Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism Research http://jht.sagepub.com/

Tourists' Perceived Risks Toward Overt Safety Measures

Bongkosh N. Rittichainuwat
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 2013 37: 199 originally published online 18
November 2011
DOI: 10.1177/1096348011425494

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jht.sagepub.com/content/37/2/199

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education

Additional services and information for Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jht.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jht.sagepub.com/content/37/2/199.refs.html

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013

 >> Version of Record - Apr 1, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 18, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013

 TOURISTS’ PERCEIVED RISKS TOWARD
OVERT SAFETY MEASURES

Bongkosh N. Rittichainuwat
Siam University

This study aims to assess tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety measures. The study
segments tourists into four different groups depending on their perceptions toward overt
safety measures, type of accommodation, and purpose of visit. A total of 476 respondents
were segmented into special occasion tourists, leisure mid-priced tourists, frequent
business travelers, and backpackers. A two-step cluster analysis and ANOVA were used
to analyze the data. The results show that, all clusters, except the backpacker segment,
feel quite safe toward overt safety measures. Whereas the special occasion tourists at
luxury hotels felt the safest toward overt safety measures, they concurrently were the
most likely discouraged with too-stringent overt safety measures. Although most tourists
feel safe about overt safety measures, a stringent increase in safety measures could
frighten them because such measures could create a false perception that something
untoward has previously happened at the destination. Hence, the old claim that stringent
safety measures frighten tourists remains a classic rule of thumb. Therefore, hoteliers
must find an appropriate balance in the extent of overt safety measures so as not to
exceed the acceptable safety threshold of tourists.

KEYWORDS: overt safety measures; hotel safety; servicescape; safety concerns;

Thai hotels

There is no consensus among hospitality managers as to whether or not overt

safety measures frighten tourists and alter their decision making. In this study,
overt safety measures are defined as very high and very visible stringent safety
measures openly shown to guests, such as obtrusive physical safety devices like
metal detectors and behavioral measures like luggage checks and presence of
uniformed guards at tourist attractions (Enz & Taylor, 2002; Feickert, Verma,
Plaschka, & Dev, 2006; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). One school of thought
believes that overt safety measures deter criminals from wrongdoing (Saied,
1990). However, another school of thought believes that overt safety measures
create unwanted safety concerns and a negative image (Feickert et al., 2006;
Groeneboom & Jones, 2003). Thus, when tourists visit with the assumption that
the destination is safe, service providers should not cause them worry by
informing their guests about a past tragedy at the site (Tarlow, 1999; Tarlow &

Author's Note: The author would like to thank Professor Donald Sandage and Sanvicha Muttamara
for their comments and Dr. Pornchai Mongkolvanit, President of Siam University in funding this
research.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, May 2013, 199-216
DOI: 10.1177/1096348011425494
© 2011 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013 199
200   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Santana, 2002), because tourists tend to be sensitive to negative messages,

which might be exaggerated and lead to negative repercussions (Kim & Wong,
2006). Consequently, general managers and security managers perceive that
overt safety measures are inappropriate, especially at first-class hotels (Enz,
2009; Saied, 1990).
However, there has been as yet no empirical study testing whether or not
such concerns exist among tourists. This study aims to (a) assess tourists’ per-
ceptions toward overt safety and (b) segment tourists based on their perceptions
toward overt safety. Understanding tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety is
helpful in bridging any gap between service providers’ and tourists’ attitudes
and assumptions and, as a result, in allowing managers to more effectively man-
age their safety budget.

Safety
Safety concern is a component of emotion, which includes a complex set of
subjective and objective factors, mediated by neural and hormonal stimuli that
provoke affective experience and are more intense in nature than moods (Bigne
& Andreu, 2004). Safety concern is an overlapping emotion of worry, fear, and
anxiety felt while experiencing an anxiety-producing situation (Cho & Jang,
2008; Hosany & Gilbert, 2009; Richins, 1997). In addition, safety concerns are
closely associated with uncertainty avoidance, and safety prevails over other
needs where uncertainty avoidance is strong (Hofstede, 2001). Specifically,
those from high-uncertainty-avoidance cultures tend to be more safety sensitive
than those from low- and medium-uncertainty-avoidance cultures (Money &
Crotts, 2003; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005).
Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) define uncertainty avoidance as the extent to
which a member of a culture feels threatened by ambiguous or unknown situa-
tions. Moreover, feeling of uncertainty is not just personal but culturally shared,
transferred, and reinforced by other members of a society (Hofstede & Hofst-
ede, 2005). However, uncertainty is a subjective and nonrational feeling, when
an individual may feel reasonably comfortable in a situation that is familiar to
him or her, but such a situation is perceived by others as risky (Hofstede &
Hofstede, 2005).
In the tourism context, safety and security are the most important travel
considerations (Mansfeld & Pizam, 2006; Prideaux, 1996; Reisinger &
Mavondo, 2005; Ryan, 1993; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998). Since tourists travel to
relax and to relieve stress or to conduct business, safety at tourist destinations
is essential. To help ensure this, tourists rely on their government’s travel
warnings, the media, and word of mouth when making travel decisions
(Holcomb & Pizam, 2006). Safety is of concern both among tourists and travel
intermediaries, such as meeting planners and tour operators (Holcomb &
Pizam, 2006). Since tour operators are liable for their clients’ safety (Cavlek,
2002), they carefully select safe accommodation for their clients. In addition,
corporations do not send their employees to risky places, and they do not trade

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013

 Rittichainuwat / OVERT SAFETY MEASURES  201

off safety with discounts due to liability for their employees’ safety (Hender-
son, 2007).

