<%BANNER%>

Japan's Safety and Security Perception among U.S. Heritage Tourists

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Japan's Safety and Security Perception among U.S. Heritage Tourists An Exploratory Study
Physical Description:
1 online resource (142 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Yoshida, Erika
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism, Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management
Committee Chair:
Tasci, Asli Deniz Asiye
Committee Members:
Ko, Yong Jae
Larsen, Kristin Esther

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
destinationimage -- heritagetourism -- japan -- safetyandsecurityperception -- ustourists
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Heritage tourism is special-interest tourism in which tourists seek out the local history and culture of an area as their primary motive for traveling. Compared to other types of tourists, heritage tourists have greater economic impacts for destination development; however, they may also have higher safety and security concerns prior to their departure due to their meticulous travel planning behavior. Hence, the safety and security concerns of heritage tourists regarding travel destinations need attention from researchers and practitioners, which has been a void in the literature thus far. Another void exists in perceptions of Japan’s safety and security among potential international tourists, heritage tourists,or US tourists. Japan is a heritage tourism destination; its historic sites are among the primary reasons that international tourists, including US travelers,visit Japan; however, for several reasons, travel to Japan may carry potential threats to safety and security,including natural disasters and cultural differences, especially for international travelers from distant and culturally different tourist markets such as the United States. This study investigates Japan’s safety and security perceptions among US heritage tourists. The participants were contacted through Amazon Mechanical Turk®. A comprehensive instrument included (1) primary purpose of travel,(2) past travel experience, (3) Japan’s safety and security perception, (4)desirability of Japan as a vacation destination, (5) likelihood of visiting Japan, and (6) sociodemographic factors.This study empirically confirmed that Japan has a strong destination image as a culturally-oriented and urban-developed country. No difference was found between heritage and non-heritage tourists with regard to their safety and security perception of Japan; however, the two groups were different in their age. Both heritage and non-heritage tourists were most concerned with problems related to cultural and geographic distance, rather than those related to personal safety and security, and natural and human-made disaster. T-test and ANOVA revealed differences between males and females and among education levels in terms of Japan’s overall safety and security perception. Moreover, Japan’s overall safety and security perception,familiarity with Japan, desirability of Japan as a vacation destination and likelihood of visiting Japan were all positively correlated. Suggestions and implications are discussed.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Erika Yoshida.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: Tasci, Asli Deniz Asiye.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2015-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0046042:00001

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Japan's Safety and Security Perception among U.S. Heritage Tourists An Exploratory Study
Physical Description:
1 online resource (142 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Yoshida, Erika
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism, Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management
Committee Chair:
Tasci, Asli Deniz Asiye
Committee Members:
Ko, Yong Jae
Larsen, Kristin Esther

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
destinationimage -- heritagetourism -- japan -- safetyandsecurityperception -- ustourists
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Heritage tourism is special-interest tourism in which tourists seek out the local history and culture of an area as their primary motive for traveling. Compared to other types of tourists, heritage tourists have greater economic impacts for destination development; however, they may also have higher safety and security concerns prior to their departure due to their meticulous travel planning behavior. Hence, the safety and security concerns of heritage tourists regarding travel destinations need attention from researchers and practitioners, which has been a void in the literature thus far. Another void exists in perceptions of Japan’s safety and security among potential international tourists, heritage tourists,or US tourists. Japan is a heritage tourism destination; its historic sites are among the primary reasons that international tourists, including US travelers,visit Japan; however, for several reasons, travel to Japan may carry potential threats to safety and security,including natural disasters and cultural differences, especially for international travelers from distant and culturally different tourist markets such as the United States. This study investigates Japan’s safety and security perceptions among US heritage tourists. The participants were contacted through Amazon Mechanical Turk®. A comprehensive instrument included (1) primary purpose of travel,(2) past travel experience, (3) Japan’s safety and security perception, (4)desirability of Japan as a vacation destination, (5) likelihood of visiting Japan, and (6) sociodemographic factors.This study empirically confirmed that Japan has a strong destination image as a culturally-oriented and urban-developed country. No difference was found between heritage and non-heritage tourists with regard to their safety and security perception of Japan; however, the two groups were different in their age. Both heritage and non-heritage tourists were most concerned with problems related to cultural and geographic distance, rather than those related to personal safety and security, and natural and human-made disaster. T-test and ANOVA revealed differences between males and females and among education levels in terms of Japan’s overall safety and security perception. Moreover, Japan’s overall safety and security perception,familiarity with Japan, desirability of Japan as a vacation destination and likelihood of visiting Japan were all positively correlated. Suggestions and implications are discussed.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Erika Yoshida.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: Tasci, Asli Deniz Asiye.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2015-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0046042:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SAFETY AND SECURITY PERCEPTION AMONG U S HERITAGE TOURISTS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY By ERIKA YOSHIDA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Erika Yoshida

PAGE 3

3 This thesis is dedicated to my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Asli D. A. Tasci, the chair of my thesis committee, for her inspiration knowledge, expertise, encouragement and patient guidance throughout this thesis research. Indeed, without her help I could not have completed th e research; her support and encouragem ent always helped me to overcome the challenges during this thesis endeavor. I appreciate her belief in my abilities to finish this study. I would also like to extend my appreciation to my committee members: Dr. Yo ng Jae Ko and Dr. Kristin E. Larsen for th eir support, encouragement, and belief in my abilities. I would also like to extend my deep est gratitude to my family, especially my father, who has always supported, encouraged and believed me all th is time The l ove and trust between us has strengthened during these two years and encouraged me to pursue a higher level of education. My father is my first mentor in life and has been the best father in the world. I have been very f ortunate in having such a wonderful family and be ing a member of it. M y sinc ere appreciation is extended to my friends for their continuous support and encouragement. I love my family and friends so much and they will always be the best. Their strong belief in my abilities supported and motivated me to work hard to finish th is res earch. Every time I had difficulties, I felt their love and appreciate everything I have received thus far Every moment is meaningful Every difficulty can be a g ood lesson and a great opportunit y to become a better person. Through this thesis research, I have learned a lot of valuable things A ll of the experiences a re apprecia ted and will surely enrich my life. Thank you very much, Dr. Tasci, Dr. Ko, Dr. Larsen, my family and friends.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 Research Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................. 14 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 19 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................ ................................ .............. 21 Heritage Tourism ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 21 What Is Heritage Tourism? ................................ ................................ ............... 21 Heritage Tourism and Cultural Tourism ................................ ............................ 23 Characteristics of Heritage Tourists ................................ ................................ 24 Significance of Heritage Tourism ................................ ................................ ...... 26 Safety and Security Concerns of Heritage Tourists ................................ .......... 27 Demographic Se gmentation and Behavioral Segmentation in Heritage Tourism ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 28 Perception of Safety and Security and Destination Choice ................................ ..... 29 Safety a nd Security as a Basic Need of Human Beings ................................ ... 29 Safety and Security and the Tourism Industry ................................ .................. 30 Risk as a Threat to Safety and Secu rity Perception ................................ ......... 31 Perceived Risk and Actual Risk ................................ ................................ ........ 32 Information Search Behavior to Satisfy Safety and Security Needs ................. 33 Various Types of Risks as Threats to Safety and Security Perception ............. 34 ................................ ..... 37 Past Travel Experience ................................ ................................ .................... 40 Individual Differences in Risk Taking Behavior ................................ ................ 41 Sa fety and Security of Specific Destination s ................................ ........................... 43 China ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 44 South Africa ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 47 India ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 49 Hong Kong ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 50 Thailand ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 51 London, United Kingdom ................................ ................................ .................. 53 New Orleans, United States ................................ ................................ ............. 54

PAGE 6

6 Israel ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 54 Heritage Tourism in Japan ................................ ................................ ...................... 59 Japan as a Cultural and Heritage Tourism Destination ................................ .... 59 US Tourists in Japan Tourism and Their Primary Purpose for Visiting ............. 60 61 Recent Destination Image of Japan ................................ ................................ 63 3 METHODS AND INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ............. 65 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 65 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 66 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 68 The Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 73 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 73 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 77 General Primary Purpose of Travel and Tourist Type ................................ ............. 77 Sociodemographic Characteristics ................................ ................................ ......... 79 Past Travel Experience ................................ ................................ ........................... 82 Familiarity with Japan ................................ ................................ ............................. 84 General Image of Japan ................................ ................................ ......................... 84 Desirability of Japan as a Vacation Destination ................................ ...................... 88 Likelihood of Visiting Japan ................................ ................................ .................... 88 Safety and Security Perception ................................ ................................ ............... 89 Overall Safety and Security Perception ................................ ............................ 89 Specific Threats to Safet y and Security ................................ ............................ 89 Differences and Relationships ................................ ................................ ................ 96 Sociode m ographic Factors and Overall Safety and Security Perception ......... 96 Overall Safety and Security Perceptions and Threat Factors ........................... 98 Safety and Security Perceptions and Other Variables ................................ ...... 99 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ...... 106 Heritage and Non heritage Tourists ................................ ................................ ...... 106 Sociodemographics and Safety and Security Perception ................................ ..... 107 General Image of Japan ................................ ................................ ....................... 108 Safety and Security Perception ................................ ................................ ............. 110 ................ 114 Conclusion and Implication ................................ ................................ ................... 116 Limitation and Recommendation for Future Research ................................ .......... 120 APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS OF CULTURAL AND HERITAGE TOURISM ................................ 123 B CHARAC TERISTICS OF CULTURAL AND HERITAGE TOURISTS ................... 128

PAGE 7

7 C INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 130 0 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 133 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 142

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Characteristics of general cultural and heritage tourists ................................ ..... 27 2 2 Travel planning behavior of general heritage tourists ................................ ......... 28 2 3 Travel behavior of older and highly educated tourists ................................ ........ 39 3 1 Methodologies of destination risk studies ................................ ........................... 71 3 2 Threat i tems and r esources from w hich the i tems w ere d erived. ........................ 72 4 1 Primary purposes of the respondents ................................ ................................ 78 4 2 Main p rimary p urposes given by the respondents on other category ................. 79 4 3 Sociodemogra p hic characteristics of the respondents ................................ ....... 81 4 4 Past travel experience of the r espondents ................................ ......................... 83 4 5 Co mparison of past travel experience of heritage and non heritage t ourists ...... 83 4 6 T he number of travels of heritage and non heritage tourists .............................. 83 4 7 Main purpose of the past trip to Japan ................................ .......... 84 4 8 Code book for frequency analysis of the open ended question .......................... 86 4 9 ................................ ......................... 87 4 10 other variables ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 88 4 11 Descriptive statistics for threat attributes and comparison of heritage and non heritage tourists ................................ ................................ ........................... 90 4 12 Mean c omparison of heritage and non heritage tourists in 30 threat items ........ 91 4 13 Correlations among 30 t hreat a ttributes ................................ ............................. 92 4 14 Summary of the factor analysis ................................ ................................ .......... 94 4 15 Inter item correlations for the natural and human made disaster factor ............. 95 4 16 ll safety and security perception ................................ ................................ ............ 97

PAGE 9

9 4 17 The result of the Tukey HSD post hoc test on education ................................ .... 97 4 18 Correlations among the ex tracted factors in the factor analysis ....................... 100 4 19 Correlations between safety and security perception variables and other variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 101

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure p age 3 1 Conceptual framework ................................ ................................ ........................ 66 4 1 Correlations between the personal safety and security concern factor and other threa t factors ................................ ................................ ........................... 102 4 2 Correlations between the cultural and geographic distance factor and other threat factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 102 4 3 Correlations b etween the natural and human made disaster factor and other threat factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 103 4 4 Correlations among the safety and security perception factors ........................ 103 4 5 Correlations between familiarity with Japan and threat factors ......................... 104 4 6 Correlations between desirability of Japan as a vacation destination and threat factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 104 4 7 Correlations between likelihood of visiting Japan and threat factors ................ 105 4 8 Correlations perception and other variables ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 105

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ANOVA One way Analysis of Variance CHV Cultural Heritage V isitor DMO D estination M arketing O rganizations HIT Human Intelligence Task ICT Information and Communicat ion Technology JNTO Japan National Tourism Organization KMO Kaiser Meyer Olkin LSS L ife S tyle S timulation M Mean MOFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan OSL O ptimal S timulation L evel OTTI the US Office of Travel and Tourism Industries PRC People s Republ ic of China SSS S ensation seeking S cale T&T T ravel and T ourism TMNP Table Mountain National Park TTCI Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Index UAI U ncertainty A voidance I ndex UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization U NWTO Worl d Tourism Organization US United States VFR V isiting Friends and R elatives WEF World Economic Forum

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science SAFETY AND SECURITY PERCEPTION AMONG U S HERITAGE TOURISTS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY By Erika Yoshida August 2013 Chair: Asli D. A. Tasci Major: Recreation, Parks and Tourism Heritage tourism is special interest tourism in which tourists seek out the local history and culture of an area as their primary motive for traveling. Compared to other types of tourists, heritage tourists have greater economic impacts for destination development ; h owever, they may also have high er sa fety and security concerns prior to their departure due to their meticulous travel planning behavior. Hence, the safety and security concerns of heritage tourists regarding travel destinations need attention from researchers and practitioners which has be en a void in the literature thus far. Another void exists in perceptions of Japan amo ng potential international tourists heritage tourists, or US tourists. Japan is a heritage tourism destination; its historic sites are among the pr ima ry reasons that international tourists, including US travelers visit Japan ; h owever, for several reasons, travel to Japan may carry potential threats to safety and security, including natural disasters and cultural differences especially f or internati onal travelers from distant and culturally different tourist markets such as the United States This study investigates safety and security perception s among US heritage tourists. T he participants we re contacted through Amazon Mechanical Turk

PAGE 13

13 A comprehensive instrument included ( 1 ) primary purpose of travel ( 2 ) past travel experience (3 ) safety and security perception (4 ) desirability of Japan as a vacation destination, (5) likelihood of visiting Japan and ( 6 ) sociodemog raphic factors This study empirically confirmed that Japan has a strong destination image as a culturally orient ed and urban developed country. N o difference was found between heritage and non heritage tourists with regard to their safety and security perception of Jap an ; however, the two groups were different in their age B oth heritage and non heritage tourists were most concerned with problems related to cultural and geographic distance, rather than those related to personal safety and security and natural and human made disaster. T test and ANOVA revealed differences between males and perception. Moreover Japan, desirab ility of Japan as a vacation destination and likelihood of visiting Japan were all positively correlated. Suggestions and implications are discussed.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Research Problem Statement Cultural heritage is a unique representation of human c reation, which is inherited across the globe and throughout human history ( World Tourism Organization [U NWTO ] n.d. a ). Increasing information and access to sites and places marked by cultural heritage have generated global curiosity and demand for such pl aces (UNWTO, n.d a ). Heritage tourism is defined luding cultural, historic, and natural resources (National Trust for Hist oric Preservation, n.d. Heritage Tourism para. 2 ). Despite some differences in primary motives and the attractions involved, heritage tourism and cultural tourism have close ties, one being categorized as a part of the other (Nuryanti, 1996; Richards, 1996, 2001 a ; Timothy, 2011; Timothy & Boyd, 2006; Zeppel & Hall, 1992). The terms and concepts of cultural tourism and heritage tourism have also been used interchangeably (Richards, 2001 a ; Timothy, 2011); hence, some phenomena discussed in the context of one can also apply to the other. Heritage tourists, who presumably include experiencing the local history and nostalgia in their prima ry motives to visit a destination, comprise a significant market segment for destinations. Several cultural and heritage tourism studies have found that tourists in this category tend to spend and shop more and stay longer in a destination than other types of tourists ( Richards, 1996; Silberberg, 1995; National Trust for Historic Preservation n.d. ; US Office of Travel and T ourism Industries [OTTI] 2011 ; Zeppel & Hall, 1992 ). Based on its research into the cultural heritage visitor (CHV) to the United

PAGE 15

15 States, the US Office of Travel and Tourism Industries ( 2011 ) also reported that these tourists are more likely to visit vari ous destinations than average international tourists. Moreover, heritage tourism, consequently help s locals feel self esteem and community pride in their cultural heritage (Timothy, 2011). Hence, the se tourists bring more positive economic and socio cultu ral benefits to local communities and may also be more cautious about local cultures and environments than other types of tourists Therefore, heritage tourism is believed to be more lucrative for destination development than other types of tourism, and th e National Trust for Historic Preservation good heritage tourism program improves the quality of life for residents as well as ( Heritage Tourism, para. 1). In addition, heritage travelers have a different sociod emographic profile than other tourists. Heritage tourists in general tend to be middle aged or older, represented by aging baby boomers and retirees; be highly educated ; have a relatively higher socio economic status such as average or higher than average incomes ; be employed full time, part time or self employed ; have professional or managerial households ; and be married with older children (Chandler & Costello, 2002; Prent ice, Witt, & Hamer, 1998; Rich a rds, 1996, 2001 b 2007 ; Silberberg, 1995; Timothy, 2 011; Zeppel & Hall, 1992) Furthermore, compared to other types of tourists, heritage tourists also tend to be first timers to that destination need longer planning time, purchase flight tickets earlier and collect more information about the destinations they visit ( OTTI 2011 ; Timothy, 2011) Thus one can a ssume that heritage tourists may be more cautious about their trips than other tourists in general This is supported by risk and tourism studies reporting that older tourists and highly educated tour ists tend to have more safety and

PAGE 16

16 security concerns and want to engage in intellectual and safer activities have more positive attitude s toward international travel, and engage in more complex trips that require more planning time, such as travel for cult ural activities ( Gibson & Yannakis, 2002 ; Somez & Graefe, 1998 a; Zalatan, 1996) ; h owever, despite their significance to the local economy and different degree of safety and security concerns from other types of tourists, and secur ity perception s and its influence on their behavior have not been empirically studied To date, r isk studies gen erally have targeted general tourists, instead of tourists with special interests, except for one s focused on sports tourists (Qi, Gibson, & Zha ng, 2009 ; and others ). In 1970, Maslow proposed the theory of human motivation, termed the hierarchy of human needs. According to this theory, w hen psychological needs mainly hunger and thirst are satisfied, we start to experience secondary needs ; that is, safety (and security) needs. To meet these needs, we want to be free from fear and anxiety and to feel safe and secure In fact, in (1988, 1996) Travel Career Ladder, the need for safety and security is also listed as one of the basic needs of tourists (Ryan, 1998). Risk is the possibility of experiencing a negative outcome (Pizam et al., 2004, p. 251) ; thus, one can assume that safety and security is threatened by the presence of risk. In fact, p revious studies have suggested that safety an d security concerns are determined by risk; that is, risk affects the perception of safety and security as a crucial factor in decision making (Dowling, 1986 ; Fuchs & Reichel, 2004, 2006; Moreira, 2008; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Somez & Graefe, 1998a, b). T ourism consumption itself can be associated with perceived threats to safety and security because tourism requires tourists to be alienated from home, stay in a different local culture with a

PAGE 17

17 different language, and behave in an acceptable manner (Fuchs & Reichel, 2011). Somez and Graefe (1998a) warned that unfounded perceptions of risk can seriously hurt a destination (p. 137). Fuchs and Reichel ( 2011 ) also ssist in the formulation of marketing strategies that will consider the various dimensions of risk Thus, t domestic and international, have a strong influence on their decision making and other travel behavior regarding visiting a destination ; h owever, despite its importance, little empirical attention has been paid to safety and security perceptions and thei r influence on the behavior of heritage tourists. Japan has long been a heritage tourism destination; the Japan National Tourism Organization ( JNTO ; 2011b, c) reported that visiting historic and traditional sites is among the top three primary purposes o f visiting the country. Yet, despite its popularity and brand image as a cultura lly oriented co untry, few studies have been conducted on cultural and heritage tourism in Japan ( Jimura 2011). Accordingly, th e present study assumes that more empirical studi es about Japan s heritage tourism are needed not only within Japan but also internationally. US tourists comprise an important market segment for Japan in its inbound tourism; the number of US tourists to Japan was 727,234 in 2010, 565,887 in 2011, and 71 7,372 in 2012 (JNTO, 2012a). In 2010, the JNTO (2011b, c) also found that historic and traditional sites ranked in the top three primary purposes for visiting Japan among US tourists I n 2013, in its promotional plan for the US market, the Japanese

PAGE 18

18 governm ent has targeted US citizens who live in big cities, have higher income s are over 40 years old and graduated with degree as the most important target segment (Japan Travel Agency, 2013). In its plan, the government has appeal ed to th is segme nt by introducing them to a variety of content including historic and traditional architecture and buildings. In addition, a ccording to UNWTO (2012 b ), US tourists rank ed second in international tourism expenditure. Therefore, US tourists are among the mos t significant markets in terms of their economic contribution to both international tourism and Japa s tourism Although the proportion of their expenditure may depend on their destination of travel and the price of good s at these destinations the data o f UNWTO are still supportive in understand ing the significance of US tourists in international tourism. Despite its attractiveness international tourists may not regard traveling to Japan as safe and secure because of potential threats Due to its geographic location and climate, Japan is intrinsically vulnerable to natural disasters, particularly earthquakes, tsunamis, and typhoons (Cooper & Erfurt, 2007). For example, in addition to the tremendous economic loss, the Great East Japan Earthq u ake (M 9.0) of March 11, 2011 had negative impacts on the tourism industry, resulting in a decline in the total number of inbound visitors in 2011 (JNTO, 2012a). Noting that other factors may be present, such as the appreciation of the value of the yen, JN TO assumed that safety and security perceptions due to the natural disaster and radiation may be one main cause of this decline (JNTO, 2012b). Therefore, the probability of natural disasters and the local climate in Japan can constitute threats to internat security; in addition, other factors may affect their safety concerns, such as various

PAGE 19

19 dimensions of political, financial, natural, social, cultural, and geographic/environmental conditions. Japan can represent potential threats to safety and security for international travelers especially those from distant and culturally different tourist markets such as the United States, more than for travelers from close and culturally similar countries such as South Korea, China and Taiwan Nevertheless, no study has investigated the international tourists, especially heritage tourists. In destination management and marketing, it is important to measure the per ception s of potential tourists because potential tourists may have different constraints from tourists who have taken action and actually visited a destination. Purpose of the Study The main purpose of the study is to investigate Japan s safety and securit y perceptions among US heritage tourists. In addition, the relationship of sociodemographics and past travel experience (familiarity) with safety and security perception and, consequently, the relationship of safety and security perception with the desirab ility of Japan as a destination as well as the likelihood of visiting Japan will also be investigated. The premise of this study is that d ue to individual differ ences in travel purpose, past travel experience (familiarity) and sociodemographics, there w ill be differences among US heritage tourists in terms of their safety and security perception of Japan. Therefore, this study also assumes that relevant differences may be found among US heritage tourists in terms of their safety and security perception l evel. Accordingly, this and security perception s may affect

PAGE 20

20 their desirability rating of Japan as a vacation destination, as well as their likelihood of visiting Japan

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK T his chapter consists of four sections. The first section is a review of the literature on heritage tourism The second section is on safety and security perceptions and risk as a threat to safety and security. The third section is on safety and security o f specific destination s T he last section is o n heritage tourism in Japan. Heritage Tourism What Is Heritage Tourism ? Heritage tourism, as s pecial interest tourism (Nuryanti, 1996; Zeppel & Hall, 1992), is the oldest form of travel in human history (Timoth y & Boyd, 2006) I t is one of the most popular types of tourism which hundreds of millions of tourists participate in every year (Timothy & Boyd, 2006). T h eritage (Millar, 1989 p. 13 ; Palmer 1999 p. 315 ; Yale, 1997 p. 32 ) has gained the attention of a number of researchers because of its significance as a profitable resource in tourism. Heritage serves as a representation of the nation s past ( Palmer, 1999) as well as economic and cultural knowledge capital ( Graham, 2002); indeed, heri tage is used each country (Timothy, 2011, p. 277) In fact, in destination marketing, c ountries are willing to invest in the United Nations Educational, ritage sites and use the brand as an advantage in the competitive market (Timothy, 2011). For example according to Millar ( 1989 ), heritage sites such as Notre Dame Cathedral and the Eiffel Tower in Paris, or the Tower of London and Shakespeare 's birthplace at Stratford upon Avon in England, provide the motivation for people to visit a country in p. 14). In addition, the World Tourism Organization ( UNWTO ; n.d b .)

