Cultural Differences in Travel Risk Perception

This article was downloaded by: [Auckland University of Technology] On: 19 December 2011, At: 12:11 Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20
Cultural Differences in Travel Risk Perception

Yvette Reisinger & Felix Mavondo
a a b
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Florida International University, 3000 N.E. 151st HM 210, North Miami, FL, 33181-3000, USA
b
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3800, Australia Available online: 25 Sep 2008
To cite this article: Yvette Reisinger & Felix Mavondo (2006): Cultural Differences in Travel Risk Perception, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 20:1, 13-31 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v20n01_02
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Cultural Differences in Travel Risk Perception

Yvette Reisinger Felix Mavondo
Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011
ABSTRACT. This paper explores differences in perceptions of travel risk and safety, anxiety and intentions to travel among international tourists from Australia, Canada, Greece, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Data were collected from 830 respondents using a structured questionnaire. The results show that there are significant differences in perceptions of travel risk and safety, anxiety and travel intentions among tourists from different countries. Tourists from the United States, Hong Kong and Australia perceived more travel risk, felt less safe, were more anxious and reluctant to travel than tourists from the United Kingdom, Canada and Greece. The marketing implications of the findings are discussed. doi:10.1300/J073v20n01_02 [Article copies
available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Travel risk, travel safety, perception, anxiety, intentions to travel
INTRODUCTION An important global issue is to understand how potential travelers perceive the concept of risk and safety as related to tourism. This is particularly vital in the current political and socio-economic situation when tourists are facing an increasing risk when they travel away from home. Today, the probability of risk that an individual will be a victim of terrorism, international conflict, health hazard or natural disaster is higher than ever before. If the tourism industry is going to be prosperous, a better understanding of international tourists perceptions of risk and safety is needed. Consequently, the issues of risk and safety within the tourism industry justify attention and research.
Risk There are a large variety of conceptualizations of perceived risk. Rogets II: The New Thesaurus Dictionary (1995) refers to risk as (1) a possibility of danger, harm, or loss; and (2) a chance or hazard. Consumer researchers define risk in terms of the (a) uncertainty of buying a product (or service) (Dowling & Staelin, 1994); (b) unfavorable consequences of a purchase (Cunningham, 1967; Dowling & Staelin); (c) expectation of loss (Stone & Winter, 1987); and (d) the amount of loss (Cunningham). Risk is also defined as the chance if the focus is on probability and danger if the focus is on negative consequences (Kogan & Wallach, 1964).
Yvette Reisinger is Associate Professor, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Florida International University, 3000 N.E. 151st HM 210, North Miami, FL 33181-3000 (E-mail: yvette.reisinger@fiu.edu). Felix Mavondo is Associate Professor and Deputy Head and Director of Research, Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia (E-mail: felix.mavondo@ buseco.monash.edu.au). Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 20(1) 2006 Available online at http://jttm.haworthpress.com 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1300/J073v20n01_02
13
14
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
Risk influences individual perceptions and decision process (Cheron & Ritchie, 1982) when the outcomes of the decision are uncertain (MacCrimmon & Wehrung, 1986). Risk creates emotions that generate anxiety and fear the outcomes of the purchasing decisions (Ropeik, 2001). A purchase that is risky generates a feeling of anxiety and fear of unknown consequences (Dowling & Staelin, 1994). These feelings have a direct bearing on how safe people feel with their purchases. Risk should not be confused with uncertainty. Risk has a known probability and uncertainty lacks a precise probability (Knight, 1948). However, it does not really matter whether the consumer knows this probability (Cunningham, 1967). In fact, it is very rare that consumers know probabilities of risk in purchase behavior. Types of Risk There are two types of risk recognized: absolute (real) and perceived (subjective) risk (Haddock, 1993). Absolute risk is assessed by commercial providers who implement safety procedures to ensure that the real risk is minimized. Perceived risk is assessed by the individual and its level is measured in a particular context (Haddock). The focus of this study is on perceived risk because (a) people are mostly concerned with perceived risk; (b) they have limited information and involvement in a number of different risks (Bauer, 1967); (c) they are concerned with only a few possible outcomes rather than in the total outcome of their decisions (Budescu & Wallsten, 1985); (d) real world or objective risk does not exist (Stone & Winter, 1985); and if it exists then (e) objective risk is difficult to obtain and all that can be easily measured is the perceived risk (Mitchell, 1999). Risk Perception in Tourism In the tourism context, risk has been defined as what is perceived and experienced by the tourists during the process of purchasing and consuming travel services (Tsaur, Tzeng, & Wang, 1997). Since travel products are of experiential nature tourists perceptions and experiences can only be evaluated after the
product is purchased and/or during the product consumption. As a result, the purchase of travel products generates high uncertainty as to their outcomes (Walsh, 1986). Types of Risk Associated with Tourism The five major risks associated with tourism are terrorism (Richter, 2003), war and political instability (Sonmez, Apostolopoulos, & Tarlow, 1999), health (Richter, 2003), crime (Dimanche & Lepetic, 1999), and cultural and language difficulties (Basala & Klenosky, 2001). These risks are of growing importance in the global tourism environment and present threats not only to tourists but also host societies and the tourists home nations (Richter, 2003). Terrorism poses the greatest threat to international tourism (Norton, 1994) and has a much greater negative effect on the tourism industry than any other human-caused (e.g., crime, regional tensions, international conflicts) or natural (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, floods) catastrophe or disaster (Cavlek, 2002). Many travelers face a risk of being caught up in terrorist attacks. Recent years have seen a worrying increase in terrorist activities, their frequency and severity. Terrorist attacks have been extended to many locations worldwide. Since September 11, 2001 numerous attacks have been carried out in Tunisia, Yemen, Morocco, Colombia, Indonesia, Philippines, and Saudi Arabia. There have been a number of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq. Several violent attacks took place in Russia, Spain, and Turkey. Also, there has been an increase in attacks against Western targets. War and political instability can deter tourists from travel. For example, the massacre in Tiananmen Square in China forced 11,500 tourists to cancel their visits to Beijing in 1989 (Gartner & Shen, 1992). The Persian Gulf War in 1991 caused a massive redirection of tourists away from the Middle East. Even destinations such as Kenya and Tanzania that are far removed from the Middle East were negatively affected (Honey, 1999). The war on terror in Afghanistan has created a 54 percent decline in tourist visits to Nepal (Thapa, 2004). Health risk generates a great concern among international tourists. AIDS, litter, garbage, deforestation, pesticide use, malaria, mosqui-
Yvette Reisinger and Felix Mavondo
15
toes, the West Nile fever cause potential health hazards and pose far greater demand for safety and hygiene than ever before (Richter, 2003). For example, a risk of HIV infection and growing numbers of AIDS cases discourage visitors from traveling to some destinations in Africa. Dirty beaches, stinking rivers and food borne illnesses put off visitors from traveling to Bali (eTurboNews, 2004). Dengue Fever, a mosquito-borne illness for which there is no vaccine or cure, scares visitors to Aruba and the Caribbean. An outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in the United Kingdom deterred thousands of the U.S. tourists from South West England. The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) had a more devastating effect on the airline industry than the September 11th attacks (Morgan, 2003). Crime threatens the well-being of international tourism. Tourists are occasionally killed, subject to robberies and other crimes. For example, crime against tourists caused declines in international visitors to Brazil, Papua New Guinea, Republic of South Africa (Pizam, Tarlow, & Bloom, 1997). Criminal activity targeting German tourists is a major setback for the Hungarian tourism development (Michalko, 2004). A high crime rate is also a major drawback in New Orleans tourism development (Dimanche & Lepetic, 1999). Cultural and language difficulties represent another issue of concern to international tourists. Although differences in cultures, religions and languages represent travel motivators themselves, they are often perceived as troublesome and create travel barriers (Basala & Klenosky, 2001). Travel risks associated with diseases, crime, natural disasters, hygiene, transportation, different cultures and languages, and uncertainty related to destination specific laws and regulations have been examined by Maser and Weiermair (1998). Other risks that are most often associated with pleasure travel are financial, psychological, satisfaction and time risks (Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992). Table 1 presents different types of risk associated with tourism. Tourists may perceive one or more types of travel risks, or their combinations, when traveling away from home.
TABLE 1. Types of Risk Associated with Tourism

