mediating the effects of natural disasters on travel intention
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola]On: 11 October 2014, At: 01:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Travel & Tourism MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20
Mediating the Effects of Natural Disasters on TravelIntentionXinran Lehto a , Alecia C. Douglas a & Jungkun Park ba Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management , Purdue University , 700 West StateStreet, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2059, USAb Department of Consumer Sciences and Retailing , Purdue University , 812 West StateStreet, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2060, USAPublished online: 25 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Xinran Lehto , Alecia C. Douglas & Jungkun Park (2008) Mediating the Effects of Natural Disasters onTravel Intention, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23:2-4, 29-43, DOI: 10.1300/J073v23n02_03
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v23n02_03
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Mediating the Effects of Natural Disasterson Travel Intention
Xinran LehtoAlecia C. Douglas
Jungkun Park
SUMMARY. Emotional correlates of affective reactions towards a natural disaster and their influ-ence on future travel intention to seaside destinations were explored using the PAD (Plea-sure-Arousal-Dominance) Emotion Model. The results from a structural equation modelingprocess support the proposition that a natural disaster influences significantly the affective re-sponses to the emotional states of pleasure, arousal and dominance. The PAD affect changes in re-turn impact to varying degrees the intentions of a traveler to visit a seaside destination. Thepleasure domain is found to exert the strongest impact on intention. Practical implications for tour-ism recovery are elaborated. doi:10.1300/J073v23n02_03 [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> � 2007 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Natural disasters, destination image, perceived risk, travel intention, PAD model,environmental psychology
INTRODUCTION
Episodes of disaster and crises tend to have astaggering effect on the psyche of tourists andtheir behavior towards and within the system.The recent major events that have devastatingimpacts on tourism have led to increasing aca-demicscrutinyaboutcrisismanagement.Muchof the discussions have dealt with this issuefrom the supply perspectives, proposing bothproactive planning frameworks and reactivecrisis management systems (Prideaux, 2003;
Santana, 2003; Coles, 2003). Other researchprovides quantitativemeasures of the impactofcrises or forecasts of their impact (Eugenio-Martin et al., 2005; Huan et al., 2005). A keycomponent of effective crisis management,however, pertains to management of visitorperception and perception change.
Although tourists’ image towards a destina-tion has traditionally been regarded as resistantto change and relatively persistent (Morrison,2003), perceptionchangescanoccurafternatu-ral disaster occurrences due to their devastating
Xinran Lehto (E-mail: [email protected]) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Hospitality and TourismManagement at Purdue University (700 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2059, USA). Alecia C.Douglas (E-mail: [email protected]) is a Graduate Research Assistant in the Department of Hospitality andTourism Management at Purdue University (700 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2059, USA). JungkunPark (E-mail: [email protected]) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Consumer Sciences and Retailing atPurdue University (812 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2060, USA).
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Mediating the Effects of Natural Disasters on Travel Intention.” Lehto, Xinran, Alecia C. Douglas, andJungkun Park. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing (The Haworth Press) Vol. 23, No. 2/3/4, 2007, pp. 29-43;and: Safety and Security in Tourism: Recovery Marketing After Crises (ed: Noel Scott, Eric Laws, and Bruce Prideaux) The Haworth Press 2007,pp. 29-43. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800- HAWORTH, 9:00a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: [email protected]].
Available online at http://jttm.haworthpress.com� 2007 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J073v23n02_03 29
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
effects. Should tourists become victims of anatural disaster, the negative impact on the im-age of the destinationconcerned can be both se-rious and long-lasting (Obasi & Frangialli,1998).Although turnaroundandrecovery froma natural disaster is a complex issue, the role ofmarketing communication in regaining touristconfidence is undeniable. Subsequent to a di-saster, destinations are faced with not only thedaunting tasks of rebuilding infrastructure, fa-cilities and communities, but also image recov-ery. Marketing communication can play a cen-tral role for economic recovery and changingpotentialcustomers’misperception(Pottorff&Neal, 1994). Effective communication strate-gies, however, are formulated based on accu-rate assessments of the psychology of the cus-tomers towards the disaster, especially theirattitudinal and affective responses towardssuch an event.
Natural events occurring on a large scale canquickly accelerate from a disaster to a crisis sit-uation for the destination, significantly affect-ing the image. It has been noted that an individ-ual’s affective reaction to an environmentalchange can impact their behavior or behavioralintention. The purpose of this research was tocontribute to the understanding of consumers’affective reactions towards a tourism destina-tion after a natural disaster and their influenceson future visit intention. The PAD (pleasure,arousal, and dominance) Model, initially pro-posed by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) and itsscales were adopted as a conceptual frameworkfor this study to measure the degree and patternof emotional changes as a result of natural di-saster.
NATURAL DISASTERS IN TOURISM
As definedby Scott andLaws (2005) adisas-ter refers to “situations where an enterprise (orcollection of enterprises in the case of a touristdestination) is confronted with sudden unpre-dictablea catastrophicchange over which it haslittle control.” Key characteristics of disasters(Faulkner, 2001) include: “(1) a triggeringevent; (2) a high threat environment with shortresponse times; (3) a perception of an inabilityto cope by those directly affected, at least in theshort term; (4) a turning point where the situa-
tion is responded to; and (5) characterized by“fluid, unstable, dynamic” situations” (Fink,1986: 20).
While there have been propositions of vari-ous frameworks on crisis management, limita-tions in the capacity and ability to handle com-plex and critical situations as they arise havebeen observed by Santana (2003) as a defi-ciency in tourism disaster management. This islargely due to the sensitivity of tourism prod-ucts to disruptions arising from politicalunrest,economic crises, military disturbances and cul-tural affairs (Prideaux, 2003). A review of ma-jor news headlines in the last ten years can vali-date the nature and origins of disruptions to theoperation and development of tourism.
On December 26, 2004, the tsunami, one ofthe deadliest and most devastating natural di-sasters ever in modern history, struck eightcountries in South Asia, Southeast Asia andEast Africa. This unexpected tragedy causedlosses totaling billions of dollars in damage tothe tourism industry and as many as 250,000deaths with miles and miles of coastline deci-mated (Zhang, 2005; Stanley, 2005). Withinthe same year, four hurricanes struck Floridaand parts of the Caribbean resulting in signifi-cant damage to the infrastructure of the re-gion’s tourism industry (Laws & Prideaux,2005). Just three years prior, the vulnerabilityof the tourismindustrywas exposedby theSep-tember 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S in 2001(Prideaux, 2003). On September 21, 1999, amassive earthquake measuring 7.3 on the Rich-ter scale hit Chinese Taipei, Nantou county re-sulting in 2,455 casualties, 8,000 injuries and38,935 homes completely destroyed (Wilks &Stewart, 2004). Damages were estimated atUS$11.4 billion in this major tourism region ofChinese Taipei. Several other disasters such asthe Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), SARS,and the El Nino weather phenomenon inSoutheast Asia have resulted in major threats tothe viability and vitality of the tourism industryincluding changes in the travel behavior of cer-tain travelers (Coles, 2003; Dombey, 2003;Cushnahan, 2003).
