources the questionnaire was written in English, so only English speaking tourists were included in the study. Respondents were asked to return the completed questionnaire in the sealed envelope provided by the researchers.

The Phase 1 final sample consisted of 210 inbound international tourists who had just arrived in Istanbul (an overall response rate of 55%). In Phase 2, 210 international tourists who were about to leave Istanbul completed the survey, an overall response rate of 53%.

The survey instrument used to collect the data was: for Phase 1 a 3 page questionnaire consisting of 32 questions and statements; for Phase 2 a 4 page questionnaire consisting of 46 questions and statements.⁵ For each phase these covered:

The visit: length of stay; with whom they travelled; type of trip(package or independent travel); whether or not they had previously visited Istanbul

Personal details: gender; age; country of residence; residentiallocation (e.g. urban/rural area); education; employment status

Victimisation in previous year: from property, sexual or violent crime.

In Phase 1, respondents were also asked about:

Awareness of crime in Istanbul

Perceptions of risk while in Istanbul

Safety precautions

In Phase 2, respondents were also asked about:

Perceptions of safety and fear while in Istanbul

Experience of crime in Istanbul

Perceptions of the police in Istanbul

The holiday experience

Feelings about holidaying in Turkey

The two samples combined included almost equal numbers of men (201) and women (199). Perhaps surprisingly, given that the questionnaire was in English, only a small minority were from the UK (n = 20), albeit Australia (n = 33) and the USA (n = 28) registered the largest numbers. The majority (74%) described themselves as urban dwellers with only 11% saying they lived in rural areas. In terms of age, 25% were aged 18–23 and 31% 24–29. The majority (n = 235) described themselves as in work, with 105 students and only 23 retired. This relatively young profile of tourists reflects tourists visiting Istanbul according to local tourism figures for 2016 from the Turizm Data Bank.⁶

In terms of their status as tourists, 17% were on package tours, with as many as 83% independent travellers; 124 had been to Istanbul before. Most (82%) were scheduled to stay/stayed for no more than 10 days. Finally, reflecting Istanbul’s status as attracting cultural tourists, most were either travelling alone (56%) or with spouse/partner (40%) rather than with children.

The characteristics of the two samples were different in some respects. In particular, outgoing tourists were more likely to be male (51% compared with 49%), in work or students, better educated and younger. In contrast, incoming tourists were more likely to be in Istanbul for longer, be on package trips, to live in higher income countries, and to say they had been victims of crime in the previous year (11% compared with 7%). However, in most cases the differences were minor and were not significantly related to either perceptions of risk (Phase 1) or fear of crime (Phase 2). Thus, although the two samples are of different individuals, the research does provide a proxy measure of change.

The findings are presented in three sections. We consider perceptions of risk firstly among those arriving in and secondly those departing from Istanbul. Finally we look at departing tourists’ views on other aspects of their holiday experience and consider their future travel intentions in the light of their experiences.

Findings

Perceptions of risk amongst arrivals

Risk perception levels were measured through questions targeting specific offences that are common in Turkey and/or serious (Çakmakçı 2015). Respondents were asked how likely they were to experience six specific offences while in Istanbul, on a 10-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 ‘not at all likely’ to 10 ‘very likely’. Mean scores on the ten point scale are illustrated in Table 1. Two points are notable here. Firstly, in each case answers were positively and significantly (p < 0.001) correlated (e.g. perceived risk of being attacked by someone with a weapon was significantly related to the other six scales in each sample). Secondly, in line with earlier research (Mawby, 2000; Milman et al., 1999) it is clear that unlike the public in general tourists tend to have relatively high expectations of their safety. Aggregating these scales, the mean risk assessment score for all six crimes (minimum possible score 6, maximum 60) was 17.5: 94 respondents scored lower than the mean and 96 respondents higher. These can be labelled ‘low risk’ perceptors and ‘medium/high risk’ perceptors. These findings correspond to those from other research on tourists visiting different parts of Turkey, for example by Artuğer (2015) on international visitors to Marmaris and Albuz et al. (2017) on domestic tourists visiting Gaziantep, a Turkish city close to the Syrian border.