Type of risk Crime Cultural Examples Possibility of being robbed, becoming a subject of rape or murder Possibility of experiencing difficulties in communicating with foreigners, cultural misunderstanding, inability to adjust to a foreign way of life and standards Possibility of mechanical, equipment, organizational problems occurring during travel or at destination (transportation, accommodation, attractions) Possibility of not obtaining value for money; losing or wasting money if travel expectations are not fulfilled Possibility of becoming sick while traveling or at the destination Possibility of not receiving holiday benefits due to the travel product or service not performing well Possibility of being physically injured, includes danger and injury detrimental to health (accidents) Possibility of becoming involved in the political turmoil of the country being visited Possibility that travel experience will not reflect travelers personality or self-image, damage self-image, reflect poorly on personality Possibility of not achieving personal satisfaction and/or self-actualization with travel experience Possibility that vacation choices or activities will be disapproved of by friends, families, associates; losing or lowering personal and social status, appearing unfashionable Possibility of being involved in a terrorist act such as airplane or personal hijacking, bomb explosion or biochemical attack Possibility that travel experience will take too much time, product will not perform on time; traveler will lose or waste time
Equipment
Financial
Health Performance
Physical
Political Psychological
Satisfaction
Social
Terrorism
Time
Source: Sonmez and Graefe (1998a); Basala and Klenosky (2001); Dimanche and Lepetic (1999).
Factors Influencing Risk Perception in Tourism Tourists perceptions of risk may depend on the type of risk and its importance to a consumer (Tsaur et al., 1997); socio-demographic factors, such as age, social status (Schweer, 1986) and gender (Gibson & Yiannakis, 2002); psychographic factors such as personality (Carr, 2001; Schweer, 1986) or motivation (Lepp & Gibson, 2003); organizational factors such as travel arrangements (group versus individual travel); situation (Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992; Slovic 1972; Slovick & Lichtenstein,
16
1968); stage of travel (McIntosh, Swanson, Power, Raeside, & Dempster, 1998); an individual knowledge and risk acceptance, and the degree of voluntary exposure to risk (Dowling & Staelin, 1994). Thus, individuals may perceive the same risk in different ways (Kahneman & Tversky, 1982). In international tourism, tourists perceptions of risk may greatly depend on cultural, religious and political factors. According to Seddighi, Nuttall, and Theocharous (2001), perception of risk varies by nationality. Travelers of different nationalities may perceive the same risk differently (Richardson & Crompton, 1988). Cultural Differences in Risk Perception Several cross-cultural studies identified cultural differences in risk perceptions (Goszczynska, Tyszka, & Slovic, 1991; Mechitov & Rebrik, 1990; Teigen, Brun, & Slovic, 1988), risk adjustment (Tse, Vertinsky, & Wehrung, 1988) and reactions to terrorism risk (Tremblay, 1989; Wall, 1996). A number of studies have shown that perceived risk varies across countries (Hoover, Green, & Saegert, 1978; Verhage, Yavas, & Green, 1990). Significant differences in risk preferences were reported between respondents from the Peoples Republic of China (P.R.C.), U.S., Germany and Poland when buying financial options (Weber & Hsee, 1998). American, Mexican, Dutch, Turkish, Thai and Saudi consumers were found to be different in their risk perception for consumer products (Yavas, Verhage, & Green, 1992). Risk was found to be a less important determinant of purchase behavior in Mexico than in the United States (Hoover, Green, & Saegert, 1978). In tourism, significant differences in perceived risk were found between American and Chinese-Malaysian students when choosing Australia as a holiday destination (Summers & McColl-Kennedy, 1998) and among tourists of various nationalities when traveling to Israel (Fuchs & Reichel, 2004). Also, risk factors of a holiday package were found to vary significantly between cultures. Cypriot respondents perceived more risk than the UK respondents (Mitchell & Vassos, 1997).
Anxiety Anxiety is a subjective feeling of being nervous, apprehensive, stressed, vulnerable, uncomfortable, disturbed, scared (McIntyre & Roggenbuck, 1998) and frustrated (Hullett & Witte, 2001), which occurs as a consequence of being exposed to risk. Griffith and Albanese (1996) define anxiety as a stronger than normal feeling of insecurity. According to Gudykunst and Hammer (1988), anxiety refers to the fear of negative consequences (p. 126). A significant level of anxiety among travelers has been generated by fear of terrorist attacks, bombing and kidnapping. Several studies have documented the development of stress, fear, shock, and depression related to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 (Galea et al., 2002; Raphael, Natelson, Janal, & Nayak, 2002; Rosenheck, Schuster, Stein, & Jaycox, 2002; Schuster et al., 2001). Tourists may also hold fears and feel threatened or intimidated by crime, language difficulties, and limited knowledge of their locality (Barker, Page, & Meyer, 2003). Lynch (1960) suggests that unfamiliarity and difficulties in a new environment may have implications for a sense of security and emotional instability (see also Young, Morris, Cameron, & Haslett, 1997). The most common travel-related anxieties that bring fear include traveling long distances, driving on highways, traveling by train and by metro (Center for Travel Anxiety, 2002), take-off and landing of aircraft, flight delays, and baggage reclaim (McIntosh et al., 1998). Every traveler experiences anxiety to a certain degree when facing risk or uncertainty. Some, however, may feel more anxious than others. Safety The tourism industry is safety and security dependent (Tarlow & Santana, 2002). Safety and security for domestic and international travelers are long-standing global concerns (Smith, 1999). Perceptions of safety greatly influence tourists intentions to travel internationally. Lack of safety is a strong predictor of tourists avoiding some tourist destinations (Sonmez & Graefe, 1998a). Tourists differ in their perceptions and needs for safety. Barker et al. (2003) revealed that in-
17
ternational tourists attending the 2000 Americas Cup in Auckland, New Zealand, placed a higher importance on demands for safety than domestic tourists. Significant differences in safety perceptions were also noted among different ethnic groups. Chinese visitors felt relatively safe and Japanese visitors felt relatively unsafe compared with European visitors. In the study of visitors perception of Seoul, Korea, Suh and Gartner (2004) reported that the Japanese were particularly more interested in security attributes of tourism products than the North American and European business groups. Pizam and Jeong (1996) identified differences in the needs for safety versus adventure among Japanese, Korean and American tourists. Intentions to Travel Perceptions of travel risk, anxiety, and perceptions of safety are important determinants of international travel (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005). Ryan (1995) suggests that tourist visitation is consistent with theories of risk aversion. The feelings of high risk and insecurity have a direct bearing on how anxious tourists feel about a destination. If tourists feel threatened and nervous during their travel or stay, they are not likely to feel safe and return to that destination. According to Sonmez and Graefe (1998a, 1998b), perceived risk and lack of safety directly influences vacation destination choice and have a strong influence on avoidance of risky regions. The destinations perceived as too risky may be eliminated from the list of potential destinations to visit. The perceptions of safety also determine tourists interests in future travel (Sonmez & Graefe, 1998a). For example, safety was regarded by the American travelers as one of the significant predictors of their likelihood of travel to Turkey (Sonmez & Sirakaya, 2002). PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study aims to (1) examine whether there are any significant differences in travel risk and safety perceptions, anxiety, and intentions to travel among six national groups of tourists; and (2) assess whether the differences (if any) in travel risk and safety perceptions,
anxiety, and travel intentions are due to the influence of national culture or demographic characteristics of the respondents, such as age and gender. Dann (1993) argues that nationality cannot solely be used to explain the differences in the behavior of tourists. Pizam and Sussmann (1995) claim that nationality should be used with other variables to properly understand tourist behavior. Thus, the concept of the national culture is used to identify differences in the perceptions of travel risk and safety after controlling for age and gender. In this study, national culture refers to a stable and dominant cultural character of a society shared by most of its individuals and remaining constant over long period of time. National culture does not refer to the subcultures of many ethnic groups living in a society, which may be distinguished by religion, race, or geographical location. The authors admit that national cultures of tourists are heterogeneous, and there are many regional and individual differences in any culture. However, the issue of the regional and ethnic differences is not analyzed here. The aim is to analyze tourist groups from a broad national perspective and to recognize the influence of a dominant cultural character of the groups that distinguishes them from each other. HYPOTHESES This study hypothesizes that: H1: There are significant differences in travel risk perceptions among six national groups of tourists. H2: There are significant differences in travel anxiety among six national groups of tourists. H3: There are significant differences in safety perceptions among six national groups of tourists. H4: There are significant differences in intentions to travel among six national groups of tourists.
18
H5: Although the differences in travel risk and safety perceptions, anxiety and intentions to travel occur due to the influence of national culture, some of these differences occur as a result of the influence of age and gender. METHOD Sample
TABLE 2. Ranking of Six Countries on Hofstedes (2001) Four Value Dimensions

