Tourism, Security and Safety From Theory to Practice

Theft at Tourist Destinations
Theft is the most prominent crime against tourists as shown in many studies
regarding crime and tourism (Brayshaw, 1995; Chesney-Lind and Lind, 1986; de
Albuquerque and McElroy, 1999; Harper, 2001; Mawby, 2000). The history of
theft against tourists or travelers can be traced back to medieval times when high-
way robbers were the fashion. Their victims were well-to-do travelers in carriages,
stagecoaches, or on horseback. One of the most famous highway robbers was said
to be Robin Hood, who was known for robbing the rich (travelers) and giving to
the poor (Brandon, 2001).
Theft encompasses several types of crime, the broadest being larceny. Larceny
involves the taking of property from a person without that person’s consent and
with the intent to deprive the person permanently of the use of the property (Brown
et al., 1996). The two types of larceny are 
grand larceny
and 
petty
(
petit
) 
larceny,
depending upon the value of the property stolen. Another form of theft is robbery.
Brown et al. (1996) define robbery as “a form of theft in which goods or money
are taken from a person against that person’s will 
through
the use of 
violence or
fear
. The key words in this definition are 
violence or fear
. These words differenti-
ate this type of theft from larceny. Burglary in general is defined as a crime against
a dwelling. In the case involving tourists away from home, a dwelling can be con-
sidered as a hotel room or a place where a tourist resides (except a private resi-
dence) while traveling.
Several studies tried to analyze the prevalence of thefts experienced by tourists
while traveling away from home. In a study by Mawby (2000), burglary was
found to be the most prominent crime experienced by tourists with theft from per-
son and attempted theft from person being the next most common. The study
showed that 4.7% of tourists were victims of burglary, 3.5% experienced an
attempted theft from their person, and 3.3% were actual victims of theft from
their person. To compare the responses from their survey against victim survey
data from the national British Crime Survey (BCS), the responses were multiplied
by 26 (52 weeks per year/2) in order to achieve approximate annual incidence
rates using an average length of vacation of 2 weeks. When the authors compared
these results against the BCS, they found the rates estimated in their survey to be
much higher than the BCS rates and concluded that people generally experience
considerably higher rates of victimization while they travel than they do at home
(Mawby, 2000).
In a study that compared crimes against tourists with crimes against residents
in the Caribbean, the results indicated that burglary and larceny against tourists in
Barbados between 1989 and 1993 were far more prevalent than murder, wound-
ing, rape, or robbery. The results showed that residents were much more likely to
Does Theft Affect Tourist Destination Decisions?
111
H7898_Ch06.qxd 8/24/05 8:07 AM Page 111

---

be victims of violent crime (over six times more likely to be murdered or to be a
victim of aggravated assault) than were tourists. On the other hand, tourists were
disproportionately victims of property crimes and robbery (four to six times
more) than residents were. Tourists were also much more likely to have valuables
stolen from their persons, rooms, or vehicles than residents were. The study also
indicated that police in several Caribbean destinations sometimes expressed
a rather offhand attitude toward tourist property crimes and tended to respond
in an apathetic way to this type of crime. Police often looked upon tourists as
being incredibly naïve, at times even blaming the victims (de Albuquerque and
McElroy, 1999).
The results of the above study were confirmed in another study that was con-
ducted by Chesney-Lind and Lind (1986), and that was mentioned earlier in this
chapter. Using police data from the locations of Honolulu and Kauai in Hawaii, the
authors found that tourists were significantly more likely to be victims of crime
than local residents. In both cities, data showed that tourists experienced a higher
rate of larceny than residents did. In Honolulu, rates for burglary, larceny, and rob-
bery were substantially higher (62%) for tourists than for residents. Furthermore,
the results also indicated that tourists in Honolulu were robbed at a rate signifi-
cantly higher than the national average. As to the island of Kauai, the results illus-
trated even a more astonishing picture. As it turns out, tourists were victims of
robbery at a rate six times higher than that of residents. Similar to Honolulu,
tourists had higher rates of robbery, larceny, and rape on the island of Kauai than
residents.
Barker, Page, and Meyer (2002) conducted a study of crimes against tourists
attending the 2000 America’s Cup in Auckland, New Zealand. The main purpose
of the America’s Cup study was to compare the rates of crimes committed against
international tourists to those against domestic tourists. Data was collected by
interviewing nonresident tourists attending the America’s Cup as well as the use of
tourist victim information reports (TVIRs), which are police reports used for
reporting crime against tourists. The results showed that property crime was pre-
dominant over violent crimes, 98.5% versus 1.5%. Fifty-five percent of crimes
reported were theft from vehicles; other theft comprised 39.1%. The study also
compared victimization of overseas versus domestic tourists. It was found that
overseas tourists were more likely to experience theft from accommodations or
their person and the value of items stolen was higher than that of domestic tourists.
On the other hand, domestic tourists were more likely to experience theft from
vehicles. With regard to location, 55% of thefts occurred in public places, 15.8%
in accommodations, and 10.4% in camper vans. Of the total crime reported in the
tourist victim information reports, 50% involved theft or burglary from accommo-
dations and 29.4% theft from vehicles.
In an attempt to analyze the results of several studies, Harper (2001) compared
tourist and resident populations’ crime experience in five international locations.
The study confirmed the findings of previous studies, stating that tourist victim-
ization is higher than nontourist victimization. The author also confirmed that
tourists are more likely to experience larceny, theft, and robbery than residents
(Harper, 2001).
As demonstrated by the studies cited above, theft is undeniably the most
prevalent crime against tourists. Studies have shown time after time that
(a) tourists are more likely to be victims of thefts than are local residents, and
Tourism Security and Safety: From Theory to Practice
112
H7898_Ch06.qxd 8/24/05 8:07 AM Page 112

---

(b) tourists are more likely to be victims of theft of personal property than
victims of violent crimes.