Table 1.

International tourists’ perceptions of risk of crime in Istanbul (Phase 1: inbound tourists; where 1 = low; 10 = high).

Crime types	Perceived riskInbound touristsMean (SD)
Being attacked by someone with a weapon	2.5 (2.0)
Being sexually assaulted or raped	2.5 (2.0)
Being murdered	2.2 (1.9)
Being robbed or mugged on the street	3.2 (2.1)
Having property stolen	3.3 (2.1)
Being cheated, conned or swindled out of money	3.9 (2.8)
Composite score	17,5(10.3)

This raises the question of whether the variables associated with perceived risk in the tourism and criminological literature also discriminate between different levels of concern for visitors to Istanbul. We focused on perceptions of risk and distinguished four clusters of independent variables that either distinguished different subcategories of tourist or had previously been found to be associated with risk: the nature of the visit; personal characteristics; prior victimisation; and prior awareness of crime in Istanbul. Referring to these four clusters, a number of patterns emerged:

The visit: only three variables achieved a satisfactory level of significance. Firstly, those who had not visited Istanbul before were more likely to perceive their risk of being attacked with a weapon as higher ((F = 5.941, p < 0.05). Secondly, those who were on package holidays were less likely to see themselves as at risk of either having property stolen (F = 1.82, p < 0.05) or being the victim of a con trick (F = 9.65, p < 0.05), and on the composite scale those on package holidays also tended to be low risk perceptors (F = 0.16, p < 0.01). Finally, those in Istanbul for a shorter period were also low risk perceptors (F = 0.15, p < 0.05). Notably, who they were travelling with was not related to perceptions of risk.

Personal details: four variables achieved a satisfactory level of significance. Firstly, those from less developed countries ⁷ appeared more likely to perceive their risk as high, notably vis a vis assault with a weapon (F = 3.507, p < 0.05) and homicide (F = 4.007, p < 0.05). Secondly, tourists aged 24–29 estimated their risk of being conned as higher (F = 3.787, p < 0.05). Thirdly, degree (but not higher degree) educated tourists were more likely to estimate their risk of homicide as greater (F = 5.43, p < 0.05). Finally, gender appeared to affect perceptions of risk differently, with men were more likely to see their risk from assault with a weapon as higher (F = 2.980, p < 0.05) and women were more likely to see their risk from sexual assault as higher (F = 3.043, p < 0.05), and be medium/high risk perceptors (F = 0.18, p < 0.05). However, where they lived within their home country (i.e. urban or rural area) and their employment status were unrelated to perceptions of risk.

Victimisation in the previous year: was not related to perceived risk.

Prior awareness of crime in Istanbul: while only a minority of arrivals had visited Istanbul before, they did have some – indirect – experience of crime there. Respondents were asked if they had heard of any crime or crimes committed in Istanbul before their visit. In all, 72 (36%) said they knew something about crime there. Most gained their information from newspapers (48%) and the internet (48%). Interestingly, few of the tourists (18%) in this study got their information from family members and friends. Those who said that prior to their visit they’d heard about crimes that had taken place in Istanbul were more likely to perceive their risk of property crimes (F = 10.99, p < 0.05) or being conned/cheated (F = 19.19, p < 0.05) as higher. Thus those who said they had prior knowledge of some crimes in Istanbul rated 4.04 on the property crime scale and 5.10 on the conning/cheating scale, compared with 2.95 and 3.30 respectively for those who said they had no prior knowledge. However, prior knowledge appeared unrelated to perceived risk of experiencing any violent crime. Despite this, those who said they had heard about crimes in Istanbul were more likely to score highly on the risk composite scale (F = 0.22, p < 0.01)

Different subgroups of tourists thus varied in their perceptions of risk while in Istanbul, albeit not necessarily in ways that the criminological literature might suggest. For example, there was no relationship between previous victimisatin (at home) and concern about safety in Istanbul. However it is perhaps even more notable that not one tourist subgroup averaged above the scale midpoint for any of the offences covered by the questionnaire.