PAGE 22

22 declared that W sited and heavily marketed tourism attractions, forming the basis of national tourism products ( Collaboration with UNESCO, para. 1). Heritage tourism is defined as tourism desire to experience diverse cultural l (Zeppel & Hall, 1992, p. 47) In addition h eritage t ourism has played a role in construct ing and maintain ing a national identity (Palmer, 1998 ; Pretes, 2003 ) and emphasiz ing political ideologies (Timothy & Boyd, 2006). Thus, it is wid ely employed to enhance patriotism among citizens and display the nation s propaganda to foreign tourists (Timothy & Boyd, 2006) Therefore, heritage tourism as enables tourists to feel personal connection s to heritage sites (Timothy, 2011) and to appreciate the past through experiencing heritage sites as visualized forms of the link between the past, present, and future (Nuryanti, 1996). In addition heritage tourism has played a key ro le in revitalizing abandoned or better room to preserve traditional and contemporary cultural values (UNWTO, n.d a.). In this way h eritage t ourism assists in historic preservation by enabling commercialization of historic architecture and landscapes for tourists, thereby leading t o a revitalization of the economy ( National Trust for Historic Preservation n.d.). Thus, as Zeppel and Hall (1992) stated, heritage tourism provides a reason for urban redevelopment. Fya ll and Garrod (1998) proposed that [h]eritage and sustainability share a common theme of inheritance ; that is, heritage tourism is the consumption of inherited resources and sustainability aims to preserve and manage such resources for well being of futu re generation (p. 213).

PAGE 23

23 A t the same time, heritage tourism should be cautiously planned, developed, managed, and marketed with various approaches in both developing and developed countries (Nuryanti, 1996). Thus far, several measures and principles have be en proposed to achieve so called good heritage tourism programs. T he National Trust for Historic Preservation (n.d.) proposed five guiding principles for successful and sustainable heritage tourism development (collaborate ; find the fit ; make sites and pro grams come alive ; focus on quality and authenticity ; and preserve and protect) and four steps for getting started (assess the potential; plan and organize; prepare, protect, and manage; and market for success), w hich have been developed and ada pted widely across the United States and worldwide. If these principles and measures are overlooked or undermined, the results can be not only the opposite of expectations, but also irreversibly destructive ( National Trust for Historic Preservation n.d.) U NWTO ( 2012 a ) suggested that, if not appropriately planned and managed, heritage tourism can hurt the destination by causing irreversible negative impacts on the cultural and natural heritage as well as the environment and local communities. In addition, in 2011, UN WTO published Communicating Heritage: A Handbook for the Tourism Sector as guidance to achieve successful and effective heritage communication strategies and policies (UNWTO, 2012 a ). Heritage Tourism and Cultural Tourism Heritage tourism is often categori zed as a part of cultural tourism and vice versa (Nuryanti, 1996; Richards, 1996, 2001 a ; Timothy, 2011; Timothy & Boyd, 2006; Zeppel & Hall, 1992) ; thus, some authors utilize the terms c ultural tourism and heritage tourism interchangeably ( e.g., Richards, 2001 a ; Timothy, 2011) or prefer to use cultural heritage tourism instead of either ( e.g., du Cros 2001; Timothy, 2011) According to

PAGE 24

24 Timothy (2011), cultural tourism and heritage tourism are related, 4) ; that is, it is difficult to distinguish them because the differences would be subtle even if they were found (Timothy, 2011 ). Timothy (2011) further argued that heritage tourism tends to be consumed in rural areas ltural tourism occurs in urban areas and is independent of location (pp. 4 5). Hence, Richard s (2001 a ) declared that : Cultural tourism therefore covers not just the consumption of the cultural products of the past, but also contemporary culture or the way of life of a people or region. C ultural tourism can therefore be seen as covering considered as to artefacts of the (p. 7) Therefore, b ased on the ir definitions heritage tourism can be defined as special interest tourism in which tourists have a strong interest in history as well as educational opportunities to learn about the local culture. Moreover, as we have seen, since cultural tourism a nd heritage tourism share many commonalities and have been used interchangeably, some phenomena discussed in the context of one may also apply to the other Hence, th e present s tudy assumed that cultural tourists share commonalities with heritage tourists in terms of their profile and characteristics. Thus, previous literature o n cul tural tourism studies were reviewed for the understanding of heritage tourists characteristics. Characteristics of Heritage Tourists I n successful strategic marketing it is i mportant to understand the characteristics of heritage tourists. Demographic segmentation classifies tourists depending on their social and socio economic status, including age, gender, employment, marital status, education, and income (Timothy, 2011). In addition s ociodemographic characteristics of heritage tourists tend to be homogenous (Chandler & Costello, 2002; Prentice, 1993).

PAGE 25

25 As listed in Table 2 1, compared to tourists in general, h eritage tourists tend to be highly educated (Chandler & Costello, 2 002; Prentice, Witt, & Hamer, 1998 ; Richards, 199 6, 2001 b 2007; Silberberg, 1995 ); have higher socio economic status such as average or higher than average incomes (Richards, 1996, 2001 b 2007; Silberberg, 1995; Zeppel & Hall, 1992); be employed, either f ull time or part time or self employed (Chandler & Costello, 2002; Richards, 1996, 2001 b ); have professional or managerial households (Rich ard s, 2001 b 2007); and be married with older children (Chandler & Costello, 2002). Furthermore, more women particip ate in cultural and heritage tourism than men (Rich ar ds, 2001 b ; Silberberg, 1995). Previous studies have also reported that general heritage tourists tend to be middle aged or older, represented by aging baby boomers or retirees (Chandler & Costello, 2002; Prentice, Witt, & Hamer, 1998; Rich ar ds, 1996, 2001 b ; Silberberg, 1995; Timothy, 2011; Zeppel & Hall, 1992) ; h owever, Richard s ( 1996, 2001 b 2007 ) and Timothy ( 2011) found that, in addition to middle aged tourists younger tourists are currently a key seg [ t ] he single largest age group is between 20 to 29 and almost 40 percent ( Richard s 2007, p. 15 ). Regarding this current trend, Richard s (2007) further argued that y ounger tourists especially students, are an important mar ket segment because there is a significant relationship between cultural consumption and education ; h owever, as Timothy (2011) noted, the trend in demographic characteristics differs depending on the place H eritage tourists something new or enhance their lives in some hy, 2011, p. 4) as well as to gain cultural and heritage experiences as & Costello, 2002, p. 162). This is consistent with Crompton s (1979) f inding that t wo primary cultural

PAGE 26

26 motives for tourism are novelty and education In fact, s erious heritage tourists whose prima ry reason to travel is to visit heritage tourism attractions tend to be very highly educated and demonstrate a strong personal int erest in history, culture, and other aspects of the places they visit. Thus, education can be a key factor i n stimulating t ourists to become interested in history and culture and related activities (Timothy, 2011) because a direct correlation exists betwee n the level of education and the desire to learn and experience different lifestyles and cultures (McKercher & du Cros, 2002). In addition, Timothy (2011) stated that t ] here are direct correlations to income and education levels, and willingness to pay f or the experience being offered (p. 27). Significance of Heritage Tourism Indeed as listed in Table 2 1 some cultural and heritage tourism studies have found that general heritage tourists tend to spend more, shop more, and stay longer in a destination than other types of tourists ( Richards, 1996; Silberberg, 1995; National Trust for Historic Preservation n.d.; US Office of Travel and Tourism Industries [OTTI] 2011 ; Zeppel & Hall, 1992 ). Based on its research into the cultural heritage visitor to the United States, the OTTI (2011) also reported that heritage tourists are more likely to visit various destinations than aver age international tourists. Moreover, in consequence, when countries notice that their cultural heritage has value and attracts forei gn tourists, heritage tourism can help local communit ies feel self esteem and community pride, resulting in motivation for them to preserve such sites as well as to clean up and maintain a cleaner environment (Timothy, 2011). Therefore, heritage tourists a re an important market segment for tourism development because they bring more positive economic and socio cultural benefits and are believed to be more cautious about the local culture than other types of tourists.

PAGE 27

27 Table 2 1. Characteristics of general c ultural and heritage tourists Author(s) or Organizations Characteristics Chandler & Costello (2002); Prentice, Witt, & Hamer (1998); Richards ( 1996, 2001 b ); Silberberg (1995); Timothy (2011); Zeppel & Hall (1992) Middle aged or older, including baby boo mers and retire es Chandler & Costello (2002); Prentice, Witt, & Hamer (1998) ; Richards (1996, 2001 b 2007); Silberberg (1995) Highly educated Richards ( 1996, 2001 b 2007); Silberberg (1995); Zeppel & Hall (1992) Higher socio economic status; higher tha n average income Chandler & Costello ( 2002); Richards (1996, 2001 b ) Employed ( full time or part time), self employed Richards (2001 b 2007) Professional or managerial household Chandler & Costello (2002) Married and have older children Richards (2 001 b ); Silberberg (1995) More women than men Richard s (1996, 2001 b 2007); Timothy (2011) Younger National Trust for Historic Preservation ( n.d.); Richards (1996); Silberberg (1995); US Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (2011) Spend and shop mo re at a destination National Trust for Historic Preservation (n.d.); Richards (1996); Silberberg (1995); US Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (2011); Zeppel & Hall (1992) Stay longer at a destination US Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (201 1) Visit various destinations Millar (1989); Timothy (2011) Help locals feel self esteem and community pride in their cultural heritage Note : F or a more detailed summary, see Appendix B. Safety and Security Concerns of Heritage Tourists Furthermore, in travel planning heritage tourists display different behavioral tendencies from other types of tourists ( s ee Table 2 2). The US Office of Travel and Tourism Industries ( OTTI ; 2011) reported that international cultural heritage tourists to the United State s tend to spend longer planning for their trips, book flight tickets earlier than average international traveler s and are more likely first timers. According to Timothy (2011), heritage tourists also collect more information about destinations they

PAGE 28

28 visit. Thus, one can assume that heritage tourists tend to be more cautious about their trips than other types of tourists Table 2 2. Travel planning behavior of general heritage tourists Author or Organization Characteristics US Office o f Travel and Tourism Industries ( 2011 ) Be first timers Need longer planning time Purchase flight tickets earlier Timothy ( 2011 ) Collect more information about the destinations they visit Demographic Segmentation and Behavioral Segmentation in Heritage Tourism As discusse d heritage tourists tend to be homoge neous in their characteristics ; h owever, t he heterogeneity of heritage (Prentice, 1993) generates divergent choices to meet various needs of tourists with different interests and lifestyles (Millar, 1989); thus, herita ge tourism is heterogeneous ( Balcer & Pearce, 1996 ; Nuryanti, 1996 ) and heritage tourists have various motives and purposes for traveling (Balcer & Pearce, 1996 ; McKercher, 2002; McKercher & du Cros, 2002 2003 ; Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2003 ; Poria, Reichel & Biran, 2006 ; Prentice, 1993; Richards, 1996 2001b ; Silberberg, 1995) Hence t tourists in the process of planning and destination choice (McKercher & du Cros, 2003, p. 46 ). In fact, previous research has reported that most cultural and heritage tourists are casual tourists ; that is, serious tourists, who have strong interest in local culture and history and mainly visit such attractions during their travel constitute a very small segment of the market (Balcer & Pearce, 1996 ; McKercher, 2002; McKercher & du Cros, 2002 2003 ; Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2003 ; Prentice, 1993; Richards, 1996; Silberberg, 1995) Hence, some scholars have proposed typologies of cultural and/or heritag e tourists to describe the diversity of segments in the market (e.g., McKercher, 2002;

PAGE 29

29 McKercher & du Cros, 2002 2003 ; Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2003 ; Silberberg, 1995). Therefore, Prentice (1993) claimed that since heritage tourists seek different experien ces and prefer different types of holiday vacation s benefit segmentation is preferable to socio demographic segmentation to understand their demands ; h owever, although some scholars have argued that demographic segmentation provides an insufficient index of cultural and heritage tourists (Prentice, Witt, & Hamer, 1998), s ociodemographic factors have been employed as a powerful and relevant tool in heritage tourism marketing (Prentice, Witt, & Hamer, 1998). Perception of Safety and Security and Destination Choice Safety and Security as a Basic Need of Human Beings In human psychology, Maslow ( 1970 ) proposed the theory of human motivation, known as the hierarchy of human needs. Although it has not been empirically studied it is one of the most frequently emp loyed theories in social science. According to Maslow s theory, the needs to be satisfied are hierarchical; every human being has intrinsic psychological needs and consequently, tries to satisfy self actualization needs by fulfilling other needs. The psyc hological needs are mainly for hunger and thirst satisfaction (e.g., food, water, sexual desire, sleepiness, homeostasis for sensory pleasures, a tendency toward laziness, and a need for excitement). When psychological needs are satisfied, humans start to attend to secondary needs, that is, safety (and security) needs. For these needs, people want to be free from fear and anxiety and to protect themselves from threats. After safety needs are fulfilled, people try to satisfy higher level needs, including in order, belongingness and love needs, esteem needs, and the need for self needs tells us that psychological needs and safety needs are the priority to survive in society

PAGE 30

30 In other words, w ithout the satisfaction of such basic needs, we cannot share love with others or feel peace in our mind. The World Tourism Organization ( UNWTO ; 1997) also stated that both gain ing new experiences and feel ing safe and secure are among the basic needs of every hum an being; in addition these basic needs are of more concern when traveling to unfamiliar places than when staying home (UNWTO, 1997). Indeed, in (1988, 1996) Travel Career Ladder the need for safety and security is listed as one of the basic nee ds of tourists (Ryan, 1998). Safety and Security and the Tourism Industry Traveling, by its nature, i s associated with different degree s of perceived threats to safety and security ranging from mere disappointment from expectations to fear of injury or de ath (Fuchs & Reichel, 2004, 2006 ; Somez & Graefe, 1998b ). In fact, tourism consumption can be intrinsically fearful and associated with various types of threats because tourism requires tourists to leave home and stay in an unfamiliar environment (Fuchs & Reichel, 20 1 1 ; World Tourism Organization [ UNWTO ] 1997 ) Therefore a nxiety is strongly related to a high level of safety and security concern among tourists (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005) Hence, t ourism is a vulnerable industry (Dimanche & Lepetic, 1999 ; M ansfeld, 1994; Maser & Weiermair, 1998 ; Murphy & Bayley, 1989; Ro ehl, 1990), affected by politic s ethnic and socioeconomic issues and regional tensions or the natural environment (Dimanche & Lepetic, 1999 ; Roehl, 1990) In fact, unpredictable world event s have significant power to make tourists change their travel plans (Somez & Graefe, 1998a). For example, the fear of terrorism makes a destination that carries the possibility of experiencing an attack seem more costly than other safer alternatives (Somez & Graefe, 1998 a) Thus, one can assume that image serves as the representation of a destination and has an influence on tourists

PAGE 31

31 In addition i n general, tourists easily become targets or victims of certain threats, for example, na tural disaster, crime, and terrorism attack (Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Murphy & B ayley, 1989). In short, t ourists choose a destination based on their own cost benefit analysis; they choose the most desirable destination perceived as less costly and less dangero us but having similar or better benefits that can better fulfill their needs than the alternative (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Somez & Graefe, 1998 a ). Unlike business tourists, leisure tourists tend to have more freedom in the process of evaluation and judg ment which means they have a greater possibility of being interrupted by various threats to safety and security associated with their destination (Somez & Graefe, 1998 a b ). Therefore, as Lepp and Gibson ( 2003 ) and Roehl and Fesenmaier ( 1992 ) suggested, it is crucial and beneficial for its competitiveness in international marketing t o improve the image of a destination, more specifically to alle ies and make them feel secure and safe before during and after their trip to the destination To achieve this as Somez and Graefe (1998a) and Park and Reisinger (2010) suggested, more and correct information about risks and actual situations should be provided to potential tourists. Risk as a Threat to Safety and Security Perceptio n R isk is defined as the possibility of experiencing undesirable or adverse c onsequences ; it is our daily concern and we all have experienced it to a certain degree (Pizam et al., 2004). As stated, safety and security constitute the basic need of every hum an being in general and tourists in particular to be free from fear and anxiety; thus, one can assume that safety and security perception is threatened when risk is perceived. In short, safety and security perception is determined by r isk because risk is a powerful predictor of safety concerns as well as a crucial factor in decision making

PAGE 32

32 ( Dowling, 1986; Fuchs & Reichel, 2004, 2006; Moreira, 2008 ; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Somez & Graefe, 1998 a, b). Therefore, as Fuchs and Reichel (2004) stated Perceived Risk and Ac tual Risk P erceived risk a nd actual risk differ (Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009 ; Somez & Graefe, 1998 a ) because decision makers react differently to uncertainty depending on the situation the types of risk they perceive, and their personality traits ( Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992; Somez & Graefe, 1998 a ) While perceived risk has an effect even decision making even i f it is real (Fuchs & Reichel, 2006). Therefore, p ercei ved risks may out weigh actual risks when personal safety is the issue; the actual probability of encounter ing risky situations is obscured due to media sensationalism and word of mouth (Somez & Graefe, 1998 a ). In a natural disaster, especially when it atta cks a destination that relies heavily on tourism, mass media play s a key role (Milo & Yoder, 1991). N ational and international media report s can make viewers perceive the destination a s unsafe and worry about their personal safety (Dimanche & Lepetic, 1999 ). The generalization effect due to continuous stimulation of media reports is problematic because a single act o r inciden t can create a negative image of the affected area, as well as the surrounding regions (Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Somez & Graefe, 1998 a ). Hence, to mitigate influence from the generalization effect tourism destination marketers need to develop specific marketing strategies to correct the biased and misperceived images (Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009 ) because an ima ge of

PAGE 33

33 threats to safety and security at a destination may affect the likelihood of tourists visiting not only the destination itself but also the region (Lepp & Gibson, 2003). In sum, Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992) and Somez and Graefe (1998 a ) proposed that since the relationship between safety and security perception and travel behavior is situation specific, different tourists have different perceptions. Also, i t is not a matter of whether the risk is real or perceived; the perceived presence of risk itsel f affects tourists travel decisions (Somez & Graefe, 1998 a ). Somez and Graefe (1 998 a) found that safety concerns increase with the level of risk perception but decrease with a more positive attitude toward international travel in the evaluation of potenti al destinations. Therefore, one can assume that risk as a strong predictor of safety and security concerns, is perceived differently and is socially, culturally, and politically constructed Information Search Behavior to Satisfy Safety and Security Needs To reduce risk perception and potential negative consequences, tourists collect detailed information about a trip (Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992; Somez & Graefe, 1998 a ; Zalatan, 1996 ). report i ng that in the case of terrorism risk information search behavior can be most predicted and determined by the following factors in the following order of strength attitude [ toward international travel ] income level, and risk perception level (p. 132) More clearly, as they gained a more positive attitude, higher income, and stronger risk perception, tourists engaged in more active or formal information searches (Somez & Graefe, 1998a). Somez and Graefe (1998a) also found that the three facto rs risk perception, attitude and income level directly affect potential tourists decision making at the key stages In fact, Zalatan (1996) stated that older and highly educated tourists spend more time in planning. In addition, highly educated tourists te nd

PAGE 34

34 to engage in more complex trips that require more planning time; in other words, tourists who want to engage in cultural activities may spend more time o n trip planning than sun lust tourists (Zalatan, 1996). Also f amiliarity helps to reduce the amount of information and consequently planning time (Zalatan, 1996). More specifically, t past experience, risk perception and the importance of the ir trip determine the degree of the information search they conduct (Somez & Graefe, 1998 a ). According t o Money and Crotts (2003), d epending on their demographics and other characteristics as well as situations tourists use different types of information sources Zalatan explained that travel agencies help tourists reduce their planning time and uncertainty before traveling, in particular when they travel a long distance. Thus, a positive correlation exists between planning time and distance. As the distance between home and destination grows, tourists need more money and information to travel (Zalatan, 1996 ). In addition to travel agencies media and social interactions, including word of mouth, can increase to make the ir final decision (Somez & Graefe, 1998 a ). Various Types of Risks as Threats to Safety and Security Perception safety and security concerns are associated with different risk dimensions. Derived from consumer behavior studies, Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992) employed seven risks in their study: equipment risk (the possibility of mechanical or equipment problems during a trip), financial risk (the possibility that the purchased trip will not provide value for the money spent ), physical risk (the possibility of physical danger, injury, or sickness during a trip), psychological risk (the possibility that the purchased tri image), satisfaction risk (the possibility that the purchased trip will not provide personal satisfaction), social risk (the ), and time risk

PAGE 35

35 (the possibility that the purchased trip will take too much time or be a waste of time). Somez and Graefe (1998a) added health risk (the possibility of getting sick during a trip) political instability risk (the possibility of being invol ved in political conflicts or turmoil), and terrorism risk (the possibility of being involved in a terrorist attack). Lepp and Gibson (2003) added c ross c ultural d ifferences ( c ultural risk ; the possibility of and strange food ( food risk ; the probability of eating unfamiliar food and getting sick). Law (2006) investigated infectious disease risk (the probability of being infected with an epidemic disease such as SARS, bird flu or HIV) and natura l disaster risk (the probability of being involved in natural disaster) as well as terrorism risk. Derived from previous studies Pa rk and Reisinger (2010) used 13 types of risk including crime risk (the probability of being victimized or involved in a c rime) psychological, satisfaction, and time risks are important factors in evaluating a destination choice. Crime differs from other crises such as earthquakes, riots, and terrorism in that it does not h & and compa red the perceptions of residents and tourists toward both catastrophic and stealth risks. According to Moreira, stealth risks exist in a long time line, are diffused and increas e gradually, and have low intensity (e.g., crime levels, air quality), while ca tastrophic risks exist in a short time line, are concentrated and increase suddenly, and have high intensity (e.g., accidents, epidemic diseases, terrorist attacks, natural

PAGE 36

36 disasters) (Moreira, 2008). In this regard, as Moreira argued, since they take long er to long lasing negative impacts that interrupt sustainable development of a destination significant differences between residents and tourists in the three ste alth risk perceptions: gradual degradation of the air quality due to pollution gradual degradation of the city hygiene levels and gradual degradation of the city international image Moreira explained that for the first two risks residents may have mor e concerns about s in the city. As for the last risk, the author explained that residents may understand the importance of a positive image of the city for tourism development in terms of its economic dependency on the industry. Although their perceptions differed in the three stealth risks, the study found that stealth risks were perceived as significantly higher than catastrophic risks by both residents and tourist s. The results also showed that gender did not have any effect on the differences in risk perception. Moreira (2008) perceived danger is determined magnitude of the impacts and by the probability of occurrence but also by the [ t ] he assumed types of risk were associated with travel related diseases, crime, natural disaster, accidents, hygiene,