Country Australia Canada Greece Hong Kong UK USA Uncertainty Avoidance 37 41/42 1 49/50 47/48 43 Power Distance 41 39 27/28 15/16 42/44 38 Individualism 2 4/5 30 37 3 1 Masculinity 16 24 18/19 18/19 9/10 15
The total sample consisted of 830 tourists to Australia: 148 from Canada, 73 from Greece, 110 from Hong Kong, 102 from the United Kingdom, 124 from the U.S., and 273 from Australia. The foreign groups were selected for their significance to the Australian tourism market. Although New Zealand and Japan represent major markets to Australia New Zealand was not selected due to its cultural similarity with Australia. The responses obtained from New Zealand tourists could be quite similar to Australians. Japan was not selected because of the difficulties in obtaining the permission from tour operators to survey the Japanese tourists. The foreign groups were also chosen on a basis of their countries location on one of the four Hofstedes dimensions of national culture, such as (1) uncertainty avoidance (UA), the extent to which culture encourages risk taking and tolerates uncertainty; (2) power distance (PD), the extent to which society accepts inequality between people and social hierarchy that dictates how to behave in order to be protected from the unknowns; (3) individualism/collectivism (I/C), the extent to which culture encourages individuals to be concerned about own needs and taking risk to achieve individual goals; and (4) masculinity/femininity (M/F), the extent to which gender roles are distinct (men are aggressive, assertive, and risk taking; while female are concerned about others, social harmony, quality of life, and safety (Hofstede, 1980, 2001) (see Table 2). Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada scored lowly on the UA dimension that has a direct bearing on how visitors from these countries define and evaluate risk and safety, which in turn is reflected in their intentions to travel in future. It was ex-
Source: Hofstede (2001). Note: A low ranking (e.g., 3) indicates a high rating on that dimension.
pected that these societies would be more willing to tolerate higher risk, as opposed to those who scored relatively high on the UA dimension. Greece scored the highest on the UA dimension. It was expected that visitors from Greece would be the least willing to take risk, most anxious and concerned about their travel safety. The United States scored the highest on the individualism dimension, followed by Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada. It was expected that members of these societies would be willing to take risk to achieve and satisfy their individual travel needs, as opposed to those from collectivist societies. Hong Kong scored highly on collectivism. It was expected that tourists from Hong Kong society that emphasizes consensus, cooperation, and social harmony would be very concerned about risk and take little or no travel risk, as opposed to tourists from individualist societies. The United Kingdom scored highly on the masculinity dimension that emphasizes the value of success and accepts a high stress and anxiety level. It was believed that tourists from the United Kingdom would be more aggressive and assertive and exhibit more need for risk and less for safety, as opposed to tourists from more feminine cultures such as Canada. Canada is a modest, empathetic, caring and concerned with quality of life and safety nets country. It was assumed that tourists from Canada would be more concerned about their travel safety than tourists from the United Kingdom or the United States. Australia and the United States scored relatively high on the masculinity index.
19
The United Kingdom, followed by Australia, Canada, and the United States scored lowly on the power distance dimension. These countries take more risk than members of the high PD cultures (e.g., Hong Kong) that rely upon hierarchical systems of authority and formal rules that give people directions how to behave and protect them from unknown and anxieties. The characteristics of the Hong Kong society, however, may be questioned. In the past few decades Hong Kong society has experienced the influences of Western culture. It may be argued that modernization, economic development and socio-cultural changes in Hong Kong might lead to changes in the traditional value system. However, Wong and Lau (2001), who investigated the Hong Kong tourists cultural values in comparison to Chinese values, revealed that most Hong Kong Chinese tourists today place importance on Chinese cultural values and follow the teaching of Confucius. Although Hong Kong Chinese tourists did not assign importance to some Chinese values such as reciprocation, being conservative, social harmony, probably because they have become more open, individualistic, liberal and materialistic in nature, they regarded safety as a major consideration in traveling activities, which was contrary to the Hofstedes findings. It seems that the six selected groups of international tourists represent cultures quite different from one another and thus their perceptions of travel risk, safety, anxiety and travel intentions might be dissimilar. Instrument A structured questionnaire was developed. Thirteen travel risk perceptions (see Table 1) were measured on a 7-point scale varying from none (1) to very high (7). Anxiety was measured using 12 bi-polar adjectives. The respondents were asked to rate their feelings (e.g., calm/worried; relaxed/tense; composed/stressed) on a 7-point scale. Perceptions of travel safety in various situations (e.g., at hotels, airports, when sightseeing) were measured on a 7-point scale ranging from very unsafe (1) to very safe (7). Intentions to travel internationally (e.g., cancel all travel plans,
intent to fly/travel again) were measured on a 10-point scale (0 = no intention; 10 = definite intention). The survey also posed questions regarding the respondents age and gender. No specific destination was chosen for this study in order to eliminate the possible effects of respondents prior knowledge and past travel experience with that destination. The study examined the perceptions of risk and safety perceptions in relation to any destination. Procedure The questionnaire was developed in English, translated by a professional language translation service into Greek and Mandarin, and then translated back into English. A pilot test was conducted with 60 international tourists (10 from each national group) to make sure the statements in the questionnaire were fully understood by respondents. The survey instrument was randomly administered to tourists by teams of six research assistants who had been trained on how to survey the tourists to ensure consistency in their work. Two research assistants were native Greek and Mandarin language speakers. These research assistants were instructed to conduct the interview verbally in the tourist specific languages with the bilingual questionnaire in hand. The assistants collected the surveys immediately back upon their completion. Only tourists older than 18 years of age were surveyed. Those aged 18 and younger were considered not mature enough to judge the degree of perceived travel risk. Only pleasure travelers (holidaymakers) were sought for the study. Only one respondent as the representative of families, couples, and group travelers was asked to complete the survey. A screening question was asked to identify those respondents who had been born, raised and lived in the same country. Foreign nationals (born in one country and raised in another) and those who were born and raised in one country and lived in another for extended periods of time might perceive the travel risk differently than those who were born, raised and lived in the same country. The survey was conducted in Melbourne, Australia, during a 2-month period between
20
December 2002 and January 2003. Respondents were randomly selected from a population of visitors to The Victoria Market, Botanic Garden, Melbourne Arts Center, Healsville Sanctuary and Phillip Island in Victoria, Australia. The tourist attractions were chosen on the basis of the size of the tourist population visiting particular places and their willingness to participate in the research. Of the 1,000 surveys distributed, 830 usable surveys were returned for an overall return rate of 83%. Small souvenirs were given to the travelers as an incentive to increase the response rate. Data Analysis
(100%) of those younger than 30 years of age, followed by the Greek (87.6%), U.S. (83.4%), British (70.6%), Hong Kong (69.7%), and Australian (65.5%) sample (see Table 3). Gender The majority of the total sample (65.5%) was represented by female. The U.S. group had the highest percentage of female (66.7%), followed by the British (55.9%) and Canadian (50%) group. The Hong Kong and Australian group had the highest percentage of male, 66.7% and 60.1% respectively (see Table 4). Age and Gender Influences
Frequency distribution of the variables was conducted in order to identify the respondents profile (age and gender), and compare means and standard deviations for each behavioral variable. A series of one-way ANOVA tests were carried out to compare the six groups of tourists and identify which groups were different in their perception of travel risk and safety, anxiety and travel intentions. However, in order to ensure other factors that might account for across group differences, we first controlled for age and gender as covariates. This way the effects of the covariates were partialled out before the comparisons of the travel risk and safety perception, anxiety and travel intentions were made. This had also the effect of reducing the size of the F-ratios and, in some cases, this made the differences across groups not significant (see tables of results). When statistically significant differences in risk and safety perceptions, anxiety and travel intentions among the groups were identified (after controlling for the covariates), results were examined further to determine which specific groups were different. The across group differences were identified using Least Significant Differences (LSD) method. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Age The majority of the total sample (62%) tended to be younger than 30 years of age. The Canadian sample had the highest percentage
Research suggests that the age of the tourist may have an important impact on their perceptions of risk, anxiety or willingness to travel. Gibson and Yiannakis (2002) reported that preference for risk in tourism decreases with age. However, Sonmez and Graefe (1998b) did not find age to influence an individuals perception of risk. To ensure age did not contaminate the nationality tests, we controlled for age as a covariate. There are several variables for which age has been identified as being a significant predictor of risk perceptions (e.g., perception of time waste risk), anxiety (e.g., feeling scared, nervous, hopeless), safety perceptions (e.g., during check-in, sightseeing, at attractions, at entertainments), and travel intentions (probability of traveling again and reducing travel). In a few cases this made the relationship between nationality and the age
TABLE 3. Distribution of Age in the Six Foreign Groups (Percent)
Age Australia United Canada Greece Hong group Kingdom Kong under 20 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Total 17.9 27.8 19.8 7.3 4.0 12.5 8.1 2.6 100.0 2.0 44.1 24.5 4.9 2.0 9.8 8.8 3.9 100.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 100.0 12.3 49.3 26.0 1.4 4.1 5.5 1.4 100.0 30.3 18.2 21.2 12.1 9.1 9.1 USA 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.7 Total 10.3 34.5 17.2 3.4 17.2 6.9 6.9 3.4 100.0
100.0 100.0
21
TABLE 4. Distribution of Gender in the Six Foreign Groups (Percent)

Gender Australia Male Female Total 60.1 39.9 100.0 United Canada Greece Hong Kingdom Kong 44.1 55.9 100.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 54.8 45.2 100.0 66.7 33.3 USA 33.3 66.7 Total 34.5 65.5 100.0
100.0 100.0
variable not significant (e.g., feeling scared and hopeless) (see Table 5). Although Sonmez and Graefe (1998b) did not find gender to influence an individuals perception of risk, gender is known to be an important factor influencing risk perceptions. Significant gender differences in risky behavior have been documented by Mattila, Apostolopoulos, Sonmez, Yu, and Sasidharan (2001). Similarly, Carr (2001) reported that preference for risk in tourism differs according to gender. Gibson and Jordan (1998a, 1998b) noted that females are more vulnerable to risk than men. Consequently, there are likely to be significant differences among the foreign groups arising from gender differences. To ensure the interpretation of the cultural differences, we controlled for gender. The analysis shows that there are several variables for which gender is an important predictor of the differences in risk perceptions (e.g., functional, health, physical, hijacking, bomb explosion and biochemical attack), anxiety (e.g., all variables except for feeling scared), safety perceptions (e.g., airport transfer, during air travel, cruising, sightseeing, at attractions), and probability of traveling again. Again, in a few cases this made the relationship between nationality and the gender variable not significant (e.g., functional risk, feeling fearful, threatened, worried, tense, disturbed and hopeless) (see Table 5). Differences in Risk Perception The ANOVA tests revealed that there were significant differences in the risk perception in 10 out of 13 travel risk perception items among foreign groups (see Table 6). Cultural risk was perceived higher by Hong Kong, Canadians and Australians than by the British, with tourists from the USA somewhere in the
middle of the rating scale. There were no significant differences for functional and financial risk across countries suggesting some degree of homogenization of perceptions in these types of risks. It is not that that these types of risk are not important; rather, that they are perceived similarly across countries in our study. Further, tourists from the USA and UK appeared to be the least concerned about health risk when undertaking international travel, as opposed to Hong Kong, Canadians and Australians. This may reflect the fact that tourists from the USA and UK factor this in their travel arrangements and make contingency plans than other nationalities. Thus, when travel is undertaken this is being taken care of. However, Hong Kong tourists appeared to be the most concerned about the health risk. This is not surprising. The SARS illness, first recognized in China, spread to more than 24 countries in North and South America, Europe and Asia, and infected a total of 8,360 people worldwide and killed 774 in 28 countries (WHO, 2003). The deadly virus has caused a huge health scare problem. Although the SARS outbreak was contained, the uncertainty that surrounded the deadly disease caused fear among Hong Kong tourists and deterred thousands of them from international travel. Next, tourists from Australia and Hong Kong were more concerned about the possibility of physical risk than the Greeks and Canadians. Tourists from the UK and the USA were not overly concerned about this type of risk. With respect to political risk Australians and Hong Kong tourists were more concerned than the British and Canadians. With respect to satisfaction risk again the British tourists appeared significantly the least concerned, with Australians and Hong Kong tourists relatively more concerned. There was no significant difference in social risk. Moreover, the one-way ANOVA tests revealed that there was a significant difference in the terrorism risk perception among foreign groups. Tourists from the USA appeared to perceive the risk of air hijacking far more than all other tourists. This might be a reflection of the traumatic events of September 11th that made the US tourists more sensitive to hijacking risk than other international tourist markets. Hong Kong and Australian tourists also
22
TABLE 5. Differences in Risk and Safety Perception, Anxiety and Travel Intentions Across Countries
DIFFERENCES IN RISK PERCEPTIONS Simultaneously Controlling for (F-ratios) Variable Cultural risk Functional risk Financial risk Health risk Physical risk Political risk Psychological risk Country effects F-ratio
Gender
0.664 7.152** 2.002 6.753*** 4.904* 0.446 0.819 1.490 1.486 19.506*** 12.742*** 24.670*** 0.926
Age 0.162 3.916** 2.858 1.452 4.164*** 3.266** 4.075*** 3.722** 3.697** 2.146 6.216*** 4.942*** 5.475***
p = 0.002
p = 0.008
0.266 0.211
p = 0.001 p = 0.027
0.624 1.107 1.039 0.731 2.690 0.177
p = 0.001 p = 0.006 p = 0.001 p = 0.003 p = 0.003
Satisfaction risk Social risk Hijacking risk Bomb explosion risk Biochemical attack Time waste risk
p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001
1.156 0.002 0.190 6.069***
p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001
p = 0.014
4.472***
DIFFERENCES IN ANXIETY Simultaneously Controlling for (F-ratios) Variable Vulnerable Lost Fearful Concerned Stressed Threatened Worried Scared Tense Nervous Disturbed Hopeless Gender 21.397*** 19.570*** 11.707*** 16.025*** 4.740* 6.545** 13.183*** 3.268 8.872** 15.423*** 9.682** 8.145** Age Country effects F-ratio
p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.03 p = 0.011 p = 0.001
0.857 0.075 0.060 3.105 1.356 0.004 3.106 18.161***
2.499* 4.484*** 2.140 2.473* 2.878** 2.038 1.042
p = 0.03 p = 0.001
p = 0.031 p = 0.014
p = 0.001
0.406 1.824
p = 0.003 p = 0.001 p = 0.002 p = 0.004
2.270 4.008* 2.382 16.055***
p = 0.046
3.059** 2.068
p = 0.01
p = 0.001
0.744
DIFFERENCES IN SAFETY PERCEPTIONS Simultaneously Controlling for (F-ratios) Variable During check-in Airport transfer During air travel Cruising At hotels During sightseeing At holiday attractions At entertainments In the cities In the rural environment Gender 1.517 6.555*** 15.477*** 11.465*** 0.752 5.866* 8.205** 3.087 3.435 1.709 Age 3.869* Country effects F-ratio
p = 0.05
2.902* 5.741*** 11.377*** 6.696*** 3.790**
p = 0.013 p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.002 p = 0.028 p = 0.001 p = 0.01
p = 0.011 p = 0.001 p = 0.001
1.476 2.800 2.147 0.355
p = 0.016 p = 0.004
6.893** 6.638** 5.649* 2.488 1.995
p = 0.009 p = 0.01 p = 0.018
2.525* 4.946*** 3.074** 0.905 3.001**
p = 0.011
DIFFERENCES IN TRAVEL INTENTIONS Simultaneously Controlling for (F-ratios) Gender Probability of traveling again Probability of reducing travel 7.029** 0.905 Age Country effects F-ratio
p = 0.008
13.707*** 6.778**
p = 0.001 p = 0.009
10.876*** 3.621**
p = 0.001 p = 0.003
23
TABLE 6. Differences in Risk Perceptions Across Countries