Finally it is worth noting that tourists also gave little thought to even fundamental crime prevention strategies, like not going out alone afer dark or avoiding dispaying valuables when they did go out. Moreover the relationship between perceptions of risk and precautionary behaviour was weak (Ozascilar et al., 2019). Thus while some criminologists have suggested that those who are risk-averse may adjust their behaviour and so reduce their actual risk, there is no evidence here that this might apply to tourists.

Perceptions of safety and fear amongst those leaving Istanbul

In Phase 2 fear was rated using the same six crimes as in Phase 1. Those leaving Istanbul were asked how afraid they had been of each of the six specific offences. Mean scores on the ten point scale for departures are illustrated in Table 2. Three points are notable here. Firstly, in each case answers were again positively and significantly (p < 0.001) correlated. Secondly, in line with the perceptions of arrivals to Istanbul tourists tended to be very positive about their safety. Thus the highest fear was attributed to being cheated, conned or swindled, but this only rated a mean score of 4.5. In no case did respondents average above the scale midpoint (5.5) for any of the offences covered by the questionnaire. Aggregating these scales, the mean fear assessment score for all six crimes (minimum possible score 6, maximum 60) was 22.5. Thirdly, on each scale those leaving Istanbul scored notably higher (on fear) than did arrivals (on perceived risk). Accepting that the comparison between the responses of those surveyed in Phase 1 and Phase 2 provides a proxy measure of change in the light of personal experience, the findings here suggest that visitors to Istanbul lowered their perceptions of safety and security slightly during their visit, but still felt that the city was relatively safe.

Table 2.

International tourist’s perceived fear of crime in Istanbul (Phase 2: outbound tourists; where 1 = low; 10 = high).

Crime types	Fear of crimeOutbound touristsMean (SD)
Being attacked by someone with a weapon	3.4 (2.9)
Being sexually assaulted or raped	3.2 (3.0)
Being murdered	3.2 (3.0)
Being robbed or mugged on the street	4.0 (2.8)
Having property stolen	4.2 (2.8)
Being cheated, conned or swindled out of money	4.5 (2.8)
Composite score	22.5 (12.6)

Phase 2 respondents were replying immediately after their vacation, and could draw on their experiences during their time in Istanbul in describing their fear of different crimes. Of particular relevance to their perspectives are their direct experiences of crime, that is having suffered a crime while in Istanbul, and any indirect experiences, that is having heard about any crimes in Istanbul during their visit.

Asked whether, ‘During your stay in İstanbul, have you been the victim of any crime?’, only 7% (n = 15) answered in the affirmative. This appears a low response. However, given that Phase 2 respondents had spent only an average 12 days in Istanbul and that this proportion is similar to that of those who said they had experienced a crime in the whole of the previous year, it suggests rather high levels of victimisation (Mawby, 2017). Respondents were then asked, ‘Have you heard about any crime/crimes committed in Istanbul during your visit?’ In all 30 more departing tourists (15%) answered in the affirmative.

Combining those with either direct or indirect experience of crime while in Istanbul gives a total of 37 respondents, who can be compared with those with no direct or indirect experience. Table 3 contrasts their scores on the seven fear scales. According to t-test results, tourists who had experience of crime while in Istanbul (directly or indirectly) had higher levels of fear of being robbed or mugged, having property stolen and being cheated, conned or swindled out of money, and being sexually assaulted, although only the latter difference was significant. Nor indeed, were the other variables measuring tourists’ socio-economic status or features of their tourist experience correlated with fear. The only exception was that those who were aged 24–29 expressed greater fear on five of the scales. Additionally, when asked how safe they felt out alone in the neighbourhood where they were staying in Istanbul, respondents generally descibed themselves as feeling safe: on a ten-point scale they averaged 3.71 (S.D. = 2.74), with no significant differences for different subgroups of tourists.

Table 3.

