×
Home
2024 Conference
All Conferences
Instructions
TSVC | Tourism Students Virtual Conference

Risk vs Reality: Are the perceptions true?

Risk vs Reality: Are the perceptions true?
Author: Jennifer Cooke
1 Commentries
Abstract
This paper discusses whether authors' views of risks and perceived fear are true or if their results are over-dramatic. Using their literature, a study was conducted to find the reality.

Keywords: Fear, Risk, Perception, Tourists, Reality

Travel in todays' environment means there is a higher level of perceived risk. Fear that tourists will be victims of some form, either from terrorism, international conflict or health hazard for example, is higher than before.
Perceived risk has been defined as a persons' "perception of the overall negativity of a course of action based upon an assessment of the possible negative outcomes and of the likelihood that those outcomes will occur" (Mowen and Minor, 1998).
Peoples' thoughts of risk develop from lack of knowledge about destinations and future conditions, as well as personal experience.

In terms of tourism, there are a number of risks that people may consider to be a threat when travelling, ranging from natural disasters to "societal-originating disasters" such as bird flu and terrorism (Williams and Balaz, 2013: 209). Factors that relate to the safety and security of tourists such as health, war, financial, terrorism and crime have all been found to be risks causing anxiety of travellers. The level of fear also depends on whether the tourist is domestic or foreign (Simpson and Siguaw, 2008).

When deciding on where to travel, people consider familiarity against novelty-seeking. Those who participate in novelty holidays such as adventure tourism perceive less risk than those who prefer the familiar. However, the activities of adventure tourism must not be confused with risk; they are more concerned with sensation seeking and safety precautions are taken to ensure security.

People travel for a sense of freedom and to satisfy curiosity but the heightened concerns of risk and security have given people chance to reflect on the relationship between tourism, risk and security and how much they interlink. Tourists make informed decisions about the destinations they are travelling to and the risks they may encounter which means, should anything happen, they have a better chance of responding responsibly (WTO, 2002).

Law (2006) speaks about the factors that affect peoples' attitudes in relation to risks and fear: the magnitude of the threat, probability of occurrence and effectiveness of recommendation. With regards to the probability of a threat, a study by Fuchs et al showed the result that people thought the likelihood of a terror attack reoccurring in the same place was low (2012).

It could be thought that the tourism industry will feel negative impacts from risks as they threaten the safety of visitors. However, data gathered from before and after the New York September 11th attacks shows that there was not a dramatic change in tourism numbers, just that visitors adapt what experiences they wish to gain from travelling (WTO, 2002).

A small study was carried out to see if the 'reality' of peoples' thoughts matched the perceptions given in the literature. Half of people asked said they would still travel even with little knowledge of a destination and those who said they wouldn't answered that they would take a holiday to an area where there was known risk, showing they wish to fulfil their curiosity. When given a list of known risks, only very few people said they would not be willing to travel to a destination with these risks. Those that showed they would still travel may have done research on these destinations and felt they would be able to handle the risks or that authorities would ensure security measures were in place.

While case studies and articles have focused on risks in specific destinations, little has been written regarding the transport aspect. This is a major part of holidaying and can often be the most stressful time for tourists. Risks can be divided into controllable and non-controllable and if people are able to manage things, they feel less threat. The results of the study showed that people preferred air travel and also thought this was the safest despite the fact someone else is in control and the highly publicised terrorist attacks involving planes.

While some authors claimed that tourism would decline in areas after a disaster, the study proved this wrong; respondents mostly stated that they would still travel at some point after. It could be deemed that authors have over-exaggerated the risks and fears people feel when in reality this is not the case at all.

So sun, sea and scary places - are they really as scary as people make out?

Law, R. (2006) the Perceived Impact of Risks on Travel Decisions International Journal of Tourism Research 8 289-300

Simpson, P. M. and Siguaw, J. A. (2008) Perceived Travel Risks: The Traveller Perspective and Manageability International Journal of Tourism Research 10 315-327

Williams, A. M. and Balaz, V. (2013) Tourism, risk tolerance and competences: Travel organization and tourism hazards Tourism Management 35 209-221
Review of the Conference Paper
Author: Max Warnecke
The reason why I chose to commentate on this paper is because the author has conducted a study which closely relates to mine. However, although both studies deal with the public's perception towards risks, many differences can be seen in the analysis and evaluation.

The paper in general discusses the perceptions of tourists towards risks and examines whether the fear towards risks can lead to a migration of tourists from a special destination or not. Furthermore it examines whether disasters lead to declines in the numbers of tourists.

The author clearly defines the tourist's perceptions on risks. However, when examining the reasons for how risks develop in the minds of the public, the role of the media is an important factor and should not be missed, as the majority of our knowledge regarding regional and international happens is brought to us by the media (Nellis, A. M. Savage, J. 2012).

According to the author, the level of perceived fear is dependent on the tourist being foreign or domestic. Although this can be argued to be true, this argument should not be left alone. The media plays an important role in the public's perception towards risks. The past has shown, that depending on the type of media, as well as the extent to which it spreads information concerning destinations, perceived risks can lead to serious declines in the number of tourists (Mansfeld and Pizam 2006).

In contrast to some others, the author claims that it is wrong that tourism would decline after a disaster. In this case it could be of interest of further investigation to which extend, what kind of disaster can have a negative impact on a destination. Some destinations may even profit in long-term due to becoming a dark tourism spot. However, it is not possible to generally argue that disasters do not lead to declines in tourism. Terrorist attacks can lead to serious declines in the time after, what can be especially problematic for the economy of countries which are dependent on their tourism sector. Nevertheless, the absence of the tourists after an attack is shorter nowadays. It can be argued, that in the case of terrorism fear it is noticeable, that a kind of habituation effect has occurred.

The author has shown a clear understanding of the topic and the paper was very interesting to read. The topic could further on be investigated by differentiating between different kinds of disasters, as the impacts will very likely vary.



References

Mansfeld, Y., Pizam, A. (2006). Tourism, Security & Safety. From theory to practice.

Nellis, A. M. Savage, J. (2012). Does Watching the News Affect Fear of Terrorism? The Importance of Media Exposure on Terrorism Fear. Crime & Delinquency. Vol. 58 Issue 5, p748-768.