PAGE 37

37 danger stemming from different means of transportation, culture/language barriers and uncertainty with destination (p. 113) ; h owever, as Fuchs and Rei chel (2006) criticized, the measurement scale was not clearly provided in the article the composition concerning the overall perceived risk [ n ] o tests were carried out investi gating the importance and the contribution of these different types of risk for In tourism, tourist safety and security perceptions are determined by thei r characteristics ( Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005 ) Park and Reis i nger (2010) found that concerns about safety and security vary depending on their sociodemographic and economic characteristics; that is, gender, marital status, education level, e mploym ent, income level, and travel companionship all affect safety and security perceptions. The probability of occurrence affects which risks are of most concern ( Park & Reisinger, 2010 ). F or example, Park and Rei singer (2010) found that in the case of natur al disaster risk, Asian tourists tend to perceive higher risk of tornados than US tourists In addition Somez and Graefe (1998a) reported that on international travel, their respondents, most ly Americans, o ften perceived risk of health, financial, politi cal instability, equipment, and terrorism National culture and ethnicity such as collectivism versus individualism also affect inf ormation search behavior ( Money & Crotts, 2003), safety and security perception, and sociocultural risk (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005). Hofsted index (UAI) is a great tool for assess ing cultural

PAGE 38

3 8 differences in risk taking behavior ( cf., Money & Crotts 2003 ; Park & Reisinger, 2010; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005 ). Social class and l ife stage serve as strong pred ictors in understanding tourist expenditure s on holiday vacation; that is, age, the presence of children and marital status significantly affect destination choice (Ryan, 1995). Tourists with young children are more likely to p erceive threats an d show high concern for safety (Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992 ) ; however s ( 1998 a ) study did not show that the presence of children in a household was a significant predictor of safety and security perception. In addition, Somez and Graefe (19 98 a ) found that gender did not affect safety and security perception; however, other studies have shown significant differences in gender in terms of safety and security perception. Compared to men, w omen tend to perceive more risks of terrorism, natural d isaster, physical risk (Park & Reis i nger, 2010), and health and food risks (Lepp & Gibson, 2003). In fact, s (2005) study found that women had to feel certain about and prioritize d this certainty over t heir own ho liday desires. a ) study did not show that age affect ed travel safety and security perception in their sample ; h owever, Gibson and Yannakis (2002) found that, as they age, tourists decrease their preference for risk see king activities and want to engage in more intellectual and safer types of activities. H ighly educated tourists tend to perceive significantly low er social risk than low or middle educated tourists because they have more social skills and are more confi dent with their travel decision than the two groups (Park & Reis i nger, 2010). Thus,

PAGE 39

39 Park & Reisinger proposed that educated tourists tend to have lower risk perceptions. Student s tend to perceive significantly higher natural disaster risk than the employed and unemployed because they may have learned more about the consequences of natural disasters in school than any other respondent groups (Park & Reis i nger, 2010) Also low educated tourists tend to perceive high social risks because they are likely to have fewer social skills and unlikely to feel confident in their travel decision (Park & Reis i nger, 2010) Low and middle income tourists tend to perceive significantly higher financial and natural disaster risk than high income tourists because they generally have lower travel budgets and are anxious about the extra spending or financial losses caused by being involved in a natural disaster (Park & Reis i nger, 2010). Tourists with higher incomes have access to various goods and leisure activities that combine to produce more individualized lifestyles (Ryan, 1995). Somez and Graefe (1998a) found that as their levels of education and income increased tourists tended to have more previous experience in international trave l Table 2 3. Travel behavior of older and highly educated tourists Author(s) or Organizations Characteristics Gibson & Yannakis ( 2002 ) Older tourists h ave more safety and security concerns and want to engage in intellectual and safer activities Som ez & Graefe ( 1998a ) H ighly educated tourists h ave a more positive attitude toward international travel Tourists who have higher education and income h ave more past travel experience Zalatan ( 1996 ) Engage in more complex trips that require more planning time, such as for cultural activities Park & Reis i nger ( 2010 ) Highly educated tourists p erceive less social risk

PAGE 40

40 Past Travel Experience Past experience also can be an independent variable (Somez & Graefe, 1998a, b) b ecause it affects risk perception and destination image, which in turn affect eval uation and decision making in destination selection (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Somez & Graefe, 1998a b ). Experienced tourists tend to perceive less risk of health, terrorism, and food (Lepp & Gibson, 2003). Repeaters tend to perceive higher financial risk b ecause they are more realistic and knowledgeable enough to compare travel costs and benefits of their current travel to that of their previous trips, as well as less likely to be affected by media reports (Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009). Past travel e xperience to geographically different regions makes tourists more confident and more likely to revisit the destinations (Somez & Graefe, 1998b). Tourists who have actual experience with a destination, including first timers, repeaters, and V isiting Friends and R elatives ( VFR ) tourists, especially the longer stayers, tend to have more chances and experience to understand local infrastructure, food, and people, to compare their perceived and actual risks, to reduce their stereotypes, and to strengthen more re alistic perceptions (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992; Somez & Graefe, 1998b). Thus, because of lack of experience, knowledge, and confidence, first timers tend to perceive more risks than repeaters, which results in their quick decision t o avoid a destination perceived as risky and to choose an alternative perceived as safe (Somez & Graefe, 1998b). Also, as stated, the more familiarity and previous experience tourists gain, the less time they spend in planning (Zalatan, 1996).Therefore, in international travel, personal experience, not only with a destination but also with travel in general, influences safety and security perception even during a trip (Somez & Graefe, 1998b) Somez and Graefe ( 1998b) found that past experience with specifi c destinations

PAGE 41

41 increase d the likelihood of travel to and decreased the intention to avoid ( p. 176) Also, Somez and Graefe (1998a) found that, in the case of terrorism and political instability risk, previous experience as an indepen dent va riable was significantly associated with the two dependent variables, risk perception level and attitude toward international travel. This means that a lthough noting that the experience of encountering a seriously dangerous situation could increase risk p erception as tourists gained more personal experience, their risk perception levels decreased and their attitudes (Somez & Graefe, 1998a p. 133 ). Individual Differences in Risk Taking Behavior As discussed, risk per ception is multi dimensional (Park & Reisinger, 2010); different tourists perceive and react to risks in various ways (Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992). Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992) identified three basic dimensions of perceived risk by factor analysis: physical e quipment risk vacation risk and destination risk Based on these three dimensions, they classified tourists into three groups : the functional risk group, the risk neutral group, and the place risk group. The functional risk group tended to perceive physi cal and equipment risk as higher than the other two groups. The risk neutral group perceived less risk in all types of risk. The place risk group perceived travel in general as fairly risky and the most recent trip as very risky. The three groups differed in the characteristics of their most recent trip, information search sources and planning behavior, benefits sought, and sociodemographics. The authors also found that the risk neutral group was more likely to perceive travel in general as safe and to seek adventurous and exciting experiences than either the functional risk group or the place risk group (Roehl & Fesen m a i er, 1992). Therefore, although they have significant relationships with risk perception, sociodemographics and economic characteristics

PAGE 42

42 can not clearly explain individual differences such as why some tourists perceive more risk than others (Somez & Graefe, 1998a). hysical or social, or a combination of the Personality or p ersonal traits, is useful in taking behavior, and anxiety level because different tourists are inclined to take on different levels of risk and get involved in different risky situations (Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992; Somez & Graefe, 1998 a ) In fact, Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992) for excitement and adventure and their risk handling behavior influence their risk attitudes because some can enjoy uncertainty created by the desire for thrills and adventure as excitement rather than a fear to avoid. Money and Crotts (2003) said that i t makes sense for risk avoiders to want to go back home quickly and spend fewer nights at a destination while risk takers willingly stay longer and visit more places at a destination regardless of the travel cost. Thus, a number of authors have declared that risk perception is influenced not only by sociodemographics but also by the psychographics of tourists in risk taking behavior, including personality such as personality traits class or type (Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992; Somez & Graefe, 1998 a ; Plog 1 974; Smith, 1990; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Lepp & Gibson, 2003, 2008) ; tourist role or type ( Cohen, 1972; Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992; Lepp & Gibson, 2003) ; tourist experience (Cohen, 1979) ; novelty seeking ( Lee & Crompton, 1992; Cohen, 1972, 1974, 1979; Cr ompton, 1979) ; optimal stimul ation level (OSL) and life style stimulation (LSS) ( Wahlers & Etzel 1985 ) ; and sensation seeking

PAGE 43

43 (Lepp & Gibson, 2008 ; Pizam, Reichel, & Uriely, 200 1 ; Pizam et al., 20 04; Trimpop, Kerr, & Krikcaldy 1999 ; Zuckerman 1971; Zuck erman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978). In the context of cultural tourism and heritage tourism, Wahlers and Etzel (1985) proposed that tourists who prefer to visit familiar destinations and participate in pre organized tours and activities tend to have a strong interest in intellectual, educational, and cultural travel. In addition b ased on the s ensation seeking theory first proposed by Zuckerman in 1969 ( Zuckerman 1971 ) Pizam, Reichel, and Uriely (200 1 ) also found that high sensation seekers who are willing to participate in high risk activities during their trip had higher scores on the s ensation seeking s cale (SSS) than those who preferred cultural/heritage attractions or other types of attractions. Therefore, cultural tourists and heritage tourists are be lieved to be stimulation avoiders as well as low sensational seeking tourists; thus, one can assume that cultural and heritage tourists are more likely to be risk averse than other types of tourists Safety and Security of Specific Destination s As discus sed earlier s specif ic destination in their destination choice (Mansfeld, 1994) and (Reisinger & Mav ondo, 2005 p. 212). According to Fuchs and Reichel (2011), safety and security concerns are exaggerated in the case of destinations affected by threats such as geo political instability and terrorism. In fact wars, conflicts, and terrorism have negative impacts on tourism development (Mansfeld, 1994). For example, international tourists, especially Americans, avoided travel to Jamaica in the 1970s and Europe in 1986 because of social instability, violence, and terrorism (Roehl, 1990). As stated, t ourists are easily victimized by criminals and instant media news reports that are

PAGE 44

44 negative deter potential tourists from visiting the destination (George, 2010). N ews about the terroris t attack on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, sp read rapidly throughout the world ; accordingly the threat of international crime including terrorism became the center of concern among authorities worldwide (Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009). Thus, each destination carries specific threats to safety and security, and the types of threats vary depending on the different regions and countries around the world. China A change of d rather than their perception of a less attractive pull fro m the destination (Gartner & Shen, 1992). Tourists rational decision s in planning to visit a specific destination depend on the availability of information; thus, t ravel agents have played an important role in making process (Roehl, 19 90). In 1989 in China, students gathered at Tiananmen Square in Beijing and protested the government s anti democracy movement. The political demonstrations in turn affected t attitude toward the People s Republic of China (PRC), which eventua lly affected not only Chinese but also international tourism (Roehl, 1990). As a counter action, i n No rth America, t created economic difficulties for related companies in the travel a nd hospitality industr ies (Roehl, 1990) In addition, many travel companies shifted from the P RC and Most of the respondents opposed boycotting or restricting travel to the PRC and insisted that tourists should be allowed to make rational decisions by being informed (Roehl, 1990)

PAGE 45

45 the image of China in the US market in terms of image change before and a fter the Tiananmen Square conflict They employed a two wave mail survey following Dilman's (1978) method. The first study was repeated one year after the event with a sim ilar sample population. For the purpose of the study, the two groups were drawn from the same population so as to compare their image change. As Gartner and Shen explained, the two groups had some differences in their sociodemographics; however, the differences were not significant. The survey questions were structured and answered with a 5 point Likert scale from 1 ( least attractive ) to 5 ( most attractive ) and from 1 ( poor ) to 5 ( excellent ). The survey tested 22 attraction attributes related to five categories and 10 service related attributes in the PRC, including safety and security and included a profile of respondents. Gartner and Shen found that the Tiananmen Square conflict affected the image change of the PRC. At the time of the event, since media were broadca st throughout the city, Beijing urban and people related attributes were perceived more negatively than natural resources. The respondents also expected that the hospitality in the PRC would not be satisfactory in the aftermath of the confl ict, especia lly with regard to safety and security, pleasant attitudes of service personnel receptiveness of local people to tourists and cleanliness of environment The large st decline in responses was on safety and security. Therefore, Gartner and Shen (1992) prop osed that, if service related attributes are more influential than attractions in destination selection and the perception of attractions is easier to change positively than that of hospitality, it is more effective to improve service in the destination th an to

PAGE 46

46 provide more images of attractions through promotions and campaigns in terms of increasing visitation of potential tourists. A mega event offers the best timing to assess the destination image of the host country because the host country makes an ef fort to provide positive images and potential participants have concerns about their personal safety. Qi, Gibson, and Zhang the case of China as the host country of t he Beijing Olympic Games. The authors asking their nationality and age so as to assess their eligibility as participants. Q uestions for international travel experience were measured with an ordinal scale ( never, 1 2 times, 3 4 times, 5 or more times ) and other questions were measured with a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( very unlikely ) to 5 ( very likely ), from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ), and from 1 ( very risky ) to 5 ( very safe ). The questionnaire included five variables: risk perception associated with traveling to the Beijing Olympic Games and China as the host country, travel intentions, international travel experience, tourist roles, and demographic s A facto r analysis identified four types of risk factors: personal safety cultural risk socio psychological risk and violence risk Their study found that the respondents, young US college students, perceived slightly less risk in visiting the Beijing Olympic G ames than in traveling to China as general tourist s The results showed that China was perceived as a moderately risky destination with respect to personal safety, violence risk, and cultural risk and the respondents assigned a lower value to socio psychol ogical risk. The violence risk factor and the socio psychological risk factor negatively affected intention to travel to China. Although not statistically

PAGE 47

47 significant, cultural risk was positively related to trav el intentions. Then, Qi et al. explained tha t most of the respondents perceived the cultural difference as an attractive dimension of China as a tourism destination while the respondents who perceived higher violence and socio psychological risk were less likely to visit China in the next five year s. Females tended to perceive violence risk as higher than males. Organized mass tourists perceived higher socio psychological risk than independent mass tourists, explorers, and drifters. In addition, organized mass tourists and independent mass tourists perceived higher violence risk than explorers and drifters. Finally, there was no significant relationship between previous international travel experience and risk perception. Qi et al. (2009) suggested that more cooperation and communication between spor t ing event organizers and tourism agencies are needed for the future success of a host country because they found that risk perception associated with the time potential tourists visit a host country as general tourists differs from risk perception when th ey visit as sport s tourists. S outh Africa As it gained attention as the host country of 2010 FIFA World Cup, safety and security in South Africa became a great concern among potential international tourists (G eorge, 2010). George (2010) examined ( 1 ) the causal relationships between safety perceptions of crime and intentions to revisit and recommend Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) in Cape Town and ( 2 ) whether or not their attitudes toward risk influence the causal relationships during their visit to TMNP He studied domestic and international tourists (43% from South Africa and the remaining from overseas) who were visiting TMNP with an on site, self administrated survey. E xcept for one open ended question asking the type of crime experienced t he survey questions were

PAGE 48

48 structured and close ended, using ordinal scales for the first part and a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ) for the second part. The survey included the following variables: the nature (the first part) ; heard of crime (the first part) ; their p erception s of Cape Town (the second part) ; their perceptions of TMNP (the second part) ; their attitude towards risk (the second part) ; their l ikelihood of revisiting T MNP (the second part) ; their l ikelihood of recommending TMNP ( the second part) ; and user questions including their purpose s of visit and sociodemographic factors (the third part) George found that age, nationality, frequency of visit, and purpose of visit of TMNP. The results showed that, as they aged, tourists tended to become anxious about their personal safety. Since the majority of the respondents were domestic, George suggested that their likelihood to recommend and revisit may derive from their patriotism and national pride. Frequent visitors to TMNP tended to feel that they could be easily victimized and warned other people about crime there (George, 2010). George argued that as they visit the park more frequently they may hear about or become aware of crime in TMNP through warning signs and patrolling officers. In fact, risk perceptions between international tourists and domestic tourists differed; local South African visitors had less perception of crime risk but higher awareness of crime incidents than international tourists (George, 2010). Moreover, V isiting F riends and R elatives ( VFR ) tourists tended to feel more risk than business and holiday tourists because their friends and relatives knew m ore about crime in TMNP and warned them; holiday tourists perceived TMNP as safer than business or VFR tourists (George, 2010).

PAGE 49

49 intention to visit TMNP. Most of the respond ents recommended TMNP to others and returned to TMNP, even though they perceived that TMNP might be unsafe ; h owever, crime safety and intention to revisit or recommend TMNP. For this non significant relationship, George (2010) explained that most of the respondents were Sou th Africans who are likely risk tolerant index (UA I ) scale His findings indicated that gender was not a s pecific factor of risk perception (George, 2010). India According to Chaudhary (2000), although it is a culturally sophisticated country that possesses rich arts and cultural heritage, India is having difficulty achieving the expected number of inbound to urists because of its negative image as a dangerous measured whether or not they actually perceived the negative images by analyzing their pre (expectation) and post tri p perceptions (satisfaction). A gap analysis between s and satisfaction level was employed to understand whether or not they w ere matched. The author studied international tourists who had traveled or stayed in India with a questionnai re using Oliver's (1980) approach The survey employed structured questions with a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ) and included 20 attitudinal factors (10 positively framed attributes and 10 negatively framed attributes for expectation and satisfaction level, respectively) as well as a socio demographic profile. There were differences, both positive and negative, s and satisfaction were mat ched in 3 items: inexpensive destination good transportation and poor quality

PAGE 50

50 of roads Chaudhary The variety of arts and rich cultural heritage were two positive items; however, they have already been used as main tourism attractions in India to contribute to its brand ing image. Therefore, Chaudhary (2000) concluded that by improving other attributes, such as infrastructure and safety, India can boost its image as a destination with a sophi sticated culture Hong Kong Hong Kong is also one of the most famous tourism destinations in Asia and the Pacific. Law (2006) investigated perception of the impact of risk among international tourists in their decision making, focusing on infectious disea ses, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks. The author studied international travelers to Hong Kong with a wide scale omnibus survey using personal interviews. The survey questions were structured and close ended with 5 point scales ranging from 1 ( very low ) to 5 ( very high ), 1 ( very unl ikely ) to 5 ( very likely ), and 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ), except for one open ended question. The open ended question asked about other possible risks that might cause the respondents to change their pla ns. The questionnaire included two asking whether or not they were residents of Hong Kong as well as the purpose of their visit. The main part of the questionnaire incl uded five variables: types of risks, measures that strengthen tourists' confidence to travel, the likelihood that tourists will change their original plan if any of these risks occur in their travel destination, the agreement on whether the implementation of a set of measures will strengthen their confidence to travel, and demographic data of tourists. Law (2006) found that the respondents expected the destination they visit to be free of the probab ility of occurrence of risks of

PAGE 51

51 infectious disease terrori st attack and natural disaster His findings also showed a risk perception. Thailand erroris t attacks and reported images of armed civilians ha ve created its negative image as a risky destination and negatively affected its tourism industry (Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009). According to Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty (2009) Thailand has also suffered from its negative image as a destination with disease risk s of SARS and bird flu (H5N1 virus) Therefore, the authors aimed to 1) identify tourists concerns about perceived travel risks while travelling abroad, (2) explore whether such perceived risks affect tourists decision during crises, ( 3) investigate whether such risks are in any way mitigated by a traveler s prior experience with the foreign country, and (4) determine the impact of terrorism and the impact of disease[ s ] such as SARS and bird flu on Thailand s hospitality industry 10). They used a mixed method approach, including interviews, self administrated questionnaire surveys, and in depth, one on one, interviewee administered interv iews. The respondents incl uded inbound tourists for the first qualitative study; first time and repeat inbound leisure tour ists for the quantitative study; and managers of hotels, managers of tour operators and travel agencies, and managers and chefs of restaurants targeting tourists for the second qualitative study. For the first qualitative study, a semi structured interview was conducted. For the quantitative study, the questions were close ended and measured with a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ). Finally, for the second qualitative study a structure d interview was conducted to better understand the impacts of disease and terrorism risk on the

PAGE 52

52 hospitality industry in Thailand. The first qualitative study asked the respondents about the top three reasons that would deter them from traveling abroad, the impact of SARS and bird flu on their decisions to take other international trips, and the impact of terrorism on their decision. The quantitative survey was designed based on the results of the first qualitative study. The survey included four variables: travel behaviors, perceived travel risks, travel intentions toward taking international trips, and selected demographics. The second qualitative study included questions about the respondents opinions regarding the short and long term impacts on their bu siness associated with SARS, bird flu, and terrorism in three specific provinces in Thailand as well as their strategy to increase sales during such cris e s. Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty found that the respondents would not overlook their personal safety even if travel costs were low. With regard to terrorism, the respondents agreed that they would choose travel to a less dangerous destination rather than stop traveling completely As stated earlier t he results revealed that first time tourists worried a bout disease risk, while repeat tourists were concerned about the increase d travel costs and inconvenience. Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty suggested that first lack of knowledge and familiarity, while aware to their previous experience ( p. 415 ) experience enabled them to compare their previous trip and current trip in terms of cost and convenience. In addition, their study did not find any statistical difference between first time and repeat tourists for the following items: terrorism lack of novelty and deterioration of tourist attractions Therefore, Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty (2009) concluded that since the respondents worried about their personal safety more than

PAGE 53

53 price promotion the government and authorities should provide security information to rather than discounting travel costs which generate a negati ve destination image of low reverse. London, United Kingdom risk perception. D eveloped countries also need to make efforts to red destination risk perception. London is one of the most urbanized and culturally sophisticated cities in the world. Carr (2001) investigated gender differences in young re s paces and time. In this study, danger was measured by asking the respondents how safe relaxed vulnerable threatened and at risk people felt whil e in London. The author studied young tourists (age 16 35) staying in the City of London Youth Hostel u sing a questionnaire at the face to 10 point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( very unsafe ) to 10 ( very safe ), 1 ( very tense ) to 10 ( very relaxed ), 1 ( very vulnerable ) to 10 ( not vulnerable at all ), 1 ( very threatened ) to 10 ( not threatened at all ), 1 ( at risk ) to 10 ( at no risk ), and 1 ( very dangerous ) to 10 ( virtually no danger ). The values for each item were summed and grouped into five categories: very dangerous (total value 5 10), dangerous (11 20), slightly dangerous (21 30), low danger (31 40), and virtually no danger (41 50). The questionnaire included study found that women were more likely to perceive London a s a dangerous or slightly dangerous place during the nighttime than men; however, the author further argued that the differences between men and women were subtle even though they behaved

