Influence of Tourism Safety Perception on Destination Image: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Nora Tang and Version 2 by Nora Tang.

Tourism safety perception affect multiple dimensions of destination image to varying degrees. Tourists with a high safety perception evaluate and affectively experience destination attributes more positively with higher satisfaction and stronger willingness to revisit and recommend. Tourism safety perception affects the stereotype image of the destination to a certain extent. Tourists in general produce a broadly homogeneous stereotype image, but there are differences in diversity and emotions. Tourists with a high safety perception have a richer and more positive stereotype image. 

  • tourism safety perception
  • destination image
  • image dimension

1. Tourism Safety Perception

Tourism safety perception refers to the subjective feelings and perceptions of tourists about the safety of a destination under the influence of external information involvement and their own factors [1]. Tourists’ perception of destination safety may be both positive and negative [2]. Scholars generally measure tourism safety perception of destinations based on the natural and social environment of destinations and tourism elements and types of tourism safety issues. There are currently two major measurement methods: one is to measure the overall tourism safety perception, for example by asking visitors to respond to statements such as, “××× is a safe/unsafe place, ××× is as safe/unsafe as other tourist destinations, I am told that ××× is a safe/unsafe tourist destination” [3][4][5]; the second is to measure the safety perception of tourists by asking about topics such as terrorism, natural disasters, public health, social security, cultural conflicts, tourism services, and tourism activity elements [6][7][8][9][10]. The overall security perception measurement is generally based on structural equation modeling for an impact path study, and the measurement of safety perception elements is generally based on factor analysis for dimension extraction.
Empirical studies have shown that tourism safety perception has a certain influence on tourism decision-making [11][12], tourism preference [6], tourism behavioral intention [13][7][14], satisfaction [5], and loyalty [7]. Barker et al. argued that tourist concerns about safety and fear of crime are as important as whether they experience crime victimization for their influence on tourism decisions and travel behavior [15]. Sönmez and Graefe found in their study that the level of risk perception directly affects tourists’ choice of holiday destinations across the world [12]. Chen et al. found that terrorist events and war risk factors have an impact on travel preferences [6]. Li et al. found that both tourist safety perception and tourism image perception have a significant positive effect on loyalty, and tourist safety perception and tourism image perception have a full mediating effect between negative public opinion and tourist loyalty [3]. Yang and Xie found that tourists’ safety perception affects willingness to travel; specifically, micro safety perception positively affects tourists’ micro travel intention and macro safety perception positively affects macro travel intention [13].

2. Destination Image

Destination image is the sum of individuals’ beliefs, ideas, and impressions about a destination [16]. In the conceptual dimension of destination image, most scholars believe that destination image is a multidimensional structure including cognitive components and affective components. The cognitive dimension refers to knowledge and beliefs about a destination with a focus on the evaluation of destination attributes; the affective dimension refers to the feelings or affection for the destination with focus on the subjective feeling of the destination [17][18]. On this basis, Gartner believes that destination image is developed from three components that are interrelated and interact with each other: cognition, emotion, and conation. The component of conation includes the behavior or intention of an individual to revisit and recommend the destination [19][20][21], and also includes spreading positive reputation [22]. Cognitive image, affective image, and conative image are generally measured in a structured way and studied quantitatively. Scholars have done extensive research on these three image dimensions.
Echtner and Ritchie developed a conceptual framework for destination image, which is a three-dimensional continuum composed of attribute–holistic, functional–psychological, and common–unique [23]. Echtner and Ritchie, based on the conceptual framework of the three-dimensional continuum, developed a structured scale of cognitive image and unstructured measurement questions regarding stereotype image, affective image, and unique image [24]. The concept of stereotype image has its origin in social psychology and refers to people’s beliefs in characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of a specific group [25][26]. In the field of tourism, scholars have extended the study of stereotype image from “groups” to “destinations” to investigate people’s beliefs in characteristics or attributes of a particular destination. Stereotype image is generally measured in an unstructured way and studied both quantitatively and qualitatively. There are few research results in this area.
Destination image is a very complex concept, and its formation is influenced by a combination of factors. Many scholars believe that destination image is mainly influenced by personal and stimulus factors. Personal factors are internal determinants, i.e., demographic characteristics (gender, age, schooling, family life cycle, social class, and place of residence), and psychological characteristics (motivation, values, personality, and lifestyle); stimulus factors include primary sources of information (information obtained by tourists from field visits to the destination) and secondary sources of information (tourism information and tourism advertisements provided by destination marketing organizations, destination-related news or TV programs presented by mass media, and introductions by friends and relatives) [18][27][28][29]. In addition, tourists’ familiarity with the destination [24][30][31], visit frequency [32], travel experience [28][33], and geographical distance [34][35][36] also affect destination image to varying degrees.

