Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Session 1/3: Risk Perception Alpine destinations – a safe haven in turbulent times? Exploring travellers’ perceptions of.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Session 1/3: Risk Perception Alpine destinations – a safe haven in turbulent times? Exploring travellers’ perceptions of."— Presentation transcript:

1 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Session 1/3: Risk Perception Alpine destinations – a safe haven in turbulent times? Exploring travellers’ perceptions of risk and safety Claudia Eitzinger 1 & Peter Wiedemann 2 1 alpS-Centre for Natural Hazard Management, Innsbruck, Austria 2 Research Centre Jülich, Program Group Human, Environment Technology, Germany DRAFT

2 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Study Background  Travelling exposes people to varying degrees of risk. (e.g. Bentley & Page, 2006; Ryan, 2003; Hunter-Jones, 2000; Phillip & Hodgkinson, 1994, Cossar, 1990)  Perceived risk influences  the travel-decision-making process and  the scope of activities tourists take part in at the destination. (George, 2003; Mawby, 2000; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998a, Pizam, Tarlow & Bloom, 1997; Pearce, 1988)  Little research exists regarding  tourists’ risk perceptions in alpine destinations and  tourists’ trust in a destinations safety management. (Pikkemaat & Weiermair, 2004)

3 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Research Aims  to examine the perception of holiday risks in alpine destinations  to analyze the impact of various conditions and measures in tourism communities on tourists’ trust in a destinations’ safety management

4 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Research Questions  Which holiday risks are  of importance for destination choice?  of relevance for the alpine tourist destination Tyrol?  Which conditions and measures in tourism communities  are trust increasing, in case they are provided?  are trust decreasing, in case they are missing?  Does the Asymmetric principle of Trust (Slovic, 1993) hold true in a tourism context?

5 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Asymmetric Principle of Trust, Slovic (1993) Source: Slovic, P. 1993: Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk analysis, 13, Effective emergency action taken Hold regular public hearings Community has access to records Employees informed of problems No public hearings Employees not informed of problems Denied access to records No adequate contingency response plan Trust increasing Trust decreasing

6 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Study Method  Online survey on the website of the Tiscover tourism platform  Conducted in July 2005 ( )  640 Participants  Questionnaire: 10 items on risk perception, 15 items on trust and distrust increasing measures, demographic variables;

7 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Study Method  Crime  Infectious diseases or other diseases  Political turmoil  Language Barriers  Medical undersupply  Bigotry  Traffic accidents  Old and badly maintained cable cars  Natural hazards  Bottlenecks in supply Following Roehl & Fesenmaier (1992) and Fuchs & Peters (2005). Selected Holiday Risks

8 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Study Method The 10 holiday risks had to be rated regarding their  importance for destination choice  7-point rating scale (from 1= of absolutely no influence on destination choice to 7= of high influence on destination choice)  existence in the alpine tourist destination Tyrol  7-point rating scale (from 1= not existent in Tyrol at all to 7= very strongly existent in Tyrol)

9 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Study Method  No accessibility/ Accessibility by mobile phone in remote areas  No emergency exercises/ Regular emergency exercises  No information on/ Information on snow condition, danger of avalanches and weather  No alcohol testing/ Alcohol testing on ski pistes  Major catastrophes/ No major catastrophes in the past 5 years  No closing of / Closing of ski pistes in the case of high avalanche danger  Infrequent/ Frequent control runs on ski pistes  Badly/ Clearly visible signs on pistes  No information/ Information on winter sports risks  Few / Sufficient avalanche barriers  Infrequent / Frequent security checks of ski lifts  No training/ Training on behaviour in critical situations  Bad/ Good condition of pistes and ski lifts  Bad/ Good road conditions  No safety guards/ Safety guards on pistes Based on a preceding field study in two alpine tourism communities.

10 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 The 15 measures or conditions had to be judged with respect to their  impact on trust, in case they are provided  impact on distrust, in case they are missing on a 7-point rating scale (from 1= increases trust/distrust not at all to 7= increases trust/ distrust to a very high extent). Study Method

11 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Study Results Relevance of the holiday risks for destination choice x relevance for Tyrol Relevance of the holiday risks for destination choice Relevance of the holiday risks for Tyrol

12 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Study Results Clearly visible signs on pistes Avalanche barriers Information about risks associated with winter sports Frequent security checks of ski lifts More frequent control runs on pistes Badly visible signs on pistes Few avalanche barriers No Information about risks associated with winter sports Infrequent security checks of ski lifts Infrequent control runs on pistes Trust increasing Trust decreasing Symmetric Principle of Trust

13 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Study Results Asymmetric Principle Symmetric Principle

14 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Conclusion  Risks of highest relevance for destination choice ≠ Risks of highest importance in Tyrol → no highest priority risks!  In general all risks are perceived to be of inferior importance for Tyrol (maximum mean value of 3).  Safety Management should take into account measures to enhance felt security regarding the risks  Old and badly maintained cable cars and  Crime  The notion of the Asymmetric Principle of Trust (Slovic, 1993) does not hold true in a tourism context.

15 SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Thank you for your attention! Claudia Eitzinger alpS-GmbH – Centre for Natural Hazard Management Tel.:+43/512/ Session 1/3: Risk Perception


Download ppt "SRA-E – Annual Conference 2006 Session 1/3: Risk Perception Alpine destinations – a safe haven in turbulent times? Exploring travellers’ perceptions of."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google