PAGE 54

54 slightly differently on some occasions. Carr (2001) concluded that since the study perception of danger is not only influenced by the socio cultural norms and values that New Orleans United States Although it is one of the main urban tourism destinations in the United States, New Orleans has been perceived as an unsafe city because of its high crime rate (Dimanche & Lepetic, 1999); h ort indicated that 82.4% of the respondents perceived New Orleans to be a somewhat safe & Moody, 1997, cited in Dimanche & Lepetic, 1999, p. eption could be a ttributed to (1 ) risk takers, attracted by the risky image, actually visiting the city and finding that it was not as dange rous as they had expected and (2 ) many visitors, in particular international tourists, arriving without being aware of the risky situ ation. Israel Focusing on Israel, Fuchs and Reichel (2004) investigated inter cultural and inter that tourists with different religious and cultural backgrounds have diff erent levels of risk perception and different risk reduction strategies. A structured questionnaire includ ed overall destination risk perception, types and dimensions of destination risk ( human induced risk financial risk service quality risk socio psyc hological risk natural disasters and car accident and food safety and weather ), risk reduction strategies, socio demographic characteristics, and self image as a risk taker. The questions about overall risk perception were mixed into one overall risk ind ex The authors stud ied

PAGE 55

55 international tourists to Israel with a questionnaire using interviews at the face to face level. Structured questions were measured with a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ) for questions abou t destination risk perception, 1 ( very religious ) to 7 ( totally secular ) for questions about religiou s observance, 1 ( very low ) to 7 ( very high ) for questions about risk reduction strategies, and 1 ( like to take high risks ) to 7 ( do not like to take hi gh risks ) for questions about risk taking propensity. overall risk perception; types of risk they perceived, especially human induced risk, financial risk, socio psycho logical risk, food safety and weather; risk reduction strategies; and self image. Simultaneously, their religious background also affected their degree of destination risk perception, risk reduction strategies, and self image. For example, overall risk per ceived by German tourists was significantly higher than that of tourists from the US, Canada, France, and other Western Europe an countries. Although human induced risk and socio psychological risk were perceived as higher by other international tourists, f inancial risk, and food safety and weather were perceived as higher among tourists from the US and Canada. Tourists from the US and Canada sought significantly more information from travel agents than tourists from France, Germany, and other Western Europe an countries. US and Canadian tourists also searched for more information on the Internet, from friends and relatives, and through consulting with people who had previously visited the destination and made their decision in cooperation with others more fr equently than tourists from France. US and Canadian tourists were more likely to watch television programs than tourists from Western Europe. Overall risk was perceived as significantly smaller by Jews versus

PAGE 56

56 Catholics, Protestants, and those who were not affiliated with formal religion. Tourists from France had a self image as greater risk takers than tourists from the US and Canada. Fuchs and Reichel suggested that Jewish tourists perception of relatively low overall destination risk as well as human ind uced risk can be attributed to the significant role of Israel as their heritage. Hence, Fuchs and Reichel (2004) suggested that since tourists have diverse destination risk perceptions, depending on their nationalities and religious backgrounds, destinatio n marketers should focus on the similarities and differences in their perceptions and design marketing strategies to attract them. Fuchs and Reichel (2006) examined destination risk perception of international tourists to Israel and conducted open ended i nterviews with academic experts, tourists, and tour guides as well as a literature review to find more risk items to add to the outcome of the l iterature review. They studied academic experts who were university professors of tourism in Israel and the US, as well as tourists and tour guides, and obtained the following items: the way the locals w ould react to tourist behavior crowded sightseeing tasteless food and tourist valuable vacation time In order to create a questionnaire, the authors then divided all the risk factors acquired in the qualitative approach into six categories: physical risk performance risk social risk psychological risk time risk and financial risk ; h owever, in this study, due to the difficulties respondents had in distinguishi ng them, social risk and psychological risk were combined into socio psychological risk (Fuchs & Reichel, 2006). B ased on their each destination is characterized by both an overall risk perception and Reichel 2006, p. 90), they included overall risk perception

PAGE 57

57 associated with Israel as a specific destination. The questionnaire, the Tourist Destination Risk Perception Scale, was designed and composed of 5 questions measuring the overall destination risk perception of Israel and 29 questions measuring various types of risks associated with Israel as well as other variables such as motive for visiting Israel, experience in interna tional travel and past visits to Israel, strategies for dealing with risk, and sociodemographics factors Structured questions asked the respondents about their risk perception before their arrival except for one question in the overall risk perception se ction asking their risk perception while visiting the destination. The questions were measured with a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( stron gly agree ). The authors studied international tourists to Israel with a questionnaire u sing interviews at the face to face level. A factor analysis using the method of principal component with V arimax rotation identified six groups: human induced risk financial risk service quality risk socio psychological risk natural disaster and car accidents and food safety and weather The factor analysis revealed that the respondents did distinguish the various types of risks associated with Israel (e.g., car accidents as physical threat caused by human being s and natural disaster as physical thr eat caused by nature) Their study found that the overall risk measure (index) was correlated with all six of the factors in the following order : human induced, financial, service quality, socio psychological, natural disasters and car accident, and food s afety and weather. Finally, Fuchs and Reichel (2006) suggested that to measure future researchers can use either the overall risk perception index including all five questions or choose one of the five questions from

PAGE 58

58 the index because there were high correlation s within the overall risk perception index as well as between the risk index and the various types of risk. In 2011, Fuchs and Reichel (2011) extended their research to investigate the difference between first tim e tourists and repeat tourists in their destination risk perception, risk reduction strategies, and motivation to visit Israel. They used data obtained from Fuchs and Reichel's (2004) study. Fuchs and Reichel found that first time tourists tended to percei ve human induced risk socio psychological risk and food safety and weather while repeat tourists perceived financial risk service quality risk and natural disaster and car accident As for risk reduction strategies, first time tourists tended to emplo y various types of strategies, while repeat tourists tended to make decisions with relatives and friends and to take inexpensive trips. A s for their main motivations, first time tourists were more likely to visit Israel for religion sightseeing, and cultu re, while repeat tourists went for health, leisure, and to visit friends and and centripetal force as a pilgrimage or religious tourism destination have been regarded as its main pull fa ctor as a brand ; h owever, such cultural heritage and religious sites can all be visited in a single trip; thus, repeat tourists had more diversified motives in addition to religious motives. Therefore, this study showed that different segments of tourists have different destination risk perceptions, risk reduction strategies, and motivations to visit a specific destination (Fuchs & Reichel, 2011). In conclusion, destination risk perception is multidimensional; overall destination risk can be ide ntified with the associated various risk types and dimensions (Fuch s & Reichel, 2006). Therefore, in destination marketing, it is important to understand the

PAGE 59

59 constructs of tourists safety and security perception of the destination and deal with their perceptions wit h various strategies (F uchs & Reichel, 2006). Heritage Tourism in Japan Japan as a Cultural and Heritage Tourism Destination i ted cultural properties, including World Heritage sites, have attracted a number of inbou nd international tourists. In 2010, Japan welcomed 8,611,175 overseas visitors ( Japan National Tourism Organization [ JNTO ] 2011a, 2013b) and the economic impact for the year was 49.4 trillion yen on output ( 5.5% of total output ) 25.2 trillion yen on GDP ( 5.2% of GDP ) and 4.24 million jobs ( 6.6% of the total number of jobs in Japan ) (Japan Tourism Agency, 2012 b p. 7). JNTO (2011b c ) conducted a large survey from February through October in 2010 in which 21,342 international tourists from more than 15 co untries participated. One of the survey questions asked about their primary purpose for visiting Japan before their arrival and 12,338 international tourists answered this question. The result showed that their primary reason s for visiting in 2010 were ( in order of popularity ) food (62.5%), shopping (53.1%), historic and traditional sites and landscapes (45.8%), natural and seasonal landscapes and rural scenery (45.1%) and hot springs (44.3%) (JNTO, 2011b c ). Based on these data, historic and traditional si tes and landscapes ranked third in motivation of international tourists; therefore, one can assume that Japan is already a heritage tourism destination and has the potential to appeal to the world with that destination image ; h arity and branding image as a culturally oriented co untry, Jimura (2011) argued that little research has been conducted into cultural and heritage tourism in Japan.

PAGE 60

60 US Tourists in Japan Tourism and Their Primary Purpose for Visiting In 2010, 727,234 US t ourists visited Japan, ranking them fourth behind South Korea, China, and Taiwan ( Japan National Tourism Organization [ JNTO ] 2012a). In 2011, the number of US tourists decreased to 565,887; however, they were again ranked fourth, following the top three c ountries ( JNTO, 2012a). In the JNTO (2011b, c) survey conducted in 2010, 2,120 US tourists were interviewed with 2 8.3% reporting they visited Japan for sightseeing, 43.5% for business, 18.7% for V isiting F riends and R elatives ( VFR ), and 9.4% for other purpo ses; h reported that in 2010 747,234 US tourists visited Japan (457,247 for sightseeing, 208,232 for business, and 61,755 for other purposes). Thus, the results of the JNTO (2011b c ) survey conducted in 2010 may represent a sa mpling error and the numbers reported by the second JNTO survey (2012a) may be more accurate because the JNTO Therefore, one can conclude that US inbound tourists are more likely to be leisure tourists. The survey also found that 62.4% of US tourists in 2010 were first timers and 37.6% were repeaters (JNTO, 2011b, c). The JNTO (2011b, c) survey further found that 10.5% visited by packaged/group tour, 87.5% by personally organized travel, and 2.0% by other modes of travel or not sure. Among the primary purposes of the visit among US tourists ( N =601) in 2010 were food (80.4%) ; historic and tradition al sites and landscapes (72.4%); c uriosity about the life of locals and co mmunication with locals (56.1%); shopp ing (53.4%); and to experience Japanese traditional culture/watch shows and performances (47.8%). Therefore, it is clear that US tourists are an important target segment and Japanese heritage has contributed in attracting them.

PAGE 61

61 I n 2013, in its promotional plan for the US market, the Japanese government has targeted US citizens who live in big cities, have more than $120,000 in household income, are over 40 years old and have degree as the most important target segment because US tourists who have actually visited Japan tend to have those characteristics (Japan Travel Agency, 2013). In its plan, the government has appeal ed to th is segment by introducing a variety of content including historic and traditional architecture and buildings. In addi tion, a ccording to the World Tourism Organization ( UNWTO ; 2012 b ), US tourists rank ed second in international tourism expenditure; they spent US$75.5 billion in 2010 and US$79.1 billion in 2011. Therefore, US tourists are among the most significant markets in terms of their economic contribution to both international tourism and Japa s tourism As stated, safety and security perception is a crucial factor in tourists decision makin g. Even though it may rarely be categorized as a dangerous destination, Japan carries potential threats related to safety and security perception among international tourists. D ue to its geographic location and climate, Japan is vulnerable to natural disas ters, particularly earthquakes, tsunamis, and typhoons (Cooper & Erfurt, 2007). According to Cooper and Erfurt, despite its vulnerability, the Japanese government did not mention the frequent occurrence of volcanism, earthquakes, and flooding in its promot ional campaign for international tourism. Such natural disasters may affect perceptions of Japan and the desirability of Japan as a vacation destination amo ng potential visitors because (1 ) they happen on a large scale with high magnitude, ( 2 ) they usually strike the mainland that holds the capital and big cities, ( 3 ) they happen continuously, and ( 4 ) a lack of knowledge not only about the actual area affected or to

PAGE 62

62 be affected but also about the country as a whole, results in biased public perception s led by the media and word of mouth (Cooper & Erfurt, 2007). In fact, the Great East Japan Earthquake (M 9.0) hit the northern area of Japan, Tohoku, on March 11, 2011. fourth largest in world history (Reconstruction Agency, 2012 b ) which resulted in a huge number of casualties (15,882 dead, 2,668 missing, and 6,142 injured as of March 11, 2013) (National Police Agency, 2013). E ven though they survived or were saved from the chaotic situation, a number of people (1,632 as of March 31, 2012), mainly the elderly, lost their lives due to harsh conditions in temporary housing or accommodations, stress, and fatigue, as well as inaccessibility to hospitals and medical care (Reconstruction Agency, 2012 a ). Furth ermore, many valuable cultural heritage sites and properties were also lost or damaged (744; the reported total was 754 because some of them were designated over two or more categories) (Agency for Cultural Affairs, 2012a, b). The economic impacts were trem endous; the Japanese government reported more than 16.0 trillion yen ($192bn) in economic losses (BBC, 2012; Cabinet Office of Japan, 2011; Asahi Shimbun Company, 2011) and released 12.1 trillion yen ($145bn) for reconstruction of the affected areas (BBC, 2011; Ministry of Finance Japan, 2011). The unpredictable and inevitable event also had huge impacts on the tourism industry. In 2011, compared with the 8,611,175 in 2010 ( Japan National Tourism Organization [ JNTO ] 2011a, 2013b) the total number of inbou nd visitors was lower : 6,218,747 visitors (JNTO, 2012 a ); the JNTO assume d that the perception of risk toward disaster and radiation as well as the appreciation of the value of the yen may have caused this decline (JNTO, 2012 b ). Therefore, given that the economic impacts also may decrease

PAGE 63

63 accordingly, the issue of the revitalization of the economy is no longer only concerned with the affected area but with the whole country. For instance, the government has acknowledged the crucial role of tourism in the p ost disaster recovery and has been working on tourism promotion and planning to revitalize the tourism industry and the economy as a whole (Japan Tourism Agency, 2012 a ; Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 2012). I n 2012 the total number of inbound to urists grew to 8 367,872 (JNTO, 2013a). Recent Destination Image of Japan In 2012, to examine the image of Japan among US citizens, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs commissioned the Gallup Organization to conduct an opinion poll which has been carried out almost every year since 1960 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan [MOFA], 2012a 1 ). This poll mostly asked about diplomatic and political concerns; however, it also included the following question: Question 13: I am going to read heard or read, please tell if it does or does not describe Japan (MOFA, 2012b p. 4 ) In answering the question the respondents agreed that Japan is a country that has great traditions and culture (97%), a country with a strong economy and high technology (91%), a country that disseminates new culture to the world such as animation, fashion, and cuisine (90%), and a country with beautiful nature (88%) (MOFA, 2012b p. 4 ) In this question, there was no significant difference among the percentage s in 2010, 2011, and 2012. In 2013, the World Economic Forum (WEF) published The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013 in which it assessed 140 economies worldwide based on the extent to whic h they are putting in place the factors and policies to make it attractive

PAGE 64

64 para. 1 ). The report announced that Japan was fourteenth internationally in the 2013 Travel & Tourism Comp etitiveness Index (TTCI), which was up eight places since the last assessment in 2011. In Asia and the Pacific region, Japan is ranked fourth, following Singapore (first) Australia ( second ), and New Zealand ( third ) (WEF, 2013b). In summary, WEF (2013b) co mmented that : This achievement is especially impressive against the backdrop of the 2011 [travel and tourism] sector resilience can be ascribed to its rich cultural resources (ranked 11th), with its 32 Worl d Heritage cultural sites, the many international fairs and exhibitions hosted by the country, and its rich creative industries. Its ground transport infrastructure is among the best in the world (ranked 7th), especially its railroads, and Japan continues to lead in the area of education and training (ranked 13th). Moreover, it has continued to develop its already strong ICT [Information and Communication Technology] infrastructure and nted culture (1st) is an important strength for the T&T industry. On the other hand, the country continues to be an expensive destination, ranking 130th in the price competitiveness pillar ( p. 20) Therefore, the reports of the MOFA and WEF indicated that Japan is considered to be successfully recovered from the crisis that occurred in 2011 and perceived as a country with rich culture and high technology.

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND INSTRUMENT This cross sec t ional s urvey research examine d safety and sec urity perception s among US heritage tourists This chapter explains the methods and procedures used for data collection as well as data analysis procedures Research Questions As proposed earlier, this study was conducted based on t he premise that ( 1 ) be cause of individual differ ences in travel purpose, past travel experience and sociodemographics US heritage tourists would have different degree s of safety and security perceptions regarding traveling to Japan and ( 2 ) accordingly their safety and securi ty perception s might affect their desirability rating of Japan as well as their likelihood of visiting Japan Therefore, i n this study, th e following research question w as proposed: What are Japan s safety and security perception s a mong US heritage tourist s? Additionall y; 1. What are the sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics of US heritage tourists? 2. Is there any difference between heritage tourists and other tourists in terms of their ( 1 ) sociodemographics, ( 2 ) past travel experience (both internatio nal and to Japan) and familiarity with Japan ( 3 ) safety and security ( overall perceptions and perceptions of specific threat factors) ( 4 ) desirability of Japan as a vacation destination and ( 5 ) likelihood of visiting Japan ? 3. What a re the differences among sociodemogra p hic factors in terms of overall safety and security perceptions of Japan? 4. What are the relationships among safety and security perception factors ( overall perceptions and perceptions of specific threat factors) ? 5. What are the relationships among safety and security perception factors ( overall perceptions and perceptions of specific threat factors), familiarity with Japan, the desirability of Japan as a vacation destination, and likelihood of visiting Japan in the future ?

PAGE 66

66 Figure 3 1 Conceptual f ramework Data Collection participants were selected by random sampling procedures through Amazon Mechanical Turk ( http://aws.amazon.com/mturk/ or https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome ). According to Amazon Web Services, Inc. or its affiliates (2012), and name any other AWS Marks used in such materials are tradema rks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates in the Unite d States and/or other countries ( para 12). The online link Overall safety and security perception Crime risk factor Cultural risk factor Food risk factor Health risk factor Infectious disease risk factor Natural disaster risk factor Political instability risk fa ctor Terrorism risk factor Likelihood of Visiting Japan

PAGE 67

67 to the qu estionnaire was uploaded on Amazon Mechanical Turk where the respondents could participate and be compensated at any time while the survey link wa s activated. Once they click ed the link, the respondents were automatically transferred to the online survey tool Qualtrics ( https://ufl.qualtrics.com/ ) Version 45279. Copyright 2013 Qualtrics. A ccording to Qualtrics (n.d.), Qualtrics and all other Qualtrics product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA. http://www.qualtrics.com ( Example Citation, para 1). T he participants were then taken to the consent form on the first page of the questionnaire The consent form gave them instructions about the nature of the study, including the purpose of the study, voluntary participation, and confidentiality of their a nswers. Only af ter agreeing to participate were the participants allowed to take the survey. This was achieved by clicking the Agre e button at the bottom of the consent form Access to the questionnaire was limited to subscribers to Amazon Mechanical Tur k On Amazon M e chanical Turk s ) create [ HITs ] ( tasks ) (employee s) to complete their tasks. Requesters post their tasks online with descriptions (e.g., the amount of reward, time to com plete) and enable workers to complete them through online survey methods (e.g., Qualtrics ). Workers can decide in which tasks they participate by reading each of the descriptions such as Once they successfully complete a task, worker s can get a s ). Requesters can refuse to pay a reward for unsatisfactory completion on their task. Refusal of in general requester s can avoid hiring workers with high refusal rates ( Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling 2011).

PAGE 68

68 Buhrmester et al. confirmed that Amazon Mechanical Turk can help researchers to complete research by allowing them to collect high quality data and save money and ti me in data collection The authors further found that MTurk [ Amazon Mechanical Turk ] participants are at least as diverse and more representative of noncollege populations than those of typical Internet and tradition al samples. Most the qu ality of data provided by MTurk met or exceeded the psychometric They also noted that Amazon Mechanical Turk enables re searchers to hire participants quickly in an affordable manner T he W eb site helps researchers acquire valid data because the amount of compensation does not affect the quality of data but affects the data collection speed. Moreover, it enables researchers to collect the data that those obtained via traditio Buhrmester et al. 2011 p.3). The authors conclude that with such contributions Amazon Mechanical Turk will become a major research tool in psychology and other social science studies. Therefore, this study used Amazon Mechanical Turk for data collection. Upon conducting the survey, s mall incentives were provided to the respondents. Instrumentation The self administrated structured questionnaire consisted of six sections: (1) primary purposes of travel (2) p ast travel experience s (3) d esirability of Japan as a vacation destination, (4) l ikelihood of visiting Japan, (5) s afety and security, and (6) s ociodemographic factors. The first question asked the respondents to state and rank their top three primary purposes for traveling in general in order of importance from 1 ( most important ) to 3 ( least important ) If the respondents include d historic attractions or cultural attractions

PAGE 69

69 as the most important factor, this study considered them as heritage tourists while the remaining were considered as non heritage tourists. This question was intended to divide the respondents into two groups To measure general perceptions of Japan among the respondents and how the perceptions could have implications for overall percept safety and security the survey include d one open ended question : When you think of Japan, what would be the first three words or images that come to your mind? Past travel experiences consist of three items: previous international travel experience (and the number of countries) previous travel experience to Japan (and the number of trips and main purpose) and familiarity with Japan. The question about the past i nternational travel experience we re both closed and open ended. Familiarity with J apan wa s measured with a 7 point bipolar scale ranging from 1 ( very low ) to 7 ( very high ). D esirability of Japan as a vacation destination wa s measured with a 7 point bipolar scale ranging from 1 ( v ery undesirable ) to 7 ( v ery desirable ) Likelihood of visiting Japan wa s measured with a 7 point bipolar scale ranging from 1 ( very unlikely ) to 7 ( very likely ) afety and security include d overall safety and security perception and 30 threat items T he respondents we re asked to pr ovide three words or images associated with Japan (open ended question) Then, the y were asked to give the ir opinion s about the level of safety and security in Japan along a 7 point bipolar scale ranging from 1 ( very dangerous/risky ) to 7 ( very safe/secure ). The second close ended question Pl ease rate your level of agreement with the following issues to emerge

PAGE 70

70 if you were to visit Japan ask ed the respondents to state the extent to which they agree d with each of 30 specific threats along a 7 point Likert s cale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) and 7 ( strongly agree ) Existing scales that th e researcher modified and used a re summarized in Table 3 2 As shown in Table 3 2 t he 30 items we re all derived from an exhaustive review of literature, including, p hys ical risk functional /performance risk s ocial risk p sychological risk f inancial risk and t ime risk c rime risk c ultural risk f ood risk health risk infectious disease risk and n atural disaster risk p olitical instability r isk and t errorism risk ite ms (Fuchs & R eichel, 2006; George, 2010; Qi et al. 2009; Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009). This study added new items: h igh cost of travel l ack of communication access (e.g. Internet, telephone) l ong distance from home n egative effec t on my physical well being n egative effect on my p sychological well being t rip experience not meeting my expectations and v iolation of tourist rights Th e current study added radiation which may be specifically associated with Japan. In this study, radiation risk is defined as the probability of being harmed by radiation during a trip The sociodemographic section included gender, age, education level occupation and annual income before taxes in 2012. Occupation was included because it had been employed to understan d the profile of heritage tourists in previous heritage tourism studies ( e.g ., Light, 1996 ). The instrument was pilot tested for reliability and validity