3. Influence of Tourism Safety Perception on Destination Image

Existing viewpoints have shown that tourism safety perception has a significant impact on destination image. George argued that tourists would have a negative impression of the destination if they felt unsafe or threatened there [37]. Lepp et al. found that Uganda is perceived as a dangerous destination and that the perceived risks characterized by poverty, war, civil unrest, disease, and hunger severely affect its tourism image [38]. Scholars have further found in empirical studies that tourism safety perception has an impact on some dimensions of destination image. Lehto et al. explored the effect of tourists’ natural disaster perception on affections and travel intentions based on the pleasure arousal dominance (PAD) affection model, and found that natural disasters significantly affect PAD affections and travel intentions [39]. Chew and Jahari verified through their study that tourism risk perception has a certain impact on cognitive image and affective image, and that cognitive image and affective image play an intermediary role in the relationship between perceived risk and revisit intention [40]. Yang and Xie found that tourism safety perception has a significant positive impact on affective image, and that tourism safety perception and affective image have multiple mediating effects between hospitality and satisfaction [5]. Li et al. found that safety perception and overall image perception of tourists have a full mediating effect between negative public opinion and tourist loyalty [3]. These studies indicate that tourism safety perception may have a direct or indirect influence on destination image in different dimensions.

References

  1. Wang, J.J. Study on the Effect of Perception of Tourism Safety on the Intention of Travelling to Taiwan—Taking Residents in Fujian Province for Example. Master’ Thesis, Huaqiao University, Quanzhou, China, 2012.
  2. He, Y.M.; Zou, Y.G.; Mo, Y.Q. Safety Perception of Chinese Outbound Tourists in Malaysia—Based on Web Text Analysis. World Reg. Stud. 2019, 28, 200–210.
  3. Li, Y.T.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, J.C. Mechanisms of Negative Public Opinion on Tourist Loyalty as Mediated by Tourist Safety Perceptions and Destination Image. Tour. Trib. 2019, 34, 105–116.
  4. George, R.; George, R. Visitor Perceptions of Crime-Safety and Attitudes towards Risk: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, Cape Town. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 806–815.
  5. Yang, Q.Q.; Xie, C.W. The Mechanism of Tourism Safety Perception in Conflict Situation: The Antecedent Influence of Hospitality and the Moderating Effect of Tourism Experience. Naikai Bus. Rev. 2019, 22, 148–158.
  6. Chen, N.; Qiao, G.H.; Liu, L. A Study on the Preferred Travel Behaviors of Outbound Tourists based on Perception of Travel Risks—Case on Beijing Tourist. Hum. Geogr. 2009, 24, 97–102.
  7. Wang, J.J.; Zheng, X.M. Empirical Study on the Impact of Tourists’ Safety Perception to the Travel Intention of Urban Residents: A Case Study of Urban Residents in Representative Cities in China. J. Leshan Norm. Univ. 2015, 30, 61–68.
  8. Rittichainuwat, B.N.; Chakraborty, G. Perceived Travel Risks Regarding Terrorism and Disease: The case of Thailand. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 410–418.
  9. Xie, C.; Huang, Q.; Lin, Z.; Chen, Y.Y. Destination Risk Perception, Image and Satisfaction: The Moderating Effects of Public Opinion Climate of Risk. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 44, 122–130.
  10. Zou, Y.G. Study on Tourism Safety and Security Assessment in Tourism Destination. Ph.D. Thesis, Huaqiao University, Quanzhou, China, 2015.
  11. Sönmez, S.F.; Graefe, A.R. Determining Future Travel Behavior from Past Travel Experience and Perceptions of Risk and Safety. J. Travel Res. 1998, 37, 171–177.
  12. Sönmez, S.F.; Graefe, A.R. Influence of Terrorism Risk on Foreign Tourism Decisions. Ann. Tour. Res. 1998, 25, 112–144.
  13. Yang, Q.Q.; Xie, C.W. The Effect of Interaction between Tourists’ Micro-Macro Safety Perceptions and Micro-macro Travelling Intentions under the Background of Terrorist Attacks. Tour. Trib. 2018, 33, 68–78.