Disasters of this magnitude although occur-ring infrequently have increased public aware-ness of the threats associatedwith activitiesandsectors within the tourism industry (Santana,2003). Even with evidence that tourism devel-
30 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
opments are likely to be exposed to the sud-den-onset of natural disasters, in particularbeach and coastal areas (Obasi & Frangialli,1998), it seems unusual to think about tourismand disaster simultaneously (Santana, 2003).This is because the thought of tourism naturallyevokes feelings of enjoyment, pleasure, relax-ation, and safety while conversely, disastersarouse distress, fear, anxiety, trauma, and panicin individuals (Santana, 2003).
Disruptions to one aspect of the industry cancreate ripple effects throughout the entire sys-tem due to what Laws and Prideaux (2005)identify as the global scale of tourism, the inter-connectedness of its sub sectors, and the resul-tant complexity of the industry. Because of theinterconnectedness of the industry, tourist ar-easplacealargenumberofbusinesses,commu-nities and travelers at risk when components ofthe supporting infrastructure are affected. Theeffect on the tourism industry post-disaster pe-riod is largely dependent on several factors.Prideaux (2003) identifies these factors as: “(1)the internal cultures and modus operandi of or-ganizations responding to the disaster; (2) theabilityofvariousorganizationstoworkcooper-atively to solve the problem; (3) the ability ofnormally bureaucratic hierarchical organiza-tions to respond swiftly and decisively; (4) themanner in which the media cover the situation;(5) the resources available to the public sectorto respond to the disaster; and (6) the ability ofthe private sector to continue to trade duringand after the disaster.” Bearing these factors inmind, the likelyoutcomeof a crisismaynotbe areturn to normalcy, or, even if specific compo-nents of the tourism system do return to nor-malcy, the remaining parts may have under-gone some changes (Scott & Laws, 2005).Regardless of the unpleasantness of the topic, itshould also to be acknowledged that crises(whether natural or man-made) have been andcontinue to be a part of organizational opera-tions and directly or indirectly affect all con-cerned (communities, visitors, regulators, pro-moters, andso forth).Wherecommunitieshaveconsiderable economic dependence on tourismrelated activities, their vulnerability to crisisoccurrence is significantly increased, giventhat theyneedtomaintainapositiveimageofat-tractiveness for continued success (Santana,2003).
DESTINATION IMAGE
Image has long been considered as an attitu-dinal construct representing an individual’s be-liefs, feelings, and general impressions aboutan object or destination (Crompton, 1979;Echtner and Ritchie, 1991). It is agreed uponby researchers in several disciplines that theimage construct is evaluated on both the cog-nitive and affective levels. According toBaloglu and McCleary (1999), evaluations ofa cognitive nature pertains to the beliefs orknowledge held of a destination’s attributeswhile affective evaluations are those feelingstoward, or attachment to the characteristics ofthe destination.
Benefits inherent in theconsumptionof tour-ism services have always been of an experien-tial nature. Tourists not only engage in activi-ties while vacationing but also shape theiractions while at the destination (Padgett &Douglas, 1997). As travel products are com-prised of various attributes and characteristicsit is likely that a vacationer will develop multi-ple attitudes toward a given product (Leisen,2001). For instance, a travel destination mightconsist of natural attractions such as moun-tains, beaches or volcanoes and cultural show-cases such as unique architecture, artifacts andother features. It is theperceptionof thesevari-ous attributes within the destination that isheld in one’s mind that will fuse to create acomposite imageimprint (Gartner,1986).Mul-tiple attributes inherently define the tourismproduct and helps to distinguish it from themany destination alternatives.
One of the most significant roles of a traveldestination’s image is its profound impact onthe travel decision-making process (Chon1990, 1992; Echtner & Ritchie 1991; Stabler1988; Telisman-Kosuta 1989; Baloglu &McClearly, 1999a; Leisen, 2001; Kim & Rich-ardson, 2003). Researchers have clearly illus-trated how the perceived image of a destinationis positively correlated to a travel purchase de-cision (Mayo 1973; Mayo & Jarvis 1981),clearly indicating the importance of a destina-tion’s image as a critical selection factor(Woodside & Lysonski, 1989). Connotationsderived from the image are largely associatedwith the traveler’s expectation from the experi-ence at the destination. In the minds of consum-
Lehto, Douglas, and Park 31
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
ers, this image could be in one of three stagesranging from creation to change to confirma-tion/reinforcement. Leisen (2001) argues thattravelers can envision the type of experiencebased on any positive or negative emotionsabout the destination before they actually con-sume the travel product.
Because behavior is the result of these per-ceived images, the traveler’s vacationchoiceofa given destination depends to a large extent onthepositiveimage(Baloglu&McCleary,1999;Chon,1991;Woodside&Lysonski,1989).Thedeterminant in the traveler’s choice process isthe image associated with the destination ratherthan the destination itself. According to Wood-side and Lysonski (1989), affective associa-tions toward a destination are usually based onmore positive images if a traveler intends tovisit but are based on more negative for a desti-nation the traveler has decided not to visit. Onthe other hand, a neutral image may be as a re-sult of lack of awareness of the destination andassuch, individualsholdingneutralorweakim-agesofadestinationmightnotconsider thedes-tination in their choice process (Woodside &Lysonski, 1989).
Destination images are shaped in the trav-eler’s mind through synthesis and analysis ofinformation gathered over a period of time. Asimagesheldbyindividualsarecrucial toadesti-nation’s marketing success, marketers arelikely to pay particular attention to the effect ofimage on travel intention (Leisen, 2001). Infact, issues related to image formation andchange and their influences on behavior havecommanded marketing researchers’ undividedattention and destination marketers have allo-cated a great deal of time, financial resourcesand effort to creating desirable images to helpentice prospective travelers to visit their desti-nations (Baloglu & McClearly, 1999b).
RISK ON TRAVEL INTENTION
Not to be ignored from the decision-makingprocess is the consideration of natural disasterwhich falls under the category of exogenousfactors affecting travel destination choice(Sirakaya, McLellan, & Uysal, 1996). Thetourism industry frequently experiences natu-ral and man-made disasters that leave a devas-
tating effect on the industry in a given area.Weakened or negative images of a destinationcan be a direct consequence of these cata-strophic events. The degree of risk associatedwith an infected destination can significantlyalter the perceived benefits to be derived froman intended travel experience. By nature, tour-ism is tied to the concept of risk in such a waythat tourist behavior and destination image aresignificantlyinfluencedbythe tourist’spercep-tionsofsecurity, riskandsafety(Hall,Timothy,& Duval, 2003). According to Crompton(1979) and Gartner and Hunt (1987), there is ageneral acceptance that perceived risk and per-ceived safety help potential travelers to form alasting destination image which later becomescritical in the destination choice process.
According to the World Tourism Organiza-tion (2003), there are four major sources of riskwith the potential of affecting tourism destina-tions: (1) the human and institutional environ-ment outside the tourism sector; (2) the tourismsector and related commercial sectors; (3) theindividual traveler (personal risks); and (4)physicalorenvironmentalrisks(natural,clima-tic, epidemic). Whether acting collectively orindependently, these risks not only threaten thesafety and security of tourists but also create aripple effect endangering the livelihood of hostcommunities. Of particular interest for thisstudy are those environmental risks with cata-strophic proportions resulting from natural di-sasters.WilksandStewart (2004) implythat thetraveler’s vacation could be jeopardized if theyareexposed todangeroussituationssuchasnat-ural disasters and epidemics arising from thephysical environment.
From an academic standpoint, risk as it re-lates to safety and security in travel and tourismhas been a recurring theme since the 1980s andhas gained considerable attention in the post9/11 era. Floyd et al. (2003) in their extensivereview of the literature on risk narrowed thebody of research to four major risk factors per-tinent to tourism: (1) war and political instabil-ity; (2) health concerns; (3) crime; and (4) ter-rorism. Noticeably absent from these majorrisk factors are those natural occurrences.However in recentyears researchers (Faulkner,2001; Mazzocchi & Montini, 2001) have rec-ognized the growing influence that natural di-sasters had on tourism demand. By and large,
32 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISIS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
regardless of the source of a potential risk, trav-elers are more likely to pay attention to issuesrelating to their personal safety and securityparticularly during the travel decision-makingprocess.
Perceived risk can be characterized as afunction of uncertainty and its consequences.Functional risk, psychological risk, social risk,financial risk, time risk, and physical risk arethe riskcategories typicallyemployed.Withre-spect to applications in tourism, Sonmez andGraefe (1996) examined the relationship be-tween ten different types of risk and the resul-tant overall risk perceptions of U.S interna-tional vacation travelers. According to thisresearch, significant predictors of overall riskperception involve the risk of being exposed toterrorist acts, having problems with transporta-tion or accommodation, being entrapped in acountry’s political turmoil and or being gener-ally dissatisfied with the travel experience.Tourists are high involvement customers astourismproductsareexpensiveandriskyandastourists generally lack of knowledge for mak-ing sound decisions. Hence, it is understand-able that tourists associate travel with varioustypesof risk andconsequently tend toengage inactivities such as active search for informationas ameansof reducing risk and improvingdeci-sion-making (Maser & Weiermair, 1998).
From the traveler’s perspective, safety andsecurity were extremely important concernswhen choosing to visit a destination (Poon &Adams, 2000; Floyd et al., 2003). In their re-search on the effects of safety on travel inten-tion, Floyd et al. (2003) support the theory ofprotection motivation by Rogers (1975). Thistheory holds that individuals will engage inprotectivebehaviorwhen there is (a) ahighpo-tential and magnitude for danger; (b) a highprobability of occurrence exists; (c) selectingalternatives to avoiding threat; and (d) in-creased control over the outcome of the chosenalternative. An earlier study on travel and riskby Roehl and Fesenmeier (1992) revealed thattravelers have varying degrees of perceptionabout risk with some tending to be more riskaverse than others. To some extent, even theportrayal of a risky vacation situation throughad photos may create excitement in some indi-viduals, for example, adventure travelers,whereas others may experience feelings of fear
(Hem, Iversen, & Nysveen, 2002). Touristsperceiving fear are most likely to avoid visitingthedestinationtherefore the imageperceivedofthe destination can negatively impact the inten-tion to visit a place (Hem, Iversen, & Nysveen,2002).
IMPACT OF EMOTIONALREACTION TO A NATURAL
DISASTER ON TRAVEL INTENTION
Toexamineenvironmental influencesonbe-havior, this study employs Mehrabian and Rus-sell’s (1974) pleasure, arousal, and dominance(PAD) affective responses to capture the di-mensions of emotional reactions to the tsunamion seaside destinations. The original PADscales pursued parallels among the semanticdifferential factors and emotions by proposinga measurement of positive versus negativestates as measured by pleasure-displeasure, theemotional equivalent of high-low evaluation ofa stimuli (Mehrabian & Russel, 1974, inMehrabian,1995).Theseconddimensionofaf-fect was measured by the level of physical and/or mental arousal, or in other words, an individ-ual’s arousal-nonarousal. Likewise, roundingoff the emotional scale is the exploration ofemotions relating to the feelings of control andinfluenceoverothersasopposed to feelingcon-trolled or being influenced by external circum-stances by the dominance-submissive dimen-sion thereby examining the negative correlateof a stimulus’ potency. As such, factors explor-ing evaluation, activity, and potency (Osgood,Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957) correspond to theemotional dimensions of pleasure, arousal anddominance respectively (Mehrabian & de Wet-ter, 1987).
Specifically designed to focus on emotion-ally based connotative and metaphorical mean-ings (Mehrabian, 1995), the PAD scales pro-vides support for examining emotions as theyrelate to the stimuli, situations or activities(Mehrabian et al., 1997) surrounding an indi-vidual’s environment. Moreover, several com-binations of the various levels of plea-sure-arousal-dominance can sufficiently ex-plain an individual’s emotional state (Mehrabian& de Wetter, 1987). Pleasure is assessed from arespondent’s verbal assessment of their re-
Lehto, Douglas, and Park 33
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
sponses to the environment whether they feelhappy rather than unhappy, pleased or an-noyed, satisfied or unsatisfied, contented ormelancholic, hopeful or despairing and relaxedor bored. Likewise, arousal is assessed by ver-bal reactions to whether respondents feel stim-ulated rather than relaxed, excited rather thancalm, frenzied rather than sluggish, jitteryrather than dull, wide-awake rather than sleepyand aroused rather than un-aroused. Lastly,dominance is reflected verbally if respondentsfeel more in control as opposed to being con-trolled, influential as opposed to influenced, incontrol as opposed to cared-for, important asopposed to awed, dominant as opposed to sub-missive and autonomous as opposed to guidedtowards the environment under examination.