PAGE 71

71 Table 3 1 Methodologies of destination risk studies Researcher(s) Country Context Method(s) Main M ode(s) of Data Collection Risk Component(s) Measured Main Mode Questions No. of Attributes No. of Factors Gartner and Shen (1992) China General tourism Quantitative 2 wave mail survey, using Dilman's (1978) method Safety and security Structured 10 Ca rr (2001) London, UK Urban tourism Quantitative Questionnaire, face to face Perception of personal danger Structured 6 Fuchs and Reichel (2004) Israel Cultural and heritage tourism, Religious tourism Quantitative Questionnaire, face to face interview O verall destination risk perception Perception of types of risk Structured 26 (5 + 21) 7 (1 + 6) Fuchs and Reichel (2006) Israel Cultural and heritage tourism, Religious tourism Combination (the qualitative) Interview (th e quantitative) Questionnaire, f ace to face interview Overall risk perception Perception of types of risk (the qualitative) Open ended (th e quantitative) Structured 23 (5 + 18) 7 (1 + 6) Law (2006) Hong Kong General tourism Quantitative The wide scale Omnibus Survey, Personal inter view Perception of the probability of occurrence magnitude of threat and efficiency of official media in terms of Infectious disease risk, natural disaster risk and Terrorism risk (Open ended question about what other possible risks might cause tourists to change their travel plans) Structured, open ended 3 Maser & Weiermair (1998) Quantitative Survey, Questionnaire for personal interviews Not clear Semi structured Not clear Not clear Qi, Gibson & Zhang (2009) China General tourism sports tour ism Quantitative Questionnaire Overall risk perception regarding traveling to China, Perception of types of risk Structured 17 4 Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty (2009) Thailand General tourism Combination Interview, self administrated questionnaire survey, in depth, one on one interviewees administrated interviews Travel safety concerns, Perception of types of risk (the qualitative) Semi structured, (the quantitative) Structured 24 (4 + 20) 7 (1 + 6) George (2010) South Africa Nature based tourism, Cultural tourism, Sport tourism Quantitative Intercept, on site survey, self administrated Perception of Cape Town, Visitor perceptions of TMNP, Visitor attitude towards risk, Likelihood of revisiting and Likelihood of recommending TMNP Structured, ope n ended 11 Fuchs and Reichel (2011) Israel Cultural and heritage tourism, Religious tourism Quantitative Used data obtained in Fuchs & Reichel's (2004) study that used a Tourist Destination Risk Perception Questionnaire [ Developed Fuch s 04, 2006) study] Overall destination risk perception Perception of types of risk Structured 6 (1 + 5)

PAGE 72

72 Table 3 2 Threat i tems and r esources from w hich the i tems w ere d erived. Variable Dimensions Research Safety and security perception overall safety and security perception Overall safety and security perception Fuchs & Reichel ( 2004, 2006 2011 ); George (2010) ; Qi, Gibson & Zhang (2009) Safety and security perception specific threats to safety and security Physical risk Crime (e.g. theft, robbery pickpocket) Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Cultural difference Fuchs & Reichel (2006); Qi, Gibson & Zhang (2009) Epidemic diseases (e.g. HIV, SARS, bird flu) Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Food safety problems Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Lack of communication acc ess (e.g. Internet, telephone) New item Language barrier Qi, Gibson & Zhang (2009) ; Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty (2009) Long distance from home New item Low standard health care Qi, Gibson & Zhang (2009) Natural disasters (e.g. earthquake, tsuna mi, and typhoon) Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Political unrest Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Pollution Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty (2009) Terrorism Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Traffic accidents Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Violence Qi, Gibson & Zhang (2009) Wars in close vicinity Qi, Gibson & Zhang (2009) Negative effect on my physical well being New item Radiation New item Functional/Performance risk Lack of hospitality and courtesy of service personnel Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Low quality products and services Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Uncomfortable level of crowds Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Unfriendly locals Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Strikes (at airports, railway stations, buses) Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Weather controversy Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Trip e xperience not meeting my expectations New item Violation of tourist rights New item Soci al risk friends and family Fuchs & Reichel (2006) Psychological risk Negative effect on my psychological well being New item Financial risk Low value for money Fuchs & Reichel (2006) High cost of travel Time risk Time consuming in planning, scheduling and traveling New item Fuchs & Reichel (2006)

PAGE 73

73 The Sample The participants were over 18 years old, since Amazon Mechanical Turk requires its su bscribers to be 18 or above. Amazon Mechanical Turk assures anonymity of the respondents because the respondents c an be identified only by their user ID number provided by Amazon. Therefore, although Internet use and onlin e survey s often compromise privacy or anonymity, Amazon Mechanical Turk can minimize these risks. Besides, the sample gained from the crowdsourcing web market service is more likely to be representative of the US population ( Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling 2011). In this study, t o obtain valid data, Amazon Mechanical Turk allowed the researcher to collect the responses only from the participants whose HIT Approval Rate (the percentage whose contri butions had been approved by other r equesters [employers /rese archers ]) w as at least 90% and who were in the United States by screening the ir IP address. Data Analysis Da ta was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences v 2 1 (SPSS 2 1 .0). This study employed descrip tive statistics such as mean and standard deviation, fr equencies, I ndependent S ample s t test, One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and correlation. For R esearch Q uestion 1, descriptive statistics were conducted for all of the 6 sections : ( 1 ) p rimary purpose s of travel ( 2 ) p ast trave l e xperience (both international and to Japan) and familiarity with Japan ( 3 ) d esirability of Jap an as a vacation destination, ( 4 ) l ikelihood of visiting Japan, ( 5 ) s afety and security (overall perceptions and perceptions of threat ite ms) and ( 6 ) s ociodemographic

PAGE 74

74 varia bles. In addition, the frequency analyses of the open ended questions were conducted after record ing with a code book. For R ese arch Q uestion 2 as proposed earlier, the primary purpose variable was first used to divide th e respondents into two groups: h eritage tourists or non heritage tourists. Further descriptive statistical analyses were conducted on the two groups respectively in order to find some specific characteristics or tendencies in their responses. After that, c rosstabs Chi square tests (gender, marital status, education level, occupation and annual income) and I ndependent S ample s t test (age) w e re conducted to analyze the difference s between the two groups in terms of each variable For R esearch Q uestion 3 I nd ependent S ample s t test (gender), ANOV A (marital status, education level, occupation and annual income) and correlation (age) w ere employed to analyze the relationship s between each sociodemogra p hic variable with overall safety and security percep tion s The ANOVA analysis was followed by a post hoc test to examine differences among groups. F or R esearch Q uestion 4 b efore conducting the factor analysis, this study excluded the following threat items : n egative effect on my physical well being, t rip e xperience not meeting my expectations t rip's negative effect on my image among friends and family n egative effect on my psychological well being l ow value for money t ime consuming in planning, scheduling and traveling As stated earlier the se six item s were derived from previous literature and represent respectively the six general risks which have been used in previous studies : physical risk, functional/performance risk, social risk, psychological risk, financial risk, and time risk By excluding t he six risk factors this study aimed to examine the relationshi p s between the six risk factors and

PAGE 75

75 the extracted threat factors in factor analysis ; f or example, is F actor 1 more correlated with physical risk than social risk ? Therefore this study conduct ed the factor analysis with the remaining 24 threat items. E xploratory factor analysis with principal component analysis was applied to summarize and identify the subgroups that display the correlations among the items and to extract uncorrelated factors. In this analysis, f actors with eigenva lue greater than 1 were re tain e d and Varimax rotation was used as the rotation method. A ccording to Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) variables with loadings equal to or greater than l0. 5 l are kept in factor a nalysis due to their significance Therefore, this study used the variables with substantial loadings, equal to or more than l 0.5 l as the factors. factors) to explain a substant ial portion of the total variance that is explained by all the original p. 181). According to Gerber and Finn, established notion of which variables ar scale was developed based on the literature review, since this study added new items (e.g., l ack of communication access r adiation) exploratory factor analysis was selected for this study. Be and correlation were used to test the internal consistency of the 30 threat items as well as to confirm the results of the exploratory factor analysis. The validity was assured by the extensive literature review and opinions of acad emic experts when the threat scale was developed. For R esearch Q uestion s 4 and 5, c orrelation wa s utilized to analyze the relationship s among the variables (overall safety and security perceptions perceptions

PAGE 76

76 of specific threat factors, familiarity with J a pan, desirability of J a pan as a vacation destination likelihood of visiting Japan).

PAGE 77

77 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS In this study, a total of 300 questionna ires were completed through Amazon Mechanical Turk and Qualtrics This chapter reports the results of the data analyses. General Primary Purpose of Travel and Tourist Type As proposed earlier, the question for the respondents primary purpose for traveling in general wa s used to divide the respondents into two groups: heritage tourists or non heritage tourist s. Heritage tourists were the respondents who included cultural attractions or historical attractions as their top one reason to travel, which means those respondents stated th at cultural or historical attractions were the most important factors for their reason or purpose of traveling in general (see Table 4 1). Accordingly, the remaining 190 respondents were categorized as non heritage tourists. Based on the categorization, this study obtained a total of 109 heritage tourists and 190 non heritage tourists The result of frequencies show ed that the most frequent primary purpose s among non heritage tourists we re visitin g family or friends, sea and sun experience and natural attractions The responses given on Other are listed in Table 4 2 Since one respon dent did not answer this question, the total number, summing up heritage and non heritage tourists, was 299. The respondent did not answer only this question; therefore, this study included this case in the rest of analyses. In short, this study coded the answer as a missing value (999) and did not include it in any comparison analysis between heritage tourists and non heritage tourists.

PAGE 78

78 T able 4 1. Primary purposes of the respondents All Heritage Non heritage Category Given rank N Given rank N Giv en rank N Cultural attractions 1 71 1 71 2 48 2 63 2 15 3 28 3 35 3 7 Total 169 Total 93 Total 76 Historical attractions 1 38 1 38 2 22 2 45 2 23 3 29 3 37 3 8 6 1 6 1 Total 121 Total 69 Total 52 Man made attractions 1 25 2 11 1 25 2 30 3 12 2 19 3 45 5 1 3 33 5 1 Total 101 Total 24 Total 77 Events 1 20 2 18 1 20 2 35 3 12 2 17 3 36 5 2 3 24 5 3 7 1 5 1 7 1 Total 95 Total 33 Total 62 Natural attractions 1 33 2 27 1 33 2 53 3 29 2 26 3 58 4 2 3 29 4 2 Total 146 Total 58 Total 88 Sea sand sun experience 1 34 2 3 1 34 2 24 3 21 2 21 3 39 4 1 3 18 4 3 6 1 4 2 6 1 7 1 7 1 8 1 8 1 Total 103 Total 28 Total 75 Visit friends or family 1 66 2 10 1 66 2 32 3 13 2 22 3 22 4 1 3 9 4 1 6 1 8 1 6 1 8 1 8 2 Total 124 Total 26 Total 98

PAGE 79

79 T able 4 1. Continued. All Heritage Non heritage Category Given rank N Given rank N Given rank N Business 1 4 3 1 1 4 2 4 9 3 2 4 3 8 3 7 9 4 9 1 Total 20 Total 4 Total 16 Shopping 1 4 2 2 1 4 2 9 3 6 2 7 3 16 5 1 3 10 5 1 6 1 7 1 6 1 7 1 7 2 8 1 8 1 Total 34 Total 12 Total 22 Other 1 1 10 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 10 2 Total 4 Total 2 Total 2 Table 4 2. Main p rimary p ur poses given by the respondents on other c ategory All Heritage Non heritage Response N N N Adventure 1 1 Food 1 1 Taking vacations 1 1 To enjoy 1 1 Total 4 2 2 Sociodemographic C haracteristics As shown in Table 4 3 the gender dis tribution was balanced; female s represent ed 49.7% and male s represented 50.3% The age range wa s from 18 to 70, with the mean age being 30.94 years old. Fifty six percent of the respondents graduate d from a university and almost twelve percent receive d adv anced degree s w as from high school (23.3%), vocational school (8.0%) and primary school (1.0%). H alf of the respondents

PAGE 80

80 we re single, and 30% we re married, followed by living with a partner ( 14.3%), divorced (2.7%), other (1.7%), and separated (0.3%). Almost 60% of the respondents we re employed, having professional/managerial (31.7%) or labor/worker (29.0%) status; however, almost 40% of the respondents might have financial constraints such as being a student (22.3 %) or unemployed (15.3%). O nly 1.7% of the respondents we re retired. In terms of annual income before taxes in 2012 28.7% earned under $15,000 followed by $25,000 &34,999 (16.0%), $35,000 $49,999 (16.0%), $15,000 $24,999 (14.7%), $5 0,000 $74,999 (13.7%), $75,999 $99,999 (8.0 % ), $100,000 $149,999 (2.0%), $150,000 $199,999 (0.7%), and $200,000 and above (0.3%). In summary this result r evealed that (1) the respondents we re young (mean age 30), (2) the proportion of male s and female s w a s almost equal (50% and 50%), (3) more than 50% of the respondents graduate d from a university, (4) 50% we re single, (5) 60% we re employed, and (6) 60 % of the re spondents ha d an annual income ranging from $15,000 to $74 ,999 As stated, a total of 109 her itage tourists and 190 non heritage tourists were found in this study based on their ratings on the important factors when they travel in general. The results in Table 4 3 also revealed that the mean age of h eritage tourists was younger than non heritage t ourists by 4 years. The proportion of male s and female s w as almost equal in both of the groups. The number of non heritage tourists who graduated from a university (57.4%) was higher than that of heritage tourists (53.2%). Also, compared to non heritage to urists, heritage tourists tend ed to have higher education level s considering th e number of respondents who had master s or Ph.D. (12.8%) ; however, at the same time heritage tourists included more low educated

PAGE 81

81 respondents (1.8% graduated from primary schoo l and 29.4% from high school) H eritage tourists (56.0%) included more single s than non heritage tourists (48.4%), while non heritage tourists (32.6%) included more married respondents ( heritage tourists 2 5.7%) Students (30.3%) were a dominant segment in the heritage tourist group while the respondents who had professional/ managerial status (33.2%) were dominant in the non heritage tourist group. I n both group s 30% of the respondents had an annual income below $15,000, and 60% belonged to the income rang e from $15,000 to $74,999. For Research Question 2, a s seen in Table 4 3, t he result s of the Chi square analysis did not provide any difference between heritage tourists and non heritage tourists in terms of their gender, marital status, education level, occupation and annual income ; h owever, the result of the I ndependent S ample s t test revealed that there is a statistically significant difference in age between heritage tourists and non heritage tourists ( Mean D ifference = 3.921, t = 3. 377 p =.0 01 ). Hence there is a reason to believe that heritage tourists are younger than non heritage tourists. Table 4 3. Sociodemogra p hic c haracteristics of the respondents Variable Category All Heritage Non heritage Test of Difference (X /T test: Sig. ) Age (Mean) Year s old 30.94 28.43 32.35 .0 01* Gender (%) Female Male 49.7 50.3 45.9 54.1 51.6 48.4 .383 Education (%) Primary School High School Vocational School University 1.0 23.3 8.0 56.0 11.7 1.8 29.4 2.8 53.2 12.8 0 .5 20.0 11.1 57 .4 11.1 .205

PAGE 82

82 Table 4 3. Continued. Variable Category All Heritage Non heritage Test of Difference (X /T test: Sig. ) Marital status (%) Single Married Divorced Separated Living with a partner Other 51.0 30.0 2.7 0.3 14.3 1.7 56.0 25.7 1.8 0 .9 14.7 0 .9 48.4 32.6 3.2 13.7 2.1 .380 Occupation (%) Annual i ncome (%) Student Unemployed Retired Labor/Worker Professional/Managerial Under $15,000 $15,000 $24,999 $25,000 &34,999 $35,000 $49,999 $50,000 $74,999 $75,999 $99,999 $100,000 $1 49,999 $150,000 $199,999 $200,000 and above 22.3 15.3 1.7 29.0 31.7 28.7 14.7 16.0 16.0 13.7 8.0 2.0 0.7 0.3 30.3 16.5 0.9 23.9 28.4 28.4 17.4 14.7 16.5 14.7 5.5 1.8 0.9 0 17.9 14.7 2.1 32.1 33.2 28.9 13.2 16.8 15.8 13.2 8.9 2. 1 0.5 0.5 .282 .559 Note : Significant at the 0.05 level Past Travel E xperience As seen in Table 4 4, m ore than sixty percent of the respondents had previous international travel experience T he number of countries they had visited varied be tween 1 and 70 and 3.11 on average. The result of frequencies showed that the number varied between 1 and 15, and 70 was the outlier. Therefore, only when computing the mean of the number of countries, the outlier was omitted (see Table 4 6). Regarding tr aveling to Japan, only 7. 0 % of them had previous visit s to Japan. The number of trips they made ranging from 1 to 7 was 1.95 on average. The ir primary purpose s for taking a trip to Japan a re shown in Table 4 7. The Chi square test revealed that there is no difference between heritage and non heritage tourists in both international travel experience and travel experience to Japan (see Table 4 5).

PAGE 83

83 Table 4 4. Past tr avel experience of the r espondents Variable Category N % International travel experience Y es No Total 189 111 300 63.0 37.0 100.0 Travel experience to Japan Yes No Total 21 279 300 7.0 93.0 100.0 Table 4 5. Comparison of past travel experience of heritage and non heritage t ourists Variable Tourist type Category N % Test of Differ ence (X : Sig. ) International travel experience Heritage Yes No Total 72 37 109 66.1 33.9 100.0 .514 Non heritage Yes No Total 116 74 190 61.1 38.9 100.0 Travel to Japan Heritage Yes No Total 7 102 109 6.4 93.6 100.0 .918 Non he ritage Yes No Total 14 176 190 7.4 92.6 100.0 Table 4 6. T he number of travels of heritage and non heritage tourists Variable Respondents N Mean Min. Max. SD Number of countries All Heritage Non heritage 187 72 114 3.11 3.14 3.11 1 1 1 15 11 15 2.605 2.315 2.785 Number of visits to Japan All Heritage Non heritage 21 7 14 1.95 1.57 2.14 1 1 1 7 3 7 1.532 0.787 1.791 Note As for the number of countries, one respon dent did not provide the specific number ; thus, the mean was comp uted after the exclusion of the two respondents: the one who did not answer this question and the outlier.

PAGE 84

84 Table 4 7. M ain purpose of the p ast t rip to J apan All Heritage Non heritage Response N N N Work 1 1 Travel 1 1 Family 1 1 Lei sure 1 1 Vacation 3 1 2 Business 1 1 Shopping 1 1 Visit family 1 1 Sightseeing 1 1 To visit Tokyo 1 1 Tokyo Disneyland 2 1 1 To know the culture 1 1 Cultural and sightseeing 1 1 Temporary Employment 1 1 Stopover on the way to Taiwan 1 1 Once for business and once for pleasure 1 1 Moved there when I was younger for 5 years 1 1 Once for military and once for company business 1 1 Total 21 7 14 Familiarity with Japan The respondents were asked to ra te their level of familiarity with Japan on a 7 point bipolar scale, ranging from 1 ( very unlikely ) to 7 ( very likely ) The mean rating score was 3.45 which was le ss than the neutral score 4 ( n either agree nor disagree ), meaning the respondents thought th ey were slightly unfamiliar with Japan. The result of the I ndependent S ample s t test revealed that there is no difference between heritage tourists and non heritage tourists in terms of their familiarity with Japan (see Table 4 10 ) ; h owever, the p value (. 059) was very close to 0.05; therefore, it is difficult to conclude with 100% confidence that there is no difference between them. General Image of Japan The purpose of this question was to understand general image perceptions of Japan among the responden ts and how their perceptions could have implications for

PAGE 85

85 For the analysis of the open ended question, a tota l of 900 responses were analyzed: f irst, s econd and t hird image s or word s that came in the ir mind when the respondents thought of Japan. As proposed earlier, all of the responses were coded as 10 different image categories ( cultural historic modern/urban disaster natural geographic human affective and exotic description Japanese word or phrase and unclear/unintelligible response ) and t he codebook was created by the researcher to summarize the common features among the responses (see Table 4 8) The results of the frequency analysis are provided in Table 4 9 The analysis of the respon 40% of the respondents provided modern / urban images or words, follo wed by cultur al (31.0%) and natur al (8.3%). The analysis of their second image/words showed that 4 0% of the respondents gave cultur al images or words, followed by mod ern / urban (33.3%) and human (6.7%) images or words Interestingly, th e analysis of their third images or words revealed that the ranking and percentage were almost equal to the second ones ; cultural related ones consisted of 40% of the resp onse s followed by modern/ urban (30%) and human (8.0%) images Therefore, the results indicated that Japan has a very strong and confirmed destination image as culturally oriented and urban developed country. In comparison of heritage tourists and non heri tage tourists, there was no difference in the order of the frequen cy response s ; that is, both heritage tourists and non he ritage tourists provided modern / urban and cultural images most frequently in all of the first, second and third images.

PAGE 86

86 Table 4 8. C ode book for frequency analysis of the open ended question Code Category Response 1 Cultural Arts, crafts and music/Culture and tradition/Cultural architecture or interior design (e.g., decor, tea garden) Cultural festival/Fashion (trend or traditional)/ Food/ Cuisine/Etiquette/Game and anime/Movie/Movie related character (e.g., samurai, ninja, geisha, Godzilla)/ Language barrier/Religion and symbols (e.g., lotus flower, dragon)/Respect/Sun or the national flag/Traditional sports (e.g., sumo, karate)/ Colle ctive 2 Historic Ancient architecture (e.g., temple garden)/Historic sites (e.g., temple, pagoda, shrine)/ History associated city (e.g., Hiroshima, Kyoto, Nagasaki ) 3 Modern/Urban Activ e / Busy / Bustling /Chaotic/ City or specific place / Cleanliness / Congestion or level of crowd / Economy or level of urban development /Disneyland/Expensive/ Futuristic/ Innovative /I ndustry or commerce / Modern / Modern architecture (e.g., skyscraper) / Modern life (e.g ., convenience, neon lights, night life) / Money/ Population/ Sport or sport event / Shopping / Technology and science/Vibrant 4 Disaster Natural disaster (e.g., tsunami, earthquake) / Nuclear / R adiation 5 Natural Cherry blossom / Mt. Fuji / Landscape/Scenery / V olcano / Animal or plant / Picturesque 6 Geographic Asia / Korea / Island / Distant/Far /Orient 7 Human Ethnicity (e.g., Asian, Japanese) / Attitude of Japanese / Characteristics of Japanese /Disciplined/ Japanese women / Japanese people /Name of a famous Japanese pe rson/ Sex or romance / Courteous / Friendly / Naughty / Polite / Smart 8 Affective and exotic description Crazy / Different / Exotic / Fascinating / Mystical / Quirky / Unique / W eird/ Chaotic / D iverse / Awesome / Beautiful / Claustrophobic / Exciting / Fun / Happy / Melancholy / Peaceful / Wond erful / 9 Japanese word or phrase Kawaii (cute or adorable ) / Domo arigato ( a casual way of saying thank you) 10 999 Unclear/ Unintelligible response No response

PAGE 87

87 Table 4 9 The general image of J apan All Her itage Non heritage Code Category N % N % N % General image1: F irst 1 Cultural 93 31.0 38 34.9 55 28.9 2 Historical 13 4.3 4 3.7 9 4.7 3 Modern/Urban 119 39.7 46 42.2 73 38.4 4 Disaster 6 2.0 1 0 .9 5 2.6 5 Natural 25 8.3 5 4.6 20 10.5 6 Geographic 11 3.7 4 3.7 7 3.7 7 Human 21 7.0 5 4.6 15 7.9 8 Affective and exotic descriptions 10 3.3 4 3.7 6 3.2 9 Japanese words or phrases 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Unclear/Unintelligible response 2 0.7 2 1.8 0 0 999 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 300 100.0 109 100.0 190 100.0 General image2: S econd 1 Cultural 115 38.3 46 42.2 69 36. 3 2 Historical 21 7.0 7 6.4 13 6.8 3 Modern/Urban 100 33.3 32 29.4 68 35.8 4 Disaster 6 2.0 1 0 .9 5 2.6 5 Natural 19 6.3 8 7.3 11 5.8 6 Geographic 5 1.7 0 0 5 2.6 7 Human 20 6.7 8 7.3 12 6.3 8 Affective and exotic descriptions 11 3.7 4 3.7 7 3.7 9 Japanese words or phrases 1 0 .3 1 0 .9 0 0 10 Unclear/Unintelligible response 2 0 .7 2 1.8 0 0 999 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 300 100.0 109 100.0 190 100.0 General image3: T hird 1 Cultural 116 38.7 44 40.4 72 37.9 2 Historical 2 2 7. 3 2 1.8 1 9 10 0 3 Modern/Urban 8 8 29. 3 34 31.2 5 4 28. 4 4 Disaster 7 2.3 3 2.8 4 2.1 5 Natural 17 5.7 6 5.5 11 5.8 6 Geographic 8 2.7 1 0 .9 7 3.7 7 Human 24 8.0 11 10.1 13 6.8 8 Affective and exotic descriptions 15 5.0 6 5.5 9 4.7 9 Japane se words or phrases 1 0 .3 0 0 1 0 .5 10 Unclear/Unintelligible response 2 0 .7 2 1.8 0 0 999 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 300 100.0 109 100.0 190 100.0

PAGE 88

88 Desirability of Japan as a Vacation Destination In addition, t he respondents were asked to rate the desirability of Japan as a vacation destination with a 7 point bipolar scale, ranging from 1 ( very undesirable ) to 7 ( very desirable ) T he respondents generally agreed that Japan had been a relatively des irable destination for vacation purpose ( M ean [ M ] =4.85) The result of the Independent S ample s t test revealed that there is no difference between heritage tourists and non heritage tourists in terms of the ir desirability rating ( see Table 4 10 ) Likeliho od of Visiting J a pan In terms of their likelihood of visiting Japan in the future the respondents expressed that they were slightly unlikely to visit Japan in the future ( M =3.87) T he result of the I ndependent S ample s t test showed that there is no differ ence between heritage and non heritage tourists in terms of their likelihood to visit Japan (see Table 4 10 ) Table 4 10 Descriptive statistics for J ecurity perception and other variables Variable Respondents N Min. Max. SD Test of Difference (T test: Sig. ) Overall Safety and Security Perception All Heritage Non heritage 300 109 190 5.28 5.26 5.29 1 1 1 7 7 7 1.464 1.578 1.402 .830 Familiarity with Japan All Heritage Non heritage 300 109 190 3.45 3.69 3.32 1 1 1 7 7 7 1.615 1.568 1.632 .059 Desirability of Japan as a Vacation Destination All Heritage Non heritage 300 109 190 4.85 4.91 4.82 1 1 1 7 7 7 1.891 1.813 1.942 .685 Likelihood of visiting Japan All Heritage Non heritage 300 109 190 3.87 4.13 3.71 1 1 1 7 7 7 2.135 2.060 2.167 .099 Note Measured with a 7 poi nt bipolar scale ranging from 1 = very low to 7 = very high (familiarity), from 1 = very undesirable to 1 = very desirable (desirability) from 1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely (likelihood ), from 1 = very risky/dangerous to 7 = very safe/secure ( o verall safety and security perception ).