Hotel Safety Features and Hoteliers’ Perceptions Toward Overt Safety

Hotel safety refers to “protecting employees and customers within hotel
property from potential injury or death” (Enz 2009, p. 554), whereas hotel secu-
rity goes beyond protecting employees and guests, to also include preserving
guests’ possessions and property (Enz, 2009; Enz & Taylor, 2002). Hilliard and
Baloglu (2008) surveyed 100 U.S. meeting planners and found that meeting
planners are most concerned with visible safety features, which influence their
overall perceptions of a hotel’s servicescape. During site inspection, meeting
planners also consider visible safety features and staff training because hotel
safety vary across size, age, and location (Enz, 2009; Enz & Taylor, 2002;
Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). For instance, Enz (2009) surveyed 5,487 U.S. hotels
on their safety and security features and found that luxury and upscale hotels,
newer hotels, larger hotels, and those located in urban and airport locations have
the highest safety and security features, due to higher exposure to risks, than
hotels located in small towns and resorts, which are designed to provide guests
with a relaxing and welcoming environment. Specifically, 1 month after the
9/11 terrorist attack, Enz and Taylor (2002) surveyed 2,123 U.S. hotels and
found that luxury and upscale hotels and airport and urban hotels possess a
wider array of safety features than small, economy, and resort hotels. Although
high rack rates of some hotels are often artificially set high so as to be used as
a reference for calculating discounts, these hotels offer higher safety and secu-
rity features than lower-priced hotels (Enz, 2009; Enz & Taylor, 2002).

Perceptions Toward Hotel Safety as Servicescape

According to the (U.S.) National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI; 1986)
and Bach and Pizam (1996), intrusion detection systems, such as alarms, sen-
sors, closed-circuit TV cameras, and metal detectors, are considered physical
safety devices. Moreover, sprinklers, smoke detectors, electronic locks, in-room
safes, spy holes, and deadlocks on guest room doors and interior corridors are
common hotel safety and security features (Enz, 2009; Marshall, 1993; Sam-
mons, Moreo, Benson, & DeMicco, 1999). Specifically, closed-circuit TV
cameras create the greatest sense of safety and security among U.S. tourists
(Milman, Jones, & Bach, 1999). Moreover, these visible physical safety fea-
tures are part of the servicescape creating a safe hotel environment (Enz, 2009).
Nonetheless, Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty (2011) found that tourists per-
ceive closed-circuit TVs as unimportant in identifying criminals once an incident
has occurred and ineffective in preventing future occurrences, though hotel
managers perceive them as a hygiene safety feature, which must be present.
However, closed-circuit TV cameras and electronic locks do not guarantee
guests’ safety in the absence of appropriate equipment and trained security

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013

202   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

personnel in monitoring a fully developed safety plan (Enz, 2009). Neverthe-

less, these physical safety devices provide tourists with a greater sense of safety
and security (Milman et al., 1999) and are critical components of the overall
servicescape that helps define the service experience (Enz, 2009; Hilliard &
Baloglu, 2008; see Table 1).
In contrast, behavioral safety measures are operational security practices
used to provide safety and security for guests (NCPI, 1986). Examples of
behavioral measures are clearly identifying emergency exits and evacuation
signs on all guest room floors and in public areas (Drabek, 2000; Saied, 1990),
posting multilingual safety warnings and evacuation procedures (Peattie, Clake,
& Peattie, 2005), educating and reminding guests to attend to their safety via
printed materials placed in guest rooms or at the front desk (Bach & Pizam
1996), and having uniformed tourist police patrols at destinations to deter
criminals from wrongdoing (Pizam, Tarlow, & Bloom, 1997). In addition,
employee background checks and presence of armed guards at tourist attrac-
tions are deemed essential behavioral safety measures (Kavanaugh, 1992;
NCPI, 1986; Tarlow & Santana, 2002). Moreover, taking action on a written
crisis management plan, fire safety training and loss prevention management
(Ellis & Stipanuk, 1999), and employee training to improve the foreign lan-
guage skills of security personnel (Tarlow & Santana, 2002) are other behav-
ioral measures that are positively perceived as management’s commitment to
provide reasonable care to protect guests (Bach & Pizam, 1996).
However, very high and very visible safety measures challenge the desired
image of a hospitable and welcoming atmosphere (Enz & Taylor, 2002; Hill-
iard & Baloglu, 2008). Currently, there is no consensus as to whether overt
safety measures maximize guests’ safety or create unwanted safety concern.
Saied (1990) interviewed six hotel companies and found that three hotels
perceive that overt safety measures would deter intruders from wrongdoing,
reassure guests, and send a clear message that the hotel is serious about secu-
rity. However, the other three perceive such measures as inappropriate in the
service-oriented environment of first-class hotels by causing guests to think
that there may be a security problem at the hotel (Saied, 1990). Similarly,
Groeneboom and Jones (2003) interviewed security managers of eight upscale
hotels in London and found that it is impossible to maximize security while
maintaining hospitality in the hotel environment. In addition, hoteliers per-
ceive that too much overt safety invites more criminals who want to challenge
the safety system and “advertise” that there is a lot of crime in hotels (Groene-
boom & Jones, 2003). Hence, even though advanced discrete and unobtrusive
overt safety systems such as closed-circuit TVs make the issue of hospitality
and security less troublesome, hotels must balance safety, convenience, and
hospitality to achieve customer satisfaction, because too many overt safety
measures may create perceptions that the hotel is unsafe (Enz & Taylor, 2002;
Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008).