By employing the use of standardized scoreson the pleasure-arousal-dominance scale, anyemotional state can be subjected to measure-ment on this basis (Mehrabian, Wihardja &Ljunggren, 1997). In addition, Mehrabian et al.(1997) posit that any situational occurrences,events or activities influencing a representativesample of individuals can be described in termsof an aggregate of scores explaining pleasure,arousal, and dominance. For the proposedstudy, the PAD scale was modified in the con-text of the travel literature to appropriatelymeasure the emotional responses to a naturallyoccurring event having a catastrophic effect ona destination. This exploratory study utilizesprimary data to determine the relationship be-tween the change in the affective dimensions of
pleasure, arousal and dominance as a result ofthe tsunamiandbehavioral intention to travel toseaside destinations.
Several propositions were developed for ex-ploring the proposed relationship between af-fect and intent. The basic propositions are thatpleasure, arousal, and dominance before thetsunami will be significantly different from af-ter the tsunami (proposition 1); the change inpleasure, arousal, and dominance will influ-ence the future travel intention to seaside desti-nations (proposition 2); and the degrees of in-fluence on intent by pleasure, arousal anddominance vary (proposition 3). Accordingly,a structural model was developed to explain therelationshipamongpleasure,arousal,anddom-inance variables and their impacts on travel in-tention. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed studymodel.
METHODOLOGY
Survey Development and Sampling
Being that the survey developed for thisstudy examined the effects of a natural disasteron the behavioral intentionof visitors to a desti-nation, particularly seaside attractions, thepleasure, arousal and dominance measureswere employed topredict future travel intention.The survey instrument developed consisted of67 questionnaire items. As such, the survey ex-plored thedimensionsofemotions,experience,
34 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISIS
Pleasure
Arousal
Dominance
Travel Intention
FIGURE 1. Proposed Study Model
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
perception and attitude and behavioral inten-tion towards traveling to a seaside destinationfollowing the tsunami.Affective itemsmeasur-ing pleasure, arousal and dominance wereadopted from Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974)“Approach to Environmental Psychology” af-ter some adjustments to fit in the context oftravel and tourism. All items measuringaffective aspects were tested on a 7-pointLikert-type scale ranging from “strongly dis-agree” to “strongly agree.” More specifically,respondents were asked to report on their emo-tionsbothbeforeandafter the tsunami,asmea-suredby16pre-tsunamiPADmeasuresand16post-tsunami PAD measures. The data wascollected online using a Web-based surveyover two week period in February, 2005. Thesurvey was administered to convenient sampleof undergraduate students at a prominentMid-Western university in the US (N = 265).
Statistical Analysis
The study took on a two step procedure.First, the before and after Tsunami PAD com-parisons were conducted by employing Paired-Sample t-tests on the 16 pairs of emotional statemeasures. These series of bi-variate tests werefollowed by a Structural Equation Modeling(SEM) process to assess the influence of thechange of affect on travel intention to seasidedestinations.Themeasures for theconstructs inthe structural model were developed basedupon relevant literature. Analysis of the pro-posed model began with the StatisticalPackagefor the Social Sciences (SPSS 12.0) softwarewhich isused toconductnormalityanddescrip-tive analysis followed by model constructionusing CFA in AMOS 5.0. Structure model test-ing was performed as the final step to test theproposed conceptualmodel. In determining thebest model, the following goodness-of-fit sta-tistics were analyzed: chi-square, the relateddegrees of freedom, and the p value. For addi-tional support of the final model, absolute in-dexes of fit such as normed-fit index, the classi-cal criterion of choice, and the comparative fitindex (CFI) are reported.An NFI and CFI valuecloser to 1.00 indicates a good model fit (Hu &Bentler, 1995). The root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA) which takes into ac-count the error of approximation in the popula-
tion is also reported. Ideally, a value less than.05 would indicate a good model fit (Browne &Cudeck, 1993).
RESULTS
Paired-Samples t-Test
Sixteen paired-sample t-tests were con-ducted to identify significant changes in themean scores of the 16 before and after tsunamiPAD measures (Table 1); the t values, togetherwith mean scores, standard deviation, andstandard errors were reported. All 16 pairs ofstatements with the exceptions of “Pre_Arous-ing and Post_Arousing” (P = 0.057) and“Pre_Submissive and Post_Submissive” (P =0.229) were found to be significantly differentat 0.05 P value level as shown in Table 1. In thedomain of “pleasure,” all tests concurred thatthere was a decline in pleasure, fun and peaceassociated with visiting a seaside destinationpost tsunami. On the other hand, there was anincrease in “boredom” as revealed in the nega-tive mean difference. In the domain of“arousal,” it was the consensus of the respon-dents that seaside destinations after the Tsu-nami tsunami were not as calming, relaxing orat ease, implying a heightened level of arousal.For the feelings associated with “dominance,”the sense of feeling helpless and risky in-creased, indicating a decreased sense of beingin control. Overall, the pair t-test results are insupport of the first study proposition whichstates thatpleasure, arousal, anddominancebe-fore the tsunami would be significantly differ-ent from after the tsunami.
Model Measurement
Variables in the proposed model are nor-mally distributed or close to normal distribu-tion with the absolute value of skewness index< 3 (Kline, 2005). Prior to testing the proposedconceptual model, a first order confirmatoryfactor analysis was performed to evaluate theappropriateness of measurements for the threePAD latent constructs, i.e., pleasure, arousaland dominance. As there are three latent vari-ables in thestructuralmodel,onlya three-factorstructure was tested. As previously mentioned,
Lehto, Douglas, and Park 35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
the model was evaluated based on indices as-sessing a number of distinct aspects of modelfit, including NFI, the CFI, the chi-square sta-tistic, and the RMSEA.
Affect changes in the three domains of emo-tional status were measured by the differencesin response to the 16 PAD statements. Scoresfor ‘before the tsunami’ were subtracted fromscores for ‘after the tsunami’ to create the newset of ‘affect change’ variables. The resulting16‘change’variablescreatedwere thenenteredfor structure model for testing. A series ofmodel modifications starting from the initialmodel was conducted resulting with insignifi-cantpathsbeingdropped.As such, themost im-proved fit was achieved after multiple times ofrevision and refinement of the model presentedin Figure 2. The final model therefore provideda much improved fit of the data where �2 =57.617, df = 32, P-value= .004, NFI = .904, CFI= .954, and RMSEA = .059.