PAGE 89

89 Safety and Security Perception Overall Safety and Security Perception As for their overall safety and security perception, t he mean rating was 5. 2 8, which s howed that the respondents somewhat agreed that Japan is a safe or secure destination As shown in Table 4 10 t he result of I ndependent S ample s t test revealed that there is no difference between heritage tourists and non heritage tourists in terms of the Specific Threats to Safety and Security Table 4 1 1 summ arizes the results of the 30 threat items. The descriptive statistics revealed that the respondents were most worried about experiencing difficulti es or problems because of the language barrier ( Mean [ M ] = 5.79) and high cost of travel ( M =5.79) followed by long distance from home ( M =5.40) cultural difference ( M = 5 36 ), uncomfortable level of crowds ( M =4. 74 ), and time consuming in planning, schedul ing and traveling ( M = 4.25). On the other hand, the respondents tended to put low er values on the following items: trip's negative effect on my image among friends and family ( M =1.83), terrorism ( M =2.30), negative effect on my psychological well being ( M =2.37), violence ( M =2.44), strikes ( M =2.46), and negative effect on my physical well being ( M =2.46). The comparison between heritage tourists and non heritage tourists are provided in Table 4 1 2 As seen in Table 4 11, t he result of the I ndependent S am ple s t test showed that there is no difference between heritage tourists and non heritage tourists in terms of their perceptions of safety and security on a ny of the 30 threat attributes.

PAGE 90

90 The correlation s among the 30 t hreat items are provided in Table 4 1 3 As shown, there were significant correlations ranging from 0.737 at the highest to 0.114 at the lowest. Tab le 4 1 1 Descriptive statistics for threat attributes and comparison of heritage and non heritage tourists Threat Attributes N SD Skew ness Min Max Test of Difference (T test: Sig. ) Language barrier 300 5.79 1.315 1.522 1 7 .222 High cost of travel 300 5.79 1.257 1.443 1 7 .227 Long distance from home 300 5.40 1.686 1.123 1 7 .106 Cultural difference 300 5.36 1.473 898 1 7 .151 Uncomfortable level of crowds 300 4.74 1.766 .618 1 7 .193 Time consuming in planning, scheduling and traveling 300 4.25 1.775 .316 1 7 .200 Natural disasters 300 3.93 1.601 .142 1 7 .127 Pollution 300 3.87 1.660 .180 1 7 .575 Traffic accidents 300 3.67 1.495 .148 1 7 .636 Radiation 300 3.59 1.695 .083 1 7 .629 Unfriendly locals 300 3.51 1.542 .081 1 7 .902 Low value for money 300 3.49 1.527 .135 1 7 .487 Weather controversy 300 3.27 1.416 .211 1 7 .208 Food safety problems 300 3.09 1.631 .435 1 7 .516 Crime 300 2.96 1.447 .362 1 7 .605 Trip experience not meeting my expectations 300 2.96 1.474 .530 1 7 .183 Violation of tourist rights 300 2.74 1.463 .691 1 7 .279 Epidemic diseases 300 2.68 1. 549 .791 1 7 .588 Lack of hospitality and courtesy of service personnel 300 2.64 1.453 .816 1 7 .445 Low standard health care 300 2.63 1.495 .839 1 7 .862 Low quality products and services 300 2.63 1.391 .788 1 7 .308 Wars in close vicinity 300 2.61 1.476 .908 1 7 .535 Lack of communication access 300 2.57 1.606 .890 1 7 .291 Political unrest 300 2.48 1.396 .799 1 7 .578 Negative effect on my physical well being 300 2.46 1.347 .847 1 7 .637 Strikes 300 2.46 1.222 .614 1 7 .773 Violence 300 2.44 1.246 .969 1 7 .709 Negative effect on my psychological well being 300 2.37 1.283 1.111 1 7 .542 Terrorism 300 2.30 1.247 1.039 1 7 .695 Trip's negative effect on my image among friends and family 300 1.83 1.206 1.845 1 7 260 Note Measured using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree

PAGE 91

91 Tab le 4 1 2 M ean c omparison of heritage and non heritage tourists in 30 threat items Heritage Non heritage N SD Skewness Min Maxi N M SD Skewness Min Max Language barrier 109 5.67 1.299 1.144 1 7 Language barrier 190 5.86 1.326 1.754 1 7 High cost of travel 109 5.67 1.225 1.064 1 7 High cost of travel 190 5.85 1.276 1.665 1 7 Cultural difference 109 5.19 1.469 .769 1 7 Long distance from home 190 5.52 1.720 1.221 1 7 Long distance from home 109 5.19 1.619 1.013 1 7 Cultural difference 190 5.45 1.475 .987 1 7 Uncomfortable level of crowds 109 4.56 1.761 .557 1 7 Uncomfortable level of crowds 190 4.84 1.770 .664 1 7 Time consuming in planning, scheduling and traveling 109 4.07 1.704 .311 1 7 Time consuming in planning, scheduling and traveling 190 4.35 1.816 .346 1 7 Pollution 109 3.80 1.609 .181 1 7 Natural disasters 190 4.04 1.601 .248 1 7 Natural disasters 109 3.74 1.595 .055 1 7 Pollution 190 3.91 1.696 .188 1 7 Radiation 109 3.65 1.646 .007 1 7 Traffic accidents 190 3.70 1.508 .095 1 7 Traffic accidents 109 3.61 1.484 .245 1 7 Radiation 190 3.55 1.729 .137 1 7 Un friendly locals 109 3.52 1.488 .075 1 7 Low value for money 190 3.53 1.542 .155 1 7 Weather controversy 109 3.40 1.382 .075 1 7 Unfriendly locals 190 3.50 1.579 .081 1 7 Low value for money 109 3.40 1.504 .114 1 7 Weather controversy 19 0 3.19 1.431 .308 1 7 Food safety problems 109 3.01 1.596 .500 1 7 Food safety problems 190 3.14 1.656 .408 1 7 Crime 109 2.90 1.453 .363 1 7 Trip experience not meeting my expectations 190 3.04 1.563 .535 1 7 Trip experience not meetin g my expectations 109 2.82 1.306 .373 1 6 Crime 190 2.99 1.451 .365 1 7 Lack of communication access 109 2.69 1.562 .787 1 7 Violation of tourist rights 190 2.81 1.515 .704 1 7 Violation of tourist rights 109 2.61 1.367 .641 1 7 Epidemi c diseases 190 2.72 1.605 .845 1 7 Low standard health care 109 2.61 1.485 .932 1 7 Low quality products and services 190 2.68 1.416 .755 1 7 Epidemic diseases 109 2.61 1.459 .644 1 6 Lack of hospitality and courtesy of service personnel 19 0 2.68 1.468 .784 1 7 Lack of hospitality and courtesy of service personnel 109 2.55 1.437 .889 1 7 Wars in close vicinity 190 2.64 1.476 .906 1 7 Wars in close vicinity 109 2.53 1.469 .962 1 7 Low standard health care 190 2.64 1.508 .79 6 1 7 Low quality products and services 109 2.51 1.344 .878 1 7 Political unrest 190 2.52 1.402 .771 1 7 Violence 109 2.48 1.199 .811 1 7 Negative effect on my physical well being 190 2.49 1.387 .876 1 7 Negative effect on my psychological well being 109 2.43 1.189 .789 1 6 Lack of communication access 190 2.48 1.626 .984 1 7 Strikes 109 2.43 1.228 .529 1 6 Strikes 190 2.47 1.224 .673 1 7 Political unrest 109 2.42 1.396 .870 1 7 Violence 190 2.42 1.277 1.048 1 7 Negati ve effect on my physical well being 109 2.41 1.285 .783 1 7 Negative effect on my psychological well being 190 2.34 1.338 1.265 1 7 Terrorism 109 2.26 1.258 1.150 1 7 Terrorism 190 2.32 1.245 .993 1 7 Trip's negative effect on my image among fr iends and family 109 1.93 1.274 1.780 1 7 Trip's negative effect on my image among friends and family 190 1.76 1.165 1.915 1 7 Note Measured using a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree

PAGE 92

92 Table 4 1 3 C orrelation s among 30 t hreat a ttributes Pearso n Correlation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Violence 1 Pollution .490 ** 1 Radiation .346 ** .489 ** 1 Terrorism .609 ** .420 ** .424 ** 1 Political unrest .737 ** .415 ** .337 ** .680 ** 1 Traffic accidents .385 ** .435 ** .187 ** .351 ** .460 ** 1 Unfriendly locals .341 ** .198 ** .087 .282 ** .357 ** .375 ** 1 Language barrier .158 ** .217 ** .034 .007 .126 .307 ** .243 ** 1 High cost of travel .006 .205 ** .084 .017 .048 .215 ** .227 ** .544 ** 1 Cultural difference .115 .112 .022 .012 .121 .218 ** .238 ** .516 ** .379 ** 1 Weather controversy .315 ** .157 ** .227 ** 310 ** .354 ** .292 ** .181 ** .145 .029 .338 ** 1 Low value for money .296 ** .141 .170 ** .319 ** .309 ** .275 ** .258 ** .137 .103 .224 ** .345 ** 1 Wars in close vicinity .605 ** .316 ** .381 ** .563 ** .681 ** .348 ** .313 ** .11 0 .079 .081 .365 ** .345 ** 1 Food safety problems .559 ** .445 ** .402 ** .501 ** .613 ** .428 ** .377 ** .174 ** .067 .195 ** .374 ** .278 ** .665 ** 1 Violation of tourist rights .595 ** .392 ** .300 ** .514 ** .641 ** .436 ** .465 ** .17 7 ** .075 .197 ** .340 ** .304 ** .669 ** .745 ** 1 Low standard health care .545 ** .301 ** .222 ** .496 ** .611 ** .292 ** .415 ** .138 .028 .196 ** .409 ** .275 ** .623 ** .623 ** .682 ** 1 L ong distance from home .164 ** .335 ** .121 .042 .210 ** .252 ** .164 ** .406 ** .336 ** .435 ** .220 ** .185 ** .174 ** .276 ** .212 ** .235 ** 1 Uncomfortable level of crowds .264 ** .353 ** .177 ** .183 ** .330 ** .414 ** .348 ** .411 ** .353 ** .381 ** .165 ** .274 ** .222 ** .343 ** .358 ** .258 ** .456 ** 1 Low quality products and services .613 ** .380 ** .214 ** .545 ** .655 ** .430 ** .404 ** .175 ** .034 .235 ** .387 ** .342 ** .556 ** .614 ** .674 ** .697 ** .211 ** .313 ** 1 Negative effect on my physical well being .538 ** .319 ** .274 ** .525 ** .608 * .315 ** .321 ** .071 .068 .068 .351 ** .297 ** .562 ** .495 ** .598 ** .603 ** .076 .251 ** .648 ** 1 Crime .595 ** .496 ** .240 ** .535 ** .633 ** .477 ** .378 ** .171 ** .057 .148 .291 ** .282 ** .501 ** .617 ** .657 ** .567 ** .198 ** .399 ** .708 ** .640 ** 1 Trip experience not meeting my expectations .376 ** .189 ** .110 .314 ** .386 ** .252 ** .344 ** .203 ** .033 .224 ** .303 ** .333 ** .388 ** .411 ** .490 ** .439 ** .194 ** .340 ** .495 ** .570 ** .469 ** 1 Negative effect on my psychological well being .491 ** .240 ** .257 ** .437 ** .508 ** .303 ** .330 ** .078 .035 .110 .347 ** .333 ** .528 ** .452 ** .563 ** .582 ** .151 ** .280 ** .560 ** .710 ** .500 ** .662 ** 1 Epidemic diseases .479 ** .357 ** .375 ** .501 ** .559 ** .315 ** .331 ** .199 ** .020 .123 .345 ** .274 ** .570 ** .575 ** .558 ** .595 ** .184 ** .309 ** .550 ** .608 ** .556 ** .403 ** .570 ** 1 Strikes .447 ** .292 ** .209 ** .542 ** .591 ** .360 ** .270 ** .063 .108 .120 .377 ** .273 ** .491 ** .448 ** .541 ** .499 ** .140 .227 ** .589 ** .616 ** .567 ** .391 ** .554 ** .430 ** 1 Lack of hospitality and courtesy of service personnel .456 ** .294 ** .178 ** .488 ** .512 ** .291 ** .550 ** .108 .030 .156 ** .291 ** .307 ** .498 ** .541 ** .608 ** .632 ** .199 ** .309 ** .601 ** .561 ** .552 ** .548 ** .559 ** .486 ** .535 ** 1 Time consuming in planning, scheduling and traveling .113 .215 ** .034 .141 .161 ** .294 ** .306 ** .234 ** .252 ** .359 ** .183 ** .217 ** .180 ** .180 ** .152 ** .230 ** .475 ** .389 ** .283 ** .184 ** .231 ** .251 ** .246 ** .149 ** .245 ** .276 ** 1 Natural disasters .352 ** .341 ** .409 * .317 ** .372 ** .286 ** .141 .198 ** .156 ** .158 ** .344 ** .294 ** .411 ** .420 ** .345 ** .335 ** .279 ** .359 ** .297 ** .331 ** .355 ** .328 ** .385 ** .517 ** .397 ** .277 ** .252 ** 1 Trip's negative effect on my image among friends and family .425 ** .194 ** .175 ** 484 ** .441 ** .204 ** .222 ** .075 .122 .003 .314 ** .239 ** .435 ** .355 ** .441 ** .457 ** .015 .104 .478 ** .513 ** .377 ** .359 ** .541 ** .421 ** .476 ** .428 ** .114 .295 ** 1 Lack of communication access .505 ** .248 ** .193 ** .475 ** .560 ** .272 ** .301 ** .111 .046 .155 ** .393 ** .287 ** .542 ** .513 ** .561 ** .604 ** .147 .141 .603 ** .520 ** .444 ** .323 ** .499 ** .490 ** .506 ** .491 ** .192 ** .302 ** .494 ** 1 Note : **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).

PAGE 93

93 For Research Question 4, a s stated, e xploratory factor analysis with principal component analysis was used to summarize the 24 threat attributes and identify the underlying constructs The resul t of the first factor analysis identified three factors with only two items traffic accident and w eather controversy The traffic accident item had a loading score less than 0.5, while the weather controversy item loaded separately for other item s Each factor needs at least three loading items t o be a meaningful group of dimensions (Hair et al., 1998). Hence, the factor analysis was repeated after the elimination of the two items. The result of the second factor analysis was provided in Table 4 1 4 The second factor analysis identified three fac tors and all three factors were extracted with substantial loadings of 24 threat items with no cross loadings. Factor loadings, percent of variance explained, cumulative percent of variance explained, factor grand means, and Clonbach s coefficient alpha v alues are also provided in Table 4 1 4 In the factor analysis, items in a factor need to have variable loadings of greater than 0.5 to be considered as practically significant (Hair et al., 1998). In this study, individual items showed good correlation wi th the extracted factors. According to the characteristics of the dimensions, the three factors were labeled as: p ersonal safety and security concern (Factor 1), c ultural and g eographic d istance (Factor 2), and n atural and h uman made d isaster (Factor 3) F actor 1 includes features that are usually concer ns among tourists when traveling; thus, the label is p ersonal safety and security concern Factor 2 includes features that can be constraints for tourists when traveling to culturally and geographically dist ant destinations; thus, the label is c ultural and g eographic

PAGE 94

94 distance Factor 3 has dimensions that are specifically associated with the disaster that occurred in 2011 ; t hus, the label is n atural and human made disaster. Table 4 1 4 Summary of the factor analysis Threat Dimensions and Factors Factor Loadings % of Variance Explained Cumulative % of Variance Factor Grand Mean Alpha Value Factor 1: Personal Safety and Security Concern 34.50 1 34.50 1 2.69 .942 Low quality products and services .8 32 Low standard health care .818 Violation of tourist rights .801 Lack of hospitality and courtesy of service personnel .779 Political unrest .764 Lack of communication access .729 Crime .722 Wars in close vicinity .715 Strikes .701 Food safety problems .697 Violence .671 Terrorism .637 Epidemic diseases .622 Unfriendly locals .553 Factor 2: Cultural and Geographic Distance 13.6 46 48.1 47 5.42 .776 Language barrier .794 High cost of travel .738 Cultural difference .730 Long distance from home .661 Uncomfortable level of crowds .644 Factor 3: Natural and Human made Disaster 12.10 2 60.2 49 3.80 .680 Radiation .816 Pollution .665 Natural disasters .590 Note : Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 4 iterations. Items ordered by the size of loadings. The factors explain 60.2 49 % of the initial variables. The computatio n for internal consistency revealed high values of Cronbach s alpha coefficient: = .942 ( personal safety and security concern ), = .776 ( cultural and geographic distance ), and = .680 ( natural and human made disaster ). A Cronbach s alpha of 0 .70 is considere d as stable and acceptable (Hair et al., 1998). The alpha for the natural and human ma de disaster factor w as below the 0.70; however, as provided in Table 4 1 5, the correlations among

PAGE 95

95 the items in the natural and human made disaster fa ctor were all signifi cant at the 0.01 level. Thus, this study assumes the alpha for the natural and hum an made disaster factor is also acceptable. Hence, these coefficients display that factors were stable with high internal consistencies The Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.926. KMO scores close to or greater than 0.7 are considered a good indication that correlation is comparatively compact, and factor analysis should acquire distinct and reliable factors. Table 4 1 5 Inter item correlations for the natural and human made disaster factor Pearson Correlation 1 2 3 Pollution 1 Radiation .489 ** 1 Natural disasters .341 ** .409 ** 1 Note : **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). The ranking of the summated mean s were 5.42 ( c ultural and geographic distance ), 3.80 ( natural and human made d isaster ) and 2.69 ( personal safety and security concern ) In short, items in the c ultural and g eographic d istance factor were natural and human made disaster factor and the personal safety and security concern factor. He nce, this result revealed that Japan is considered as a relatively safe and secure country for tourists; however, it also carries threats to safety and security specifically associated with cultural and geographic distance

PAGE 96

96 Differences and Relationships S ociode m ographic F actors and O verall S afety and S ecurity P erception For R esearch Q uestion 3 this study analyzed the rel ationships between sociodemogra p hic factors with overal l safety and security perception s As seen in Table 4 1 6 and Table 4 1 7 there wa s a significant difference in overall safety and security perceptions among education levels. More specifically, t he Tu key HSD p ost hoc analysis r evealed that tourists whose h ighest education wa s primary school ( Mean [ M ] = 3.0 0 ) ha d significantly lower safety and security perception than those who graduated from university ( M = 5.32) and those who ha d master s or Ph.D education ( M = 5.54). In other words, tourists with low educatio n levels tended to perceive Japan as a more risky or dangerous country than middle or highly educated tourists. Furthermore, the result of the I ndependent S ample s t test revealed that there wa s a difference between males and females in terms of their over all safety and security perception s ( Mean D ifference = .403, t = 2.402, p =.017) Female s ( M =5.08) h a d lower overall safety and security perception than male s ( M =5.48). Thus both of them generally agreed that Japan wa s relatively a safe country because thei r mean scores were more than 4 ( neither agree nor disagree ); however, compared to males females tended to perceive Japan as a risky or dangerous count ry. T he res ult of the correlation analysis did not reveal a ny relationship between age and overall saf ety and security perception ( r = .025, p =.669). In other words, there is no influence of age on Therefore, no significant relat ionship was observed between so ciodemographic fact ors ( age, marital status, occupation and annual income ) and Japan s o verall safety and security perception s

PAGE 97

97 Table 4 1 6 Results of the ANOVA a nalysis: sociodemo gr aphics and overall safety and security perception Variables Sum of Squares df M ean S quare F Sig. Education Between Groups 24.187 4 6.047 2.892 .023 Within Groups 616.730 295 2.091 Total 640.917 299 Marital status Between Groups 9.591 5 1.918 .893 .486 Within Groups 631.325 294 2.147 Total 640.917 299 Occu pation Between Groups 17.344 4 4.336 2.051 .087 Within Groups 623.573 295 2.114 Total 640.917 299 Annual income Between Groups 20.309 8 2.539 1.190 .305 Within Groups 620.608 291 2.133 Total 640.917 299 Note : Significant at the 0.05 lev el Table 4 1 7 The r esult of the Tu k e y HSD post h oc test on education (I) Education level (J) Education level Mean Difference (I J) Std. Error Sig. Primary School 3.00 High School 2.329 .852 .052 Vocational School 1.792 .885 .2 57 University 2.321 .842 .048 Master's or Ph.D. 2.543 .870 .030 High School 5.33 Primary School 2.329 .852 .052 Vocational School .537 .342 .518 University .007 .206 1.000 Master's or Ph.D. .214 .299 .953 Vocationa l School 4.79 Primary School 1.792 .885 .257 High School .537 .342 .518 University .530 .316 .449 Master's or Ph.D. .751 .383 .288 University 5.32 Primary School 2.321 .842 .048 High School .007 .206 1.000 Vocationa l School .530 .316 .449 Master's or Ph.D. .221 .269 .923 Master's or Ph.D. 5.54 Primary School 2.543 .870 .030 High School .214 .299 .953 Vocational School .751 .383 .288 University .221 .269 .923 Note : *. The mea n difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Dependent Variable: Safety and security in Japan (overall safety and security perception ). Measured with a 7 point bipolar scale ranging from 1 = very risky/dangerous to 7 = very safe/secure (safety and security).