Means Variable Cultural risk Functional risk Financial risk Health risk Physical risk Political risk Psychological risk Satisfaction risk Social risk British 2.80 2.80 3.08 3.25 2.87 2.53 1.90 2.14 2.00 2.32 2.21 1.90 2.08 Greeks 3.07 3.25 3.60 3.44 2.78 2.49 2.27 2.79 1.96 2.48 2.36 2.14 2.23 USA 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.83 2.83 3.17 3.00 2.17 2.33 3.67 3.00 3.33 3.50 Canada 3.67 3.42 3.67 4.00 2.75 2.33 2.75 2.42 1.50 2.17 2.08 2.00 2.00 Australia 3.49 3.31 3.23 3.90 3.38 3.15 2.11 2.80 2.04 3.18 3.03 2.67 2.20 Hong Kong 3.76 3.36 3.03 4.33 3.39 3.39 2.24 2.94 2.39 3.21 2.85 2.85 2.64 3.916*** 2.858 1.452 4.164*** 3.266** 4.075*** 3.722** 3.697** 2.146 6.216*** 4.942*** 5.475*** 4.472*** HK, AU, C > B No significantly different groups No significant differences HK and AU > B; HK, AU, C > U AU and HK > G, C AU > B and C; HK > C No significantly different groups AU > B No significantly different groups U > B, G, C; HK and AU > C AU and U > B and C U > B, G, C; AU, U and HK > C U > B, G, C and AU F-Ratio Significantly different groups
Hijacking risk Bomb explosion risk Biochemical attack Time waste risk
shared the perceived risk of air hijacking. This is not surprising given the Australian support for the U.S. efforts in war in Iraq. Canadians and British, however, feared less of air hijacking. With respect to the possibility of biochemical risk, again tourists from the USA perceived this to be a significant risk, followed by tourists from Hong Kong and Australia. This is consistent with their experience and the copycat chemical attacks that followed the September 11th attack. Although the industry slowly recovered the impact of the September 11th, 2001 attack on the United States, the event was followed by reports of people being exposed to, infected by, and dying from anthraxan example of bioterrorism. Experiencing such disastrous events increased peoples perceptions of risk and vulnerability (DrottzSjoberg & Sjoberg, 1990). Again, British and Canadians feared less of biochemical attack. As to bomb explosion risk, tourists from Australian and the USA perceived this to be a significant risk, followed by tourists from Hong Kong. Canadians were the least concerned about the risk of bomb explosion. Finally, the above pattern of results is repeated for risk of time waste. Tourists from the USA perceived this to be a significant risk as opposed to Canadians, British, Australians and Greeks. These results supported hypothesis 1. As it was expected there were significant differences in travel risk perceptions among six national groups of tourists. However, contrary to
expectations, Hong Kong, that scored very lowly on the UA dimension, and Australia, that scored relatively low, perceived higher travel risk than expected. The study confirmed the Wong and Lau (2001) findings that Hong Kong Chinese tourists try to avoid risk when travel. The U.S. group did not confirm its low rating on the UA index either. Tourists from the USA, although from a low UA society, perceived higher terrorism risk than tourists from Greece that scored the highest on the UA dimension. Tourists from the UK, Canada and Greece perceived less travel risk than other groups. Differences in Anxiety The ANOVA tests revealed that there were significant differences in anxiety among tourists from different countries in 5 out of 12 measuring items (see Table 7). Tourists from Hong Kong and Australia felt significantly more vulnerable than British tourists. Tourists from Hong Kong and Australia also felt more lost than British, Canadians or tourists from the USA. There was no difference in feeling fearful among the groups. The British and Canadians felt the least concerned, with Hong Kong tourists, followed by Australian, the most concerned. The British also felt the least stressed, as opposed to tourists from Hong Kong and Australia. There was no difference across countries attributable to national culture when
24
TABLE 7. Differences in Anxiety Across Countries

Means Variable Vulnerable Lost Fearful Concerned Stressed Threatened Worried Scared Tense British 2.38 2.33 2.59 2.96 2.39 2.67 2.78 2.37 2.57 2.61 2.56 2.54 Greeks 2.74 2.58 2.85 3.26 2.86 2.82 2.97 2.48 2.64 2.48 2.77 2.42 USA 2.83 2.33 2.33 3.17 2.67 3.17 3.17 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.83 2.33 Canada 2.42 2.33 2.75 3.00 2.83 2.42 2.75 2.25 2.25 2.08 2.42 2.58 Australia 2.96 2.96 3.18 3.47 2.99 3.17 3.07 2.49 2.87 2.92 2.96 2.73 Hong Kong 3.09 3.36 3.55 3.94 3.24 3.27 3.33 2.67 2.91 2.91 3.15 2.91 2.499* 4.484*** 2.140 2.473* 2.878** 2.038 1.042 .406 1.824 3.059** 2.068 .744 AU and HK > B HK and AU > B and C; HK > U No significantly different groups HK > B and C HK and AU > B No significantly different groups No significant differences No significant differences No significant differences HK and AU and U > C No significantly different groups No significant differences F-Ratio Significantly different groups
Nervous Disturbed Hopeless
respondents were asked whether they were threatened, worried, scared, tense, disturbed and felt hopeless. Perhaps these adjectives are too strong for anybody going on holiday to admit. Besides why undertake the trip if one was worried, scared or felt tense about it. This might be a case of socially desirable answers. In the case of feeling threatened, worried, tense, disturbed and hopeless gender played an important role in differentiating the groups. Similarly, age had a significant effect on feelings of being scared and hopeless. Further, tourists from the USA, Australia and Hong Kong appeared to be the most nervous while the Canadians were the least nervous. This supports Nortons (1987) finding that the U.S. travelers have become exceedingly nervous about traveling. The results supported hypothesis 2. As it was expected there were significant differences in travel anxiety among six national groups of tourists. However, contrary to expectations, the Hong Kong and Australian tourists who belong to low UA societies were significantly more anxious about their travel than envisaged. They were more anxious in general than the British and Canadians. Tourists from the USA, although nervous about traveling, were somewhere in the middle of the anxiety scale. In particular, tourists from Greece, who scored the highest on uncertainty avoidance, seemed to worry the least about the travel risk.
Differences in Safety Perception The ANOVA tests revealed that there were significant differences among tourists from different countries in 9 out of 10 measuring items (see Table 8). Tourists from the USA, followed by tourists from Hong Kong and Australia, felt the most intimidated by the check-in, with the British and Canadians feeling most safe. Tourists from Hong Kong, the USA and Australia felt relatively unsafe during transfers at airports when compared to British and Canadians. The British and Canadians, more than those from the USA, Australia and Hong Kong, felt relatively safe during flying. The U.S. tourists felt the least safe during air travel among all other countries. These results may mirror the stringency with which airport safety procedures are followed in the USA as compared to the United Kingdom and Canada. The pattern is repeated for cruising and during stay at the hotels. Tourists from Hong Kong felt the least safe during cruising and staying at the hotels. Surprisingly, tourists from Greece and Canada felt the safest during sightseeing. Canadians felt the safest visiting tourist attractions, whereas tourists from Hong Kong and Australia felt the least safe. In terms of visiting places of entertainment, tourists from Hong Kong felt the least safe. There was no difference found in the perceptions of safety in the cities across countries. The Hong Kong tourists felt the least safe when visiting rural areas. This may reflect
25
TABLE 8. Differences in Safety Preceptions and Travel Intentions Across Countries