Guided by the CFA fit indexes, adjustmentswere made and 10 measurement items were re-
tained for the structural model testing. Themeasurements of each construct were ex-plained as per Table 2. The pleasure constructwas measured by three indicators: change in“fun,” “pleasure” and “boredom.” The variable“boring” was transformed into reversed direc-tion to avoid negative correlation. Arousalchanges was represented by four indicators:“relaxing,” “exciting,” “calming” and “stimu-lating.” Change in “dominance” was measuredusing changes in “dangerous,” “helpless” and“submissive.”
Structural Model Specification
The proposed conceptual model (refer toFigure 1) was tested to arrive at a final modelexplaining the effect of a natural disaster suchas the tsunami on the intentions of potentialtravelers to visit a seaside destination. The finalmodel (refer to Figure 3) provided a reasonablefit of the data (�2 = 103.28, df = 49, P-value =.002, NFI = .872, CFI = .941, RMSEA = .055).
36 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISIS
TABLE 1. Paired Sample T-Test Comparisons of PAD
Before Tsunami After Tsunami Paired Samples Test
Measures Mean Std.Dev
Std.ErrorMean
Mean Std.Dev
Std.ErrorMean
MeanDiff.
Std.Dev.Diff.
Std.ErrorMean
t Sig 2Tailed
PleasurePleasurable 6.21 1.256 .082 5.91 1.323 .086 .308 .869 .057 5.418 .000
Fun 6.25 1.219 .080 5.90 1.351 .088 .355 .971 .063 5.589 .000
Peaceful 5.97 1.294 .085 5.65 1.383 .090 .329 1.056 .069 4.768 .000
Boring 1.91 1.373 .090 2.14 1.384 .090 �.231 1.186 .078 �2.977 .003
Quality Time 5.63 1.406 .092 5.51 1.418 .093 .115 .879 .057 2.009 .046
ArousalRelaxing 6.17 1.247 .082 5.79 1.361 .089 .380 .920 .060 6.325 .000
Exciting 6.05 1.296 .085 5.77 1.401 .092 .282 .979 .064 4.406 .000
Arousing 5.48 1.311 .086 5.35 1.319 .086 .124 .992 .065 1.911 .057
Stimulating 5.69 1.359 .089 5.48 1.356 .089 .205 1.028 .067 3.053 .003
Ease 5.50 1.442 .094 5.28 1.437 .094 .226 1.238 .081 2.799 .006
Calming 5.94 1.312 .086 5.60 1.411 .092 .338 1.081 .071 4.777 .000
DominanceHelpless 2.87 1.619 .106 3.42 1.742 .114 �.551 1.610 .105 �5.238 .000
Dangerous 2.50 1.466 .096 3.30 1.735 .113 �.808 1.634 .107 �7.560 .000
Risky 2.69 1.528 .100 3.35 1.727 .113 �.658 1.650 .108 �6.100 .000
Submissive 3.73 1.578 .103 3.82 1.505 .098 �.094 1.194 .078 �1.205 .229
Sense ofControl
4.21 1.461 .096 3.97 1.491 .097 .248 1.405 .092 2.700 .007
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
The significane of the chi-square indicates thatthat the hypothesizedmodeldoes not mirror thepattern of covariance contained within the rawdata (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). However, theNormed Chi-Square (�2/df) which takes intoaccount of the degree of freedom is reasonableat 2.1 (Below the acceptable value of below 3).All other indices show the revised model fitsquite well to the data with the exception of the
NFI index which is less than .90 and theRMSEA which is greater than .05. NFI valuesgreater than .90 reflects a good model fit. How-ever, it is assumed that the NFI index was influ-enced by the relatively small sample size (N =256). In this case, the CFI becomes the index ofchoice since it is not sensitive to the sample size(Bentler,1990). Inaddition,as for thegenerallyconsidered model fit indices, when GFI is
Lehto, Douglas, and Park 37
E1
E2
E3
E4
E6
E7
E8
E9
E10
.59
.54
.07
.61
.60
.50
.17
.49
.26
.02
C_FUN
C_PLEA
C_BORE
C_RELAX
C_EXCIT
C_CALM
C_STIMUL
C_DANGER
C_HELPLE
C_SUBMIS
.77
.74
.26
.78
.77
.71
.41
.70
.51
.14
P1
A1
D1
.79
�.58
�.58
E5
FIGURE 2. CFA Model
TABLE 2. Variables Used for Model
Construct Items Names
Taking a vacation to a beach destination is fun. C_Fun
Pleasure Taking a vacation to a beach destination is pleasurable. C_Plea
(P1) Taking a vacation to a beach destination is always boring. C_Bore
Taking a vacation to a beach destination is exciting. C_Excit
Arousal Taking a vacation to a beach destination is calming. C_Calm
(A1) Taking a vacation to a beach destination is stimulating C_Stimul
Taking a vacation to a beach destination is relaxing. C_Relax
Dominance I feel submissive in front of the sea. C_Submis
(D1) Taking a vacation to a beach destination is dangerous. C_Danger
I feel helpless in front of the sea. C_Helple
Intention How likely will you be to vacation at a seaside destination in the coming year? VISITTHI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
greater than 0.9 and AGFI is greater than 0.8,the goodness-of-fit is satisfactory (Hayduk1987). In this research, not only GFI is .944, butalsoAGFI is .911, indicatinga reasonable fit. Inaddition, a CFI valueof 0.941, which is over thedesired criterion of 0.9, shows a good fit for thedata applied to the proposed model. TheRMSEA was 0.055, which is above the stan-dard of 0.05 recommended by Browne andCudeck (1993), but it is approximately close toa value of 0.05, which represents reasonable er-rors of approximation in thepopulation (Byrne,2001). Thus, the analysis of these model fit in-dices suggested a reasonably acceptable fit ofthe proposed structural model to the data.