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013

 Table 1
Literature on Overt Safety

Reference Main Variables Research Methodology Study Context Main Findings

Enz (2009) Hotel safety and security indexes and Survey, ANOVA U.S. hotel Strong correlations between safety and security
average rack rate, age, and location industry amenities and average rack rate
Enz and Safety and security indices Mail survey, frequency All U.S. hotel Luxury and upscale hotels and airport and urban
Taylor distribution, descriptive general hotels were most likely to possess a full array of
(2002) statistics managers safety features, whereas small, economy, and
resort motels were the least likely to provide safety
and security features
Feickert, Hotel guests’ perceptions on seven Mail survey, frequency U.S. residents All hotel guests were favorable to security cameras,
Verma, safety measures: metal detector, video distribution, and multiple across the requiring photo ID checks, but they were neutral
Plaschka, surveillance, photo ID at check-in, regression United States toward metal detector and first-aid kits; respondents
and Dev armed security guard, checking guest who stayed in upscale, mid-scale, and economy
(2006) ID against law enforcement records, hotels were also neutral toward metal detectors,
and first-aid kits in each room presence of armed guards, and first-aid kits
Groenenboom Security managers’ perceptions In-depth interviews Security There is no consensus as to whether uniformed
and Jones on how to provide a balance between managers in security staff provide a greater or lesser sense of
(2003) hospitality and hotel security top hotels in safety among guests; different security managers
London, U.K. adopt different
practices for assuring security with regard to
patrolling the property
Hilliard and Importance of visible safety features, In-person survey at two meeting U.S. meeting Meeting planners were most concerned with visible
Baloglu documentation and staff training, and industry conferences, planners safety features, which add to their overall
(2008) general security features on meeting frequency distribution, means, perceptions of a hotel’s servicescape
planners’ site selection factor analysis, multiple
regression

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013

Pinhey and Seven assessments on perceptions of Random sample, multiple Japanese visitors Tourists somewhat felt safe while participating in
Iverson safety on: sightseeing, water sports, on regression to Guam activities that did not take them too far from their
(1994) beach, night life, in car, and on road hotels; young (26-35 years of age) and higher
income tourists felt less safe when participating in
water- and beach-related activities
Saied (1990) Approaches to risk management Interview hotel companies U.S. hotel Properties that implemented ongoing safety training
corporate programs had better risk-management programs
officials

203
204   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Type of Accommodation and Tourists’ Perceptions Toward Overt Safety

Regardless of type of accommodation, guests place importance on safety
(Weaver & Oh, 1993). For instance, Choi and Chu (1999) found that guests who
stay at mid-priced hotels look for safety features in the same way as guests who
stay at luxury and upscale hotels, which tend to invest more on safety measures
than other types of hotels (Taylor & Enz, 2002). Backpackers also choose to
stay at hostels because of safety considerations (Nash, Thyne, & Davies 2006).
Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty (2009) found that during the destination selec-
tion process, 63% of international inbound leisure tourists would not overlook
personal safety even if travel costs were low.
Likewise, business tourists do not overlook safety during hotel selection
(Withiam, 1989). Knutson (1988) also notes that frequent business tourists con-
sider a safe and secure environment an important criterion in hotel selection.
More specifically, female business tourists are more concerned about safety than
their male counterparts (McCleary, Pamela, Weaver, & Lan, 1994). For instance,
business tourists tend to expect fewer safety features at beach resorts than at
airports and urban hotels because they are aware that most resorts give greater
attention to property aesthetics and ambience than to strict measures (Enz &
Taylor, 2002). More especially, business tourists have no choice as to whether
or not to travel to an affected destination (Holcomb & Pizam, 2006).
Holcomb and Pizam (2006) conducted a telephone survey of 1,017 U.S.
residents about the impact of crime on respondents’ repeat visitation to areas
where a crime has been perpetrated and found that half of the respondents
would return despite their previous experience of crime. On the other hand, for
those respondents who would not return, nothing would change their mind, the
passage of time, one’s positive experience, or the media. Thus, they concluded
that destinations afflicted by crime should not necessarily expect a decrease of
tourist arrivals. Therefore, service providers should not cause tourists worry by
informing them about a past wrongdoing at the site (Rittichainuwat, 2011;
Tarlow, 1999; Tarlow & Santana, 2002). More important, stressing the high
safety level at a destination does not greatly affect the likelihood of tourists
traveling to that destination (Sirakaya, Sheppard, & McLellan, 1997). In contrast,
stressing the safety issue creates unwanted safety concerns on travel intention;
hence, destination marketers should not highlight the safety issue, unless to
reverse a negative perception of the destination (Sirakaya et al., 1997).
Although both business and leisure tourists consider safety an important
hotel selection criterion (Ananth, Demicco, Moreo, & Howey, 1992; Clow,
Garretson, & Kurtz, 1994; McCleary et al., 1994), their responses to the inten-
sity of safety measures vary according to place and situation. Regarding leisure
tourists, after the September 11 terrorist attack in New Year, Feickert et al.
(2006) surveyed 930 hotel guests on their perceptions toward overt safety mea-
sures such as metal detectors, presence of armed guards, video surveillance,
checking guest ID against law enforcement records, and first-aid kits in each
room. They found that leisure travelers were more accepting of these obtrusive
safety measures than business travelers. However, guests at upscale hotels were
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013
 Rittichainuwat / OVERT SAFETY MEASURES  205

