Is the Perceived Threat of Terrorism Greater Than the Actual Threat?

The aim of this paper is to analyse the differences between the perceived threat of terrorism and the actual effect of terrorism on the tourism industry. It will take into account acts of terrorism since 1990. The reason for this is that they have had the most profound effect of world-wide tourism. The act of terrorism that had a significant effect on tourism was the 9/11 attacks in New York. These attacks will be the focal point that shows the actual risks of terrorism, however to prove that the actual risks are lower than the perceived risks. The media's role in terrorist attacks will also be considered, and show that the way media travels increases the perceived risks of terrorism. Particular focus will be the 9/11 attacks as they had a profound effect on tourism due to aircraft being used as the weapon.

The US Department of State (1996) define terrorism as

"Pre-meditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against civilians and unarmed military personal"

The primary reason that tourists are often targets for terrorist attack is because they are seen as a soft target. When on holiday tourists will often have their guard down as they wish to have a relaxing time, they are likely to be less vigilant to the possibility of terrorism. Another reason that tourists are susceptible to terrorist attack is due to tourists congregating, in certain areas of a destination. This means that a terrorist attack will cause significant devastation that will affect many countries around the world. Since 9/11 airport checks have become more stringent in order to prevent further attacks, even though there have been a number of attempted attacks they have been flawed by police.

Sonmez (1998) suggests that acts of terrorism intimidate tourists and the memory of attacks will be had to erase from ones memories and in some cases they will never leave. This is likely in the case of the 9/11 attacks, they will never be forgotten.

Furthermore there has been a conscious effort to prevent further attacks and it now possible for them to be prevented. On the other hand air crashes and or a natural disaster are hard if not impossible to predict. These will all have a similar effect on tourists. At the start of 2011 there was a number of large scale natural disasters around the world, mudslides in Rio de Janeiro, which killed 904 people (O Globo 2011), Floods in Australia which affected 20,000 people (BBC 2011) and the earthquake in Japan which killed 14,919 people (National Police Agency of Japan 2011). This is significantly more than the 9/11 attacks.

These natural disasters have a massive effect on tourism. The reason for this is the length of time it takes to recover from natural disasters on this scale. Japan still has to clean up some areas of the country and they are still inaccessible to tourists. This means that tourists will still be advised not to travel to the area.
However the actual odds of being involved in a hijacking of an aircraft are a lot lower that people believe them to be between 2000 and 2010 there have been an estimated 17 hijackings around the world. OAG (2008) reports that there were 31 million flights a year world-wide. If this is taken as the average number of flights over a ten year period meaning around 310 million flights, and that the odds of being involved in a hijacking are 1 in 18.2 million. Even though aircraft hijackings are not the only form of terrorism it is often the most act of terrorism that has the most profound effect on tourism. The reason for this is that the majority of holiday makers have to travel on a plane at some point when travelling.

There were 72 significant air crashes in the same duration, and therefore the odds of being involved in an aircraft related accident during that time was 1 in 4.3 million (BBC 2011).
Even though these odds are still slim the statistics suggest that you are at least four times more likely to be involved in an air crash than a terrorist hijacking.
Taking all this into account it is very apparent that even though the threat of terrorism on tourism is very high due to a number of factors the actual threat of being involved in a terrorist attack when on holiday is actually very low. There are numerous other problems world-wide that tourists need to be worried about.

Another factor to take into account is the prevention of a disaster. As previously mentioned in this report it is now possible to prevent a terrorist attack whereas preventing natural disasters is impossible. This further suggests that terrorism is actually less of a threat than people deem it to be. Even though a terrorist attack can strike out of nowhere so can an act of nature. Looking at the aforementioned data, in the year 2011 there have been considerably more fatalities caused by natural disasters than terrorist attacks, this emphasises the fact that the actual threat of terrorism is lower than the perceived threat.

