lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 31 (2010) 806–815

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Visitor perceptions of crime-safety and attitudes towards risk:The case of Table Mountain National Park, Cape Town

Richard George*

School of Management Studies, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 12 February 2009Accepted 31 August 2009

Keywords:TourismPerceptionsCrime-safetyRisk attitudesCrime prevention

* Tel.: þ27 21 650 4245.E-mail address: richard.george@uct.ac.za

0261-5177/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.011

a b s t r a c t

This paper investigates tourist perceptions of crime-safety and attitudes towards risk whilst visitingTable Mountain National Park (TMNP) in Cape Town in June and July 2008. The study examined surveydata of 303 domestic and international tourists during their visit to TMNP. A linear regression analysisrevealed that although visitors had concerns about their personal safety they are still likely to return toTMNP and recommend it to other people. In addition, visitor attitudes towards risk did not influenceperceptions of crime-safety and its effect on their intentions to revisit or recommend TMNP. The resultsalso show that respondent’s individual characteristics such as age, nationality, and purpose of visitinfluenced their perceptions of crime-safety. Perceptions that TMNP is unsafe tended to increase withrespondent’s age. Respondents on holiday were more likely to perceive TMNP as safer than those onbusiness or visiting friends and relatives. The study’s findings add to the literature by offering moreinsight on tourist perceptions of crime-safety and attitudes towards risk and their impact on touristbehaviour. Various tourist-crime prevention measures to enhance visitor safety at national parks are alsorecommended to the tourism industry and law enforcement agencies.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

South Africa is admired for its natural beauty, vibrant cultureand relative novelty as an international tourist destination. Since1994, tourism has increasingly been recognised as a key economicgrowth sector by the South African government and commercialbusinesses. The government has channelled substantial resourcestowards tourism development and marketing over the past fewyears. The country’s tourism industry is one of the fastest-growingcontributors to its economy. In 2008, South Africa hosted almost 9.6million international visitors, an increase of 5.5% over 2007. It aimsto attract a record 10-million visitors during the 2010 and a GDPcontribution of 12% by 2014 (South African Tourism, 2008).

Over the last decade, South Africa’s major cities – Johannesburg,Durban, and Cape Town – alongside other international destina-tions such as Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, and Kingston, Jamaicahave gained a reputation for being crime-ridden tourist destina-tions. Indeed, South Africa reportedly has one of the highest violentcrime rates (incidents of murder, rape, car-hijackings, and assaults)in the world (Altbeker, 2005). Since re-admittance to the interna-tional community in 1994 (after an era of profound economic andsocial exclusion under apartheid), the country has received

All rights reserved.

negative media attention as a tourist destination following severalhigh profile cases involving crime against tourists.

High levels of crime threaten the growth of tourism, SouthAfrica’s main foreign exchange earner. Minister of Tourism, Mar-thinus Van Schalkwyk, admits that fear of crime could be a possibledeterrent to potential visitors. As the country prepares to host the2010 FIFA World Cup�, a key question on many potential overseastourists’ minds is not about the weather or the quality of the services,but ‘‘Is it safe to visit?’’ Safety and security concerns remain theprimary reason for people not wanting to visit the country (DEAT,2007).

Cape Town, situated at the south-western tip of Africa, is consid-ered a popular tourist destination for international, regional anddomestic tourists. Cape Town, also referred to as the ‘Mother City’boasts numerous world-class tourist attractions such as RobbenIsland, Table Mountain, Cape Point, the V&A Waterfront, and winefarms. Table Mountain National Park (TMNP), which covers over29,000 hectares, is an urban park on the fringe of the Cape Townmetropolis. This unique situation – being bounded by the city limits –has made it difficult to manage and has raised safety and securityconcerns for TMNP’s management.

TMNP is one of 22 national parks country-wide managed bySouth African National Parks (SANParks). The Park receivedapproximately 4,3 million visits (including repeat visitors) in 2007(www.sanparks.org). However, South Africa’s second most visited

R. George / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 806–815 807

tourist attraction has experienced an escalation of criminal activityin recent years, tarnishing its image as a world-class visitorattraction. During 2007, there were 30 reported crime incidents inTMNP (SANParks, 2008). The majority of these incidents weremuggings and resulted in the theft of visitors’ personal belongings.According to research carried out by South African Police Services(SAPS), 70% of crime victims in TMNP are South Africans (www.sanparks.org). These and numerous other ‘‘mountain muggings’’have been highly publicised in the local and international mediaand have been condemned by national and local tourism authori-ties. Furthermore, these crime incidents along with the associatedpublicity may have led to negative perceptions about the attractionand may have affected tourists’ decisions to return to the attractionor to Cape Town in the future.

Before the study results are presented and discussed, the liter-ature on tourism and crime, tourist perceptions of crime-safety andperceived tourist risk is reviewed.

1.1. The association between tourism and crime

Tourism is known to have significant positive and negativeeconomic, environmental, and social impacts upon a tourist desti-nation. One of the undesirable social impacts of tourism is that ofcrime (Mathieson & Wall, 1982: 3). Crime incidents occurring attourist destinations will have some degree of negative effect onaffected areas and their tourism industry.

Over the last thirty-five years, there has been a growing body ofliterature that has investigated the relationship between tourismand crime. The tourism-crime literature can be divided in to sevenmain themes: (i) tourism impacting crime levels; (ii) tourist loca-tions with high crime rates; (iii) tourist-crime victimisation; (iv)locals and tourists’ perceptions of crime; (v) tourists as offenders ofcrime; (vi) terrorism and tourism; and (vii) tourism-crime preven-tative measures.

Tourism and crime researchers have sought to establish whetherthe tourism industry in different tourist locations generates criminalactivity. In essence, an increase in tourist activities may well result inan escalation of various types of crimes. For example, McPheters andStronge (1974) reported higher crime rates in the Miami, Floridatourist season. Similarly, Jud found that property-related crimeswere more associated with tourism in Mexico (1975: 328). A recentstudy by Walker and Page (2007) looked at patterns of crime inCentral Scotland and compared locals and visitors in terms of thetypes of criminal incidents and when these incidents occurred. Theresearchers found that tourists are more vulnerable to crimes ofdishonesty and motor car theft, and that they are most at risk in theafternoon and early evening. Other tourist areas where increasingcrime rates are seen as an externality of tourism developmentinclude Hawaii, USA (Chesney-Lind, Lind, & Schaafsma, 1983; Fujii &Mak, 1979; Fukunaga,1975); Tonga (Urbanowicz, 1977); Cairns, GoldCoast, Australia (Kelly, 1993; Prideaux & Dunn, 1995); North Caro-lina, USA (Nicholls, 1976); and USA (Pizam, 1982). Most of thesestudies, which were confined to a single city or state, found thattourism does contribute to increased crime rates. However, severalresearchers found it difficult to measure accurately the direct linkbetween increases in crime levels with the development of tourism.Several studies examined this association in specific countries,including Mexico (Lin & Loeb, 1977; Loeb & Lin, 1981) and the USA(Pizam, 1982). Conversely, these studies did not find a significantrelationship between tourism and crime. A number of issues wereraised by several of the tourism-crime researchers, including limi-tations in available tourist-crime victim data, how crime can bemeasured, and the extent to which tourism can be quantified(Chesney-Lind et al., 1983; Fujii & Mak, 1980; Jud, 1975). Needless tosay, the literature unanimously reports that in areas where large

numbers of tourists are present during peak season criminals haveattempted to benefit illegally from their presence.