When the final model was examined, boththe arousal factor and the dominance factor hada negative relationship with intention to travel.The path coefficients for these relationshipswere�.60and�.15 respectively.Thenegativepath coefficient from “arousal” to “intention”indicates that when a visitor feels overly stimu-lated or aroused, he or she tends to be less likelyto visit a seaside destination. Further, the nega-tive coefficient from “dominance” to “inten-tion” (�0.60) attests to the tendency that whentourists perceive a destination to be risky ordangerous, and thus feeling insecure and not incontrol, it is less likely that the intention to visit
38 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISIS
FIGURE 3. Structural Equation Model of PAD on Intention
TABLE 3. Maximum Likelihood Estimates
Parameters UnstandardizedEstimate
StandardizedEstimates
S.E. CriticalRatio
C_Bore ¨ P1 .478 .258 .139 3.446***
C_Plea ¨ P1 1.000 .736
C_Fun ¨ P1 1.170 .770 .128 9.108***
C_Stimul ¨ A1 .583 .408 .102 5.733***
C_Calm ¨ A1 1.067 .709 .108 9.866***
C_Excit ¨ A1 1.055 .774 .093 11.314***
C_Relax ¨ A1 1.000 .781
C_Helple ¨ D1 .714 .507 .168 4.251***
C_Danger ¨ D1 1.000 .699
C_Submis ¨ D1 .143 .137 .089 1.609***
*** p < .005
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
will be favorable. Conversely, the pleasure fac-tor had a strong positive relation to intentionwithapathcoefficientof .97.This indicates thatthe more fun, pleasure and less boredom per-ceived by the visitor to the potential seasidedestination, the greater the likelihood for thetraveler to visit the destination.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Tourism is one of the most susceptible andvulnerable industries to the effects of a widerange of events and crises occurring both natu-rally and man-made. While the global flow oftourists continues to increase, events with mag-nitudes such as the 2004 Tsunami and the Sep-tember 11th attacks lead to significant shifts intourism flow. In addition to devastated infra-structure and attractions, the affected destina-tions also suffer from the resulting negative af-fect on the part of the tourists. This studyattempted to measure the influence of a naturaldisaster such as the tsunami on the likelihoodofa visitor traveling to a seaside destination.Aimed at presenting an understanding of theimportance of examining the impact of natu-rally occurring disasters frequenting the tour-ism industry, the study used a structural modelto explain the relationship among pleasure,arousal, and dominance correlates with travelintention. The impact of the tsunami was mea-sured on several dimensions including anassessment of the influence on a traveler’s re-ported response to the emotional correlates. Intoday’s world with the increased levels of dis-turbances from both man-made and naturalcauses, it becomes necessary to examine theinfluence of the tsunami by comparing bothbefore and after mean scores to determine iftherewere significant changes in the traveler’saffective response to pleasure, arousal, anddominance. Further, this study provides em-pirical evidences to the proposition that thatchanges in pleasure, arousal, and dominanceinfluence visitors future travel intention to sea-side destinations. The results obtained from thepaired sample t-test and the proposed and re-finedmodelssupport thesestudypropositions.
Evidently, the paired samples test resultsshow that the negatively worded statementssuch as boring, helpless, dominance, risky,
and submissive increased after the tsunami im-pacted seaside destinations. An increase inthese emotional correlates indicates that changesin perception in the affective dimension of sea-side destinations occurred. These affectivechanges, being an important part of a destina-tion image,can inducean overallnegativeeval-uation of a seaside destination. In fact, past re-search has showed that the affective dimensionofan imagecan impact thecognitivedimensionof a destination, and thus impacting negativelydestination choices (Li et al., 2006). As appar-ent in this research, the respondents felt that achange in the affective image of the destinationdue to the influenceof thenaturaldisaster couldresult in their potential experience being nega-tive. This study shows that the negativity canpotentially be derived from three dimensions:dominance, arousal and pleasure.
From the dominance dimension, it seemsthat a natural disaster evokes increased feelingsof overwhelm and danger. These sentimentscould be shaped largely by the magnitudeof thedevastation. The intense and sometimes sensa-tional media reporting could have played a sig-nificant role influencing in consumers’ cogni-tion that the devastation of the tsunami.Visitors’ anticipation of an overwhelming re-covery process could seriously deter their in-tention to re-patronize. The structural equationmodel results show that the path coefficientfrom “dominance” to “intention” is negative,implying that that dominance has an inverserelationship with travel intention. This is con-sistent with the literature that the more risky ordangerous a destination is perceived, the lesslikely the traveler would visit the destination.This risk of the destination is evaluated in thetraveler’s decision making process and re-flected in the decreased likelihood of visit in-tent(Poon&Adams,2000;Floydetal.,2003).
From the destination’s perspective, one ofthe first marketing messages should be in-tended to restore confidence in the minds of po-tential visitors. As discussed by Pottorff andNeal (1994), one of the biggest myths about di-saster is that those impactedby the disaster tendto panic. Although Pottorff and Neal’s assess-ment is from the angle of the hospitality indus-try, the tendency to panic is apparent throughthe expressed sentiments affiliated with thedominance dimension. Destination marketers
Lehto, Douglas, and Park 39
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
should therefore ensure that messages com-municated after the disaster are effective atpersuading visitors that the destination is safe.Additionally, marketing messages shouldserve todefrayanymisinformationprevalent inmedia which has the potential to significantlyaffect the rateof economic recovery for thedes-tination.
The emotional reactions derived from thearousal dimension also bear significant impli-cations for tourism recovery. One interestingobservation is that as a result of over-arousal orstimulation, the consumers appear to have lostsome of the common sentiments towards a sea-side destination such as “relaxing,” “ease” and“calming.” At the same time, other commontraits associated with a seaside destination suchas “exciting” and “stimulating” seem to havelost their lustre as illustrated by the decreasingmean values of those measurement items. Theflow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1987)that has been extensively utilized in recreationand tourism areas seem to provide some con-ceptual support for this phenomenon. Accord-ing to Csikszentmihalyi, to achieve optimal ex-perience, a balance is required between thechallenges perceived in a given situation andthe skills a person brings to that situation.
When a challenge becomes so overbearingthat an individual’s skills can not respond, theflow experience will be disrupted. Althougharousalcanpositively influencevisits toadesti-nation, too much stimulation resulting fromnatural disasters can discourage visitors. Infact, the structural model results demonstrateda significant negative relationship between in-creased arousal and intention to visit. In thissense, feeling over aroused broke the balance avisitor needs in order to enjoy the excitementand stimulations that seaside destinations canoffer. The consumer’s reaction to the arousaldimension certainly present challenges to tour-ism destinations as to regain tourist’s confi-dence. There have been discussions in tourismliterature about potentially taking advantage ofthe consumer’s psychology of mass conver-gence. Pottorff and Neal (1994) in their discus-sionofmarketingimplicationsforpost-disastertourism destinations posited that disasterssometimes actually attract visitors that may becurious about the damage left behind. This ap-proach to utilize visitor’s mass convergence
tendency could be effective to tourists who aredriven by novelty, curiosity and competence.
