Tourism, Security and Safety From Theory to Practice

Table 5
One-Way ANOVA for Factors That Would Change One’s Mind to Travel to the
Destination by Likelihood to Travel to the Destination Where the Theft Occurred
Factors
N
Mean*
SD
Passing of time
6
2.66
1.21
Learning of someone’s positive experience
4
2.75
1.50
Learning from the media of efforts to make the 
0
destination safer
Other
2
1.0
.00
Nothing would change their mind
33
1.94
1.27
Total
45
2.07
1.29
Sum of 
Mean 
Squares
df
Square
F
p
●
Between groups
6.84
3
2.28
1.42
.25
*Based on a 1–7 scale where 1 = definitely not likely to return and 7 = definitely likely to return.
H7898_Ch06.qxd 8/24/05 8:07 AM Page 121

---

These results support the findings of Mawby (2000) who in a survey of British
tourists, found that 56% of victims and 55% of nonvictims would definitely return
to the destination where the theft occurred. These findings are also similar to
results obtained by George (2003) who, in his Cape Town study, found that 54% of
his respondents stated that they would very likely return even though they had
encountered an incident of crime or felt that their life was in danger during their
stay. Hence, the results of this study confirm that experiencing a personal theft or
knowing of someone who had such an experience was not a deterrent for visiting
a destination where a theft occurred. Therefore, destinations that are afflicted by
such thefts should not necessarily expect a reduction in tourist arrivals.
Study Limitations
Although this study investigated numerous issues relating to theft at tourist desti-
nations, there are nevertheless some limitations to it. First, regarding crime sever-
ity, one must take into account that one’s evaluation of crime severity is subjective
and can be interpreted in many different ways.
Second, the study did not ascertain how often the respondents traveled and
whether they actually traveled to the destination before they or their friends/rela-
tives experienced the theft. Since this information was not ascertained from the
respondents in this survey, it is difficult to deduce if it would have had any effect
on the results.
Third, another aspect that might have affected the likelihood to travel to an
affected destination could have been the purpose of travel and more specifically
whether it was for business or leisure. For example, if a respondent was traveling
on a business trip he or she may not have had any choice as to whether or not to
travel to the affected destination.
Fourth, the survey did not ascertain the commercial and sentimental value of the
loss from the theft. This could have had a significant effect on how the theft was
perceived. If the theft equated to a small percentage of the total trip expenditure,
respondents might have seen the theft as having a nominal effect on their pocket-
book and thus not hesitate to visit the destination in the future. However, if the
stolen items had a sentimental value or had a high commercial value, this might
have a caused a significant distress and affected the likelihood of future visitation.