There is sufficient evidence amongst the tourism-crime literatureto suggest that acts of crime committed against tourists will havea negative impact on tourist arrivals (Alleyne & Boxill, 2003; Bloom,1996; Cavlek, 2002; Dimanche & Lepetic, 1999; Elliot & Ryan, 1993;Fujii & Mak, 1980; Kelly, 1993; Levantis & Gani, 2000; Pelfrey, 1998;Pizam & Mansfeld, 1996: 1; Prideaux & Dunn, 1995; Tarlow, 2000).The general consensus amongst these researchers is that any threatto the safety of a tourist (i.e. criminal activities against tourists) alongwith associated media publicity (i.e. news reporting, governmenttravel warnings) is likely to negatively affect a specific location, beit a destination, region, country or neighbouring countries. Themurder of a British couple on their honeymoon and the rape ofanother British tourist in Antigua in 2008 severely tarnished theimage of the Caribbean island and caused a downturn in visitorarrivals (eturbonews.com). In recent years, the upsurge in murders,rapes, gang violence and armed robberies have bludgeoned theflattering perception of the Caribbean as a ‘‘paradise’’ for tourists.A study by Alleyne and Boxill (2003) found that crime had a negativeimpact on tourist arrivals to Jamaica. Although the majority oftourists in Jamaica stay in all-inclusive resorts, respondents that feltmost unsafe were those that did not stay in the resorts, making themmore vulnerable to crime. Most travellers will seek safer and securedestinations and avoid those that have been plagued by violentincidents. As several tourism-crime researchers note ‘when concernsfor wellbeing are perceived to be excessive, tourists will cancel,postpone, or choose alternative destinations that involve less risk’(Mansfeld & Pizam, 2006: 7; Richter & Waugh, 1986).

Research has also focused more specifically on tourist-crime vic-timisation at certain destinations including Hawaii, USA (Chesney-Lind & Lind, 1986); Washington, DC, USA (Demos, 1992); Guam(Pinhey & Iverson,1994); Miami, Florida, USA (Crotts,1996; Schiebler,Crotts, & Hollinger, 1996); Malaga, Spain (Strangeland,1998); Sydney,New South Wales, Australia (Allen, 1999); Barbados, Caribbean(de Albuquerque & McElroy, 1999); New Orleans, Louisiana, USA(Dimanche & Lepetic, 1999); and Budapest, Hungary (Michalko,2003). Certain tourist locations and tourists, therefore, have beenfound to be vulnerable to crime. Tourists, thus, may be more proneto victimisation than the local populace (Harper, 2001). Tourists,regarded by criminals as ‘easy targets’ or those that happen to be inthe wrong place at the wrong time, may become crime victims, andensuing media attention may have an adverse affect on prospectivetravellers’ perceptions and ultimately on visitor numbers to suchdestinations. In addition, their unfamiliarity with the area and localsmakes it easier for the perpetrator to escape and more difficult forvictims to identify their attacker (Harper, 2001). The changingdemographics of tourists resulting in an older and some believe,more vulnerable traveller, may also contribute to an increase in crimerates (Olsen & Pizam, 1998: 2). As Ryan (1993: 176) has so aptlyobserved, ‘tourism is often the provider of victims’. The main themeof these studies, therefore, has been to examine crime against touristsimpacting certain tourist locations and tourist demand to thosedestinations. However, it can be assumed that the probability ofa tourist being a crime victim is no greater than that of the localresidents of the area they are visiting. For instance, as Prideaux (1996:73) points out, ‘neither residents nor tourists are exempt from thepossibility of becoming a crime victim’. Consequently, the likelihoodof visitors finding themselves victims of crime is determined byexisting levels of criminal activity in that area. In other words, thehigh rates of tourist victimisation occur at destinations that alsoexperience high crime rates of crime. This proposition is supportedby Schiebler, Crotts and Hollinger who stated that ‘crimes againsttourists are more likely to occur in those areas that already areexperiencing a disproportionately high level of crime’ (1996: 48).

R. George / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 806–815808

The study of tourist victimisation, however, remains a sensitivearea of research in many destinations due to the potential threat thatthat crime (and the reporting of) poses to future tourist arrivals.

Numerous theories drawn from the field of human ecologyhave been used to help explain why certain locations in touristdestinations appear to expose tourists to incidences of crime vic-timisation (Crotts, 1996). Two widely cited theories are the RoutineActivities Theory and the Hot Spots Theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979).The Routine Activities theory views criminal acts in the course oftheir everyday, routine activities such as work and leisure; crimi-nals need to satisfy themselves by taking something of value fromvictims (Cohen & Felson, 1979). The theory postulates that in orderfor a predatory crime to occur, three basic elements are required:a suitable victim or target, a motivated offender, and a relativeabsence of police and private security forces (or ‘guardianship’).Any one of these components missing is enough to prevent thecriminal act from occurring (Crotts, 1996: 4). The Hot Spots theoryexamines locations which provide convergent opportunities inwhich predatory crime can occur. Areas ranging from tourist resortsto transportation hubs may be considered by criminals as desirablelocations for conducting crime, whether against tourist or locals.The concept behind the two theories is that they provide a usefulway understanding how and where local communities exposetourists to the risk of criminal victimisation.

1.2. Perceptions of crime-safety and its effects on tourist revisitation

A research topic that is of particular relevance to this study is theimpact of victimisation and perceptions of crime on a tourist’s deci-sion to revisit a destination. Research has shown that perceptions ofcrime clearly alter the demand patterns of tourists and has a seriousimpact on tourist behaviour. Barker, Page, and Meyer (2003) proposethat tourist perceptions of fear of crime and threat to personal safetyare just as important as the issue of tourist victimisation in terms ofassessing their impact on tourist behaviour. Destinations perceived tohave high crime rates are likely to negatively affect its image, detervisitors, reduce the desire to revisit, and spread negative word-of-mouth recommendations.

Sonmez and Graefe (1998) found that past international travelexperience of US travellers is likely to affect their perceptions ofsafety-risk, and in turn affecting their future travel behaviour. Theyfound that those respondents that had gained international travelexperience were more likely to compare their perceptions withreality than those respondents who lacked travel experience. Theresearchers concluded that it is a traveller’s perceptions that are ofmore detriment to travel decision-making than actual safety and riskat a particular destination. Sonmez and Graefe (1998), however,examined this relationship in the context of perceived terrorism risk.

Mawby, Brunt, and Hambly (2000) conducted an investigationon a sample of UK holiday-makers – victims and non-victims inrelation to destination revisitation. The researchers found that 56%of tourists who were victims and 55% of non-victims indicated thatthey would definitely return to the destination affected. Thus, inMawby et al’s. (2000) study, victimisation does not appear to havea major influence on a tourist’s decision to return to a destination.

George (2003) investigated tourists’ perceptions of crime-safetywhilst visiting Cape Town, South Africa. George found that littlemore than half (54%) of visitors who claimed that they would likelyreturn to Cape Town even though they had encountered a criminalincident or felt that their life was in danger during their stay. Notsurprisingly, the study showed that there was a negative associa-tion between having been a victim of crime or feeling unsafe andthe likelihood of return. In addition, the study found that purposeof the respondents’ visit was a significant factor in their perceptionof crime-safety. Respondents who were travelling on holiday and

visiting friends and relatives were less likely to return than werebusiness tourists.

Holcomb and Pizam (2006) found that personal theft or knowingsomeone that has been a victim of theft while on a trip, did not affectthe likelihood of visiting a destination where the theft occurred.Notably, the manner in which the crime report was handled byauthorities was found to be the only factor to have a statistical effecton the likelihood to travel to the affected destination. Holcomband Pizam’s study revealed that over 41% of the respondents gavea negative evaluation to the manner in which authorities handledthe crime report. Holcomb and Pizam’s results support those ofMawby et al. (2000) and George (2003) who found that tourists whoexperience personal theft or knowing someone who has had suchan experience would still return to the afflicted destination.

1.3. Perceived tourist risk

Consumer decisions are frequently made under a certain level ofrisk (Blackwell, Miniard, & Engel, 2006: 123). This element of riskbecomes more evident during the decision-making in services suchas tourism. Risky decisions are defined as ‘choices among alternativesthat can be described by probability distributions over possibleoutcomes’ (Weber & Bottom, 1989). In addition, at least one of thepossible outcomes must be undesirable (or at least less desirable thanthe others) for risk to exist. Perceived risk refers to the individual’sperceptions of the uncertainty and negative consequences of buyinga product or service (Dowling & Staelin, 1994), performing a certainactivity, or choosing a certain lifestyle (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005). Itis logical to assume that prospective tourists will compare destina-tion alternatives according to perceived benefits and costs. Thesecosts may be monetary (for instance getting to the destination,accommodation, travel insurance, and so on), physical distance, timecosts, and risk associated with the journey such as accident, sickness,or crime. Tourists, as with other consumers, would be interested inminimising any risk, thus helping them to maximise the quality oftheir travel experience (Fodness & Murray, 1998).

To certain groups of individuals, ‘safety’ or ‘feeling safe’ areimportant factors that affect destination selection. Dowling andStaelin (1994) acknowledged that the consumer involvement withthe purchase decision influences the individual’s perception of risk.Tourism activity is considered a high involvement purchase decision.There are numerous risks and uncertainties associated with travel.For example, the ‘outcome of a decision’ such as the risk of choosingthe wrong destination and the ‘consequences of a decision’ includingconsuming valuable time and money; health and danger risks;dissatisfaction as a result of the quality of services at the destinationnot living up to expectations. According to Moutinho (1987), thedegree of risk may vary with the costs involved in a decision and thedegree of uncertainty that the decision will lead to satisfaction. Cookand McCleary (1983) identified time, budget, and physical distance asconstraints prospective tourists take into account when evaluatingdestinations. Similarly, van Raaij and Francken (1984) suggested thattravel decisions are likely to be made based on weighing constraintsagainst economic situations. van Raaij and Francken (1984) notedthat tourists might choose less expensive options or decide to aborttravel plans during economic hardship. Crompton (1977) addedthat tourists make a destination decision after time and moneyconstraints have been measured against destination image. Touristswhen choosing where to holiday, therefore, weigh up the perceivedcosts and benefits associated with destination alternatives.

Five major risk factors in terms of tourism safety have beenidentified in previous research studies, namely: terrorism (Aziz,1995), war and political instability (Gartner & Shen, 1992), healthconcerns/spread of disease (Carter, 1998), natural disasters (Faulk-ner & Vikulov, 2001), and crime (Pizam & Mansfeld, 1996). It would

R. George / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 806–815 809

therefore be reasonable to assume that tourists are just as likely tomake destination decisions based on perceived risk from variousthreats such as high crime rates at a destination. For instance, ifa holiday destination is perceived as too high a crime-risk,consumers then may make alternative decisions.

In a study of travel and risk, Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992)identified seven types of risk associated with travel decisions.These risks included equipment, financial, physical, psychological,satisfaction, social, and time risks. The researchers found that socialrisk did not appear to be related to the perceptions of risk associ-ated with leisure travel. Roehl and Fesenmaier found that it waspossible to identify differences among tourists in their perceptionsof risk with some tourists more risk averse than others .Theresearchers further classified respondents into three types of risk-taking tourists: risk neutral, functional risk, and place risk. Mostrelevant to this study is place risk, which refers to tourists whodevelop a risk perception based on the risk factors related to thedestination and its political, social and/or security situation. Roehland Fesenmaier (1992) found that those respondents perceivingthe most risk were least likely to have relied on informationsources. This finding, they noted, contrasts with consumer behav-iour literature where information search is typically used as a riskreduction strategy (for example, Dowling & Staelin, 1994; Roselius,1971). Furthermore, this discovery is inconsistent with severaltourism researchers who all noted that sources of information actas risk minimisers or ‘decision reinforcers’ (Um & Crompton, 1990;Witt & Moutinho, 1989).

Nevertheless, several researchers noted a positive relationshipbetween past travel experience and future travel intentions (Chen &Gursoy, 2001; Goodrich, 1978; Mazursky, 1989; Perdue, 1985;Sonmez & Graefe, 1998). In particular, Chen and Gursoy (2001)found conclusively that lessons learned from past-trip experiencesshould induce tourists to perceive less risk and feel safer whentravelling to new destinations. Further, Mazursky (1989) suggestedthat future travel is influenced not only by the extent but by thenature of previous travel experience as well. Mazursky suggestedthat personal travel experience may be more of an influence thaninformation acquired from external sources.