less accepting of metal detectors and armed guards than were guests at economy
hotels, who were more accepting of metal detectors, and as the frequency of
travel increases, the acceptability of security features decreases (Feickert et al.,
2006). Although hotel guests may perceive overt safety measure as a sign that
the hotel is compensating for an unsafe environment, they were not so negative
about metal detectors, which were responded to neutrally in research (Feickert
et al., 2006).
The literature also shows that tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety are
associated with demographic profile in categories such as age, education, purpose
of the trip, cultural orientation, and past travel experience. For example, Pinhey
and Iverson (1994) randomly surveyed 608 Japanese tourists to Guam to assess
their perceptions of safety and found that older and honeymoon tourists feel safer
than other respondents while participating in tourist activities (Pinhey & Iverson,
1994). Moreover, tourists with a higher education level and a higher social status
are more concerned with safety than other respondents (Demos, 1992; Pinhey
& Iverson, 1994). Sirakaya, Sheppard, and McLellan (1997) found that young
undergraduate students are less concerned about safety than older adults. Like-
wise, Milman et al. (1999) found that education affects perceived safety at
destinations. Specifically, the higher the education tourists have, the lower the
level of safety concerns they have, because highly educated tourists are more
likely to be exposed to print and electronic news media, which makes them
more risk tolerant than tourists with lower education levels (Milman et al.,
1999).
In addition, travelers with previous travel experience are more confident
about destination safety than those who have not previously visited the place
(Pinhey & Iverson, 1994). Likewise, Sirakaya et al. (1997) found that because of
previous travel experience, frequent business travelers have less safety concerns
than first-time leisure travelers.
Furthermore, due to the fact that tourists avoid traveling if they perceive
terrorism risk (Floyd, Gibson, Pennington-Gray, & Thapa, 2003; Pizam &
Fleischer, 2002), during and after any crisis, destination marketers should dis-
sociate an unaffected destination from a problematic destination that has an
undesirable safety image to avoid a spillover effect on nonaffected destinations
(Beirman, 2003; Mansfeld & Pizam, 2006). Finally, Roehl and Fesenmaier
(1992) stated that promoting destination safety is not enough to reduce safety
concerns and that destinations must also address risk reduction to motivate
safety-sensitive tourists to travel.

METHOD

Instrument
Consolidation of safety items from the literature review (Feickert et al.,
2006; Groeneboom & Jones, 2003) allowed development of a self-administered
questionnaire. Operationalization of overt safety concepts was tested by two
questions: (a) “How would you feel if there were stringent safety measures
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013
206   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

(metal detectors and luggage check) at your hotel?” and (b) “Would the pres-
ence of overt safety measures such as metal detectors and luggage checks deter
you from staying in the hotel?” The respondents were asked to indicate their
perceptions toward the first question on a 5-point semantic differential scale that
ranged from 1 (very worried) to 5 (very safe). A 5-point Likert-type scale rang-
ing from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used for the second
question. Five hotel security managers and faculty members in the field of
hospitality management checked the content validity of the instrument. The
questionnaire contained three sections: travel behaviors (purpose of trip and
type of accommodation chosen), guests’ perceptions toward overt safety mea-
sures, and demographic profiles.

Data Collection
The target population was inbound international tourists who were waiting
for departure flights at Bangkok International Airport. Thailand was used as a
research setting because it experienced a series of bomb blasts in Bangkok on
December 31, 2006, during the New Year countdown and has encountered ter-
rorism in its three southern-most provinces since 2004. A single-stage cluster
sampling was used to randomly select three departure flights at Bangkok Inter-
national Airport, Thailand, from January 15 to January 31, 2007, soon after the
bomb blasts. To collect data, seven research assistants were employed. The
persons handing out questionnaires were in the departure area for 45 minutes to
2 hours prior to flight. In this way, 500 passengers who were checking in for
selected flights were asked to participate in the survey. When a person agreed
to fill out a questionnaire, research assistants asked him/her to complete the
entire questionnaire.

Data Analysis
According to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2010), cluster
analysis is an appropriate tool to classify respondents into groups with large
enough sample size to include the true representative of the population and when
the selection of variables is based on conceptual foundation. To meet the cluster
analysis assumption, the number of clusters was determined based on the con-
ceptual framework (the literature and interviews with hotel security managers).
Additionally, a sample of 467 respondents and a single-stage cluster sampling
was used to ensure the representation of small groups within the population.
Furthermore, the variable selection in the cluster analysis is guided by the
literature suggesting that perceptions toward overt safety vary between leisure
and business travelers (Feickert et al., 2006) as well as between type of accom-
modation and variables such as size, age, and location (Enz, 2009; Enz &
Taylor, 2002; Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008). Hence, this study segments tourists
based on tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety (continuous variables), pur-
pose of visit, and type of accommodation chosen (categorical variables).
Because of a combination of continuous variables and categorical variables,
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013
 Rittichainuwat / OVERT SAFETY MEASURES  207

neither the hierarchical clustering nor the K-means clustering can perform this
task (Norušis, 2006). Hence, the SPSS two-step cluster analysis procedure,
which has been designed to handle a mixture of continuous and categorical
variables (Norušis, 2006), was used in this study. In the two-step cluster analy-
sis, cases were first assigned to preclusters; then, the preclusters were clustered
using the hierarchical clustering algorithm (Norušis, 2006). Moreover, cluster-
ing variables were standardized with the use of Z scores to eliminate the bias intro-
duced by the differences in the scales of the measured variables (Hair et al., 2010).
Because of a combination of categorical and continuous variables, only the
log-likelihood criterion can be used (Norušis, 2006), as “the distance between
two clusters depends on the decrease in the log-likelihood when they are com-
bined into a single cluster” (Norušis 2006, p. 375). Then, the number of clusters
was determined based on the number of clusters at which the Schwarz Bayesian
information criterion (BIC) becomes small and the percentage changes in BIC
between adjacent numbers of clusters is markedly larger than those occurring at
other steps (Hair et al., 2010; Norušis, 2006). Then, ANOVA was used to assess
any differences among the derived clusters across demographic profiles (not
included in the cluster solution) to ensure criterion validity and practical sig-
nificance and also to describe cluster profile after they have been identified
(Hair et al., 2010).