Means Variable During check-in Airport transfer During air travel Cruising At hotels During sightseeing At holiday attractions At entertainments In the cities British 6.08 6.01 5.48 5.63 5.73 5.50 5.58 5.59 5.31 5.28 Greeks 5.68 5.68 4.96 5.40 5.63 5.70 5.56 5.62 5.23 5.30 USA 5.33 5.17 3.17 4.33 5.17 5.17 5.67 5.17 5.00 4.67 Canada 6.08 6.25 5.67 5.83 5.83 5.75 6.25 5.67 5.25 5.25 Australia 5.56 5.42 4.75 5.29 5.29 5.17 5.23 5.15 4.97 5.06 Hong Kong 5.39 5.00 4.85 4.25 4.88 5.15 5.06 4.91 5.03 4.30 2.902* 5.741*** 11.377*** 6.696*** 3.790** 2.525* 4.946*** 3.074** .905 3.001** B and C > AU and U and HK B and C > AU and HK; C >U and AU B and C > U and AU; C > G and HK > U B, C, AU and G > U and HK C > AU and HK; B > HK G > AU, HK and U C > B, G, AU and HK G and C > AU and HK No significant differences B & G > HK F-Ratio Significantly different groups
In rural areas INTENTIONS TO TRAVEL Again Reduce
7.03 2.50
6.99 2.25
7.50 3.83
8.75 1.43
5.55 2.64
5.61 2.42
10.876*** 3.621**
C > B, G, AU & HK; B > AU; U & G > AU B > U, C, G > C; U & AU > C
the fact that most tourists from Hong Kong are city dwellers or are the wealthy one who can afford international tourism. This may also be a reflection of their feeling of safety in numbers. The results supported hypothesis 3. As it was expected there were significant differences in travel safety perceptions among six national groups if tourists. However, again contrary to expectations tourists from the USA, Hong Kong and Australia, all from low UA cultures, felt less safe than tourists from the UK and Canada. Tourists from the UK, Canada and Greece felt the safest. Differences in Travel Intentions The ANOVA tests revealed that there were significant differences in travel intentions among tourists from different countries (see Table 8). When tourists were asked about the probability of taking an international trip in the next 12 months, tourists from the USA and Canada indicated the highest probability (USA about 80% and Canada about 90%) while Australians and Hong Kong tourists were in the middle with 50%, with the British and Greeks somewhere about 70%. While there were differences in the probability of reducing international travel across all nationalities (about 20%) these differences were small. The USA recorded the highest probability of reducing international travel of 40%. This result is not
surprising. Terrorist attacks specifically targeting the U.S., and in particular the September 11th, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. scared many potential U.S. travelers and resulted in cancellations of both vacation and business trips. The U.S. public was warned about the possibility of further attacks on the U.S. As a result, there is a fear among the U.S. tourists that similar attacks may occur in the future. The results supported hypothesis 4. Again, as it was expected, there were significant differences in travel intentions among six national groups of tourists. However, again, contrary to expectations, the U.S. that scored lowly on uncertainty dimensions exhibited the highest probability of reducing future travel due to high fear factor. SUMMARY The British and Canadians were the least concerned about the travel risk, felt the safest and were less anxious about international traveling than tourists from other countries. This finding is consistent with Hofstede (2001) who claimed that the British and Canadians scored very low on uncertainty avoidance. The Australian and Hong Kong tourists appeared to be more prone to travel risk than the British and Canadian, felt less safe, were more anxious
26
and reluctant to travel. This finding is surprising because Hong Kong scored very low on Hofstedes uncertainty avoidance. However, this finding supports Wong and Lau (2001) who claimed that Hong Kong tourists are concerned about travel risk and safety. As to Australians, they value exciting life more than other groups and a comfortable life less than other groups (Feather, 1975). Most Australians are venturesome and seek excitement. They often engage in risky and adventurous holiday activities such as scuba diving, bungee jumping or rock-climbing to experience excitement and challenge. Thus, one may think they may accept more risk. However, the study showed that this was not the case. The vulnerability of Australians and Hong Kong tourists to travel risk, their perception of lack of safety and feelings of anxiety might, however, be explained by the timing of this research in relative proximity to the traumatic events of October 12thterrorist attacks in Baliduring which many Australian travelers to Indonesia were killed. Tourists from the USA appeared to be the most anxious about travel risk, in particular, the hijacking and biochemical risk, and also bomb explosions. The U.S. tourists felt the least safe during air travel than any other group. They were also less interested in traveling internationally and recorded the highest probability of not taking international travel in the near future. As for tourists from Greece, they appeared to be more concerned about the financial risk than any other type of risk. They felt safe and were less anxious than other groups. The study supported the hypotheses of the existence of the significant differences in travel risk perception, anxiety, safety perception and future travel intentions among the six groups of international tourists. The study showed the influence of nationality on the majority of these differences. However, since a number of measuring items became not significant when the model was controlled for age and gender, the study also noted that in some cases age and gender, rather than nationality (small changes in reported F ratios), were the major predictors of the differences. Gender seems to be a controlling variable in some risk and safety perception, anxiety and travel in-
tention items. Age, on the other hand, seems to control only a few measuring items. Thus, it is reasonable to say that the differences in risk and safety perceptions, anxiety and intentions to travel occur due to the influence of national culture. However, some of the identified differences occur as a result of the respondents gender and age profile. The results support hypothesis 5. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS The study implies that different marketing strategies may be needed to encourage international travel from different countries depending upon tourists perceptions of travel risk and safety. In terms of risk perception, the U.S., Australian and Hong Kong tourists who perceive higher risk and are the most fearful and less keen to travel internationally should be targeted with messages emphasizing low travel risk. These groups of tourists should be encouraged to travel to destinations that they do not perceive as risky. They may become more interested in traveling within their own country or taking short gateways. To appeal to these tourists marketers should emphasize destination/product comfort, familiarity, the benefits of customized holiday packages or traveling in groups and risk-free activities (e.g., tourists from Hong Kong). The industry travel and representatives should help these tourists to eliminate part of the perceived risk by providing them with the most current information on destinations and products to enhance tourists feelings of safety and security. Airlines and professional tour operators should encourage tourists from the USA, Australia and Hong Kong to seek accurate and valid information. On the other hand, British, Greek and Canadian tourists who perceive lower travel risk and are less fearful and ready to travel more could be additionally targeted with messages that incorporate some elements of adventure or challenge. For instance, the advertising messages could highlight the benefits of seeking novelty and uniqueness, traveling to more distant places and experiencing foreign cultures, religion and political systems.
27
In order to react to the travelers high anxiety level and justifiable or unreasonable concerns, marketers should reposition the travel products that create fear and offer only those that reduce the anxiety level and stimulate tourism. Tourists also should be encouraged to seek information from sources other than the mass media such as TV or radio that are oversaturated with images of terrorist events and messages of terrorist threats and killings. In terms of safety perceptions, marketers should provide more travel products and promote destinations, which are seen as safe and reassuring. The focus should be on enhancing the perceptions of safety at different stages of travel. The specific tourist markets should be targeted according to their safety needs. International leisure travelers could be encouraged to travel to different world regions depending on their perceptions of safety in these regions. CONCLUSION Using respondents from six countries such as Australia, Canada, Greece, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and the United States the authors attempted to examine differences in travel risk and safety perception, anxiety and intentions to travel internationally among tourists from these countries. Results have shown significant differences in travel risk and safety perceptions, as well as anxiety level and intentions to travel among international tourists. The study identified the U.S., Australian and Hong Kong tourists as more likely to perceive travel as risky, be more safety conscious and more anxious about the future travel as opposed to British, Greek and Canadian tourists. The study only partially supported Hofstedes findings. The study confirmed that the issues of travel risk and safety are global concerns of international tourists. The results suggested that terrorism might dampen international travel, especially in the USA. However, it is hoped the spirit of tourism cannot be defeated. There may be minor reductions in international tourist flights around the world but this should be viewed as short-term reactions to the most recent political developments. It seems that peo-
ple will recover from the international shock and flights return to normal. The study draws attention to the importance of travel risk perception in the travel decision-making process and the existence of risk segments that vary in their perceived risk. The study supports Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992) who claim that one can identify different groups of travelers based on their perception of travel risk (those who do not consider travel as being risky and those who perceive vacations and destinations to involve risk). LIMITATIONS Data for this study were collected in December 2002 and January 2003. The authors judge this to in close proximity to the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA, October 12th terrorist attacks in Bali and outbreak of SARS that might have skewed the responses somewhat. Tourists might possibly have responded differently if they had not been exposed to the tragic events. However, being able to identify significant differences across different countries in different geographic regions gives the authors some confidence that the issues under investigation resonate across many tourist groups. The study clearly indicates global concerns of travel risk and its impact on perceptions of safety and intentions to travel among six national groups of respondents. Travel risk may not be the primary deterrent for all tourists in the same culture. Each country possesses a variety of subcultures some of which may influence risk taking, while others might affect risk avoiding. Thus, it is fair to expect significant differences from different subcultures or geographic regions of the same country. The authors are conscious that different countries and regions may have many subcultures and hence no attempt was made to equate country or a region with cultural orientation. However, the same criticism can be leveled at many cross-country studies since to some extent such studies over-simplify the true situation. Further, some market segments such as risk seekers, novelty or venturesome seekers (Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Plog, 2002) may toler-
28
ate higher levels of risk and be attracted to more risky destinations and products and deliberately seek risk during their travel (e.g., travel to Iraq or Afghanistan, rock climbing, parachuting). Other segments such as risk avoiders may be more sensitive to risk and seek safety and security. These, however, were not explored. There are also a number of additional factors that might influence perceived risk that could be investigated (e.g., travel arrangements, the purpose of the trip, length of stay, tourist typology, etc.). For example, tourist typologies (Cohen, 1972; Plog, 1974, 1987, 1990; Smith, 1989) and the travel style have significant effects on the type and degree of risk tourists prefer to experience when traveling (Basala & Klenosky, 2001). The sample sizes of the various groups precluded the testing of measure equivalency. As a result any scalar measures would potentially not be equivalent. It is also possible that EFA (exploratory factor analysis) for each group could result in different latent variables being found making it difficult to compare the six groups. The use of single items can be justified on these grounds but because their reliability is impossible to establish, this must be seen as a limitation of the study. The use of Australian versus foreign group could be questioned. Foreigners were viewed as tourists who had decided to travel internationally and the Australians were considered as tourists who took their holidays at home. In order to eliminate the bias in responses both groups were specifically asked about their risk perceptions and future travel intentions in relation to any destination outside Australia. Finally, the results can be generalized only to the young travel market segment and they do not reflect the possible changes in risk and safety perceptions that might occur over time. It is possible the results could be different if the data were collected at different points in time. Although the above limitations reduce the generalisability of the findings, they do demonstrate the adequacy of the approach to the analysis of the differences in the perceptions of travel risk and safety, anxiety and intentions to travel.
FUTURE STUDIES Future research could replicate the study by surveying tourists from other countries and comparing their responses. Future research might consider disaggregating different countries into regional subcultures, geographical regions and nationalities to gain more insights. Comparisons of travel risk and safety perceptions could be made across regions of relatively similar cultures, e.g., North America, South America, South East Asia, Western Europe, or the Middle East. The authors also suggest examining differences in risk perception in various sectors of the tourism and travel industry (e.g., accommodation, transportation, attractions, food and beverage) to create a more comprehensive picture of the differences among these sectors as perceived by tourists from different countries. In addition, one might examine the differences in risk perception across specific holiday products such as cultural, religious, environmental, adventurous, or packaged versus individually purchased products. More risk perception studies could be done in various market segments. For example, more risk perception studies could be done on tourists who are regularly attracted to risky or dangerous destinations (e.g., Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan) and/or leisure activities such as hang-gliding, mountaineering, white-water rafting, bungee jumping and other adventurous activities, as suggested by Venkatesans (1973) work on novelty seeking. Moreover, one might examine types of tourists who are attracted to/discouraged by different types of risks. Further, research might also consider testing the differences in travel risk and safety perception, as well as anxiety and intentions to travel, on respondents from a more senior age group, different socio-economic classes and family life stages. It is possible that these differences can also be identified in relation to specific travel arrangements, purpose of trip, and length of stay or tourist typology. Next, by repeating the study over a period of time one would be able to assess the changes in the travel risk and safety perceptions across different countries,