The paired sample t-tests showed that thepleasuredomainof thePAD suggested an over-all decline in all measurement items. The per-ceived decrease in the pleasure domain can bevery detrimental to destinations as it is stronglyrelated to intention for future visit. In fact, thestructural equation model results show thathigher perceived level of pleasure wouldgreatly impact positive intention to visit a sea-side destination. As the path coefficients (0.97for “pleasure” versus �.6 for arousal and �.15for dominance) from the structural equationmodel attest, the pleasure dimension of affect isundoubtedly most influential among all threePAD constructs. The fact that pleasure has astrong positive relationship with intention totravel suggest that the more the perceived plea-sure that can be experienced at a seaside desti-nation, the more likely the traveler would visitthe destination. This research certainly under-scores the importance of targeting consumerswithmarketingschemes thathighlight theplea-sure dimension. The fact is, while time coulderase some of the initial emotions felt such asdanger and loss of control from the consumers,bringing back the reassurance of a pleasurableexperience can be much more challenging. Thereturn of pleasurable affect is contingent uponthe actualphysical recovery of the infecteddes-tinations. A natural disaster with the magnitudeof the tsunami left many communities and tour-ist resort areas decimated, the usual tourist ac-tivities and facilities supporting these activitiesthatareattractive toaseasidedestinationwouldno longer exist. As such visitors traveling tothese destinations even months after the eventmay find that activities are extremely limited ornon-existent due to the rate of recovery effortsin the affected areas.
As is attested by this research, an individ-ual’s behavioral intention as it relates to travelis influenced by a destination’s image. Weak-ened imageofadestinationcanbea resultof thedegree of increased risk associated with thedestination. It can significantly alter the per-ceived benefits to be derived from an intendedtravelexperience.Asaresult, imagerestorationis a critical part of destination recovery. A prac-ticalconsequenceof this research isdrawingat-tention to the marketing implications of the
40 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISIS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
study findings for the destination managementorganizations and governing bodies in chargeof national tourism policy formulation. It is im-portant to recognize that the impact of such anatural disaster affects not only the immediatecommunities, livelihood of local people, dis-ruption of natural environment which are allimportant stakeholders at any given destina-tion, but also the minds of the potential travel-ers. The later will need great attention in the re-covery process. It has long been the challengefor marketers to get into the psyche or ‘blackbox’ of their consumers and this research opensthe gateway for exploring more about travelersto a seaside destination and their perception ofnaturally occurring events on their intention tovisit. This research demonstrates the impor-tance of managing image and image recoveryafter a crisis situation. It serves as a call for ac-tiveresearch into issues relating to theeffectsofnatural disasters on the consumers of the tour-ism product in the affected areas. It thereforebecomes necessary for conducting such re-searchsoas todetermineeffectivemarketingac-tionandstrategiesofaproactiveandreactivena-ture for communicating the readiness of thedestination before the imminent disaster as wellas changing the destination image and the per-ceived risk associated after the occurrence of thedisaster. This is not to imply that destinationswith prior experience with devastating naturaldisasters have not implemented marketing ef-forts. However, linking the perceptions and per-ception changes of the traveler to the destinationis important for destinations to effectively man-age image formation and change. From a crisismanagement perspective, a crisis recovery sys-tem that is built upon better understanding ofconsumer psychology in the face of environ-mental changes can be more effective than onethat is built upon suppliers frame of mind.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURERESEARCH
The results from the modeling process sup-port the proposition that a naturaldisaster influ-ence significantly the affective responses to theemotional states of pleasure, arousal and domi-nance.ThePADaffectchanges inreturnimpactto varying degrees the intentions of a traveler to
visit a seaside destination. In determining themodel development procedure, it must be re-statedthat theproposedmodel tookintoconsid-eration the affective responses to the emotionalstates in the context of the travel literature andwhile all 16 states were explored, only 10 bestexplained the relationship under study. As thetravel literature is broad, it should also be notedthat the model did not consider the “universe”ofallaffectiveresponses thatmaybeassociatedwith the intention of a traveler to visit a seasidedestination after the impact of a major naturaldisaster. A second limitation of this research isthe fact that this research isbasedonconvenientsample size and the data was collected at onepoint in time after the tsunami. As affect couldchange over time, it takes longitudinal data toaccount for that change. In fact, it could be in-teresting to examine the residual effect of thedisaster at various time periods and comparethe relativity inemotional turnaround in thedif-ferent domains of pleasure, arousal and domi-nance. Some domains could see faster return tonormalcy than others.
REFERENCES
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. (1998). On the evaluation of struc-tural equation models. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Baloglu, S. (1999). A path analytic model of visitationintention involving information sources, socio-psy-chological motivations, and destination image. Jour-nal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8(3), 81-90.
Baloglu, S., & McClearly, K. (1999a). A Model of Des-tination Image Formation. Annals of Tourism Re-search, 26, 868-897.
Baloglu, S., & McClearly, K. (1999b). U.S. interna-tional pleasure travelers’ images of four Mediterra-nean destinations: a comparison of visitors and non-visitors. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 144-152.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative indexes in structuralmodels. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Biel, A. (1997). Discovering brand magic: The hardnessof the softer side of branding. International Journalof Advertising, 16, 199-210.
Browne, M. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways ofassessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J.S. Long(Eds.). Testing structural equation models. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.
Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS.Rahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.
Cassedy, K. (1991). Crisis management planning in thetravel and tourism industry: A study of three destina-
Lehto, Douglas, and Park 41
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
tions and a crisis management planning manual. SanFrancisco: PATA.
Chon, K. (1991). Tourism Destination image modifica-tion process: marketing implications. Tourism Man-agement, 12, 68-72.
Coles, T. (2003). A local reading of a global disaster:some lessons on tourism management from an annushorribilis in South West England. Journal of Travel& Tourism Marketing, 15(2/3), 173-197.
Cooper, M. (2005). Japanese tourism and the SARS epi-demic of 2003. Journal of Travel & Tourism Market-ing, 19(2/3), 119-133.
Crompton, L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation.Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 408-24.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond bordom and anxi-ety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1987). The flow experience. InM. Eliade (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion (Vol,5, pp. 361-363). New York: Mcmillan.
Cushnahan, G. (2003). Crisis management in small-scale tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Market-ing, 15(4), 323-338.
Dombey, O. (2003). The effect of SARS on the Chinesetourism industry. Journal of Vacation Marketing,10(1), 4-10.