Tourists’ Fear of Crime while in Istanbul according to whether or not they had direct or indirect experience of crime while there (Phase 2: outbound tourists; where 1 = low; 10 = high).

	Experience of crime in Istanbul
Crime types	Yes (n = 34)	No (n = 163)
Being attacked by someone with a weapon	4.28 (3.20)	3.19 (2.91)
Being sexually assaulted or raped	4.15 (3.49)	3.02 (2.86)*
Being murdered	3.87 (3.36)	3.01 (3.06)
Being robbed or mugged on the street	5.46 (2.75)	3.66 (2.80)
Having property stolen	5.75 (2.73)	3.79 (2.74)
Being cheated, conned or swindled out of money	5.87 (2.77)	4.19 (2.75)
Composite score	4.84 (2.74)	3.49 (2.59)

*p < 0.05.

Causes and consequences

The findings here suggest that departing visitors had slightly lower perceptions of safety and security than did arrivals, but still felt that the city was relatively safe. Moreover, outgoing tourists were generally positive about their safety in Istanbul.

Indeed, tourists were generally positive about their experiences as tourists visiting Istanbul. There are three aspects to this: their views of local people; their assessments of tourist venues and facilities; and their perceptions of the police. In each case they responded positively. In terms of their views of local people, they scored a mean of 3.96 on a five point scale.⁸ Their ratings for tourism specifically were slightly lower, at 3.82, but still positive. Most notably, though, they also rated the police positively. Asked how safe they had felt when they saw the police, they scored a mean of 7.20 on a ten point scale. Only 38 respondents (19.7%) had had direct personal contact with the polcie in Istanbul, but these also rated police performance positively (mean 4.11 on a five point scale). These findings are interesting. Earlier research has suggested that the ways in which victims are treated affects both the impact of the crime experience and their willingness to revisit the resort where they were victimised (Holcomb and Pizam, 2006). The example of victims’ appreciation of the support they received from specialist tourist victim support services in the Irish Republic is a case in point (Mawby, 2014). However at the time of our research Turkey had no specialist support services for victims and no dedicated tourist police. Despite this, it appears that victims were no less positive of the performance of the Turkish police than were non-victims. Nor were they less likely to say that they would visit Turkey again, reiterating earlier findings (Holcomb and Pizam, 2006; Mawby, 2000).

Indeed, almost all of the Phase 2 respondents (99.5%) reported that they would recommend Istanbul as a place to visit to their friends. Almost as many (98.5%) would also recommend Turkey to their friends. Regarding safety, 96.3% of outbound international tourists would recommend Istanbul as a safe tourist destination. Similarly, 97.9% asserted that they would revisit Istanbul. Given that the tourism industry is highly dependent upon return visitors (Chew and Jahari, 2014) this is a reassuringly positive finding.

Summary, discussion and policy implications

While both tourism academics and criminologists have addressed the concept of risk, they have done so in somewhat different ways. Despite a long history of research on the relationship between tourism and crime, much of the research conducted by tourism academics concerns wider safety concerns, with security most commonly addressed in the context of terrorism rather than crime. Here much of the focus is on perceived risk rather than actual risk. In contrast, criminologists have tended to use the concepts ‘safety’ and ‘security’ interchangeably and have addressed and compared both actual and perceived risk. There are, however, at least two commonalities between the tourism and criminological traditions. Firstly, researchers have sought to compare tourists/citizens according to how much at risk they are, or perceive themselves to be, at, and explain their findings. Secondly, they have tended to measure risk at one point in time. Our research followed the first of these approaches but attempted improve on the second by providing a proxy measure of change over the course of respondents’ vacation.

In line with other research on tourists’ perceptions of risk and safety, our findings here show that those arriving saw Istanbul as a relatively secure destination, and while those leaving Istanbul expressed slightly less positive perceptions of safety and security, they still felt that the city was relatively safe. Indeed this was true even among those with direct or indirect experience of crime there. For those arriving, perceptions of crime were only weakly related to any of the personal characteristics that have been found to be associated with various measurements of risk, the main exception being that prior awareness of crime in Istanbul was linked to perceived risk. This is at odds with much of the tourism literature, albeit in most cases this is not related to perceptions of crime, and with the criminological literature. For example, those who said they had suffered crime prior to their vacation were no more concerned than those who had not. For those leaving Istanbul, fear of crime was also only weakly related to any of the personal characteristics that are traditionally associated with fear of crime. It thus seems that neither fear of specific offences nor perceptions of safety during their holiday were closely associated with what sort of person, or what sort of tourist, they were, and this applies to both those arriving in Istanbul with preconceptions of the city and especially those leaving with direct experience of it.

In attempting to explain these findings we would suggest, albeit tentatively, that fear of crime is part of the everyday world that we inhabit, but that this world is situationally restricted to our own country. We assume that crime is a problem, but when we travel abroad on holiday we leave this problem behind us, except where security is a prominent and well-publicized concern. This is a different situation to that pertaining to health risks, food safety, natural disasters etc, where tourists may see these as of minor concern at home but a greater issue on vacation. Despite suggestions that Turkey in general, and Istanbul in particular, experience crime problems and terrorism threats, most tourists in our surveys seemed unconcerned about this. Even those with some knowledge of crimes occurring in Istanbul still saw it as a relatively risk-free environment. When on holiday in Istanbul a higher than expected number of tourists were victimised, and even more had some indirect experience of crime there. However, we would suggest, they contextualised these incidents in a different way to crime and disorder ‘at home’. Thus, rather than crime being an everyday problem, it became perceived as an unfortunate biproduct of the holiday experience. This is speculative, but a theory we are currently testing in a different touristic environment.⁹

In the case of crime, tourists quite clearly behave in ways which increase their risk, and in ways markedly different from their behaviour when not on vacation (Mawby, 2014). The importance of providing information and advice to tourists on risk and ways to reduce risk is thus crucial (Agarwal, 2016; Mawby, 2016); more important than the emphasis on persuading tourists that a resort or country is safe. Ultimately, the safety of tourists is in the long term interests of the tourism industry. Secondly, where tourists are victimised, it is incumbent upon the agencies concerned, acting in partnership, to minimise the harm experienced by tourist victims. Ensuring that victims receive the help and support they need and deserve, from agencies within the criminal justice system like the police and victim assistance, and from the tourism sector like holiday representatives, insurance companies and embassies, is beneficial to both tourists and the tourist industry. In the context of Turkey, the establishment of a specialist tourism police unit is a step in the right direction. Risk, actual and perceived, may be of concern in terms of its impact on the tourism industry, but it also needs to be considered in terms of reducing the risks to tourists and allieviating the harm caused when tourists do experience crime.

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.

ORCID iD

Rob I Mawby

Notes

Author Biographies

Rob Mawby is a criminologist, visiting professor of rural criminology at Harper Adams University, and editor of Crime Precvention and Community Safety: an international journal. As well as specialising in the relationship between tourism and crime, he has written extensively on policing, victim services and crime prevention.

Mine Ozascilar is Associate Professor of Sociology at Bahçeşehir University. Her research interests include tourism and crime, fear of crime, adolescents and the police, and victimology.

Neylân Ziyalar is an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Science of the Institute of Forensic Sciences and Legal Medicine, Istanbul University Cerrahpasa. Her research interests include forensic psychology, criminology, victimology, and criminal justice and forensic medicine.

References

Agarwal

(2016) Tourist persuasion and crime prevention and community safety. Crime Prevention & Community Safety 18(3): 165–186.

Akdeniz

(2019) Homicide trends in Turkey: A review of publicly available data. Journal of Penal Law & Criminology 7(1): 1–25.

Albuquerque

McElroy

(1999) Tourism and crime in the Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research 26(4): 968–984.

Albuz

Akin

(2017) Tourist destination risk perception: The case of Gaziantep Province in Turkey. In: Proceedings of ISER 60th international conference, Madrid, Spain, 23–24 June.

Alleyne

Boxill

(2003) The impact of crime on tourist arrivals in Jamaica. International Journal of Tourism Research 5(5): 381–391.

Artuğer

(2015) The effect of risk perceptions on tourists’ revisit intentions. European Journal of Business and Management 7(2): 36–43.

Aydin

(1996) Policy making structures of the Turkish National Police Organization. Policing and Society 6(1): 73–86.

Bilgel

Karahasan

(2017) The economic costs of separatist terrorism in Turkey. Journal of Conflict Resolution 61(2): 457–479.

Botterill

Jones

(eds) (2010) Tourism and Crime: Key Themes. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.

10.

Brayshaw

(1995) Negative publicity about tourism destinations: A Florida case study. Travel and Tourism Analyst 5(5): 62–71.

11.

Çakmakçı

(2015) Turizm ve Suç Arasındaki İlişki ve Suçun Önlenmesine Yönelik Teoriler. Turizm Akademik Dergisi 2(1): 49–59.

12.

Cao

Burton

Jr. (2006) Spanning the continents: Assessing the Turkish public confidence in the police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 29(3): 451–463.

13.

Carr

(2001) An exploratory study of gendered differences in young tourists perception of danger within London. Tourism Management 22(5): 565–570.

14.

Carter

(1998) Tourists’ and travelers’ social construction of Africa and Asia as risky locations. Tourism Management 19(4): 349–358.

15.

Cerrah

(2005) Turkey. In: Sullivan

Haberfeld

(eds), Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement. Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.1342–1347.

16.

Cetinsoz

Ege

(2013) Impacts of perceived risks on tourists’ revisit intentions. Anatolia – International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 24(2): 173–187.

17.

Chew

EYT

Jahari

(2014) Destination image as a mediator between perceived risks and revisit intention: A case of post-disaster Japan. Tourism Management 40: 382–393.

18.

Davis

Allen

Cosenza

(1988) Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests and opinions toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research 27(2): 2–8.

19.

Deery

Jago

Fredline

(2012) Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda. Tourism Management 33(1): 64–73.

20.

Dixon

Reed

Rogers

, et al. (2006). Crimeshare: The Unequal İmpact of Crime. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. Available at: www.ippr.org/publications/crimesharethe-unequal-impact-of-crime (accessed 24 July 2020).

21.

Economist (2019) Safer cities index. Available at: https://safecities.economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Aug-5-ENG-NEC-Safe-Cities-2019-270x210-19-screen.pdf (accessed 10 September 2019).

22.

Feridun

(2011) Impact of terrorism on tourism in Turkey: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Applied Economics 43(24): 3349–3354.

23.

Floyd

Gibson

Pennington-Gray

, et al. (2004) The effect of risk perceptions on intentions to travel in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 15(2-3): 19–38.

24.

Floyd

Pennington-Gray

(2004) Profiling risk perceptions of tourists. Annals of Tourism Research 31(4): 1051–1054.

25.

Fuchs

Reichel

(2011) An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies of first time vs. repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination. Tourism Management 32(2): 266–276.

26.

George

(2003) Tourist’s perceptions of safety and security while visiting Cape Town. Tourism Management 24(5): 575–585.

27.

Gray

Jackson

Farrall

(2008) Reassessing the fear of crime. European Journal of Criminology 5(3): 363–380.

28.

Hajibaba

Boztuğ

Dolnicar

(2016) Preventing tourists from canceling in times of crises. Annals of Tourism Research 60: 48–62.

29.

Holcomb

Pizam

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

Mansfeld

(eds) Tourism, Security and Safety. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, pp.105–124.

30.

Hough

(1995) Anxiety About Crime: Findings from the 1994 British Crime Survey (Home Office Research Study No. 147). London: Home Office.

31.

Jaafar

Rasoolimanesh

Ismail

(2017) Perceived sociocultural impacts of tourism and community participation: A case study of Langkawi Island. Tourism and Hospitality Research 17(2): 123–134.

32.