  14. Pizam, A.; Mansfeld, Y. Towards a Theory of Tourism Security. In Tourism, Security and Safety: From Theory to Practice; Mansfeld, Y., Pizam, A., Eds.; Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 1–27.
  15. Barker, M.; Page, S.J.; Meyer, D. Urban Visitor Perceptions of Safety during a Special Event. J. Travel Res. 2003, 41, 355–361.
  16. Crompton, J.L. An Assessment of the Image of Mexico as a Vacation Destination and the Influence of Geographical Location Upon That Image. J. Travel Res. 1979, 17, 18–23.
  17. Baloglu, S.; Brinberg, D. Affective Images of Tourism Destinations. J. Travel Res. 1997, 35, 11–15.
  18. Baloglu, S.; Mccleary, K.W. A Model of Destination Image Formation. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999, 26, 868–897.
  19. Pike, S.; Ryan, C. Destination Positioning Analysis through a Comparison of Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Perceptions. J. Travel Res. 2004, 42, 5–16.
  20. Tasci, A.; Gartner, W.C.; Cavusgil, S.T. Conceptualization and Operationalization of Destination Image. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2007, 31, 194–223.
  21. Bigné, E.; Sánchez, I.; Sanz, S. The Functional-psychological Continuum in the Cognitive Image of a Destination: A Confirmatory Analysis. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 715–723.
  22. Baker, D.; Crompton, J. Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 785–804.
  23. Echtner, C.M.; Ritchie, J.R.B. The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image. J. Tour. Stud. 1991, 2, 2–12.
  24. Echtner, C.M.; Ritchie, J.R.B. The Measurement of Destination Image: An Empirical Assessment. J. Travel Res. 1993, 31, 3–13.
  25. Hilton, J.L.; Hippel, W.V. Stereotypes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1996, 47, 237–271.
  26. Judd, C.; Park, B. Definition and Assessment of Accuracy in Social Stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 1993, 100, 109–128.
  27. Martin, H.S.; Bosque, I.R.D. Exploring the Cognitive-affective Nature of Destination Image and the Role of Psychological Factors in Its Formation. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 263–277.
  28. Beerli, A.; Martín, J.D. Factors Influencing Destination Image. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 657–681.
  29. Wang, C.Y.; Huang, F.C. A Study on Factors Influencing Tourism Destination Image based on SEM: A Case Study of Zhangjiajie. Econ. Manag. 2010, 32, 92–100.
  30. Milman, A.; Pizam, A. The Role of Awareness and Familiarity with a Destination: The Central Florida Case. J. Travel Res. 1995, 33, 21–27.
  31. Ma, M. A Research on the Effects of Familiarity Index on Tourism Destination Image: A Case Study of Mount Taishan. Tour. Sci. 2011, 25, 30–38.
  32. Phelps, A. Holiday Destination Image—The Problem of Assessment. Tour. Manag. 1986, 7, 168–180.
  33. Wang, A.M.; Wu, J.F.; Wang, J.Y. Influence of Nonspecific Destination Vacation Experience on Tourism Destination Image. Tour. Trib. 2018, 33, 79–90.
  34. Hunt, J.D. Image as a Factor in Tourism Development. J. Travel Res. 1975, 13, 1–7.
  35. Scott, D.R.; Schewe, C.D.; Frederick, D.G. A Multi-Brand/Multi-Attribute Model of Tourist State Choice. J. Travel Res. 1978, 17, 23–29.
  36. Xu, F.; Li, S.S. Destination Image of Southern Sinkiang and Tourist Intention: Mediating Effects of Perceived Value and Psychological Distance. Econ. Manag. 2018, 40, 156–171.
  37. George, R. Tourist’s Perceptions of Safety and Security while Visiting Cape Town. Tour. Manag. 2003, 24, 575–585.
  38. Lepp, A.; Gibson, H.; Lane, C. Image and Perceived risk: A Study of Uganda and Its Official Tourism Website. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 675–684.
  39. Lehto, X.; Douglas, A.C.; Park, J. Mediating the Effects of Natural Disasters on Travel Intention. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2008, 23, 29–43.
  40. Chew, E.; Jahari, S.A. Destination Image as a Mediator between Perceived Risks and Revisit Intention: A Case of Post-disaster Japan. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 382–393.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback