Tourism, Security and Safety From Theory to Practice

The Risk Construct in Travel Behavior
Consumer decisions are almost always made under a certain level of risk (Weber
and Bottom, 1989; Roehl and Fesenmeier, 1992). This risk becomes much more
evident in cases where consumers seek to purchase invisible or non-tangible prod-
ucts such as tourism (Sönmez and Graefe, 1998b; Fuchs and Reichel, 2004).
Moreover, many previous studies of tourist behavior proved that destination choice
is to a large extent a result of subjective evaluation of perceived destination bene-
fits and destination detriments (Mayo, 1973; Mansfeld, 1992; Oppermann and
Chon, 1997). An erroneous tourist decision might be regarded as such if at least
one expected destination benefit turned out to be a destination detriment. From a
consumer behavior perspective, the chance of making a wrong decision becomes
a perceived risk (Fuchs and Reichel, 2004). Therefore tourists, like any other con-
sumers, would be interested in making an effort to minimize the risk, thus helping
to maximize the value of their travel experience (Mansfeld, 1992; Fodness and
Murray, 1997; Lepp and Gibson, 2003). However, apparently, tourists differ in the
way they conceive risk perception (Fuchs and Reichel, 2004).
Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992) defined three types of risk-taking tourists: risk
neutral, functional risk, and place risk. While the risk neutral category refers to
tourists who do not associate tourism and travel destinations as involving any risk,
the functional risk category refers to tourists who place more emphasis on the
operational side of their tour. The last category, place risk, refers to tourists who
develop a risk perception based on the risk factors related to the destination and its
political, social, and/or security situation. This classification is interesting since it
effectively differentiates between two groups of tourists: those who develop some
kind of risk perception and will probably try to mitigate it or to avoid it altogether
regardless of whether the perception is “place” or “functionally” induced. The
Tourism Security and Safety: From Theory to Practice
272
H7898_Ch15.qxd 8/24/05 8:50 AM Page 272

---

other group looks for some level of risk in their travel experience. For this group,
such risk is regarded as an added value that contributes to the overall fulfillment
of their travel motivations. It may be assumed that even if risk is perceived as a
positive ingredient in tourists’ destination choice, it is still a calculated risk. When
assessing the proportion of these two groups it would seem that the majority of
tourists belongs to the functional and place related risk categories. Those residual
risk seekers tend to share common sociodemographic and cultural characteristics
that have a relatively short life span and are mainly novelty seeking, for example,
young backpackers (Elsrud, 2001; Uriely et al., 2002; Lepp and Gibson, 2003;
Pizam et al., 2004). Lepp and Gibson (2003) examined a less obscure type of
tourist. In their study of risk perception among young American tourists, they
found that those preferring either the organized or independent mass tourism type
of travel are more apt to react to travel risk hazards. Their conclusion was that
when confronted with a given travel risk, they would be the first to cancel their
travel plans (Lepp and Gibson, 2003, p. 620). Since mass tourism is the major driv-
ing force that sets in motion the wheels of this industry, it is vital to further explore
not just how risk is perceived by various types of tourists but more importantly
how to manage it. In another recent study that focused on the perception of Israel
as a risky destination, Fuchs and Reichel (2004) found that level and quality of
perceived risk also diverge along cultural and nationality lines. They also discov-
ered that risk reduction strategies by those who took the risk and visited Israel in
times of security turmoil also vary significantly according to religious and nation-
ality backgrounds. These findings and others mentioned above shed light on the
complexity of the risk perception phenomenon and on its centrality in managing
security induced tourism crises.
What actually constitutes the most frequent perceived travel risk? Apparently, it
can be attributed to a wide array of uncertainties regarding tourists’ ability to fulfill
their travel motivations without being exposed to unfortunate situations. The main
possible adverse situations documented in the literature are natural disasters, unex-
pected extreme weather conditions, outbreaks of epidemics, political unrest, crime,
terror events, wars, and other possible security situations (Richter and Waugh, 1986;
Enders et al., 1992; Gartner and Shen, 1992; Cossens and Gin, 1994; Bar-On, 1996;
Mansfeld, 1996; Wall, 1996; Mansfeld, 1997; Carter, 1998; Sönmez and Graefe,
1998a; Sönmez and Graefe, 1998b; Sönmez et al., 1999; Brunt et al., 2000; Santana,
2001; McKercher and Hui, 2003; Fuchs and Reichel, 2004). In most cases, such
events are not totally unforeseen (Faulkner, 2000). However, if tourists are unaware
of a given probability that such events might occur, they could make a travel decision
that would put them at some level of risk or might endanger their ability to fulfill
their travel motivations and expectations (Thapa, 2003).
What is actually is expected from the consumer perspective in order to avoid, or
at least to minimize, these risks to an acceptable level? The literature that covers
destination choice and travel behavior points to the availability of (formal, infor-
mal, and experiential) travel information as one of the key risk reduction strategies
(Mansfeld, 1992; Fodness and Murray, 1997; Sönmez et al., 1999, 1998b; Baloglu
and MaCleary, 1999; Jenkins, 1999; Fuchs and Reichel, 2004). When purchas-
ing a tourism product, a consumer cannot manipulate his or her basic senses in
order to evaluate its value. Travel information collected by the individual actively
or passively from various sources might, therefore, be used as a substitute.
Obviously, the availability of travel information, the level of tourists’ exposure to
Security Information: The Missing Link
273
H7898_Ch15.qxd 8/24/05 8:50 AM Page 273

---

it, its nature, its quality, and its sources’ characteristics all play a major role in
shaping the consequent perceived image of the tourist product and, hence, the risk
characteristics involved in purchasing it (Mansfeld, 1992; Jenkins, 1999).
Travel information is not only sought by travelers to support their risk-free desti-
nation choice. The tourist industry is also preoccupied with the attempt to establish
a risk-free image to their destinations (Jenkins, 1999). Gunn (1972) was one of the
first researchers of travel destination perceptions who noted that side-by-side with
the “organic images” that are formed by non-tourism mass media sources, there
exist “induced images” that are shaped by tourist oriented promotional agencies. In
fact, once tour operators realized the relationship between image creation and actual
travel patterns, they have been investing substantially in efforts to influence travel
behavior through promotional material (Jenkins, 1999). However, despite the criti-
cal role of travel information in destination image formation, the majority of travel
information that is produced for and conveyed to tourists is based on hard sell strate-
gies. These stem from marketing segmentations reflecting pleasure preferences and
travel motivations rather than risk perception levels and risk characteristics (Fodness
and Murray, 1997; Pearce, 1988; Jenkins, 1999).