Jacob J and Kaplan LB (1972) The Components of Perceived Risk. In: Venkatesan M (Ed.) Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, pp. 382–393. Chicago, IL : Association for Consumer Research.

33.

Karamustafa

Fuchs

Reichel

(2013) Risk perceptions of a mixed-image destination: The case of Turkey’s first-time versus repeat leisure visitors. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 22(3): 243–268.

34.

King

Pizam

Milman

(1993) The social impacts of tourism on Nadi, Fiji as perceived by its residents. Annals of Tourism Research 20(4): 650–665.

35.

Korstanje

Clayton

(2012) Tourism and terrorism: Conflicts and commonalities. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 4(1): 8–25.

36.

Kozak

Crotts

Law

(2007) The impact of the perception of risk on international travellers. International Journal of Tourism Research 9(4): 233–242.

37.

Lane J, Rader NE, Henson B, Fisher BS and May DC (2014) Fear of crime in the United States: Causes, consequences, and contradictions. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

38.

Lanouar

Goaied

(2019) Tourism, terrorism and political violence in Tunisia: Evidence from Markov-switching models. Tourism Management 70: 404–418.

39.

Lepp

Gibson

(2003) Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 30(3): 606–624.

40.

Lepp

Gibson

(2008) Sensation seeking and tourism: Tourist role, perception of risk and destination choice. Tourism Management 29(4): 740–750.

41.

Mansfeld

Pizam

(2006) Tourism, Security and Safety: From Theory to Practice. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

42.

Marsh

(2017) Turkey must come to terms with all its terrorists. Fair Observer. 7 January. Available at: www.fairobserver.com/politics/turkey-terrorism-attacks-kurds-islamic-state-news-headlines-89145/ (accessed 24 July 2020).

43.

Mawby

(2000) Tourists’ perceptions of security: The risk-fear paradox. Tourism Economics 6(2): 109–121.

44.

Mawby

(2014) Crime and disorder, security and the tourism industry. In: Gill

(ed.) Handbook of Security. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.383–403.

45.

Mawby

(2016) Policing policies in cities dependent on tourism: Developing an evidence-based approach. International Journal of Police Science & Management 18(3): 195–205.

46.

Mawby

(2017) Crime and tourism: What the available statistics do or do not tell us. International Journal of Tourism Policy 7(2): 81–92.

47.

Mawby

Boakye

Jones

(2015) Tourism: The emergence of specialist units. Policing and Society 25(4): 378–392.

48.

Mawby

Brunt

Hambly

(1999) Victimisation on holiday: A British survey. International Review of Victimology 6(3): 201–211.

49.

Mawby RI and Walklate S (1994) Critical victimology: international perspectives. Sage; London.

50.

Mazursky

(1989) Past experience and future tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research 16(3): 333–344.

51.

Milman

Jones

Bach

(1999) The impact of security devices on tourists’ perceived safety: The Central Florida example. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 23(4): 371–386.

52.

Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Turkey) (2019) Tourism statistics. Available at: www.ktb.gov.tr/EN-153017/tourism-statistics.html (accessed 5 September 2019).

53.

Morris

(2017) What is the security situation in Turkey? Telegraph. 13 February. Available at: www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/advice/is-turkey-safe-for-tourists/ (accessed 13 April 2019).

54.

Mura

(2010) Scary…but i like it! Young tourists’ perceptions of fear on holiday. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 8(1–2): 30–49.

55.

Office for National Statistics (2017) Public perceptions of crime in England and Wales: Year ending. Available at: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/publicperceptionsofcrimeinenglandandwales/latest (accessed 28 June 2020).

56.

Office for National Statistics (2019) Crime in England and Wales: Year ending. Available at www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2019 (accessed 29 August 2019).

57.

Ongan

Demiröz

(2005) The contribution of tourism to the long-run Turkish economic growth. Ekonomický Časopis (Journal of Economics) 53(9): 880–894.

58.

Ozascilar

Mawby

Ziyalar

(2019) Perceptions of safety and risk on vacation among visitors to Istanbul. Safer Communities 18(1): 16–29.

