CHAPTER 1: Introduction and Problem Statement
1.10 Principal theories that anchor the study 27
1.10.1 Mobility Theory
According to its proponents (Cohen and Cohen, 2012), this theory addresses the interface of tourism and contemporary society: social justice, natural disasters, terrorism, heritage, embodiment and affect, and mediatisation. The approach reflects a broader meta-theoretical re- orientation in contemporary philosophy and sociology, and is applied in tourism to explain tourists’ perceptions in many varied ways. It deals with risks involved in travel, as well as
- 28 -
stringent security measures in global tourism, which in turn interferes with the comfort, ease, and freedom of tourists.
The theory illustrates how vulnerable and helpless tourists become to disasters once the institutional structures they depend on are destroyed (Cohen and Cohen, 2012). It encapsulates
“hopeful tourism”, which seeks to address the social, economic, political, and environmental needs of the less fortunate ones to advance an agenda of social inclusion. It concerns itself with divergent tourists’ experiences, and can aid this study whose aim is to move away from simple linear touristic experiences deserving straightforward solutions.
Furthermore it acknowledges that disasters are exogenic in nature, and that their consequences might be exacerbated by “a historically produced pattern of vulnerability”, which manifests itself in the “location, infrastructure and sociopolitical organisation, production, and distribution systems of ideology of a society” (Cohen and Cohen, 2012:11). The theory emphasises the point that natural disasters are often disregarded by developers. Cohen and Cohen (2012) point out that the earlier studies on disasters were concerned with issues of disaster management only, at the expense of tourists’ fright, frustration, confusion or perplexity. They add that little work has been carried out on the specific social processes by which the vulnerability of tourist destinations is produced, or on the behaviour of tourists and tourism destination in the initial stages and the aftermath of a natural disaster. The latter will constitute the main thrust of this study.
1.10.2 Model of International Tourism Decision-Making Process
The model was postulated by Sӧnmez and Graefe in 1998, and is rooted in Information Integration Theory (IIT) and Protection Motivation Theory (PMT). Protection Motivation
- 29 -
Theory concerns how people deal with threats. It maintains that the intention to protect oneself depends upon four factors, namely, the perceived severity of a threatened event, the perceived probability of occurrence or vulnerability, the efficacy of the recommended preventive behavior, and perceived self-efficacy. Information Integration Theory deals with international travel experience, risk perception level, travel attitude, age, gender, education, and income of the tourists concerned. The Model of International Tourism Decision-Making Process proposes that “there are a number of factors which influence the tourists’ decisions from the motivation to travel to destination choice to actual travel” (Sӧnmez et al., 1998). The model purports that the tourists’ ability to gauge the safety of a destination is influenced by variables such as past travel experience, perception of risk, and many demographic factors. It is said that those tourism destinations perceived to be risky may be substituted with those perceived to be safer.
It maintains that the tourists’ perceptions of what constitute a safe destination can be influenced by various factors, which in turn can impact on visitation to a destination. The reasons why this model is chosen to anchor the study is because it deals with the tourists’ perceptions of a safe destination, and highlights some factors which may render some destinations as unsuitable for visitation. Therefore it will aid this study, whose primary intention is to empirically unravel the tourists’ perceptions of Durban as a destination, to expose, from a tourists’ perspective, what can render the country suitable or unsuitable for visitation, and the practical measures to be implemented to mitigate disasters and risks that cultivate fear amongst them.
1.10.3 Disaster-Risk Theory
This theory is rooted in hazard (scape) paradigm, a vulnerability paradigm, resilience, and extended alternative adjustments. It maintains that disaster risk studies are currently informed by social constructions, and holds the view that environmental issues are ‘socially constructed’
and become issues through developments in scientific research, where political and economic
- 30 -
conditions shift and reform already established representations of nature. They are also shaped by the imprint of dominant narratives, from which they drew their intellectual inspiration and legitimacy. The model deals with disasters and risks from society-environment point of view.
This offers a comprehensive understanding of the disaster risk faced by a given society. It is chosen because it is quite powerful in shaping the disaster risk discourse, especially in terms of its emphasis on a hazard (scape) and vulnerability paradigm and the significant role of resilience to the disaster risk studies. This is a conventional way of examining disasters.
Vulnerability issues have also been improved by development studies experts, more so around the areas of livelihoods and social protection. Moreover, the model adopts a balanced approach to disaster risk research and will aid the study to achieve its intended objectives.
1.10.4 Risk Perception Theory
According to Korstanje (2011), the theory was postulated by Cognitive Psychology more than 40 years ago, but introduced to tourism fields in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre in the US. It is a scientific criterion intended to bring security to tourists who are vulnerable to threats than others (Korstanje, 2011: 5). It is used to examine risks and hazards that affect them when travelling and various instruments they utilise to ensure their safety. The theory maintains (Korstanje, 2011) that key factors that play a role in determining risk perception are the tourists’ nationality and their psychological personality, and adds that those with a higher sensation (sensation seeking) tend to experience fewer risks and travel more than those with a lower degree of sensation seeking. It presumes that the tourists face their own risk when selecting the destination for their holidays and transport modes. Risks manifest themselves in the form of terrorism, crime, natural disasters, road accidents, diseases or delays in flights (Floyd and Pennington-Gray and Thapa, 2004; Hall, 2002 and Banyai, 2010). The theory deals with issues of fear, anxiety and tourists’ expectations. It is chosen to anchor the
- 31 -
study because it considers risks to be socially and culturally constructed, explaining risk in a qualitative way. This is in line with the approach to be adopted by this study. To this effect, Korstanje (2011:17) remarks that “understanding risk from a qualitative view is a way of understanding society itself because travelling is a fertile source for panic and concern.” The model provides a conceptual framework to mitigate the negative aftermaths of events that lead to bad touristic experiences. This too is in line with the overall objectives of the study.
The four models are chosen because they collectively deal 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 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 (Hall, 2002; Banyai, 2010). This is aligned with the goals and objectives of the study.