29
nationalities or regions. Finally, the study implies the need for tourism researchers to test and assess the travel anxiety scale and to determine whether the measurement scales are similar across countries. REFERENCES
Barker, M., Page, S. J., & Meyer, D. (2003). Urban visitor perceptions of safety during a special event. Journal of Travel Research, 41(4), 355-361. Basala, S. L., & Klenosky, D. B. (2001). Travel-style preferences for visiting a novel destination: A conjoint investigation across the novelty-familiarity continuum. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 172-182. Bauer, R. (1967). Consumer behavior as risk taking. In D. F. Cox (Ed.), Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior (pp. 23-33). Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (1985). Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 391-405. Carr, N. (2001). An exploratory study of gendered differences in young tourists perception of danger within London. Tourism Management, 22(5), 565-570. Cavlek, N. (2002). The role of tour operators in the travel distribution system. In W. C. Gartner & D. W. Lime (Eds.), Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure and tourism (pp. 325-334). Wallingford: CAB International. Center for Travel Anxiety. (2002). Other travel related anxiety and phobias. Retrieved April 20, 2004, from http://www.fearofflyingdc.com/otheranxiety.html Cheron, E., & Ritchie, J. (1982). Leisure activities and perceived risk. Journal of Leisure Research, 14(2), 139-154. Cohen, E. (1972). Towards sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39(1), 164-182. Cunningham, S. (1967). The major dimensions of perceived risk. In D. F. Cox (Ed.), Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior (pp. 82-108). Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Dann, G. M. S. (1993). Limitations in the use of nationality and country of residence variables. In D. G. Pearce & R. W. Butler (Eds.), Tourism research: Critiques and challenges (pp. 88-112). London: Routledge Press. Dimanche, F., & Lepetic, A. (1999). New Orleans tourism and crime: A case study. Journal of Travel Research, 38(1), 19-23. Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 119-135. Drottz-Sjoberg, B.-M., & Sjoberg, L. (1990). Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(2), 135-149.
ETurboNews. (2004). Environmental concerns muddy Balis tourism prospects. Retrieved March 9, 2004, from http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-0308-bali-tourism_x.htm Feather, N. T. (1975). Values in education and society. New York: Free Press. Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2004). Cultural differences in tourist destination risk perception: An exploratory study. TourismAn International Interdisciplinary Journal, 52(1), 21-37. Galea, S., Ahern, J., Resnick, H., Kilpatrick, D., Bucuvalas, M., Gold, J. et al. (2002). Psychological sequelae of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(13), 982-987. Gartner, W., & Shen, H. (1992). The impact of Tiananmen Square on Chinas tourism image. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 47-52. Gibson, H., & Jordan, F. (1998a). Shirley Valentine Lives! The experience of solo women travelers. Paper presented at the Fifth Congress of the World Leisure and Recreation Association, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Gibson, H., & Jordan, F. (1998b). Traveling solo: A cross-cultural study of British and American women aged 30-50. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Leisure Studies Association, Leeds, UK. Gibson, H., & Yiannakis, A. (2002). Tourist roles: Needs and the lifecourse. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 358-383. Goszczynska, M., Tyszka, T., & Slovic, P. (1991). Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 179-193. Griffith, D., & Albanese, P. (1996). An examination of Plogs psychographics travel model within a student population. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 47-51. Gudykunst, W., & Hammer, M. (1988). Strangers and hosts: An uncertainty reduction base theory of intercultural adaptation. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation: Current approaches (pp. 106-139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Haddock, C. (1993). Managing risks in outdoor activities. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Mountain Safety Council. Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development. Who owns paradise? Washington, DC: Island Press. Hoover, R. J., Green, R. T., & Saegert, J. (1978). A cross-national study of perceived risk. Journal of Marketing, 42(3), 102-108. Hullett, C. R., & Witte, K. (2001). Predicting intercultural adaptation and isolation: Using the extended
30
parallel process model to test anxiety/uncertainty management theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(2), 125-139. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Variants of uncertainty. Cognition, 11(2), 143-157. Knight, F. (1948). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. (1964). Risk taking. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 606-624. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press. MacCrimmon, K., & Wehrung, D. (1986). Taking risks. New York: The Free Press. Mser, B., & Weiermair, K. (1998). Travel decisionmaking: From the vantage point of perceived risk and information preferences. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 7(4), 107-121. Mattila, A., Apostolopoulos, Y., Sonmez, S., Yu, L., & Sasidharan, V. (2001). The impact of gender and religion on college students spring break behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 193-200. McIntosh, I., Swanson, V., Power, K., Raeside, F., & Dempster, C. (1998). Anxiety and health problems related to air travel. Journal of Travel Medicine, 5(4), 198-204. McIntyre, N., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1998). Nature/person transactions during an outdoor adventure experience: A multi-phasic analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(4) 401-422. Mechitov, A., & Rebrik, S. (1990). Studies of risk and safety perception in USSR. In K. Borcherding, O. I. Larichev, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Contemporary issues in decision making (pp. 261-270). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Michalko, G. (2004). Tourism eclipsed by crime: The vulnerability of foreign tourists in Hungary. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(2/3), 159-172. Mitchell, V. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. European Journal of Marketing, 33(1/2), 163-195. Mitchell, V., & Vassos, V. (1997). Perceived risk and risk reduction in holiday purchases: A cross-cultural and gender analysis. Journal of European Marketing, 6(3), 47-80. Morgan, H. (2003, June 2). Traveler editor: SARS travel fears unfounded. National Geographic News. Retrieved September 3, 2005, from http://news. nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_ sarstravel2.html Norton, G. (1987). Tourism and international terrorism. The World Today, 43(2), 30-33. Norton, G. (1994). The vulnerable voyager: New threats for tourism. World Today, 50(12), 237-239. Pizam, A., & Jeong. G. (1996). Cross-cultural tourist behavior: Perceptions of Korean tour guides. Tourism Management, 17(4), 277-286.
Pizam, A., & Sussmann, S. (1995). Does nationality affect tourist behavior? Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 901-917. Pizam, A., Tarlow, P., & Bloom, J. (1997). Making tourists feel safe: Whose responsibility is it? Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), 23-28. Plog, S. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. The Cornell Quarterly, 14(9), 55-58. Plog, S. (1987). Understanding psychographics in tourism research. In J. Ritchie & C. Goeldner (Eds.), Tourism, and hospitality research (pp. 203-213). New York: John Wiley. Plog, S. (1990). A Carpenters tool: An answer to Stephen L. J. Smiths review of psychocentrism/allocentrism. Journal of Travel Research, 28(4), 43-45. Plog, S. (2002). The power of psychographics and the concept of venturesomeness. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 244-251. Raphael, K. G., Natelson, B. H., Janal, M. N., & Nayak, S. (2002). A community-based survey of fibromyalgialike pain complaints following the World Trade Center terrorist attacks. Pain, 100(1/2), 131-139. Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2005). Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk perception. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 212-225. Richardson, S. L., & Crompton, J. (1988). Vacation patterns of French and English Canadians. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3), 430-435. Richter, L. K. (2003). International tourism and its global public health consequences. Journal of Travel Research, 41(4), 340-347. Roehl, W., & Fesenmaier, D. (1992). Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 17-26. Rogets II: The new thesaurus dictionary. (1995). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ropeik, D. (2001). Fear factors in an age of terrorism. Retrieved March 3, 2004, from http://www.msnbc. com/news/643092.asp?cp1=1 Rosenheck, R., Schuster, M., Stein, B., & Jaycox, L. (2002). Reactions to the events of September 11. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(8), 629-630. Ryan, C. (1995). Learning about tourists from conversations: The over-55s in Majorca. Tourism Management, 16(3), 207-215. Schuster, M. A., Stein, B. D., Jaycox, L. H., Collins, R. L., Marshall, G., Elliott, M. et al. (2001). A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The New England Journal of Medicine, 345(20), 1507-1512. Schweer, J. M. (1986). Perceived leisure risk: Implications and interventions for therapeutic recreation in clinical settings. Journal of Expanding Horizons in Therapeutic Recreation, 1, 64-66. Seddighi, H. R., Nuttall, M. W., & Theocharous, A. L. (2001). Does cultural background of tourists influence the destination choice? An empirical study with
31
special references to political instability. Tourism Management, 22(2), 181-191. Slovic, P. (1972). Convergent validation of risk taking measures. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(11), 68-71. Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1968). Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(3), 1-18. Smith, G. (1999). Toward a United States policy on traveler safety and security: 1980-2000. Journal of Travel Research, 38(1), 62-65. Smith, V. L. (Ed.). (1989). Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sonmez, S., Apostolopoulos, Y., & Tarlow, P. (1999). Tourism in crisis: Managing the effects of terrorism. Journal of Travel Research, 38(1), 13-18. Sonmez, S., & Graefe, A. R. (1998a). Determining future travel behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 171-177. Sonmez, S., & Graefe, A. R. (1998b). Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 112-144. Sonmez, S., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). A distorted destination image? The case of Turkey. Journal of Travel Research, 41(2), 185-196. Stone, R., & Winter, F. (1985, December). Risk in buyer behavior in contexts: A clarification (Faculty working paper 1216 EWP 860505). College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois, IL. Stone, R., & Winter, F. (1987). Risk: Is it still uncertainty times consequences? In W. Belk & J. Zaltman (Eds.), Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, Winter Educators Conference (pp. 261-265), Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Suh, Y. K., & Gartner, W. C. (2004). Perceptions in international urban tourism: An analysis of travelers to Seoul, Korea. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 39-45. Summers, J., & McColl-Kennedy, J. (1998). Australia as a holiday destination: Young Americans vs. Chinese Malaysians decision-making. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 5(4), 33-55. Tarlow, P. E., & 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(4), 424-431. Teigen, K. H., Brun, W., & Slovic, P. (1988). Societal risks as seen by a Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 111-130. Thapa, B. (2004). Tourism in Nepal: Shangri-las troubled times. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(2/3), 117-138.
Tremblay, P. (1989). Pooling international tourism in Western Europe. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(4), 477-491. Tsaur, S.-H., Tzeng, G.-H., & Wang K.-C. (1997). Evaluating tourist risks from fuzzy perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 796-812. Tse, D. K., Lee, K., Vertinsky, I., & Wehrung, D. A. (1988). Does culture matter? A cross-cultural study of executives choice, decisiveness, and risk adjustment in international marketing. Journal of Marketing, 52(4), 81-95. Venkatesan, M. (1973). Cognitive consistency and novelty-seeking. In S. Ward & T. S. Robertson (Eds.), Consumer behavior: Theoretical sources (pp. 355-384). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Verhage, B. J., Yavas, U., & Green, R. T. (1990). Perceived risk: A cross-cultural phenomenon? International Journal of Research Marketing, 7(4), 297-303. Wall, G. (1996). Terrorism and tourism: An overview and an Irish example. In A. Pizam & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Tourism, crime and international security issues (pp. 143-158). New York: Wiley. Walsh, R. G. (1986). Recreation economic decisions: Comparing benefits and costs. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science, 44(9), 1205-1217. Wong, S., & Lau, E. (2001). Understanding the behavior of Hong Kong Chinese tourists on group tour packages. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 57-67. World Health Organization (WHO). (2003). Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS): Basic information about SARS. Retrieved April 2, 2004, from http:// www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/factsheet.htm Yavas, U., Verhage, B. J., & Green, R. T. (1992). Global consumer segmentation versus local marketing orientation: Empirical findings. Management International Review, 32(3), 265-272. Young, W., Morris, A., Cameron, N., & Haslett, S. (1997). New Zealand national survey of crime victims 1996. Wellington, New Zealand: Victimisation Survey Committee.
SUBMITTED: May 11, 2005 FIRST REVISION SUBMITTED: May 19, 2005 SECOND REVISION SUBMITTED: June 24, 2005 ACCEPTED: July 23, 2005 REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY
doi:10.1300/J073v20n01_02