BBC (2010) "Air Disasters Timeline" [online] available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-10785301 (accessed May 2011)

BBC (2011) "Australia Floods: Brisbane Braced for Surge" [online] available form: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12158608 (accessed May 2011)

National Police Agency Japan (2011) "Damage Situation and Police Countermeasures associated with 2011Tohoku district - off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake" [online] available from: http://www.npa.go.jp/archive/keibi/biki/higaijokyo_e.pdf (accessed May 2011)
Sonmez S (1998) Annals of Tourism Research "Influence of Terrorism Risk on Foreign Decisions" Vol.25 (1) PP 112-141

Sonmez S (1998) Annals of Tourism Research "Tourism, Terrorism and Political Instability" Vol.25 (2) PP 416-456

The author of this discussion paper has effectively displayed the effects of terrorism on tourists, whether this is a real risk or a perceived risk. The paper engages well with the strand as terrorism is an ever-growing problem in the tourism industry, and indeed in all industries. It also considers the role of natural disasters which very often have higher death tolls but don't seem to be as feared as terrorism. This brings up the debate as to whether there is a real risk to travelling in today's environment, or whether the media have a lot to answer for.
The use of the 9/11 attacks supports the discussion well. The author notes that although this was an awful event which affected every part of the world, the airline and tourism industry, its death toll was not as high as the natural disasters which struck parts of the world this year such as the Australian floods or Japanese earthquake. Despite the effects of these natural disasters, tourists are still more uneasy about travelling due to terrorism. This may be due to the media, as illustrated in the discussion; tourists can sometimes be more susceptible to terrorism due to normal holiday activities. This includes congregating in large numbers to see a famous sight or the lack of vigilance due to being on holiday. It is interesting to note that although travellers are made aware of the risks of being in a crowded area, they still continue to do this. Is this because people don't believe terrorism could affect them, or because they have forgotten about the Medias influence? There is therefore room to argue that tourists should be more aware of possible implications their behavior has on holiday.
The author puts forward the question which asks if the fear of terrorism is so high due to the use of aircraft in the 9/11 attacks and the further attempts made in airports since. This is clearly the reason for heightened security in airports, which is obviously a good thing, but could this be adding to traveller insecurities? The author also highlights that many traveller fears are merely perceptions and the actual odds of being in a hijacking are low (1 in 18.2 million chance of being on a flight which will be hijacked). This is then compared with the odds of being in an air crash (1 in 4.3million chance) which is considerably higher.
Overall, the author has argued their points well and it is clear that traveller's perceived risk of terrorism is much higher than the actual risk. It has been contrasted well with natural disasters, which are mostly impossible to predict, take more lives and leave a country in a state of despair for a long time. There are very few limitations within this discussion paper however, it would be interesting to see in more detail how much involvement the media has in the role of travellers worrying more about terrorism than natural disasters. This could then lead onto ways in which the media could reassure travellers, not unnecessarily worry them which in turn affect the tourism industry negatively.

The author has raised some very good and interesting points in the discussion about risks in tourism. Terrorism has changed the way tourists behave and perceive risks and this discussion paper deals with the topic effectively, even though there is still need for further research in the field.

As the author notes right at the beginning of the paper, terrorism is politically motivated and tourists are often victims of attacks because they provide a greater media coverage as a result. This brings up the debate of the role of the media and as pointed out, some attacks such as the 9/11 will never be forgotten because of this. However, even though tourists are easy targets and might be vigilant while on holiday, it does not mean they are not aware of possible risks. As the author highlights, that there are numerous other problems that tourists need to think about, the following question arises. How far are tourists willing to take the risks while travelling, whether perceived or real?
The author talks about the predictability of disasters and gives resent examples of events, which clearly indicate the more likelihood of natural disasters than terrorist attacks. Even though natural disasters as well as air crashes are almost impossible to predict, as was mentioned in the paper, arguably it is unlikely that the events would have a similar effect on tourists. The figures indicated in this paper of natural disasters also support the idea that the tourists are more likely to encounter in natural disasters than in an act of terrorism.
An interesting point was made about the importance of air travel in tourism and the actual odds of ever being involved in a hijack situation. It would be interesting to compare other statistics of risks involved in tourism as well. What is also interesting is that the actions taken to secure air travel have been under major developments and changes since the 9/11 attacks, yet the threat of terrorist attacks on aircraft seems to be even greater. It could be argued if the security measurements in air travel really make us safer from terrorism attacks?

Overall, the paper leaves a good understanding of the main points of the topic and it is clear that tourists are affected more with perceived risks than actual threat. In further research it would be interesting to know more about the role of the media as well as how tourists deal with the information about possible risks.