Tourism, Security and Safety From Theory to Practice

Interpretations to Dimensions of Practice Usage
The results of the factor analysis of usage also partially support Proposition 2.
Examining factor 1, titled “cost cutting practices” indicates that three practices
from the original category of maintenance were included: practice 16: Cost cuts by
postponing maintenance to the engineering systems; practice 15: Cost cuts by
postponing maintenance of the building (cosmetic); and practice 14: Cost cuts by
limiting hotel services. These three practices were also included in factor 2 of
importance. However, practice 6: Increased reliance on outsourcing, was added in
the usage factor. It can be speculated that under the harsh conditions of the
2000–2002 hospitality industry crisis in Israel, these practices were the first to be
applied as an emergency measure.
Factor 2 of usage was titled “recruiting government support” and includes all of
the practices in the 
government
category: practice 19: Industry-wide demand for
governmental assistance with current expenses; practice 18: Organized protest
against the lack of government support; practice 20: Industry-wide demand for a
grace period on tax payments; and practice 21: Industry-wide demand for a grace
period on local tax (municipality) payments; as well as one practice related to
human resources, practice 2: Using unpaid vacation to reduce labor force. The four
Israeli Hospitality Crisis Management
327
H7898_Ch17.qxd 8/24/05 8:53 AM Page 327

---

government
practices correspond to factor 1 of importance. The addition of unpaid
vacation to reduce labor is conceptually similar to the addition of the marketing
practices to factor 1 of importance: namely, the reliance on government support.
Since “unpaid vacation” is actually financed by the Israel Ministry of Labor, it is
another dimension of organized governmental support of the industry.
Factor 3 of usage, titled “massive marketing,” is dominated by practices from
the 
marketing
category. Specifically, four items from the 
marketing
category are
included: practice 9: Price drop on special offers; practice 12: Marketing and pro-
moting new products or services (family events, catering); practice 8: Marketing
to domestic tourists with focus on specific attributes of the location; and practice
13: Marketing to new segments (such as the ultraorthodox). In addition, one prac-
tice from the 
maintenance
category appears in factor 3: practice 17: Extending
credit or postponing scheduled payments. Again, the grouping of the four 
market-
ing
items is clear, but the issue included in practice 17 discolors the clarity of the
content validity of the factor. Attempts to explain this pattern remained futile.
The fourth factor of usage, titled “focused marketing and shorter workweek,”
also only partially confirms Proposition 2. This factor includes two aspects of
marketing
, practice 7: Marketing to domestic tourists in joint campaigns with local
merchants (such as Visa, MasterCard); and practice 11: Marketing to foreign
tourists with specific focus on the location’s distinctive features and relative safety;
and one aspect of 
human resources,
practice 3: Decreasing number of working
days per week.
The mixed patterns of usage seem to be more difficult to interpret than the more
solid patterns of importance. One possible explanation is that importance domains
are more “ideal” than actual use, thus rendering more coherent patterns. This spec-
ulation is worth studying in the future.