Besides types of risk and individual past travel experience,tourists’ perceptions of risk may vary according to factors such asan individual’s age, gender, nationality, personality type, travelarrangements, culture, motivation, and tourist role (Lepp & Gibson,2003; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005, 2006). Gibson and Yiannakis(2002), in their study of tourist role preference over a life period,found that preference for risk-related tourism tended to decreasewith age. In terms of gender and its influence on perceptions of riskin tourism, the literature is inconsistent. Gibson and Jordan (1998)reported that females and more susceptible to risk than men.Likewise, other researchers noted that preference for risk intourism differs according to gender (Carr, 2001; Kinnaird & Hall,1996; Kozak, Crotts, & Law, 2007). However, Sonmez and Graefe(1998) did not find gender to influence an individual’s perceptionsof terrorism risk. Similarly, Lepp and Gibson (2003) in their studyof US students’ perceptions of risk associated with internationaltourism did not find gender to affect perceptions of crime-risk.Research has found that an individual’s perceptions of risk associ-ated with international tourism also vary according to nationality.As Richardson and Crompton (1988) noted, travellers of differentnationalities may perceive the same risk differently. For instance,Barker et al. (2003) found that international tourists attending the2000 America’s Cup in Auckland, New Zealand, placed a higherimportance in demands for safety than domestic tourists. Seddighi,Nuttall, and Theocharous (2001) also reported that travel agents’perceptions of risk are influenced by nationality. Fuchs and Reichel(2004) in their study of tourists to Israel found that quality and level

of perceived risk as well as risk reduction strategies vary accordingto cultural background and nationality. Reisinger and Mavondo(2006) revealed significant differences in travel risk and safetyperceptions among tourists from different cultures. For instance theresearchers found that U.S. and Australian tourists are more likelyto perceive travel as opposed to British, Greek and Canadian tour-ists. Tourism safety research by George (2003) and Barker et al.(2003) revealed that differences in length of stay at the destinationaffect the exposure to risk and need to be considered in anyinterpretation of relative levels of crime-risk faced by tourists.Lepp and Gibson (2003) found that perception of risk associatedwith international tourism varies depending on the tourist roleand tourists’ preferences for familiarity or novelty. Their study,however, did not find that tourists seeking familiarity perceivedhigher levels of crime-related risk than those seeking novelty.

In summary, the literature on tourist risk perceptions suggeststhat to understand the perception of crime-safety and risk associ-ated with tourism, individual factors such as past travel experience,personality, age, gender, culture, and nationality should be takeninto account.

1.4. Purpose of the study

This study has three main objectives. The first objective aims totest various causal links between tourist perceptions of crime-safety and their intentions to revisit and recommend TMNP. Thesecond objective is to determine whether visitor attitudes towardsrisk moderate these direct relationships. The third objective is toidentify individual factors which may significantly influence visitorperceptions of crime-safety.

2. Methodology

2.1. Sample

The sample consisted of a total of 303 respondents interviewedduring their visit to TMNP. The survey was undertaken from mid-June to mid-July 2008, during Cape Town’s winter season. Visitors toTMNP were interviewed at six strategically chosen points: SignalHill, Kirstenbosch Gardens, Lion’s Head, Newlands Forrest, CeceliaForrest, and Table Mountain Cableway. The map in Fig.1 shows thesesix sites. These locations were chosen as it was felt that the majorityof visitors visiting TMNP would congregate at one or more of thesepoints and would therefore provide a reasonable representation ofthe target survey population. Respondents were specifically inter-viewed as they were exiting the various TMNP sites so as to ensurethat they had some experience upon which to form perceptions ofsafety and security in the park.

2.2. Research instrument

The research instrument used a self-administered, two-pagestructured questionnaire. The first set of questions in the surveyemployed ordinal scales. Respondents were asked about the natureof their visit to TMNP: how many times they had visited TMNP, whothey were visiting with, reasons for visiting the Park and how awarewere they of incidences of crime in TMNP.

Subsequently, respondents were asked whether or not theywere aware of any incidences of crime or had previously encoun-tered crime in TMNP. If they answered ‘yes’ to indicate awareness ofcriminal incidence, they were asked to specify where they hadobtained information about the incident (TV, magazines, newspa-pers; friends and/or family; other tourists; tourist guides; traveladvisory website, or other). If they answered ‘yes’ to indicate having

Fig. 1. Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) within the Cape Peninsula, Western Cape.

R. George / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 806–815810

Table 1Profiles of TMNP crime victims.

Incidents Nature of crime Nationality Gender Age No. of prev. visits

1 Mugging RSA Male 24 6–102 Theft (from parked car) RSA Male 41 10þ3 Mugging RSA Female 18 2–54 Mugging RSA Male 23 10þ5 Mugging RSA Female 22 10þ6 Mugging RSA Female 30 10þ7 Mugging Other African Male 32 18 Theft (from parked car) RSA Female 23 19 Mugging RSA Female 34 110 Mugging RSA Female 58 10þ

R. George / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 806–815 811

personally experienced crime in TMNP, respondents were asked tospecify the type of crime that they had experienced.

Respondents were then asked, using five-point Likert scale, howsafe they thought Cape Town and TMNP to be, how risky they thoughttheir visit to TMNP was, how willing they were to recommend TMNPand whether or not they would return to TMNP. In addition, this partof the questionnaire classified respondents’ risk profiles.

The final part of the questionnaire included user questions relatingto respondent’s purpose of visit (i.e. holiday/leisure, visiting friendsand relatives or business trip) and demographic questions (i.e. gender,age and nationality). With the exception of one open-ended questionthat asked about the type of crime experienced, all other questionswere closed-questions. The survey questions were tested in a pilotstudy carried out with respondents who had visited TMNP.

For this study an attempt was made to test causal relationshipsbetween crime-safety perceptions and revisitation and likelihoodto recommend TMNP as well as the moderating influence of atti-tudes towards risk on these direct relations. Prior to conductinglinear regression analyses, reliability and validity were assessed onthe two main constructs (visitor perceptions of TMNP and visitorattitudes towards crime-safety). Summated scales were createdby summing the scores on individual items and dividing by thenumber of items in the scale.

Finally, tests of one-way ANOVA were carried out to testwhether various individual factors such as age, gender, purpose ofvisit, and frequency of visit influenced respondents’ crime-safetyperceptions. The main focus was to determine the main effects ofthese individual factors.

3. Findings and discussion

3.1. Demographic characteristics

Of a total sample 303 respondents, 52% (157) were male and 48%(146) were female. A large majority of respondents (69%) were underthe age of 44. Most visitors (43%) were South Africans, 23% were fromthe UK, 8% were from the USA, 5% from Germany, and 4% from theNetherlands. A high ratio of local to overseas visitors was expectedgiven that the research survey was carried out during the monthsof June and July, in the middle of the Cape’s winter season.The composite of international visitors are consistent with SA Tour-ism’s – the country’s national tourism organisation – main targetoverseas markets (UK, Germany, the USA and the Netherlands)(SA South African Tourism, 2008).

Table 2Cross-tabulation of ‘heard of crime’ for each nationality group.

Heard of Crime SA UK Germany Netherlands Other Euro

Yes 106 22 6 4 10No 24 47 10 9 13Total 131 69 16 13 23

3.2. Frequency of visits

Nearly half of the study respondents (46%) were first-time visitorsto TMNP, while 22% of respondents had previously visited the Parkbetween two and five times. Interestingly, over a quarter of respon-dents (25.7%) had visited TMNP on 10 or more occasions. It can beassumed that many of these respondents were local ‘Capetonians’and thus possess a fair amount of experience in visiting the Park.

3.3. Size of travelling party

A majority of respondents (95%) were visiting TMNP with otherpeople; only 5% were visiting alone. Of those who were visitingTMNP with others, 40% of respondents were accompanied withfamily members, 45% with friends, while 18% were part of a tourgroup. As far as reason for visiting TMNP is concerned, 33% ofrespondents were visiting to hike, 11% to picnic, 30% to use thecable-car, and 39% for site-seeing.