Cultural Differences in Travel Risk Perception

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Cultural Differences in Travel Risk Perception

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

This article was downloaded by: [Auckland University of Technology] On: 19 December 2011, At: 12:11 Publisher: Routledge

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing

Cultural Differences in Travel Risk Perception

Cultural Differences in Travel Risk Perception

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

KEYWORDS. Travel risk, travel safety, perception, anxiety, intentions to travel

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

Yvette Reisinger and Felix Mavondo

TABLE 1. Types of Risk Associated with Tourism

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

Yvette Reisinger and Felix Mavondo

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 2. Ranking of Six Countries on Hofstedes (2001) Four Value Dimensions

Yvette Reisinger and Felix Mavondo

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

Yvette Reisinger and Felix Mavondo

TABLE 4. Distribution of Gender in the Six Foreign Groups (Percent)

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

0.624 1.107 1.039 0.731 2.690 0.177

p = 0.001 p = 0.006 p = 0.001 p = 0.003 p = 0.003

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001

1.156 0.002 0.190 6.069***

p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001

p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.03 p = 0.011 p = 0.001

0.857 0.075 0.060 3.105 1.356 0.004 3.106 18.161***

2.499* 4.484*** 2.140 2.473* 2.878** 2.038 1.042

p = 0.003 p = 0.001 p = 0.002 p = 0.004

2.270 4.008* 2.382 16.055***

2.902* 5.741*** 11.377*** 6.696*** 3.790**

p = 0.013 p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.002 p = 0.028 p = 0.001 p = 0.01

p = 0.011 p = 0.001 p = 0.001

1.476 2.800 2.147 0.355

6.893** 6.638** 5.649* 2.488 1.995

p = 0.009 p = 0.01 p = 0.018

2.525* 4.946*** 3.074** 0.905 3.001**

Yvette Reisinger and Felix Mavondo

TABLE 6. Differences in Risk Perceptions Across Countries

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 7. Differences in Anxiety Across Countries

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

Nervous Disturbed Hopeless

Yvette Reisinger and Felix Mavondo

TABLE 8. Differences in Safety Preceptions and Travel Intentions Across Countries

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

In rural areas INTENTIONS TO TRAVEL Again Reduce

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

Yvette Reisinger and Felix Mavondo

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

Yvette Reisinger and Felix Mavondo

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011

2.902* 5.741* 11.377* 6.696* 3.790

6.893 6.638 5.649* 2.488 1.995

2.525* 4.946* 3.074 0.905 3.001**