CHAPTER 1: Introduction and Problem Statement
1.6 Motivation for the study 16
Scholars such as Sӧnmez et al. (1998) state that there are a number of factors influencing tourists’ propensity to travel to destination choice to actual travel. They argue that past travel experience, perception of risk itself and many demographic factors play a role in this regard.
They point out that tourism destinations that are perceived to be risky may be substituted with those perceived to be safe. Many scholars have realised that, due to the impact of crises for
- 17 -
tourists, there is a gap in literature with regard to the perceptions of risk, response to risk, and interpretation of messages surrounding it (Liu et al., 2013). The study could close the gap by empirically assessing the way in which tourists perceive Durban as a tourism destination. It further evaluated how tourists are impacted upon by disasters, crises and risks, and what the appropriate practical responses could address their plight. This study was motivated by the paucity of research that combines the sociology of risk and disaster.
Faulkner (2001:136) lends more credence to the above assertion by contending that “relatively little systematic research has been carried out on disaster phenomena in tourism” and the impacts thereof. The serious impacts of disasters and crises warrant research with a view to address the challenges encountered by the tourists and the industry in general. Laws et al.
(2005) add that in the tourism literature, disasters were generally dealt with within the wider theoretical framework of tourism crises. Some specific studies dealing with the interface of tourism and disasters have been focused on disaster management practices (Ritchie, 2004).
This gap is exposed by Cohen et al. (2009:12) who state that:
“Remarkably little work has been done on the specific social problems by which the vulnerability of tourist destinations is produced, or on the conduct of tourists, hosting establishments, locals and official institutions at the outset, during and in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster”.
Faulkner et al. (2001) expounded on the remarks given above by saying that the issue of how the tourism industry deals with disasters has not received enough attention in tourism management research, even though destinations face the prospect of different forms of disasters, crises and risks in their history. Scholars such as Faulkner et al. (2001) cite quite a
- 18 -
number of authors who have raised concern about the vulnerability of destinations to disasters.
They include Murphy et al. (1989), who emphasised the attractiveness of high-risk exotic locations, and Burby et al. (1996) and Drabek (1995), who stressed the exposure of travelers to injury due to their lack of familiarity with local hazards. Even though this is the case, many destinations are said to be generally unprepared for disaster situations, even in high-risk areas (Cassedy, 1991; Drabek, 1992, 1995, Faulkner et al., 2001), while many have played down the actual or potential impacts of disasters for marketing reasons (Cammisa, 1993; Murphy et al., 1989; Faulkner et al., 2001).
The tourism industry has not as yet sufficiently (Faulkner et al., 2001) analysed tourism disasters and implemented effective disaster management plans. What compounds the problems further is that the theoretical and conceptual frameworks have not been appropriately developed for analysing disasters affecting the tourism industry. Consequently, there has been very little systematic analysis of past events upon which a solid understanding of the tourism disasters can be based (Faulkner et al., 2001).
Shaw et al. (2012) remark that the central focus of the tourism industry is placed on risks that are present at the destinations – implying that those that are lurking ahead are ignored. They include natural disasters (tsunamis, hurricanes, drought); socio-demographical (ageing markets, family life cycles and changing structures); economics (recessions, increases in oil prices, exchange rates); politics (sanctions, terrorism); and diseases (H5NI, HIV/AIDS, SARS) (Sӧnmez et al., 1998). These risks affect travellers’ visits to tourist destinations. What compounds the problems even more is the fragmentation of the tourism sector and many role players (McCamley, 2012), thus rendering the question of determining the overall effect of disasters, crises and risks more difficult. Central to these problems is a lack of properly trained
- 19 -
staff (Baum, 2006; Ozuka, 2009), which creates a gap in the skills required in identifying and managing the crises and risk. Ozuka (2009) and Baum (2006) notes that the lack of qualified staff is also limiting the growth of the industry. However, the question of the industry fragmentation and lack of qualified personnel lies beyond the scope of this study.
Shaw et al. (2012) point out that for purposes of literature review, there is no study that address domestic and international risks in the South African tourism industry from the perspective of supply, that is, what product owners and entrepreneurs view as key risks. These scholars add that:
It became clear that the tourism industry is highly susceptible to risk and that the list of risks seems to be virtually without limit. There is also the impression that the tourism industry in general tends to be reactive rather than proactive in addressing risks, producing many impact evaluations but few risk forecasts, this is despite the fact that Shaw (2010) states that the frequency and scope of risks across the globe have increased significantly during the past decades.
The study closed the gaps indicated above by adopting four models to anchor it, that is, mobility theory, postulated by Cohen et al. (2012), model of international tourism decision-making process, postulated by Sonmez et al. (1998), disaster risk theory, which is enrooted in hazard paradigm, and risk perception theory, postulated by Cognitive Psychology long ago. The four models are chosen because they collectively deal with the interface of tourism and disasters.
They explain tourists’ perceptions about tourism destinations in varied ways, and the factors that lead to such perceptions. The models stress that disasters, crises, and risks are social constructs, and provide the measures that people resort to when they are in danger (Sӧnmez et
- 20 -
al., 1998). The models emphasise the fact that disasters, crises and risks (crime, terrorism, accidents, diseases, plane crashes, civil strives, xenophobia, corruption and the like) are often disregarded by developers (Cohen et al., 2012). The other reason why they would add value to the study is that they treat the social processes by which vulnerability of tourists and destinations is produced (Cohen et al., 2012). They deal with issues of fear, anxiety, and tourists’ expectations in various destinations (Heggie et al., 2004; Hall, 2002; Banyai, 2010), and this is aligned with the goals and objectives of the current study.
The study therefore probed the question of how the stakeholders in the tourism sector view disasters, crises and risks that affect it, and most importantly deal with how the tourists view South Africa as a tourism destination. The goal behind this was two-pronged: firstly, to close the gaps identified above. Secondly, to enhance its contribution to the current debates on disaster, crises, and risk discourse. Brackwell (2007) argues that risk is inherently subjective, and as consumers are above all individuals, what they perceive as risky is likely to differ, and adds that the empirical evidence on such differences is incoherent. Thus, understanding how tourists comprehend and act upon disasters, crises, and risks in tourist environment deserves further investigation.