PAGE 98

98 Overall Saf ety and Security Perception s and Threat Factors For R esearch Q uestion 4 t his study also examined the relationships a mo ng the safety and security factors The results of the correlation also provide d the relationships of the extracted factors in factor analysis with other threat items as seen in Table 4 19 The factor mean scores were utilized when analyzing the relatio nships among the extracted factors (the personal safety and security concern factor, the c ultural and geographic distance factor and the natural a nd human made disaster factor) (See Table 4 18). As seen in Table 4 18 there were positive correlations amon g the personal safety and security concern factor, the cultural and geographic distance factor, and the natural and human made disaster factor. A positive correlation was found between the personal safety and security concern factor and the cultural and g e ographic distance factor ( r = .295). The personal safety and security concern factor also has a positive correlation with the natural a nd human made disaster factor ( r = .552). Also, there is a positive correlation between the c ultural and geographic distanc e factor and the natural a nd human made disaster factor ( r = .334). In terms of the relationships between the extracted factors in factor analysis and other threat items, as seen in Table 4 19, t he personal safety and security concern factor has the highes t correlation with physical risk ( r = .717). It also has positive correlations with psychological risk ( r =. 651), social risk ( .564), functional/performance risk ( r = .536), financial risk ( r = .348 ) and time risk ( r = .221). The c ultural and geographic dista nce factor has the highe st correlation with time risk ( r = .435). It is positively correlated wit h functional/performance risk ( r = .215), and financi al risk ( r = .186) The factor has a negative correlation with social risk ( r = .124 ). The natural and

PAGE 99

99 human made disaster factor is most correlated with p hysical risk ( r = .211) followed by psychologi cal risk ( r = .177), social risk ( r = .145), and financial risk ( r = .130). As seen in Table 4 1 9, the result of the correlation analysis show ed that overall safety a nd security perceptions had the hig hest correlation with the personal safety and security concern factor ( r = .530). It was also negatively correlated w ith physical risk ( r = .431), psychological risk ( r = 338), functional/performance risk ( r = .3 00), soc ial risk ( r = .268), the natural and human made d isaster factor ( r = .194) and financial risk ( r = .143) Safety and Security Perception s and Other Variables For Research Q uestion 5 this study found that there are s ignificant relationship s among safety and security perceptions ( overall safety and security perception s and perceptions of specific threats), familiarity with Japan desirability of Japan as a vacation destination and likelihood of visiting Japan As seen in Table 4 1 9 the results of correla tion revealed that overall safety and security perceptions, familiarit y with Japan desirability of Japan as a vacation destination and likelihood of visiting Japan we re all positively correlated Familiarity with Japan had positive correlations with Japan overall safety and security perceptio ns ( r = .393), desirability of Japan as a vacation destination ( r = .508) and likelihood of visiting Japan ( r = .483). verall safety and security perceptions were also positively correlated with desirability of Japan as a vacation destination ( r = .429) and likelihood of visiting Japan ( r = .311). The highest positive correlation among the variables was between desirability of Japan as a vacation destination and likelihood of visiting Japan ( r = .747). Familiarity with Japan also has negative correlations with the personal safety and security concern factor ( r = .236), functional/performance risk ( r = .219), th e cultural and

PAGE 100

100 geographic distanc e factor ( r = .209), physical risk ( r = .179), psychological risk ( r = .1 68), financial ri sk ( r = .155), and social risk ( r = .152). Desirability of Japan as a vacation destination has negative correlations with the personal safety and security concern factor ( r = .340), functional/performance r isk ( r = .315), physical risk ( r = .300), psychological risk ( r = .285), social risk ( r = .208), and f inancial risk ( r = .136). Likelihood of visiting Japan also has negative correlations with functional/performa nce risk ( r = .265), the personal safety and security concern factor ( r = 250), psychological risk ( r = 244), the cultural and geographic distance factor ( r = .212), p hysical risk ( r = .211), and financial risk ( r = .137). Table 4 1 8 Correlations among the extracted factors in the factor analysis Pearson Correlation F1 M ea n F2 mean F3 mean The personal safety and security concern factor (factor mean ) 1 The cultural and geographic distance factor (factor mean) .295 ** 1 The natural and human made disaster factor (factor mean) .552 ** .334 ** 1 Note : **. Correlation is si gnificant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). F1 = Factor 1 (the personal safety and security concern factor); F2 = Factor 2 (the cultural and geographic distance factor); F3 = Factor 3 (the natural and human made disaster factor).

PAGE 101

101 Table 4 19. Correlations between safety and security perception variables and other variables Pearson Correlation F1 F2 F3 FR T R PR PSYR SR FIR SS FM DB LH Factor 1: Personal safety and security concern 1 Factor 2: Cultural and Geographic distance .000 1 Fa ctor 3: Natural and human made disaster .000 .000 1 Functional/performance risk: Trip experience not meeting my expectations .536 ** .215 ** .050 1 Time risk: Time consuming in planning, scheduling and traveling .221 ** .435 ** .03 0 .251 ** 1 Physical risk: Negative effect on my physical well being .717 ** .004 .211 ** .570 ** .184 ** 1 Psychological risk: Negative effect on my psychological well being .651 ** .059 .177 ** .662 ** .246 ** .710 ** 1 Social risk: Trip's negative effect on my image among friends and family .564 ** .124 .145 .359 ** .114 .513 ** .541 ** 1 Financial risk: Low value for money .348 ** .186 ** .130 .333 ** .217 ** .297 ** .333 ** .239 ** 1 afety and security p erception .530 ** .021 .194 ** .300 ** .071 .431 ** .338 ** .268 ** .143 1 Familiarity with Japan .236 ** .209 ** .047 .219 ** .059 .179 ** .168 ** .152 ** .155 ** .393 ** 1 Desirability of Japan as a v acation d estination .340 ** .108 .034 .315 ** .073 .300 ** .285 ** .208 ** .136 .429 ** .508 ** 1 Likelihood of visiting Japan .250 ** .212 ** .058 .265 ** .103 .211 ** .244 ** .091 .137 .311 ** .483 ** .747 ** 1 Note : **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *. Cor relation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed). FR = Functional/Performance risk; TR = Time risk; PR = Physical risk; PSYR = Psychological risk; SR = Social risk; FIR = Financial risk; SS afety and security perception ; FM = Familiarity with Japan; DB = Desirability of Japan as a vacation d estination; LH = Likelihood of visiting Japan.

PAGE 102

102 Note : **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). Figure 4 1 Correlations between the personal safety and security c oncern factor and oth er t hreat factors Note : **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed). N s = n ot statistically significant. Figure 4 2 Correlations between the cultural and geographic dist ance factor and other threat factors ( .334 ** ) (.717 ** ) (.651 ** ) (.564 ** ) (.536 ** ) Financial risk Social risk Functional / P erformance risk Psychological risk Physical risk Time risk (.348 ** ) (.221 ** ) (.295 ** ) ( 552 ** ) The natural and human made disaster factor The cultural and geographic distance factor The personal s afety and security concern factor ( 552 ** ) (.435 ** ) (.215 ** ) (.186 ** ) ( .059: ns ) ( .124 ) ( .004: ns ) (.295 ** ) (.334 ** ) Th e natural and human made disaster factor The personal safety and s ecurity concern factor The cultural and geographic distance factor Financial risk Social risk Functional / P erformance risk Psychological risk Physical risk Time risk

PAGE 103

103 Note : **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed). N s = n ot statistically significant. Figure 4 3 Correlations between the natura l and human made disaster factor and other threat factors Note : **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed). N s = n ot statistically significant. Figure 4 4 Correlation s among the safety and security perception factors ( .295 ** ) (.211 ** ) (.177 ** ) (.145 ) (. 050: ns ) (.130 ) Financial risk Social risk Functional / P erformance risk Psychological risk Physical risk Time risk (.030: ns ) ( 552 ** ) (.334 ** ) The cultural and geographic distance factor The personal safety and secur ity concern factor The natural and human made disaster factor ( .071: ns ) ( .431 ** ) ( .338 ** ) ( .300 ** ) ( .143 ) ( .268 ** ) Financial risk Social risk Functional / P erformance risk Psychological risk Physical risk Time risk ( .021: ns ) ( .53 0 ** ) ( .194 ** ) The natural and human made disaster factor The cultural and geographic distance factor The personal safety and security concern factor Japan s o verall s afety and s ecurity p erception

PAGE 104

104 Note : **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed). N s= n ot statistically significant. Figure 4 5 Correlations betwee n familiarity with J apan and threat factors Note : **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed). N s = n ot statistically significant. Figure 4 6 Correlations between desi rability of J apan as a vacation destination and threat factors ( .219 ) ( .179 ** ) ( .168 ** ) ( .155 ** ) ( .152 ** ) Financial risk Social risk Functional / P erformance risk Psychological risk Physical risk Time risk ( .059: ns ) ( .209 ** ) ( .236 ** ) ( .047: ns ) The natural and human made disaster factor The cultural and geographic distance factor The personal safety and security concern factor Familiarity with Japan ( .315 ** ) ( .300 ** ) ( .285 ** ) ( .136 ) ( .208 ** ) Financial risk Social risk Functional / P erformance risk Psychological risk Physical risk Time risk ( .073: ns ) ( .340 ** ) ( 034: ns ) The natural and human made disaster factor The cultural and geographic distance factor The personal safety and security concern factor Desirability of Japan as a v acation d estination ( .108: ns )

PAGE 105

105 Note : **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed). N s= n ot statistically significant. Figure 4 7 C orrelations between likelihood of visiting J apan and threat factor s Note : **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). Figure 4 8 Correlations between o verall safety and security perception and other variables ( .265 ** ) ( .244 ** ) ( .211 ** ) ( .1 0 3 : ns ) ( .137 ) Financial risk Functional / P erformance risk Psychological risk Physical risk Social risk Time risk ( .091: ns ) ( .250 ** ) ( 058: ns ) The natural and human made disaster factor The cultural and geographic distance factor The person al safety and security concern factor Likelihood of v isiting Japan ( .212 ** ) (.393 ** ) ( .508 ** ) (.747 ** ) D esirability of Japan as a v acation d estination Japan s o verall s afety and s ecurity p erception Likelihood of v isiting Japan F amiliarity with Japan (.429 ** ) (.483 ** ) (.311 ** )

PAGE 106

106 CHA PTER 5 DISCU SSION AND CONCLUSION The purpose of the study was to explore safety and security perception among US heritage tourists. This chapter interprets the results of the analyses by referring t o the findings of previous stud ies and draws concl usions with implications for future studies. Heritage and Non heritage Tourists In this study, there was a statistically significant difference between heritage touri sts and non heritage tourists in their age; that is, heritage tourists are younger than no n heritage tourists The result supports the Richards s ( 1 996, 2001 b 2007 ) and Timothy s (2011) assertions; that is, in addition to middle aged tourists younger tourists are currently a key segment in the cultural and heritage tourism markets At the sam e time, this study did not confirm the findings of p revious studies reporting that general heritage tourists tend to be middle aged or older, represented by aging baby boomers or retirees (Chandler & Costello, 2002; Prentice, Witt, & Hamer, 1998; Rich ar ds, 1996, 2001 b ; Silberberg, 1995; Timothy, 2011; Zeppel & Hall, 1992) Also, t his study did not find any difference between heritage and non heritage tourists in other sociodemographic variables. Therefore, t his result does not confirm the findings of previ ous literature reporting that general heritage tourists tend to have higher e ducation (Chandler & Costello, 2002; Richards, 1996, 2001 b 2007; Silberberg, 1995; Prentice, Witt, & Hamer, 1998) ; higher socio economic status such as income (Richards, 1996, 2 001, 2007; Silberberg, 1995; Zeppel & Hall, 1992) ; be employ ed (Chandler & Costello, 2002; Richards, 1996, 2001 b ) ; have a managerial or professional

PAGE 107

107 position (Rich ard s, 2001 b 2007) ; be married with older children (Chandler & Costello, 2002) ; and be female s rather than males (Rich ar ds, 2001 b ; Silberberg, 1995). Moreover, a s stated, based on the findings of previous research about general heritage tourists sociodemographic characteristics and meticulous travel planning behavior this study first assumed th at heritage tourists may have higher safety and security concerns than other types of tourists prior to their departure ; h owever, the results of the I ndependent S ample s t test did not find any difference between heritage tourists and non heritage tourists in their overall safety and security perception and perceptions of 30 threat items, including t ime consuming in planning, traveling and scheduling Moreover, this study did not find any difference between the two groups in their past travel experience, fam iliarity with Japan desirability rating, and likelihood of visiting Japan Therefore, this study concludes that there is no difference between heritage tourists and non heritage tourists except for their age. Sociodemographics and Safety and Security Perc eption In this study, safety and security perception s were also examined based on sociodemographics of the respondents This study found a significant difference between males and females in their overall safety and security perception s Female s ha d a lowe r perception of safety and security than male s although both males and females generally agree d that Japan is a relatively safe or secure destination In other words, compared to males, females tend ed to perceive Japan as a more risky or dangerous country This is consistent with previous findings (e.g., Carr, 2001; Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Park & Reis i nger, 2010 ; Qi et al., 2009 ) In addition, there was a difference in terms of overall safety and security perceptions among education level s As stared earlier, Park and Reisinger (2010) found

PAGE 108

108 that highly educated tourists perceive lower social risk than low and middle educated tourists ; thus, educated tourists tend to have lower risk perceptions The authors further stated the result supported their ot her finding that student s tend to perceive significantly higher natural disaster risk than the employed and unemployed (Park & Reis i nger, 2010) Although there was no difference among occupation items in terms of overall safety and security perception s in t his study this study found that highly educated tourists and mi ddle educated tourists have higher overall safety and security perception s than low educated tourists This means highly educated and middle educated tourists tended to perceive Japan as a saf er or more secure country than low educated tourists. T hus, t his study confirms the findings of Park and Reisinger General Image of Japan The frequen cy analysis for the open ended question clearly displayed that Japan has a strong destination image as a culturally orient ed and urban developed country. This is consistent with the findings of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan ( MOFA ; 2012a b) and the World Economic Forum (WEF ; 2013b). The descriptive statistics revealed that, out of 900 responses, th e number of cultural related responses was 324 (36%) and that of modern /urban related responses was 308 (34.2%). The result also found that US tourists both heritage and non heritage, had cultural or modern/urban images in mind as their first image when they thought of Japan. This is a significant finding, because it assured that Japan has a very strong and confirmed destination image. I t should also be noted that in this open ended question only 20 respondents (6 for the first image, 6 for the second ima ge, and 7 for the third image) provided disaster related images or words. Therefore, the result of this open ended question revealed that the majority of the respondents tended to have cultural or modern/urban images or

PAGE 109

109 words as their first images when the y thought of Japan, rather than disaste r related ones. In short, the findings indicated that in 2013, after two years of the occurrence of the Great East Japan Earthquake most US tourists may be concerned with cultural and geographic distance rather than the disaster related problems, regarding traveling to Japan In addition, o ne can assume that Japan s strong and confirmed destination images may have some influence on Japan s safety and security perceptions among potential international tourists such as those from the United States. The item u ncomfortable level of crowds w as included in the c ultural and geographic distance factor in factor analysis. This result can be interpreted that it is considered as a part of Japanese culture among US tourists. In fact, the result of the open ended question revealed that 40 responses ( 11 for the first image, 21 for the second image and 8 for the third image) were about the level of crowd or congestion in cities. In addition, as seen in the codebook for the frequent analysis of the open ended question, the code 3 ( m odern/ u rban ) included the responses about the level of crowd s and other related features (e.g., Active, Busy, Bustling, Chaotic ). Indeed, media, including pictures, newspapers, news report s televis ion, the internet, or movie s usually show crowded streets or crossroads as the iconic representation of city life in J a pan. The respondents may have seen the scene s on such media or have heard about it from family or friend s Travel guidebook s may also be one of the providers of the image. Thus, crowded cities may be perceived as one of the destination images of Japan. Therefore, it is reasonable that uncomfortable level s of crowd s are considered as a part of Japanese culture and also as a construct of J apan s destination image.

PAGE 110

110 Safety and Security Perception This study revealed that Japan wa s perceived as a comparatively safe country among US tourists. The respondents also rated J apan as a relatively desirable destination for vacation purpose ; h owever, the y were slightly unlikely to visit Japan in the future. This study revealed the factors that are correlated with the likelihood of visiting Japan. As proposed earlier as one of the premises of this stu dy, the researcher assumed that travel ing to Japan m ay carry potential threats to safety and security, including natural disasters and cultural differences, for international travelers especially from distant and culturally different tourist markets such as the United States, than from close and culturally similar countries such as South Korea, China and Taiwan. The frequency analysis revealed that, regarding traveling to Japan, both heritage tour ists and non heritage tourists we re highly concerned with language barrier s and the high cost of travel follow ed by long distance s from home ; cultural difference s ; uncomfortable levels of crowds ; and time consuming planning, scheduling and traveling Interestingly, the first five items were loading and extracted as the c ultural and geographic distance factor in th e factor analysis. The item t ime consuming in pla nning, scheduling and traveling represents time risk Hence, the frequen cy analysis revealed that the respondent s were most concerned with the c ultural and geographic distance factor and time risk. This resu lt was confirmed by t he summated mean scores in fact or analysis; the items in the c ultural and g eographic d istance factor were perceived as more threatening than th ose in the n atural and h uman made d isaster factor and the p ersonal safety and security con cern factor Hence, Japan has been considered as a

PAGE 111

111 relatively safe and secure country for tourists; however, it also carries threats to safety and security specifically associated with cultural and geographic distance. The results of the correlation analy sis also provide d the relationships among the safety and security perception factors. The personal safety and security concern factor th e cultural and geographic distance factor and the natural and human made disaster factor were all positively correlated Hence, as they have higher perceptions of the items in the personal safety and security concern factor, tourists tend to worry about the threat items both in the cultural and geographic distance factor and the natural and human made disaster factor. The personal safety and security concern factor is positively correlated with p hysical risk functional/performance risk psychological risk social risk financial risk and time risk. As they have higher perceptions of those risk s tourists perceive the per sonal safety and security concern factor higher It makes sense that the personal safety and security concern factor is correlated with all s ix risk fac tors, because the dimensions of the personal safety and security concern factor are all associated with the six factors by its nature. The c ultural and geographic distance factor wa s positively correlated with functional/performance risk, financial risk, and time risk Thus, as they have higher perceptions of those risk s tourists perceive the c ultural and geographic distance factor higher In addition, the result of the correlation analysis found a positive correlation between long distance from home and time consuming in planning, scheduling and traveling ( r = .475 ) Th ese result s support Zalatan s (1996) finding that there is a positive correlation between distance and planning time ; that is a s the distance

PAGE 112

112 between home and destination grows, tourists need more money and information to travel (Zalatan, 1996) Also, a s discussed so far the frequen cy analy sis also revealed that the respondents are mainly concerned with cultural and geographical distance as well as required time and cost, regarding traveling to J a pan. S ince they have to travel long distance s and spend more money and time in planning, schedu ling and trav eling the respondents must expect high satisfaction and do not want to get disappointed during their trip. Food is considered as a threat to safety and security in general, especially when traveling to distant and culturally different countri es ; h owever, Japanese food itself has been acknowledged as a big brand worldwide; regarding traveling to Japan, tourists may be concerned with food safety problems not because they worry about their health but worry about satisfaction. Thus, food may not b e a threat but a key cultural attraction for some international tourists, in the case of Japan. Hence, it make s sense that the c ultural and geographic distance factor is correlated with time financial and functional/performance risk. The c ultural and geo graphic distance factor was also negatively correlated with social risk; which means, as they have higher perceptions of the c ultural and geographic distance factor they perceive less in social risk. This may be because of the opportunity to travel. Japan is a distant and culturally different country for US tourists A t rip to J a pan requires much money and time in planning, scheduling and traveling; therefore, the trip may be an once in a lifetime opportunity for most of US tourists. As discussed earlier the result of the open ended question revealed that Japan is perceived as a culturally orient ed country, and the destination image seems to be widespread among US tourists. Hence when they travel to Japan, the respondents family and friends can

PAGE 113

113 assume what they would do and what they could acquire from the trip. For example, their family or friends can imagine that the respondents eat authentic sushi or drink real sake during their trip. Therefore, some of their family and friends may be jealous of th eir trip to Japan, because it may be a quite rare opportunity for US tourists, considering the geographical distance and time and money for traveling. If that is the case, the respondents would feel good about it and be less likely to worry about their ima ge among family and friends. In short, the farther the geographic distance from home becomes, the farther the cultural distance becomes. As the cultural and geographic distance becomes farther, tourists may have more constraints and may perceive trips to s The natural and human made disaster factor had positive correlations with physical risk, psychological risk, social risk, and financial risk. As they have higher perceptions of those risk s they also perceive the natural and human made disaster factor higher Since the natural and human made disaster factor wa s associated with the disaster that occurred in 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake As Cooper and Erfurt ( 2007) stated, d ue to its geographic location and climate, Japan is intrinsically vulnerable to natural disasters, in particular earthquakes, tsunamis, and typhoons. The respondents may have known about a huge number of casualties nuclear plant accidents, and the related pollution that may affect their health through media report s Thus, they may worry about their physical and psychological safety and security. Likewise, when they travel to Japan, their family or friends may worry about their personal safety and security in Japan. Therefore, it is reasonable the natural and human made disaster factor is also correlated with physical risk psychological risk and

PAGE 114

114 social risk. Also, as they have higher perceptions of the natural and human made disaster they may start to worry about a dditional expenditure s (e.g., see a doctor) by being harmed by radiation or pollution or getting involved in natural disaster. O verall safety and security perception s ha d negative correlations with the personal safety and security concern factor the natu ral and human made disaste r factor, physical risk f unctional/performance risk social risk, psychological risk and financial risk Thus, as they have higher perceptions of those threats and risk s tourists come to think that Japan is a risky or dangerous country Safety and Security Perceptions and Other Variables This study found the relationship s among safety and security perceptions ( overall safety and security perception s and perceptions of specific threats), familiarity with Japan d esirability of Japan as a vacation destination and likelihood of visiting Japan Familiarity with Japan ha d negative correlations with the personal safety and security concern factor, the c ultural and geographic distance factor physical risk, functional/ performance risk, social risk psychological risk, and financial risk Thus as they have less perceptions of those threats and risks, tourists feel more familiar with destinations ; h owever, there was no relationship between familiarity and time risk. Thus this study does not support Zalatan s (1996) assertion that f amiliarity helps to reduce the amount of information and consequently planning time Desirability of Japan as a vacation destination has negative correlations with the personal safety and se curity concern factor, physical risk, functional/performance risk, social risk, psychological risk, and financial risk. This means, as tourists perceive these threats less Japan becomes more desirable as a vacation destination.