Echtner, C., & J. Brent Ritchie (1991). The meaning andmeasurement of destination image. Journal of Tour-ism Studies, 2(2), 2-12.
Eugenio-martin, J. L., Sinclair, M.T., & Yeoman, I.(2005). Quantifying the effects of tourism crises: anapplication to Scotland. Journal of Travel and Tour-ism Marketing, 19 (2/3), 23-36.
Fakeye, P. & Crompton, J. (1991). Image difference be-tween prospective, first-time and repeat visitors tothe lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Re-search, 30(2), 10-16.
Faulkner, B and Vikulov, S. (2001). Katherine, washedout one day, back on track the next: a post-mortem ofa tourism disaster. Tourism Management, 22(4), 331-344.
Faulkner, B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourismdisaster management. Tourism Management, 22, 135-147.
Fink, S. (1986), Crisis Management. New York, Associ-ation of Management.
Floyd, M. F., Gibson, H., Pennington-Gray, L. & Thapa,B. (2003). The effect of risk perceptions on inten-tions to travel in the aftermath of September 11,2001. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(2/3), 19-38.
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcia, H. C. (2001).Destination image towards a conceptual framework.Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56-78.
Gartner, W. (1986). Temporal influences on image change.Annals of Tourism Research, 13, 635-644.
Gartner, W. C. & Hunt, J. D. (1987). An analysis of stateimage change over a twelve-year period (1971-1983).Journal of Travel Research, 16, 15-19.
Goodrich, J. (1978). A new approach to image analysisthrough multidimensional scaling. Journal of TravelResearch, 16(3), 3-7.
Gunn, C. (1972). Vacationscape. Texas: University ofTexas Press.
Guthrie, J. & P. Gale (1991). Positioning ski areas. InNew Horizons Conference Proceedings, pp. 551-569.Calgary: University of Calgary.
Hall, Timothy, & Duval, (2003). Security and tourism:towards a new understanding? Journal of Travel &Tourism Marketing, 15(2/3), 1-18.
Hayduk LA. Structural Equation Modeling with LISLEL:Essentials and Advances, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.Baltimore, MD, 1987.
Hem, L. E., Iversen, N. M., & Nysveen, H. (2002). Ef-fects of ad photos portraying risky vacation situa-tions on intention to visit a tourist destination:moderating effects of age, gender, and nationality.Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 13(4), 1-26.
Henderson, J. C. (1999). Managing the Asian financialcrisis: tourist attractions in Singapore. Journal ofTravel Research, 38(2), 177-181.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating Model Fit. InR. H. Hoyle, Ed. Structure Equation Modeling: Con-cepts, Issues, and Applications, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Huan, T-C, Beaman, J. & Shelby, L. (2003). No-escapenatural disaster Mitigating imacts on tourism. Annu-als of Tourism Research, 31 (2), 255-273.
Klara, R. (1998). Hawaii K-O. Restaurant Business,97(10), 26.
Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structuralequation modeling (2nd ed). New York; The GuilfordPress.
Kim, H. & Richardson, S. L. (2003). Motion picture im-pacts on destination images. Annals of Tourism Re-search, 30(1), 216-237.
Laws, E. & Prideaux, B. (2005) Crisis Management: ASuggested Typology. Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, 19(2/3), 1-8.
Leisen (2001). Image segmentation: the case of a tour-ism destination. Journal of Services Marketing, 15(1),49-66.
Li, M., Cai, L. A., Lehto, X. Y., & Zhang, L. (2006). Anexamination of the relationship between destinationimage, travel motivation and loyalty. Proceedings of2006 International Society of Travel and TourismEducators (ISTTE) Conference. Las Vegas, Nevada.October 12-14.
Maser, B., & Weiermair, K. (1998). Travel decision-making: from the vantage point of perceived risk andinformation preferences. Journal of Travel & Tour-ism Marketing, 7(4), 107-121.
Mayo, E. (1973) Regional images and regional travelbehavior. Proceedings Travel Research AssociationFourth Annual Meeting, Sun Valley, ID, pp. 211-218.
Mayo, E. & Jarvis, L. (1981). The psychology of leisuretravel. Boston: CBI.
42 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISIS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Mazzocchi, M., and Montini, A. (2001). Earthquake ef-fects on tourism in central Italy. Annals of TourismResearch, 28, 1031-1046.
Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J. A. (1974). An Approach toEnvironmental Psychology. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Obasi, B. & Frangialli, F. (1998). Preface. In: WorldTourism Organization and World MeteorologicalOrganization, Handbook on Natural Disaster Reduc-tion in Tourist Areas. Madrid: WTO.
Poon, A. & Adams, E. (2000). How the British willtravel 2005. Tourism Intelligence, Germany: Inter-national Bielefeld.
Pottorff, S. M. & Neal, D. M. (1994). Marketing impli-cations for post-disaster tourism destinations. Jour-nal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 3(1), 115-122.
Prideaux, B. (2003). The need to use disaster planningframeworks to respond to major tourism disasters:analysis of Australia’s response to tourism disastersin 2001. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,15(4), 281-298.
Roehl, W. S. & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1992). Risk percep-tions and pleasure travel: An exploratory analysis.Journal of Travel Research, 2, 17-26.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory offear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psy-chology, 91, 93-114.
Santana, G. (2003). Crisis management and tourism: be-yond the rhetoric. Journal of Travel & Tourism Mar-keting, 15(4), 299-321.
Scott, N. & Laws, E. (2005). Tourism crises and disas-ters: enhancing understanding of system effects. Jour-nal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19(2/3), 151-160.
Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A., & Austin, J.R. (1999). Thebrand-personality scale: An application for restau-rants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly, 40(3), 49-55.
Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R. W., & Uysal, M. (1996).Modeling vacation destination decisions: a behav-ioral approach. Journal of Travel & Tourism Market-ing, 5(1/2), 57-75.
Woodside, A., & S. Lysonski 1989 A General Model ofTraveler Destination Choice. Journal of Travel Re-search, 27(4),8-14.
World Tourism Organization (2003). Safety and Secu-rity in Tourism: Partnerships and Practical Guide-lines for Destinations. Madrid: WTO.
Wilks, J. & Stewart, M. (2004). Tourism risk manage-ment for the Asia Pacific region: an authoritativeguide for managing crises and disasters. Apec inter-national centre for sustainable tourism.
Zhang, H.Q. (2005). Impact of the tsunami on Chineseoutbound tourism. International Journal of Contem-porary Hospitality Management, 17(5), 433-435.
doi:10.1300/J073v23n02_03
Lehto, Douglas, and Park 43
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 01:
28 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014