3.4. Experiences of crime incidents

With regards to incidents of crime, over half of respondents(55%) had heard about crime in TMNP. Of these respondents, overone-third of respondents (36%) had heard about crime incidents inTMNP from the media (TV/newspapers), 27% from friends andrelatives, while 7% had heard about crime from other visitors.

Of the total sample, 10 were found to have personally experi-enced crime (either mugging or theft of belongings) on a previousvisit to the Park. All but one of the respondents who had previouslyexperienced crime in TMNP was South Africans. This finding isconsistent with South African Police Services’ (SAPS) statisticswhich indicate that 70% of crime victims in TMNP are local visitors(TMNP, 2008). In general, most of these victims had visited TMNPon numerous occasions (five victims had visited TMNP more than10 times); thus increasing their likelihood of falling victim to crime(see Table 1).

3.5. Awareness of crime

Table 2 shows the cross-tabulation of nationality of respondentsand whether they had heard about crime in TMNP. Results suggestthat South African visitors were far more likely to heave heardabout crime in TMNP than overseas visitors. Indeed, 81% of SouthAfrican visitors had heard about the problem of crime in TMNP.

N. America S. America Aus Asia Other Africa Total

8 2 3 3 2 16623 4 1 3 2 13731 6 4 6 4 303

Table 3Summary of reliability and validity scores.

Constructs and indicatorsa ab ric rc

d rve lf t-value

Visitor perceptions of TMNP .76 .69 .31TMNP is unsafe* .42 .53 8.76I might fall victim to crime .50 .55 9.00TMNP is just an unsafe as other attractions* .46 .60 10.05People have told me that TMNP is dangerous .56 .64 10.95I felt worried about my personal safety .58 .66 11.32I will tell other people to be careful of crime in TMNP .54 .59 9.92

Visitor attitudes towards risk .70 .70 .38I like to take risks* .49 .62 9.79I live life on the edge .52 .67 10.51I like to take chances* .40 .47 7.24I like to gamble on things .51 .67 10.46

*This indicator is reversed before it is included in the calculations.a Measures were collated in the form of a five-point Likert scale.b Cronbach alphas are reported.c Average inter-item correlations are reported.d Composite reliabilities are reported.e Average Variances Extracted are reported.f Factor loadings from completely standardised solution are reported.

R. George / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 806–815812

This finding is not entirely surprising given that a number of crimeincidents in TMNP have been reported in the local media over thelast several years.

3.6. Visitor perceptions of crime-safety in TMNP

Cronbach alpha and composite reliability of two main constructsvisitor perceptions of TMNP is unsafe and visitor attitudes towardsrisk were at acceptable levels (a and rc � .69). Individual itemsmeasuring each construct had item-to-total correlations well above.40; suggestive of internal consistency. Completely standardisedsolutions of the items loaded �.50 on their factors, and thussuggestive of convergent validity (see Table 3). However, the AVE ofthe two constructs were below the reasonable threshold of .50;therefore, items designed for visitors perceptions of TMNP is unsafeand visitors attitudes towards risk are relatively weak indicators ofthe two factors and cannot capture the necessary variance. Addi-tionally, Table 4 demonstrates that both measurement models hadexcellent model fit.

Univariate statistics also demonstrate on average that visitors donot feel that Cape Town is an unsafe city (refer to Table 5). Overall,the majority of respondents agreed that TMNP was a safe desti-nation; over 70% of respondents agreeing to this statement andonly 13.5% disagreeing (question 9 in survey). Likewise, mostvisitors agreed that they would recommend and return to TMNP.

Respondents who visited TMNP frequently were more likely toinform other people to be careful of crime in the Park (see fromTable 6). In addition, as the number of respondents’ visits to TMNPincreased, their perceptions of an unsafe environment (both the cityof Cape Town and TMNP) increased. Furthermore, the morefrequently respondents visited the Park, the more they felt they werelikely to be a victim of crime. This finding may well be attributed tovisitors being made aware of crime in TMNP and exposure to variouscrime-safety initiatives such as signage and Visitor Safety Officers(VSOs) on patrol in the Park.

Table 4Confirmatory factor analysis: summary of model fit indices.

c2 d.f. p-va

Visitor perceptions of TMNP (unsafe)Hypothesised 6-factor 1st order model 25.35 9 .003

Visitor attitudes towards riskHypothesised 4-factor 1st order model 2.47 2 .29

Respondents’ perceptions of crime-safety can also be explainedby respondents’ age, nationality, and purpose of visit. The test forANOVA found that age influences visitors perceptions of TMNPbeing dangerous (F ¼ 2.08). Thus, as respondents’ age increased(up to 55 years) they were more likely to have felt worried abouttheir personal safety. This is consistent with Gibson and Yiannakis(2002) who reported that preference for risk in tourism decreaseswith age.

Respondents from North America, South Africa and the UKfeared for their personal safety in TMNP more than those visitorsfrom Germany and Holland. This supports Reisinger and Mavondo(2006) finding that international tourists’ perceptions of safety varyamong tourist from different cultures. South Africans (domestictourists) were also more likely to inform other people about crimein TMNP. Most South African respondents (82%) had heard aboutcrime in TMNP and therefore likely to warn others about the safetyconcerns.

Respondents visiting Cape Town for visiting friends and relatives(VFR) reasons were more likely to feel unsafe in both Cape Town andin TMNP than those visitors on business and those on holiday. Inaddition, VFR visitors were more likely to feel that they would bea crime victim in TMNP than those visitors on business or those onholiday. This is consistent with George’s (2003) finding that purposeof visit is an important factor in visitors’ perceptions of crime-safety.These findings might be explained by the fact that friends andrelatives were more aware of crime issues in TMNP and in turn likelyto have warned their visitors. In addition, as stated earlier, almosta third of visitors (27%) had heard about incidents of crime in TMNPfrom friends and relatives. Business and holiday tourists may haveless likely to have been informed (from the media, tourism busi-nesses) about crime-safety issues in TMNP, and therefore may wellbe less fearful of crime in TMNP than VFR travellers.

Gender did not appear to be a significant demographic factoraffecting visitors’ perceptions of crime-safety in TMNP. This findingis consistent with other tourism research that did not find gender to

lue GFI RMSEA NNFI CFI ECVI

.97 .078 .96 .98 .16

1.00 .026 .99 1.00 .061

Table 5Univariate statistics for summated scales and single-item measures.

Scales and measures N Meana St. Dev.

Cape Town is an unsafe city 303 2.44 .994Visitor perceptions that TMNP is unsafe 303 2.58 .725Visitor attitudes towards risk 303 2.90 .780I plan to revisit TMNP in the future 303 4.34 .662I will recommend TMNP 303 4.47 .591l will not return to TMNP for fear of my safety 303 4.41 .549I will not recommend TMNP because it is not safe 303 4.44 .605

a Based on 1–5 scale where 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree.

R. George / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 806–815 813

influence an individual’s perception of risk. Notably, Sonmez andGraefe (1998) did not find gender to influence an individual’sperception of terrorism risk. Similarly, Lepp and Gibson (2003)reported that gender did not influence a tourist’s perception ofcrime-related risk, as did George (2003) who did not find gender tobe a factor affecting visitors’ perceptions of safety in Cape Town.

Furthermore, respondents who had heard of crime appeared tobe a significant factor affecting whether they would recommendTMNP to others or return to TMNP.

Linear regression analyses revealed that although visitorsperceived TMNP as unsafe, they are still likely to recommendedTMNP to others (b ¼ .20, t-value ¼ 3.62) (see Table 7). In addition,the results show that that although visitors in general perceivedTMNP to be unsafe, they are still likely to return to TMNP (b ¼ .22,t-value ¼ 3.69). Furthermore, ‘risk’ does appear to affect the rela-tionship between visitor perceptions of unsafety and their likeli-hood to recommend (b ¼ .03, t-value ¼ .12) and return to TMNP(b ¼ .29, t-value¼ 1.06). These results are supported by the findingsof Mawby et al. (2000), who in a survey of British tourists found that56% of victims and 55% on non-victims would definitely return tothe destination where the crime occurred. Similarly, George (2003)

Table 6One-way ANOVA results of variations of TMNP visitor perceptions of crime-safety.

Factors CT unsafe TMNPunsafea

Fall victim Unsafeattractiona

TMNPDanger

Fea

No. of visits F ¼ 4.52*** F ¼ 7.23*** F ¼ 8.94*** F ¼ 4.75*** F ¼ 6.04*** F ¼1 2.41 2.13 2.88 2.28 2.43 2.02–5 2.45 2.20 3.29 2.59 2.61 2.06–10 2.16 2.16 3.32 2.32 3.11 2.010� 2.55 2.65 3.33 2.72 3.08 2.3

Heard of crime F ¼ 2.57* F ¼ 6.55*** F ¼ 7.30*** F ¼ 4.48** F ¼ 4.70*** F ¼Yes 2.52 2.46 3.32 2.61 2.92 2.1No 2.34 2.07 2.86 2.28 2.38 2.0

Gender F ¼ 1.94 F ¼ .78 F ¼ .37 F ¼ 1.03 1.57 F ¼Male 2.46 2.29 3.08 2.51 2.82 2.1Female 2.41 2.27 3.15 2.41 2.52 2.0

Nationality F ¼ 1.08 F ¼ 1.75 F ¼ .98 F ¼ .47 F ¼ .54 F ¼SA 2.43 2.40 3.24 2.65 2.87 2.1UK 2.25 2.10 2.99 2.20 2.33 2.1Germany 2.19 2.38 2.94 2.56 2.69 1.6Netherlands 2.38 2.15 2.92 2.69 2.46 1.9USA 2.50 2.23 3.04 2.35 2.92 2.1

Age F ¼ 1.19 F ¼ 1.80 F ¼ 1.02 F ¼ .95 F ¼ 2.08* F ¼<24 2.58 2.22 3.19 2.54 2.79 2.025–34 2.40 2.27 2.99 2.43 2.67 2.035–44 2.31 2.41 3.22 2.47 2.84 2.245–54 2.33 2.12 3.14 2.61 2.73 2.955 � 2.35 2.41 2.82 2.24 1.97 1.8

Purpose of visit F ¼ 5.62*** F ¼ 3.36** F ¼ 3.16* F ¼ 1.87 F ¼ 2.13* F ¼Holiday 2.32 2.10 2.94 2.27 2.43 1.9VFR 2.74 2.42 3.26 2.76 2.86 2.4Business 2.36 2.27 3.16 2.39 2.89 2.1

*p < .10; **p < .01; ***p < .001.a Reverse coded item.

found that 54% of visitors to Cape Town claimed that they wouldvery likely return to even though they had encountered and incidentor felt that that their life was in danger during their stay in the city.

4. Conclusion and recommendations

There is a wealth of literature on the association betweenperceived risk and tourist decision-making and behaviour. However,previous research has not addressed crime-safety perceptions andrisk attitudes in a particular sector (i.e. visitor attractions sector) ofthe tourism industry. More specifically, existing research has notexamined the influence of tourist perceptions towards crime-safetyand intentions to revisit and recommend a specific visitor attraction.This study tested these causal links within a tourist attraction anddetermined whether risk attitudes influence these causal relation-ships. Finally, the study assessed which individual factors influencecrime-safety of visitors and attitudes towards risk.

According to this study’s results, regardless of whether touristsperceived TMNP to be an unsafe environment, they are still willingto revisit and recommend the attraction. Since most respondentswere domestic visitors, this finding could be attributed to public

r safety Tell otherscrime

Not rtnTMNPa

Not recTMNPa

Not rtn TMNPfear safety

Not rec TMNPfear safety

5.33*** F ¼ 10.49*** F ¼ 16.71*** F ¼ 4.22** F ¼ 9.00*** F ¼ 1.716 2.51 4.04 4.30 4.30 4.270 2.79 4.52 4.67 4.45 4.360 3.21 4.68 4.58 4.37 4.371 3.49 4.67 4.59 4.68 4.40

1.18 F ¼ 12.05*** F ¼ 12.63*** F ¼ 3.04* F ¼ 8.11*** F ¼ 2.97*6 3.25 4.55 4.54 4.52 4.385 2.41 4.09 4.39 4.33 4.27

.56 F ¼ 1.95* F ¼ 1.06 F ¼ 1.48 F ¼ 1.78 F ¼ 1.079 3.04 4.35 4.52 4.46 4.372 2.68 4.34 4.42 4.40 4.29

2.41* F ¼ 1.90 9.86*** 11.18*** 4.39** 3.75**5 3.05 4.65 4.58 4.49 4.393 2.87 4.16 4.42 4.45 4.389 2.75 4.12 4.63 4.62 4.312 2.85 3.85 3.92 4.31 4.005 2.62 4.12 4.54 4.42 4.46

.31 F ¼ .80 F ¼ .73 F ¼ 1.37 F ¼ 3.12* F ¼ .855 2.91 4.35 4.47 4.47 4.321 2.45 4.41 4.51 4.43 4.276 3.29 4.29 4.45 4.47 4.530 2.90 4.27 4.45 4.39 4.188 2.85 4.26 4.44 4.32 4.47

1.66 F ¼ 3.63** F ¼ 9.04*** F ¼ 3.76* F ¼ 4.13** F ¼ 1.166 2.58 4.12 4.35 4.38 4.372 3.08 4.44 4.52 4.24 4.248 3.00 4.48 4.61 4.50 4.27

Table 7Summary of regression effects: linear and moderated regression models.

Independent variable (Reference level stated first) Dependent variable: Likelihood of recommending TMNP to others for of safety

ba t-value b t-value bb t-value

Visitor perceptions of TMNP is unsafe .20 3.62** .17 .80(NS)Moderator: Visitor attitudes towards risk .03 .12(NS)F-statistic 13.07* 4.55**Degrees of freedom 301,1 299,3R2 .01 .04

Dependent variable: Likelihood of returning TMNP for fear of safetyba t-value b t-value Interaction effect t-value

Visitor perceptions of TMNP is unsafe .22 3.90*** .01 .06(NS)Moderator: Visitor attitudes towards risk .29 1.06(NS)F-statistic 15.17*** 6.96***Degrees of freedom 301,2 299,3R2 .00 .01

*p < .10; **p < .01; ***p < .001, NS ¼ non-significant.a Standardised regression coefficient is reported.b Unstandardised regression coefficients are reported.

R. George / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 806–815814

attitudes of patriotism and a sense of national pride in their city’siconic tourist attraction. This finding could also be indicative ofa host population that is well adjusted to living in a society witha high crime rate. These results are consistent with those studiescarried out by George (2003) and Mawby et al. (2000) which foundthat tourists were still likely to return to the affected destinations.

In addition, respondents’ attitudes towards risk do not appearto influence the link between crime-safety and their intentionsto revisit or recommend TMNP. This non-significant finding may beexplained by the fact that most respondents were South Africanswho are perhaps more willing to tolerate higher risk than othernationalities. This is supported by Hofstede’s (2005: 168–169)widely cited work on national culture, which found that individualsfrom low uncertainty avoidance (UA) cultures (risk-tolerant) – suchas South Africa – are generally more comfortable with situationsinvolving risk than high UA cultures (risk-avoiding).

This study results indicate that a number of individual factorsinfluence perception of travel crime-safety and risk. It found thatage, nationality, frequency of visits, and purpose of visit influencedtourist perceptions of crime-safety in TMNP. In particular, domestictourists and international tourists’ have different perceptions ofcrime-safety. Local visitors generally have lower perceptions ofcrime-safety and possess greater awareness of incidents of crime inTMNP than overseas visitors. Potential TMNP visitors could there-fore be segmented according to purpose of visit and nationality;and then targeted to ensure that safety communications andmessages are tailored towards these different users. Such targetedsafety messages may then encourage a change of visitor behaviour.

Although difficult to entirely prevent criminal activity in TMNP,management should continue to prepare itself for the occurrence ofsuch incidents through crisis planning, and collaboration betweenstakeholders, citizens and visitors. A unified effort and involvementof all stakeholders is required to combat crime against local andinternational visitors. In particular, cooperation with the privatesector tourism industry responsible for informing visitors concern-ing safety and security is paramount. Additional resources may berequired to protect visitors and provide a safe memorable experiencefor visitors to TMNP.

In terms of future tourism-crime research, the study could berepeated during the peak season in TMNP to ascertain if a seasonalcomponent changes crime-safety perceptions across differentnationalities. Further work is called for to determine the level ofawareness of current safety initiatives in TMNP and whether or notthese initiatives are effective in altering visitors’ perceptions ofsafety and security. Another study could be carried out to assess the

impact of physical risk perception – the risk of being physicallyinjured due to accident – on visitor decision-making and behaviourat TMNP.

The study could also be replicated at other visitor attractions indestinations perceived to have high crime rates in order to gaininsight into the effects of perceived risk crime on visitation and visitorbehaviour. Differences in crime-safety perceptions in other sectors ofthe tourism industry (i.e. accommodation, transportation, etc) couldalso be examined to build a more comprehensive picture of thedifferences among these sectors as perceived by tourists of differentnationalities. Finally, further research might consider analysing thedifferences in crime-safety and risk perceptions and intentions totravel, on respondents of at different education levels and occupa-tions and at various stages of the life-cycle.

References

de Albuquerque, K., & McElroy, J. L. (1999). Tourism and crime in the Caribbean.Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 968–984.

Allen, J. (1999). Crime against international tourists. Contemporary Issues in Crimeand Justice, 43.

Alleyne, D., & Boxill, I. (2003). The impact of crime on tourist arrivals in Jamaica.International Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 381–391.

Altbeker, A. (March 2005). Is South Africa really the world’s crime capital? Institutefor Security Studies. SA Crime Quarterly, No. 1. 1–8.

Aziz, H. (1995). Understanding attacks on tourists in Egypt. Tourism Management, 16,91–95.

Barker, M., Page, S. J., & Meyer, D. (2003). Urban visitor perceptions of safety duringa special event. Journal of Travel Research, 41(4), 355–361.

Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2006). Consumer behaviour (10th ed.).Cincinnati, Ohio: South Western.

Bloom, J. (1996). A South Africa perspective of the effects of crime and violence onthe tourism industry. In A. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Tourism, crime andinternational security issues (pp. 91–102). Chichester: Wiley & Sons.

Carr, N. (2001). An exploratory study of gendered differences in young tourists’perceptions of danger within London. Tourism Management, 22(5), 565–570.

Carter, S. (1998). Tourists and traveller’s social construction of Africa and Asia asrisky locations. Tourism Management, 19, 349–358.

Cavlek, N. (2002). Tour operators and destination safety. Annals of Tourism Research,29(2), 478–496.

Chen, J. S., & Gursoy, D. (2001). An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty andpreferences. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,13(2), 79–85.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Lind, I. Y. (1986). Visitors as victims: crimes against tourists inHawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13(2), 167–191.

Chesney-Lind, M., Lind, I. Y., & Schaafsma, H. (1983). Salient factors in Hawaii’s crimerate. University of Hawaii-Manoa, Youth Development and Research Center.Report No. 286.

Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routineactivity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

Cook, R. L., & McCleary, K. W. (1983). Redefining vacation distances in consumerminds. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 31–34.

R. George / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 806–815 815

Crompton, J. L. (1977). A systems model of the tourist’s destination selection processwith particular reference to the role of image and perceived constraints.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University.

Crotts, J. C. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on tourist criminal victimization.Journal of Tourism Studies, 7(1), 2–9.

Demos, E. (1992). Concern for safety: a potential problem in the tourist industry.Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 1(1), 81–88.

Departmental of Environmental Affairs & Tourism. (2007). National tourism safetyhandbook. Pretoria: DEAT.

Dimanche, F., & Lepetic, A. (August 1999). New Orleans tourism and crime: a casestudy. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 19–23.

Dowling, G., & Staelin, R. (June 1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 119–134.

Elliot, L., & Ryan, C. (1993). The impact of crime on Corsican tourism: a descriptiveassessment. World Travel and Tourism Review, 3, 287–293.

Faulkner, B., & Vikulov, S. (2001). Katherine, washed out one day, back on trackthe next: a post-mortem of a tourism disaster. Tourism Management, 22, 331–344.

Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1998). A typology of tourist information search strategies.Journal of Travel Research, 37, 108–119.

Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2004). Cultural differences in tourist destination riskperception: an explanatory study. Tourism, 52(4), 7–20.

Fujii, E. T., & Mak, J. (1979). The impact of alternative regional development strat-egies on crime rates: tourism vs. agriculture in Hawaii. Annals of RegionalScience, 13(3), 42–56.

Fujii, E. T., & Mak, J. (1980). Tourism and crime: implications for regional devel-opment policy. Regional Studies, 14(1), 27–36.

Fukunaga, L. (1975). A new sun in Kohala: the socio-economic impact of tourismand resort development on a rural community in Hawaii. In W. Finney, &F. Watson (Eds.), A new kind of sugar: Tourism in the Pacific. Honolulu: East WestCenter.

Gartner, W., & Shen, J. (1992). The impact of Tiananmen square on China’s tourismimage. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 47–52.

George, R. (October 2003). Tourists’ perceptions of safety and security while visitingCape Town. Tourism Management, 24, 575–585.

Gibson, H., & Jordan, F. (1998). Travelling solo: a cross-cultural study of British andAmerican women aged 30–50. Paper presented at the Fourth InternationalConference of the Leisure Studies Association, Leeds, U.K.

Gibson, H., & Yiannakis, A. (2002). Tourist roles: needs and the adult life course.Annals of Tourism Research, 2, 358–383.

Goodrich, J. N. (1978). The relationship between preferences for and perceptions ofvacation destinations: application of a choice model. Journal of Travel Research,17(3), 44–46.

Harper, D. W. (2001). Comparing tourists crime victimisation; Research notes.Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 1053–1056.

Hofstede, G. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Holcomb, J., & Pizam, A. (2006). Do incidents of theft at tourist destinations havea negative effect on tourists’ decisions to travel to affected destinations? InY. Mansfeld, & A. Pizam (Eds.), Tourism, security and safety: From theory topractice (pp. 105–124) Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Jud, G. (1975). Tourism and crime in Mexico. Social Sciences, 56, 324–330.Kelly, I. (1993). Tourist destination crime rates: an examination of Cairns and the

Gold Coast, Australia. Journal of Tourism Studies, 4(2), 2–11.Kinnaird, V., & Hall, D. (1996). Understanding tourism processes: a gender aware-

ness framework. Tourism Management, 17, 95–102.Kozak, M., Crotts, J. C., & Law, R. (2007). The impact of the perception of risk on

international travellers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9, 233–242.Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism.

Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 606–624.Levantis, T., & Gani, A. (2000). Tourism demand and the nuisance of crime. Inter-

national Journal of Social Economics, 27(7/8/9/10), 959–967.Lin, V. L., & Loeb, P. D. (1977). Tourism and crime in Mexico: some comments. Social

Science Quarterly, 58, 164–167.Loeb, P. D., & Lin, V. L. (1981). The economics of tourism and crime: a specific error

approach. Resource Management and Optimization, 1(4), 315–331.McPheters, L. R., & Stronge, W. B. (1974). Crimes as an environment externality of

tourism: Miami, Florida. Land Economics, 50(3), 288–292.Mansfeld, Y., & Pizam, A. (Eds.). (2006). Tourism, security and safety: From theory to

practice. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts.

Singapore: Longman.

Mawby, R. I., Brunt, P., & Hambly, Z. (2000). Fear of crime among British holiday-makers. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 468–479.

Mazursky, D. (1989). Past experience and future tourism decisions. Annals ofTourism Research, 16, 333–344.

Michalko, G. (2003). Tourism eclipsed by crime: the vulnerability of foreign touristsin Hungary. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(2/3), 159–172.

Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of Marketing,21(10), 1–44.

Nicholls, L. L. (1976). Tourism and crime. Annals of Tourism Research, 3(4), 176–182.Olsen, M. D., & Pizam, A. (1998). Think-tank findings on safety and security (Orlando,

USA). Paris: International Hotel and Restaurant Association.Pelfrey, W. V. (1998). Tourism and crime: a preliminary assessment of the rela-

tionship of crime to the number of visitors at selected sites. International Journalof Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 22(2), 293–304.

Perdue, R. R. (Spring 1985). Segmenting state information inquirers by timing ofdestination decision and previous experience. Journal of Travel Research, 23, 6–11.

Pinhey, T. K., & Iverson, T. J. (1994). Safety concerns of Japanese visitors to Guam.Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 3(2), 87–94.

Pizam, A. (1982). Tourism and crime: is there a relationship? Journal of TravelResearch, 20(3), 7–10.

Pizam, A., & Mansfeld, Y. (1996). Introduction. In A. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.),Tourism, crime and international security issues (pp. 1–7). Chichester: John Wiley& Sons.

Prideaux, B. (1996). The tourism crime cycle: a beach destination case study. InA. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Tourism, crime and international security issues(pp. 59–77). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Prideaux, B., & Dunn, A. (1995). Tourism and crime: how can the tourism industryrespond? The Gold Coast experience. Australian Journal of Hospitality Manage-ment, 2(1), 7–15.

van Raaij, W. F., & Francken, D. A. (1984). Vacation decisions, activities, and satis-factions. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 101–112.

Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2005). Travel anxiety and intentions to travel inter-nationally: implications of travel risk perceptions. Journal of Travel Research,43(3), 212–225.

Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2006). Cultural differences in travel risk perception.Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 20(1), 13–31.

Richardson, S., & Crompton, J. (1988). Vacation patterns of French and EnglishCanadians. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3), 430–545.

Richter, L. K., & Waugh, W. L. (1986). Terrorism & tourism as logical companions.Tourism Management, 7, 230–238.

Roehl, W. S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1992). Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: anexploratory analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 17–26.

Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal ofMarketing, 35, 56–61.

Ryan, C. (1993). Crime, violence, terrorism, and tourism: an accidental or intrinsicrelationship? Tourism Management, 14, 173–183.

Schiebler, S., Crotts, J. C., & Hollinger, R. (1996). Florida tourists’ vulnerability tocrime. In A. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Tourism, crime and international securityissues (pp. 37–50). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Seddighi, H., Nuttall, M., & Theocharous, A. (2001). Does cultural background oftourists influence the destination choice? An empirical study with specialreferences to political instability. Tourism Management, 22(2), 181–191.

Sonmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). International vacation decision and terrorismrisk. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 122–124.

South African National Parks. (2008). www.sanparks.org/parks Accessed February 2009.South African Tourism. (2008). The marketing tourism growth strategy for South

Africa 2008–2010. Johannesburg: South African Tourism.Strangeland, P. (1998). Other targets or other locations? British Journal of Crimi-

nology, 38, 61–77.Tarlow, P. (2000). Creating safe and secure communities in economically chal-

lenging times. Tourism Economics, 6(2), 139–149.Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination

choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 432–448.Urbanowicz, C. (1977). Integrating tourism with other industries in Tonga. In

B. H. Farrel (Ed.), The social and economic impact of tourism on pacific commu-nities. Santa Cruz: University of Santa Cruz.

Walker, L., & Page, S. J. (2007). The visitor experience of crime: the case of centralScotland. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(6), 505–542.

Weber, E. U., & Bottom, W. P. (1989). Axiomatic measures of perceived risk: sometests and extensions. Journal of Behavioral Decision-making, 2(2), 113–131.

Witt, S. F., & Moutinho, L. (1989). Tourism marketing and management handbook.New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.