RESULTS

Out of 500 distributed questionnaires, 476 completed questionnaires were

returned, yielding a response rate of 95%. As for gender distribution, almost
equal numbers of each gender participated in the study: male (46%) and female
(44%). Regarding age distribution, 40% of tourists were between 20 and 29 years,
followed by 36% of those who were between 30 and 39 years. With regard to
education, more than 74% of both groups had college or graduate degrees, fol-
lowed by 15% with secondary or high school diplomas. Regarding marital sta-
tus, 44% were single, followed by 41% married and 8% divorced. In terms of
occupation, 20% were students, 14% were office workers, 11% were techni-
cians, 9% were entrepreneurs, 8% were government officers, and 8% were
housewives or retired. As for country of residence, most respondents were
Western tourists (26% were Scandinavian, 17% were German, 14% were Australian
and New Zealander, 10% were American, and 9% were British), whereas Asian
tourists (Thai, Chinese, Malaysian) represented only 7%.
More than half (59%) of the tourists were on holiday, followed by 23% who
were business travelers and 12% were on honeymoon trips. About 35% of the
tourists surveyed stayed at guest houses or bungalows, 24% chose budget hotels,
20% chose luxurious hotels, and 17% stayed at mid-price hotels.

Do Overt Safety Measures Discourage Guests?

The results show that only 15.6% of the guests were worried because of the
presence of overt safety measures, whereas 46% felt safe and 38.4% were neu-
tral. Also, although anfrom
Downloaded increase of safety
jht.sagepub.com measures would
at Universitats-Landesbibliothek frighten
on December 5, 2013 32.8% of the
208   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

respondents, only 13.7% indicated they would not be discouraged, and 53.5%
were neutral with regard to staying at a hotel with a presence of overt safety
measures.

Segmentation of Tourists by Their Perceptions Toward Overt Safety

A two-step cluster analysis using a log-likelihood criterion method was run
to classify the tourists into segments based on their perceptions toward overt
safety, purpose of trip, and type of accommodation. The two-step cluster analysis
resulted in four clusters with the largest decreases of the Schwarz BIC change
observed from three (BIC change = −334) to four clusters (BIC change = −227),
with a ratio of BIC changes from .65 to .40. The four clusters had distinct and
logical characteristics as predicted by the literature (Enz, 2009; Feickert et al.,
2006; Pinhey & Iverson, 1994). The first cluster is composed of 107 observa-
tions (25%), the second cluster has 138 observations (32%), the third cluster
consists of 73 observations (17%), and the fourth cluster is composed of 119
observations (27%; see Table 2).
Then, ANOVA was run to identify any significant difference among the clus-
ter membership across demographic profile and also to describe characteristics
of each derived cluster profile. The ANOVA showed significant difference
among the four clusters (at the 5% level of significance) on marital status, age,
education, and occupation, confirming the criterion validity. Also, ANOVA
found a significant difference on the tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety
measures (F = 11.25, p = .00) but not on the likelihood that overt safety mea-
sures would frighten tourists. A post hoc Bonferroni test found a significant
difference between Clusters 1, 2, and 4 (at the 1% level of significance).
Whereas the tourists in the first and second clusters felt safe toward overt safety
measures, tourists in the fourth cluster were neutral. The four clusters were
grouped and labeled as follows (see Table 3).
Cluster 1 was called “special occasion tourists.” This cluster mainly com-
prises married couples, aged between 30 and 39 years; mostly on honeymoon,
holiday, or visiting friends and relatives; and staying in luxury hotels. Most
respondents were students, employees in mass media, and technicians. When
compared with other leisure tourists, special occasion tourists felt safer regard-
ing overt safety measures at their luxury hotels. However, special occasion
tourists were also the most deterred by overt safety measures. This result is in
line with the study by Enz and Taylor (2002), who noted that customers may say
that they prefer hotels with high standards of safety, but at the same time they
may be irritated with inconvenient measures. Similar to the study by Pinhey and
Iverson (1994), older and honeymoon tourists were more concerned with safety
than other respondents.
Cluster 2 was labeled “leisure mid-priced tourists.” This cluster is mainly
composed of singles, aged between 20 and 29 years, with college degrees. Most
respondents were on holiday. Almost the same proportions had stayed at either
mid-priced or budget hotels. This group felt somewhat safe toward overt safety
measures.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013
 Rittichainuwat / OVERT SAFETY MEASURES  209

Table 2
Cluster Profiles (Perceptions Toward Overt Safety Measure and Travel Information)

Cluster 1: Cluster 3:
Special Cluster 2: Frequent
Occasion Leisure Mid- Business Cluster 4:
Tourists Priced Tourists Travelers Backpackers
(N = 107) (N = 138) (N = 73) (N = 119)
How would you feel if there 3.67a 3.55b 3.37 3.02c
are stringent safety
measures at your hotel?
Would stringent safety 3.33 ns 3.15 ns 3.12 ns 3.17 ns
measures (metal detectors,
luggage checks) deter you
from staying at your hotel?
Purpose of visit
Holiday 27 111  0 119
Business  0   0 73   0
Holiday and business  1  27  0   0
Honeymoon 54   0  0   0
Visiting friend and relative 25   0  0   0
Type of accommodation
Guesthouse/bungalow 23   0 10 119
Budget hotel  9  64 30   0
Mid-price hotel  5  62  9   0
Luxury hotel/resort 70   9 24   0

Note. ns = nonsignificant. Means with different superscripts for each perceived safety
are significantly different among each other at (p = .001).