59.

Özaşçılar

Narli

Osman Öztürk

(2019) Crime reporting behavior among Syrian immigrants in Istanbul. Crime & Delinquency 65(14): 1997–2018.

60.

Ozcan

Gultekin

(2000) Police and politics in Turkey. In: Proceedings of the British criminology conference 1999, July, Liverpool. Available at: www.britsoccrim.org/new/volume3/011.pdf (accessed 31 July 2020).

61.

Pennington-Gray

Schroeder

(2013) International tourist's perceptions of safety & security: The role of social media. Matkailututkimus 9(1): 7–20.

62.

Pennington-Gray

Schroeder

Kaplanidou

(2011) Examining the influence of past travel experience, general web searching behaviors, and risk perceptions on future travel intentions. International Journal of Safety and Security in Tourism/Hospitality 1(1): 64–89.

63.

Pizam

Mansfeld

(1996) Tourism, Crime and international security. Chichester: Wiley.

64.

Pizam

Mansfeld

(2006) Towards a theory of tourism security. In: Pizam

Mansfeld

(eds) Tourism, Security and Safety. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, pp.1–27.

65.

Pizam A and Smith G (2000) ‘Tourism and terrorism: a quantitative analysis of major terrorist acts and their impact on tourist destinations’, Tourism Economics 6.2: 123–138.

66.

Reisinger

Mavondo

(2006) Cultural differences in travel risk perception. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 20(1): 13–31.

67.

Roehl

Fesenmaier

(1992) Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel research 30(4): 17–26.

68.

Ross

(1992) Resident perceptions of the impact of tourism on an Australian city. Journal of Travel Research 30(3): 13–17.

69.

Seabra

Dolnicar

Abrantes

, et al. (2013) Heterogeneity in risk and safety perceptions of international tourists. Tourism Management 36(2): 502–510.

70.

Sharifpour

Walters

Ritchie

, et al. (2014) Investigating the role of prior knowledge in tourist decision making: A structural equation model of risk perceptions and information search. Journal of Travel Research 53(3): 307–322.

71.

Sjöberg

(2002) Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis 20(1): 1–12.

72.

Sonmez

Apostolopoulos

Tarlow

(1999) Tourism in crisis: Managing effects on terrorism. Journal of Travel Research 38(1): 13–18.

73.

Sonmez

Graefe

(1998a) Influence of terrorism and political instability. Annals of Tourism Research 25(2): 416–456.

74.

Sonmez

Graefe

(1998c) Determining future travel behaviour from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research 37(2): 171–177.

75.

Sonmez

Graefe

(1998b) Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research 25(1): 112–144.

76.

Teye

Sönmez

Sirakaya

(2002) Resident attitudes toward tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research 29(3): 668–688.

77.

TUIK (2018) Tourism statistics 2018. Available at: www.tuik.gov.tr/HbPrint.do?id = 27612 (accessed 15 April 2019).

78.

United Nations (2016) The world’s cities in 2016. Available at: www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanization/the_worlds_cities_in_2016_data_booklet.pdf (accessed 1 April 2019).

79.

United Nations Development Programme (2013) Human Development Report, http://hdr.undp.org/en/2013-report (accessed 25 June 2018).

80.

UNWTO (2019a) Global survey on the perception of residents towards city tourism: Impact and measures. Available at: www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284421107 (accessed 28 June 2019).

81.

UNWTO (2019b) International tourism highlights. Available at: www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284421152 (accessed 10 September 2019).

82.

Walters

Mair

(eds) (2019) Reputation and Image Recovery for the Tourism Industry. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Ltd.

83.

Walters

Wallin

Hartley

(2019) The threat of terrorism and tourist choice behavior. Journal of Travel Research 58(3): 370–382.

84.

Warr

(2000) Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy. In: Duffee

(ed.) Criminal Justice 2000: Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice. Vol. 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, pp.451–489.

85.

Weber

Hsee

(1998) Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risks. Management Science 44(9): 1205–1217.