|
Table 2.
Travel Behavior and Attitudes Across Response Strategies
.
Response
Strategies
Question Denial Acceptance Mitigation
Loss
reduction
Total
Χ
2
,
p
,
Phi
Yes 7%
22% 21% 37%
17%
22.16
Canceled travel plans
No 93%
78% 79% 63%
83%
.000
Total 172
91
188
27 478 .215
Yes 9%
36% 35% 54%
27%
46.27
Considered canceling an airplane
trip
No 91%
64% 65% 46%
73%
.000
Total 170
90
183
26 469 .314
Yes 10%
24%
30% 27% 22%
23.76
Considered canceling a trip to a
major city
No 90%
76% 70% 73%
78%
.000
Total 168
90
188
26 472 .224
Yes 6%
13% 21% 23%
23%
16.43
Planned to avoid public places
No 94%
87% 79% 77%
77%
.001
Total 170
91
189
26 476 .186
Yes 2%
14% 18% 25%
12%
27.77
Planned to avoid business travel
No 98%
86% 82% 75%
88%
.000
Total 166
88
179
24 457 .247
Yes 12%
26%
34% 38% 25%
27.70
Planned to stayed close to home
No 88%
74% 66% 62%
75%
.000
Total 171
90
190
26 476 .241
More than last
year
27% 35% 26%
22%
28%
3.88
Same as last year
60%
52%
63%
63%
60%
.692
Summer 2002 travel
plans:
Less than last year
13%
13%
11%
15%
12%
-----
Total
174 92 190 27
477
Very safe
34%
25%
18%
22%
26%
21.22
Somewhat safe
57%
57%
60%
52%
52%
.002
Perceived safety on
flying commercial
airlines:
Somewhat unsafe
or Not safe at all
9% 18% 22%
26%
26%
.210
2007 Annual International CHRIE Conference & Exposition
380
Total
174 92 190 27
483
very worried
1%
1%
5%
11%
3%
59.39
somewhat worried
22%
30%
44%
30%
33%
.000
not too worried
44%
51%
44%
33%
44%
.350
Level of anxiety
about becoming a
victim of terror
not worried at all
33%
18%
7%
26%
20%
Total
175 92 190 27
484
Note: 5 respondents couldn’t be successfully typed into one of the four response strategies and are deleted from
this analysis.
This study contributes to the fields of tourism and hospitality in two ways. First, it looked into the
perceptions of travelers and their response strategies to a major hazard—the terrorist attacks in 2001. The general
understanding of policy-makers including managers is that people react to hazards or other disasters in an irrational
and inconsistent manner (Perry, 2003; Perry & Lindell, 2003). This notion is also reinforced by public media that
consistently portray the panic reactions of people in times of crisis. However, the results in this study indicate that
travelers tend to behave in a manner consistent with their risk perception. Behaviors do vary, but they vary because
people differ in their perceptions of risk. Behavior is rational and consistent, given how an individual perceives the
overall level of threat. Hence, tourism managers in times of crisis should focus on providing information that
enables the prospective travelers to make informed decisions about the overall level of risk.
The second contribution made by this study is in the field of crisis/disaster management for the hospitality
and tourism industry. Researchers such as Faulkner (2001) have indicated that crisis/disaster management is a line of
research which has been relatively ignored in hospitality and tourism studies. Although Richter and Waugh (1986)
argued that the symbiotic relationship between terrorism and tourism needs to be understood and acted on in terms
of not only security and marketing but also factors such as planning, site development, employment policies,
political risk analysis, and emergency management, the amount of effort that has been invested into finding the right
disaster and crisis response strategies for stakeholders in the hospitality and tourism industry is still considerably
sparse. Particularly lacking are studies that advocate new methodologies for examining the relevant issues from
travelers’ point of view. The findings of this study demonstrated the usefulness of mental model approaches. In the
future similar studies may help extract travelers’ tacit knowledge and strategies in other travel-related hazardous
situations.
In this study, the behavioral model developed in Figure 1 provides a theoretical understanding of the travel
behavior of individuals based on the individuals’ perception of travel risk and on their response decisions and styles.
Future studies can validate the model by measuring the role of individuals’ perception of travel risk on predicting
actual travel behavior. Future studies that test the model can contribute significantly in increasing our understanding
of travelers’ response to terrorism as a hazard.
REFERENCES
ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. (2006).
ATLAS.ti - The knowledge workbench (Version 5.2)
[Qualitative data analysis software]
. Berlin, Germany: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.
Burton, I., Kates, R.W. and White, G.F. (1978).
The environment as hazard
. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Carley, K.M. (1997). Extracting team mental models through textual analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior,
18(S1): 533-558.
Carley, K. M. and Palmquist, M. (1992). Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models.
Social Forces,
70(3): 601-636.
Drabek, T.E. (1996).
Disaster evacuation behavior: Tourists and other transients
(Monograph No. MG58). Boulder,
CO: Natural Hazards Research & Applications Information Center, Institute of Behavioral Science,
University of Colorado.
Drabek, T.E. (1999). Understanding disaster warning responses.
Social Science Journal,
36(3): 515-523.
Faulkner, B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourism disaster management.
Tourism Management,
22(2): 135-147.
Jackson, K.M. and Trochim, W. M. K. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-
ended survey responses.
Organizational Research Methods,
5(4): 307-336.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