Cluster 3 was named “frequent business travelers.” This cluster mainly com-
prises either married or single business tourists, aged between 30 and 39 years,
with graduate degrees. Most respondents had booked at budget or luxury hotels.
Employees in mass media, sales/office workers, and technicians dominated this
segment. They reported feeling quite safe when there were overt safety mea-
sures. When compared with the other clusters, they were the least likely to be
deterred by stringent safety measures. The lower sensitivity toward risks of the
business tourists may be due to their past travel experience (Sirakaya & Woodside,
2005) and their higher level of education, which may lower the level of per-
ceived risks (Milman et al., 1999). Moreover, since business tourists have no
choice regarding their destination, they tend to return to a destination even if
they had experienced a crime perpetrated there (Holcomb & Pizam, 2006).
Frequent business travelers in this study are similar to Sirakaya and Woodside’s
(2005) frequent business travelers, whose previous travel experience minimize
perceived risks at destinations (see Table 4).
Cluster 4 was categorized “backpackers.” This cluster is composed of single
students, aged between 20 and 29 years. The occupation of most was classified
as “other” (whose frequency is less than 5%). All these respondents were on

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013

210   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 3
Clusters’ Demographic Profiles

Cluster 1: Cluster 3:
Special Cluster 2: Frequent
Occasion Leisure Mid- Business Cluster 4:
Tourists Priced Tourists Travelers Backpackers
(N = 107) (N = 138) (N = 73) (N = 119)
Marital status
Single 41 82 32 88
Married 62 52 39 29
Age (years)
Less than 20  4 10  2  8
20-29 38 59 18 61
30-39 43 46 32 34
40-49 14 13 15 11
50-59  7  4  2  3
60 and older  1  6  3  1
Education
Primary/middle school or less  1  2  4  0
Secondary school/high school 21 16 15 20
College/university 43 65 18 63
Graduate/postgraduate 42 51 36 34
Occupation
Entrepreneur/manager  2 17  9  9
Government officer 10 10  8  5
Mass media 16 17 13  4
Sales/office worker 13 19 13 14
Technician 15  9 13  9
Student 18 32  5 35
Instructor  6  8  2 11
Retired/unemployed  6  6  2  2
Housewife  8  5  1  5
Other 13 15  7 24

holiday and were to stay at guest houses or bungalows. Backpackers were neu-
tral regarding overt safety. Their travel style is similar to backpackers described
in previous studies (Elsrud, 2001; Loker-Murphy & Pearce, 1995; Uriely,
Yonay, & Simchai, 2002).

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study aims to assess tourists’ perceptions toward overt safety. The find-
ings suggest that implementing overt safety measures immediately after terror-
ism makes leisure and business guests feel safe. The findings also suggest that
tourists somewhat agreed that too many stringent safety measures would have
deterred them from staying at their hotels. This finding is in concurrence with
several hoteliers’ concerns that overt safety measures could frighten tourists.
Similar to the study by Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty (in press), although
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013
 Rittichainuwat / OVERT SAFETY MEASURES  211

security managers implemented overt safety measures during a crisis, they per-
ceive such measures as creating unwanted safety concerns by guests. Although
overt safety measures make tourists feel safe, because they are viewed as pre-
ventative safety measures, stringent safety measures could cause concern about a
negative incident having taken place at the site. This confirms previous studies
indicating that safety is an important element of hotel servicescape, but hotels
must balance safety, convenience, and hospitality to achieve customer satisfac-
tion, because too many overt safety measures may create perceptions that the
hotel is unsafe (Enz, 2009; Enz & Taylor, 2002; Groeneboom & Jones, 2003;
Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008).
This study also segments tourists into four groups depending on their percep-
tions toward overt safety measures, type of accommodation, and purpose of visit.
The findings suggest significant differences on tourists’ perceptions toward
overt safety measures among the four clusters. Whereas the special occasion
tourists at luxury hotels felt the safest toward overt safety measures, they con-
currently were the most likely discouraged with too-stringent overt safety mea-
sures, as too-stringent safety measures create uncertainty and suspicion about
negative incidents having occurred at the scene (Enz, 2009; Feickert et al.,
2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005). This finding supports the literature that
reveals overt safety measures create unwanted guest safety concerns and a
negative image (Feickert et al., 2006; Groeneboom & Jones, 2003). As Hilliard
and Baloglu (2008) note, too many stringent overt safety measures may elicit a
guest perception that the hotel is unsafe.
As mentioned earlier, all clusters, except the backpacker segment, feel quite
safe toward overt safety measures. Backpackers, on the other hand, perceive
stringent safety measures as unusual at bungalows and guest houses. They
would not expect to see metal detectors or luggage checks at small establish-
ments such as guest houses and bungalows. Indeed, if such safety measures are
present, guests would suspect that criminals or terrorists might be at the scene,
causing police officers to install metal detectors to search for weapons or
bombs. Backpackers in this study also have similar characteristics as Roehl and
Fesenmaier’s (1992) risk neutral group, who do not perceive travel as a risky
activity. According to Maoz (2007) and Nash et al. (2006), young backpackers
who travel on a tight budget are more risk tolerant than any other type of tourist
because of their longer stay and participation in more activities, which familiar-
ize them with the environment and make them indifferent toward risks. As
Sirakaya and Woodside (2005), Pinhey and Iverson (1994), and Sönmez and
Graefe (1998) note, tourists who have more experience of a particular destina-
tion become more confident about the safety of the place.

Classic Rule of Thumb

This study suggests that overt safety measures should be present at budget,
mid-priced, and luxury hotels (except guest houses and bungalows) because
guests perceive such measures as a hygiene factor and an element of the hotel

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013

212   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 4
Cluster Profiles

Cluster 2:
Leisure Cluster 3:
Cluster 1: Special Mid-Priced Frequent Cluster 4:
Occasion Tourists Tourists Business Backpackers
(N = 107) (N = 138) Travelers (N = 73) (N = 119)
Perceptions Felt safe (with the Felt safe Quite safe Neutral
toward overt highest mean
safety measures when compared
with the other
clusters)
Possibility of Quite likely (with Somewhat Somewhat likely Somewhat
leaving the the highest likely (with the lowest likely
hotel with the mean when mean when
presence of compared with compared with
stringent safety the other the other
measures clusters) clusters)
(metal
detectors,
luggage checks)
Purpose of visit Honeymoon, Holiday Business Holiday
holiday, visiting
friends and
relatives
Type of Luxury hotels Budget Budget hotels/ Guest
accommodation hotels/mid- luxury hotels houses
price hotels and
bungalows
Age 30-39 years 20-29 years 30-39 years 20-29 years
Marital status Married Single Married/single Single
Education College graduate College Graduate College
Occupation Student, mass Student Mass media, Student,
media, sales/office other
technician worker,
technician

servicescape. Additionally, overt safety measures can be used as a marketing

tool to assure guests about hotel safety standards. As Milman et al. (1999) sug-
gest, overt safety measures have become a marketing tool of chain-affiliated
hotels to assure safety-conscious guests. Also, regardless of size, hoteliers are
responsible for providing safety measures as practiced by the industry to safe-
guard their guests (Palmer 1989). Specifically, metal detectors and luggage
checks are expected during crisis when there are news alerts on terrorism.
Hence, in turbulent times, hotels should have in place overt safety measures,
such as screening guests and guests’ luggage with metal detectors, to make
guests feel safe and perceive that hotel management cares about their safety.
However, during normal times, overt safety measures should be avoided to not
give rise to unwanted safety concerns.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013

 Rittichainuwat / OVERT SAFETY MEASURES  213

More specifically, as special occasion tourists at luxury hotels are the most
safety sensitive, management of luxury hotels targeting special occasion tourists
should use overt safety measures to ensure guest safety during crisis but not
during normal situations. Moreover, safety messages should be softened and be
done in a narrative form rather than as bullet point listings so as not to frighten
tourists. As Adaval and Wyer (1998) suggest, describing negative aspects in a
narrative form results in fewer adverse effects on product evaluation than
describing undesirable features in a list of features. More important, the top
management must get involved and show employees and customers that they
are serious in safeguarding their employees and customers (Stafford, Yu, &
Armoo, 2002). Although “hoteliers find it awkward to maintain the highest pos-
sible standards of safety while preserving a hotel’s hospitable and welcoming
image” (Enz, 2009, p. 554), hotels have a mission to provide their guests with
a safe and secure environment while not interfering with their service concept
(Enz & Taylor, 2002).

Limitations of the Study

The question “Would the presence of overt safety measures such as metal
detectors and luggage checks deter you from staying in the hotel?” may be
viewed as leading. However, it is a question requested by security managers
(who checked content validity of this study’s instrument) to test whether or not
their belief regarding this point is true. Thus, this question should remain as
such. Moreover, the questionnaire was written in English, and so only tourists
who understand English participated in the survey. Future research should focus
on emerging safety issues such as tsunami safety measures at beach resorts and
the impact of such measures on tourists’ sense of safety.

REFERENCES

Adaval, R., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1998). The role of narratives in consumer information
processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(3), 207-245.
Ananth, M., DeMicco, J., Moreo, P., & Howey, M. (1992). Marketplace lodging needs
of nature tourists. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 33(4),
12-24.
Bach, S., & Pizam, A. (1996). Crimes in hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 20, 59-75.
Beirman, D. (2003). United States: September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. The impact on
American and global tourism. In D. Beirman (Ed.), Restoring tourism destinations in
crisis: A strategic marketing approach (pp. 43-68). Oxon, England: CABI.
Bigne, J. E., & Andreu, L. (2004). Emotions in segmentation: An empirical study. Annals
of Tourism Research, 31, 682-696.
Cavlek, N. (2002). Tour operators and destination safety. Journals of Travel Research,
29(2), 478-496.
Cho, M., & Jang, S. (2008). Information value structure for vacation travel. Journal of
Travel Research, 47, 72-82.
Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (1999). Consumer perception of the quality of services in three
hotel categories in Hong Kong. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5, 176-189.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013
214   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Clow, K. E., Garretson, J. A., & Kurtz, D. L. (1994). An exploratory study into the pur-
chase decision process used by leisure tourists in hotel selection. Journal of Hospital-
ity & Leisure Marketing, 2(4), 53-72.
Demos, E. (1992). Concern for safety: A potential problem in the tourist industry. Jour-
nal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(1), 81-88.
Drabek, T. E. (2000). Disaster evacuations: Tourist-business managers rarely act as cus-
tomers expect. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 48-57.
Ellis, R. C., & Stipanuk, D. M. (1999). Security and loss prevention management. East
Lansing, MI: Educational Institute of the AH and MA.
Elsrud, T. (2001). Risk creation in traveling: Backpacker adventure narration. Annals of
Tourism Research, 28, 597-617.
Enz, C. (2009). The physical safety and security features of U.S. hotels. Cornell Hospi-
tality Quarterly, 50, 553-560. doi:10.1177/1938965509345963
Enz, C. A., & Taylor, M. S. (2002). The safety and security of U.S. hotels: A post
September-11 report. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43,
119-136.
Feickert, J., Verma, R., Plaschka, G., & Dev, C. S. (2006). Safeguarding your customers:
The guest’s view of hotel security. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 47, 224-244.
Floyd, M. F., Gibson, H., Pennington-Gray, L., & Thapa, B. (2003). The effect of risk
perceptions on intentions to travel in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(2/3), 19-38.
Groeneboom, K., & Jones, P. (2003). Issues of security in hotels. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality, 15(1), 14-19.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multi-
variate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Henderson, J. C. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and tourism: Hotel companies
in Phuket, Thailand, after the Indian Ocean tsunami. International Journal of Hospi-
tality Management, 26, 228-239.
Hilliard, T. W., & Baloglu, S. (2008). Safety and security as part of the hotel servicescape
for meeting planners. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 9(1), 15-34.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Campaign values, behavior, institutions,
and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hosany, S., & Gilbert, D. (2009). Measuring tourists’ emotional experiences toward
Hedonic holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49, 513-526.
Holcomb, J., & Pizam, A. (2006). Do incidents of theft at tourist destinations have a
negative effect on tourists’ decision to travel to affected destinations? In Y. Mansfeld
& A. Pizam (Eds.), Tourism, security and safety: From theory to practice (pp. 105-
124). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kavanaugh, R. R. (1992). Security: Everyone on guard. Hotels, 26, 39.
Kim, S., & Wong, K. (2006). Effects of news shock on inbound tourist demand volatility
in Korea. Tourism Management, 44, 457-466.
Knutson, B. (1988). Frequent travelers: Making them happy and bringing them back.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, 29(1), 82-87.
Loker-Murphy, L., & Pearce, P. (1995). Young budget travelers: Backpackers in Australia.
Annals of Tourism Research, 22, 819-843.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013

 Rittichainuwat / OVERT SAFETY MEASURES  215

Mansfeld, Y., & Pizam, A. (2006). Toward a theory of tourism security. In Y. Mansfeld
& A. Pizam (Eds.), Tourism, security and safety: From theory to practice (pp.1-28).
Burlington, MA: Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Maoz, D. (2007). Backpackers motivations the role of culture and nationality. Annals of
Tourism Research, 34, 122-140.
Marshall, A. (1993). Safety tops guest’s priority list: Sell security as no. 1 amenity. Hotel
and Motel Management, 208(11), 21.
McCleary, W., Pamela, A., Weaver, P., & Lan, L. (1994). Gender-based differences in
business travelers lodging preferences. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 35(2), 51-58.
Milman A., Jones, F., & Bach, S. (1999). The impact of security devices on tourists’
perceived safety: The Central Florida example. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 23, 371-386.
Money, B. R., & Crotts, J. C. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information
search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations. Tourism Manage-
ment, 24(2), 191-202.
Nash, R., Thyne, M., & Davies, S. (2006). An investigation into customer satisfaction
levels in the budget accommodation sector in Scotland: A case study of backpacker
tourists and the Scottish Youth Hostels Association. Tourism Management, 27(3),
525-532.
National Crime Prevention Institute. (1986). Understanding crime prevention. Boston,
MA: Butterworth.
Norušis, M. J. (2006). SPSS 15.0 statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Palmer, R. A. (1989). The hospitality customer as crime victim: Recent legal research.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 13, 225-229.
Peattie, S., Clake, P., & Peattie, K. (2005). Risk and responsibility in tourism: Promoting
sun-safety. Tourism Management, 26, 399-408.
Pinhey, T. K., & Iverson, T. J. (1994). Safety concerns of Japanese visitors to Guam.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 3(2), 87-94.
Pizam, A., Tarlow, P. E., & Bloom, J. (1997). Making tourists feel safe: Whose respon-
sibility is it? Journal of Travel Research, 36(1), 23-28.
Prideaux, B. (1996). The tourism crime cycle: A beach destination case study. In
A. Pizam & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Tourism, crime, and international security
issues (pp. 77-90). London, England: Wiley.
Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. T. (2005). Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internation-
ally: Implications of travel risk perception. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 212-225.
Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of
Consumer Research, 24, 127-146.
Rittichainuwat, N. B. (2011). Ghosts: A travel barrier to tourism recovery. Annals of
Tourism Research, 38, 437-459.
Rittichainuwat, B. N., & Chakraborty, G. (2009). Perceived travel risks regarding terrorism
and disease: The case of Thailand. Tourism Management, 30, 410-418.
Rittichainuwat, B. N., & Chakraborty, G. (2011). Perceptions and how much safety is
enough. In T. C. Huan, K. Chon, & C. H. Hsu (Eds.), Special Issue on Work, Leisure, and
Tourism in the Pacific. Journal of Business Research. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.013
Rittichainuwat, B. N., & Chakraborty, G. (in press). Perceptions of importance and what
safety is enough. Journal of Business Research. doi:10.1016/j.j.busres.2011.07.013

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 5, 2013

216   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Roehl, W. S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1992). Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: An
exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 2(4), 17-26.
Ryan, C. (1993). Crime, violence, terrorism, and tourism: An accident or intrinsic rela-
tionship. Tourism Management, 14, 173-183.
Saied, J. (1990). Approaches to risk management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Admin-
istration Quarterly, 31(2), 45-55.
Sammons, G., Moreo, P., Benson, L. F., & DeMiciio, F. (1999). Analysis of female busi-
ness travelers' selection of lodging accommodations. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, 8(1), 65.
Sirakaya, E., Sheppard, G., & McLellan, W. (1997). Assessment of the relationship
between perceived safety at a vacation site and destination choice decisions: Extending
the behavioral decision-making model. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
21(2), 1-10.
Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Determining future travel behavior from past travel
experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 171-177.
Stafford, G., Yu, L., & Armoo, K. A. (2002). Crisis management and recovery how
Washington, D.C., hotels responded to terrorism. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 27-40.
Tarlow, P. (1999). The seventh annual Las Vegas tourism security seminar. International
Journal of Tourism research, 1(1), 69-70.
Tarlow, P., & Santana, G. (2002). Providing safety for tourists: A study of a selected
sample of tourist destinations in the United States and Brazil. Journal of Travel
Research, 40, 424-431.
Taylor, M., & Enz, C. (2002). GMs’ responses to the events of September 11, 2001: Voices
from the field. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43, 7-20.
Uriely, N., Yonay, Y., & Simchai, D. (2002). Backpacking experiences: A type and form
analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 520-538.
Weaver, P. A., & Oh, H. C. (1993). Do American business travelers have different hotel
service requirements? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-
ment, 5, 16-21.
Withiam, G. (1989). Troubled hotels: The workout. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quar-
terly, 30(3), 8-13.

Submitted February 7, 2010

Accepted August 29, 2011
Refereed Anonymously

Bongkosh N. Rittichainuwat, PhD (e-mail: ngamson@gmail.com), is associate

professor and program director at the International Program in Hotel and Tourism
Management at Siam University. Her research focus is on destination recovery after
tsunami.