PAGE 115

115 Likelihood of visiting Jap an also has negative correlations with the personal safety and security concern factor the cultural and geographic distance factor p hysical risk, functional/performance risk, psychological risk, and financial risk. Therefore, as they have fewer percept ions of those threats and risks tourists become more likely to visit Japan in the future. As a result, this study found positive correlations among overall safety and security perception s familiarity with Japan desirability of Japan as a vacatio n destination and likelihood of visiting Japan ; this means, as one of them increases, the other three all go up. F amiliarity with Japan had positive correlations with overall safety and security perceptions, desirability of Japan as a vacation dest ination and likelihood of visiting Japan verall safety and security perceptions were also positively correlated with desirability of Japan as a vacation destination and likelihood of visiting Japan The highest positive correlation among the vari ables was between the desirability of Japan as a vacation destination and likelihood of visiting Japan Crompton (1979) proposed th at f amiliarity can be perceived when tourists recognize cultural gaps as cultural ties rather than cultural differences. Th is study confirms his statement because there was a negative correlation between the c ultural and geographic distance factor and familiarity with Japan As they have higher perceptions of the cultural and geographi c distance factor f amiliarity goes down. Therefore, as Crompton said, when cultural difference s are perceived as constraint s or threat s tourists feel more unfamiliar with the destination. A s stated, this study found that overall safety and security perceptions, familiarity with Japan de sirability of

PAGE 116

116 Japan as a vacation destination and likelihood of visiting Japan were all positively correlated. Therefore, as tourists perceive cultural distance as cultural ties, they feel familiar with the destination As they feel more familiar the safe ty and security perception of the destination is improved. As the safety and security perception is improved, the desirability of the destination goes up Accordingly, as the desirability goes up, eventually they are more likely to visit the destination. Conclusion and Implication T his exploratory study is one of the first studies to investigate (1) safety and among potential international tourists, and (3) perceptions o f Japan as a heritage tourism destination among potential international tourists. Thus, this study contributes to the understanding of safety and security perception s of US heritage travelers in the case of J apan, a distant and culturally different country as a vacation destination. The f indings are expected to help destination marketing organizations (DMOs), J a pan and others, to formulate necessary and effective marketing and communication strategies addressing and minimizing safety and security concerns t hat tourists may have, regarding a trip to destinations including Japan Moreover, in academia, since there is a lack of attention to the gap in the previous literature this study measuring heritage w insights both in heritage tourism and in image studies. In this study, there was no difference between heritage and non heritage tourists except for their age. As stated, the Japanese government has targeted middle age or older tourists as the important market segment in their promotional plan of 2013 ( cf., Japan Travel Agency, 2013) Hence, this study suggested that the Japanese

PAGE 117

117 government should formulate marketing strategies to target not only middle aged and older tourists but also younger tourists because they are currently a key segment in the cultural and heritage tourism markets. Moreover, the findings of the open ended question confirmed that Japan has a very strong and confirmed destination image as a culturally orient ed and modern country amon g US tourists. T his study also empirically studied and confirmed that Japan carries potential threats to safety and security for US travelers. In this study, both heritage and non heritage tourists we re most concerned with cultural and geographic distance s such as the language barrier, high cost of travel, long distance from home, cultural difference s and uncomfortable crowd level s, regarding traveling to Japan. They also have concerns about time consuming planning, scheduling and traveling. Therefore, th is study conclude s that potential tourist perception s of safety and security may be harmonized and may not be diverse, if the destination has a very strong and confirmed destination image, like Japan. T he majority of the respondents in this study did not have past travel experience to Japan and onl y 7% had previous trips to the country Generally speaking, s ince potential tourists have not arrived in the destination, their perceptions are not influenced by any factors that are experienced through the act ual visit s Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that destination images may play a key role in investigating safety and security perceptions of potential international tourists. Although the factor analysis found that the natural and human made disast er factor is still perceived as the relevant threat to Japan s safety and security, this study can conclude that in 2013, US tourists are c oncerned with the cultural and geographic distance factor rather than such disaster related factors This is confirm ed by the result s

PAGE 118

118 of the open ended question which revealed that only a few respondents provided disaster related features as their first, second and third images or words when they thought of Japan Thus, s uggestions are provided to the Japanese governm ent and DMOs that they should formulate effective marketing strategies address ing the items in the cultural and geographic distance factor because they are the most popular concerns among potential US tourists, both heritage and non heritage tourists. T his study also revealed that overall safety and security perception s familiarity with Japan, desirability o f Japan as a vacation destination, likelihood of visiting Japan are all positively correlated. Therefore, once they have more familiarity with ty perception is improved. As tourists perceive J a pan as a safer and more secure country the desirability of Japan as a vacation destination goes up Accordingly, as the desirability of Japan goes up, eventually tourists ar e more likely to visit Japan As mentioned previously familiarity with Japan has a negative correlation with the c ultural and geographic distance factor, and the c ultural and geographic distance factor was negatively correlated with functional/performanc e risk, financial risk, and time risk. Thus, functional/performance risk, financial risk and time risk are the key factors to increase familiarity with Japan among US tourists. As a rule, p hysical distance (i.e., geographic distance) is difficult to minimi ze ; however, psychological distance (i.e., cultural distance) can be more easily reduced. Considering the results that US tourists, both heritage and non heritage tourists, have high concerns in cultural and geographic distance and time consumption this s tudy also provides the following suggestions to the Japanese government.

PAGE 119

119 T he government can strengthen their affiliation with Japan ese airline companies and try to provide more desirable products and services to US customers. If they find something valuab le to do or experience on board, US tourists may find value in spe nd ing a lot of money and time to fly to Japan. In addition, Japanese airline companies should expand their market in the United States and provide more direct flights, in order to facilitate the immersion into the culture. Furthermore, t he results of the open when they thought of Japan. Hence, the government should strengthen their affiliatio n with Japanese hospitality and travel industries to provide cheap tickets, discounted services and products, and coupons. To make such marketing strategies more effective, the government should have more affiliations with US travel agencies and online tic keting companies, because US tourists may rarely use Japanese ones due to the language barrier when purchasing flight tickets. Language is a key to encourage potential international tourists to visit Japan. As seen, the result of the correlation analysis revealed that language barrier has a positive correlation ( r = .516) with cultural difference In general, lack of knowledge creates fear and anxiety. As they become familiar with local languages, tourists can acquire more information about destinations. Th us, cultural difference s are expected to be minimized. Therefore, the government should provide more free e learning services on which potential tourists can learn some useful Japanese phrases for better communication with locals. Then, US tourists may bec ome familiar with listening and uttering Japanese phrases, and finally they may have a desire to use them in real situation s It is also important to keep trying to place the staff who can speak foreign languages at touristic

PAGE 120

120 places such as airports, railw ay stations, attractions and hotels, in addition to provide information in various languages. Multi language audio guidance at tourist attractions should be more promoted. Limitation and Recommendation for Future Research This exploratory study will not be definitive because the sample may not be representative of the US population A lthough the Amazon Mechanical Turk enable s researchers to obtain demographically diverse respondents, the sample of this study may not include the right persons to measure regarding the perceptions of Japan s safety and security. Therefore, the findings of this study may not be generalizable or applicable to the entire population, including heritage tourists in other heritage tourism destinations in the United States and tho se in foreign countries. In this regard, future research is warrant ed and researchers need to test the validity of the findings of this study. Besides, Amazon Mechanical Turk allowed the researcher to reach to the sample who were in the United States by screening their IP address ; h owever, IP address es cannot identify their citizenship. Therefore, it is possible that some of the respondents might not be US citizens. Furthermore, this study did not analyze the relationships between each of the sociodemogra phic factors and the specific threat factors (the six risk factors and the extracted 3 factors in factor analysis ). Thus, future research is expected to analyze those relationships, in addition to c heck ing of the validity of the findings. Also this study perceptions of safety and security ; therefore, future research is expected to employ heritage tourists with various ethnic backgrounds and then investigate cultural differences in t heir perceptions

PAGE 121

121 As a result, thi s study did not find any difference between heritage tourists and non heritage tourists, except for their age. As stated earlier, McKercher & du Cros ( 2003 ) proposed that t varies among touri sts in the process of planning and destination choice ( p. 46 ). For data collection, this study also employed the importance of cultural and heritage motives to identify the tourist type of the respo ndents. In this study, tourists who had ranked cultural or historic attraction as the most important factor for travelin g in general were considered heritage tourists, and the remaining were categorized as non heritage tourists. Thus, this study was very conservative to divide them into the two groups. As discuss ed earlier, previous literature found that most cultural and heritage tourists are casual tourists and serious tourists compose a very small segment of the market (Balcer & Pearce, 1996 ; McKercher, 2002; McKercher & du Cros, 2002 2003 ; Poria, Butler, & A irey, 2003 ; Prentice, 1993; Richards, 1996; Silberberg, 1995) Therefore, more differences might be found if future researchers categorize the tourists, not only those who include cultural or historic attractions as the most important factor but als o as th e second or third most important factor, as heritage tourists. Therefore, to achieve this, future research should include a larger sample si ze. Lastly, t his study did not address individual differences among tourists in their risk taking behavior As stat ed earlier, Gibson and Yannakis (2002) found that, as they age, tourists decrease their preference for risk seeking activities and want to engage in more intellectual and safer types of activities. If this study is the case, heritage tourists may be more r isk tolerant than non heritage tourists because they are younger ; h owever, it is risky to conclude that based on their sociodemographic factors. Even

PAGE 122

122 though sociodemographic characteristics are key factors, previous literature proposed that sociodemographi cs cannot explain individual differences in risk taking behavior but psychographic characteristics can ( e.g., Somez & Graefe, 1998a) In fact, as stated earlier, some previous studies have found that cultural tourists and heritage tourists are stimulation avoiders who prefer to visit familiar destinations and participate in pre organized tours and activities (Wahlers & Etzel, 1985) and lower sensational seeking tourists (Pizam, Reichel and Uriely, 200 1 ); thus, cultural and heritage tourists are likely more risk averse than other types of tourists. I n fact, some cultural and heritage tourism studies have suggested that benefit segmentation is a more useful tactic to employ in market segmentation because tourists in th is context seek different experience s (e. g., Silberberg, 1995; McKercher & du Cros, 2002; Poria, Butler, and Airey, 2003; Prentice, 1993). Therefore, future research should address such individual differences in risk taking behavior among heritage tourists.

PAGE 123

123 APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS OF CULTURAL AN D HERITAGE TOURISM Author & Year Cultural Tourism Cultural Heritage Tourism Heritage Tourism Zeppel & Hall (1992) be regarded as a subset of cultural tourism 47). nostalgia for the past and the desire to experience diverse cul tural landscapes and 47). Heritage tourism based on history tends to b e education oriented and includes guided tours of buildings, monuments and ruins, dramatic sound and light performances and the re e nactment of historically significant occasions (p. 48). broad field of specialty travel including many special interest aspects of tourism ranging from examination of the physical remains of the past and natural landscapes to t he experience of local cu 48). Prentice (1993) [V] isitors to heritage attractions are l argely seeking (p. 81). regarded as a series of overlapping and somewhat ill defined market places, in which potential consumers seek to benefit internally through the beneficial feelings producers present products for consumption as 222). Silberberg (1995) [V] isits by persons from outside the host communit y motivated wholly or in part by interest in the historical, artistic, scientific or lifestyles/heritage offerings of a community, region, 361). Balcer & Pearce (1996) Ada pt Zeppel & Hall's (1992) sm as a broad field of specialty travel, 'based on nostalgia for the past and the desire to experience diverse cult ural

PAGE 124

124 203). Ada pt Prentice's (1993 ) tourism should be regarded as a series of overlappin g and somewhat ill defined market places, in which potential consumers seek to benefit internally through the beneficial feelings of producers present products for consumption as 203). Nuryanti (1996) e tourism offers opportunities to portray the past in the present. It provides an infinite time and space in which the past can be experienced through the prism of the endless possibilities of interpretation. Postmodern tourists use the power of their inte llect and imagination to receive and communicating messages, constructing their own sense of historic places to create their individual journeys of self discovery" (p p 250 251). producti on or reproduction of the past p. 252). eritage tourism is part of cultural tourism in a broader sense p p. 254 255). built heritage, is a form o f 257). Richards (1996) the broader category of 'cultural tourism' 261). Yale (199 7 ) more homely, even more patriotic. Nostalgia has also become important to other areas of business, as if the faster modern life moves, the more people want to look back and clin g to their roots. 32 ). [H] means little more than tourism centred on what we have inherited, which can mean anything from historic buildings, to art works, to ).

PAGE 125

125 Fyall & Garrod (1998) share a common theme of inheritance. Heritage tourism is, as an economic activity, predicted on the use of inherited environmental and socio cultural assets in order to attract visitors. Sustainabili ty requires that those assets are carefully managed to ensure that future generations inherit a resource base that is sufficient to support their needs an d 213). Palmer (1999) eritage tourism is a powerful force in the construction and ma intenance of a national identity because it relies upon the historic symbols of the nation as a me ans of 313). heritage tourism must, therefore, have an impact on how individuals within that nation conceive of their personal identity and, by the same token, how the nation and its peop le are perceived 317). Garrod & Fyall (2000) [T] he relationship between heritage tourism and sustainability because the two concepts evidently share a concept in both of these definitions is clearly that traditionally involved individuals from a wide range of backgrounds, including conservators and curators, planners, operation s managers, strategic experts, public relations experts, a nd 688). Du Cros (2001) Ada persons from outside the host community motivated wholly or in part by interest in the histo rical, artistic, scientific or lifestyles/heritage offerings of a community, region, 165). cul tural heritage tourism is part 16 5).

PAGE 126

126 Richards (2001 a ) about the cu lture of a destination and gain new experiences related to that culture in a number of ways, depending on the forms of culture they 7). covers not just the consumption of the cultural products of the past, but also of contemporary of a people or region. Cultural tourism can therefore be seen as artefacts of the past) and contemporary cultural 7) tural tourism, heritage tourism, arts tourism, ethnic tourism and a host of other terms seem to be almost interchangeable in their usage, but it is rarely clear whether people are ta lking about the same 7) of nost algia for the past, the need to reassert national and local identities and the perceived economic benefits of cultural development have had a dramatic effect on the supp (p. 6). Chandler & Costello (2002) veryone [researc hers of previous studies] tends to agree that tourists want more cultural and heritage experiences, whether these are meaningful and authentic or shal low forms of 162). Pretes (200 3 ) The viewing of heritage sites by domestic tourists is a key aspect in the formation and maintenance of a national identity, especially when nationalism is understood as an imagined community (p. 125). Timothy & Boyd (2006) typically falls under the purview of cultural touris m (and vice versa), is one of the most notable and widespread types of tourism and is among the very oldest forms of 1). to sites of historical importance, including built environments and urban sites, ancie nt monuments and dwellings, rural and agricultural landscapes, locations where historic events occurred and places where interesting and significant cultures stand out. The pervasiveness of heritage resources has put heritage tourism at the forefront of th e industry in many parts of the

PAGE 127

127 world. It is one of the most significant types of tourism in terms of visitors and attractions, involving hundreds of millions of people 2). Timothy (2011) sometimes used to refer to p eople visiting or participating in living cultures, contemporary art and music or other elements of modern 4). ultural tourism is more about people trying to edify their cultural selves and satisfy their cultural needs by visiting places and observing built heritage, arts, perform ances, and living 5). Cultural tourism and heritage tourism are related, or overlapping, 4). and living culture are important constituen ts of heritage, because they are based upon past (recent or distant) creative and social values and because they become historical whi le (p. 5). ultural heritage tourism encompasses built patrimony, living lifestyles, ancient artifacts and modern art and culture. While some authors prefer to draw distinctions between cultural tourism and heritage tourism based on people's desires or the currency of resources, the differences, if they exist at all, are rather subtle, and both te rms used interchangeably 6). tourism as people visiting heritage places or viewing historical resources. Others suggest that a personal connection to the objects or places being viewed is what defines 3). [H] eritage tourism is based on visits by people who want to learn something new or enhance their lives in some here are many definitions of heritage tourism, but they all include elements of the human past as a resource, and entail a variety of motives o 4). eritage tourism refers to travelers seeing or experiencing built heritage, living culture or contemporary arts. Its resources are tangible and intangible and are found rur al and urban eritage tourism is based upon antiquated relics; it tends to occur in rural areas and is more place bound, while cultural tourism is dominant in urban areas and is less place bound p p. 4 5).

PAGE 128

128 APPENDIX B CHARACTERI STICS OF CULTURAL AND HERITAGE TOURISTS Author Sociodemographic Psychographic Behavioral Zeppel & Hall (1992) Older ; h igher incomes (p. 53). Stay in hotel/motel ; s tay longer in destinations ; f amily oriented and education oriented i n their vacation activi ties (p. 53) Motivated more by a search for heritage experiences than by a detailed interest in factual his tory (p 54). Prentice (1993) No specific difference between heritage tourists and other holiday tourists in terms of the size and characteristics of their groups such as the number of adults with/without children the number of children in their personal group and the effect of the type o f attraction to be involved (p. 64). H eterogeneous (p. 64). M ost cultural and heritage tourists are casual tou rists (p. 169). Silberberg (1995) Earn more money ; more highly educated ; more w omen than men ; o lder age, including b aby boomers (p. 363). Highly educated people and women are more likely culturally oriented (p. 364). Spend more money while traveling ; spe nd more time at destinations; s tay at hotels or motels ; shop more (p. 363). The great variety of travel motivators and personal interests of tourists (p. 363). Balcer & Pearce ( 1996 ) The majority are general sightseers or recreationists, rather than e nthusiasts or specialist ; no significant difference (p. 211) Richards (1996) Highly educated ; higher socioeconomic status (p. 270). W ork in cultural industries (p. 271). O lder (general cultural tourists) (p. 271). Y ounger and s elf employed or entrepreneu rial (specific cultural tourists) (p. 2 72 ). Frequent travel ers ; Spend more money and time at destinations (p. 271). Most of cultural tourists are casual tourists; s pecific cultural tourists who are driven by cultural motives constitute only a small segmen t (p. 271). Prentice, Witt & Hamer (1998) Non manual households ; h ighly educated ; m iddle aged (35 44 [32.8%] and 45 54 [20.8%]) (p. 7). Rich ards (2001 b ) More women ; y ounger ; h ighly educated ; em ployed or self employed ; s tudents and retir ees; p rofession al or managerial status; h igh er income ; o ver half (55%) were foreign tourists (p p 40 41). Older ; better educated; professional status; higher income; with an oc cupation related to culture (p. 45) Motivated by new experiences or learning as well as rela xation or work (p. 45). Social or work related reasons [for local people] (p. 46)

PAGE 129

129 Chandler & Costello ( 2002 ) M iddle aged (between 35 and 63) ; c ollege graduate or higher educated ; m arried, w ith older children ; e mployed full time ; t raveled by personal car (p. 163). The respondents' demographics at all destinations were remarkably homogeneous; this demographic homogeneity was particularly evident with regard to age, family life cycle status, and lev el of education achievement (p. 164). More than 80% are the centric personality profile (either active or mellow), based on Plog's (1995) aggregated scoring method (p. 164) Richards (2007) Younger ; h ighly educated ; b etter jobs ; h igher incomes ; p rofessional or managerial occupations ; h igh salaries (p. 15). The si ngle most important motivation for younger tourists discovering other 15). Timothy (2011) Younger ; m iddle aged (mainly between 30 and 50) ; older and retirees; having c ollege or Post graduate degrees (p. 27). The trend of demographic ch aracteristics differs depending on de stinations in the case of the US (p. 27). Prepare for their visits ahead of time by reading about, and researching, the places they visit (p. 27) Spend more and shop more at destinations ( p. 28). St ay longer at destin ation s (p. 28) Serious heritage tourists are the best educated and have a strong personal interest in various aspects of history (p. 27). Help locals feel self esteem and community pride in their cultural heritage ( p p. 157 158).

PAGE 130

130 APPENDIX C INSTRUMENT

PAGE 131

131

PAGE 132

132

PAGE 133

133 LIST OF REFERENCES th 2012). Retrieved on June 28, 2012 from http://www.bunka.go.jp/english/pdf/2011_Tohoku_ver14.pdf Agency for Cultural Affairs. (March 11 th 2012b). Commissioner's Message on the Occasion of the First Anniversary of March 11 Disaster. Retrieved on June 28 2012 from http://www.bunka.go.jp/bunkazai/tohokujishin_kanren/chokan_message_5.html Amazon Web Services, Inc. or its affiliates (2012, November 12). AWS Trademark Guidelines Retrieved on July 18, 2013 from http://aws.amazon.com/trademark guidelines/ Asahi Shimbun C o mpany. (2011, June 24). [Japanese]. Retrieved on March 30, 2013, from http://www.asahi.com/special/10005/TKY201106240132.html Balcar, M. J. O., & Pearce, D. G. (1996). Heritag e tourism on the west coast of N ew Z ealand. Tourism Management, 17 (3), 203 212. BBC News. (2011, Octobe r 21). Japan approves $157bn quake budget for reconstruction Retrieved on September 1, 2012, on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business 15398197 BBC News. (2012, Ma rch 11). Japan Quake: Loss and r ecov ery in n umbers Retrieved on September 1, 2012, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world asia 17219008 Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk A New Source of In expensive, Yet High Quality, Data?. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (1), 3 5. Cabinet Office of Japan. (2011, June 24). Retrieved on September 1, 2012, from http://www.bousai.go.jp/oshirase/h23/110624 1kisya.pdf Carr, N. (2001). An exploratory study of gendered differences in young tourists perception of danger within L ondon. Tourism Management, 22 (5), 565 570. Chandler, J. A., & Costello, C. A. (2002). A profile of visitors at heritag e tourism destinations in east T preferenc es model. Journal of Travel Research, 41 (2), 161 166. Chaudhary, M. (2000). India's image as a tourist destination a perspective of foreign tourists. Tourism Management, 21 (3), 293 297.

PAGE 134

134 Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Socia l Research 39, 164 182. Cohen, E. (1974). Who is a tourist?: A conceptual clarification1. The Sociological Review, 22 (4), 527 555 Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13 (2), 179 201. Cooper, M. & Erfurt, P (2007). Tsunami s, earthquakes, volcanism and other problems: Disasters, responses, and J apanese tourism. I n E Laws, B. Prideaux, & K. Chon (Eds.), Crisis Management in Tourism ( pp. 234 251 ) Wallingford: CAB International. Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasu re vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6 (4), 408 424. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone S urveys: The Total Design Metho d. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Dimanche, F., & Lepetic, A. (1999). New O rleans tourism and crime: A case study. Journal o f Travel Research, 38 (1), 19 23. Dowling, G. R. (1986). Perceived risk: The concept and its measurement. Psychology & Marketing, 3 (3), 193 210. Du Cros, H. (2001). A new model to assist in planning for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research 3 (2), 165 170. Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first ti me, and repeat visitors to the L ower R io G rande valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30 (2), 10 16. Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2004). Cultural differences in tourist destination risk perception: An exploratory study. Tourism (Zagreb), 52 (1), 21 37. Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2006). Tourist destinatio n risk perception: The case of I srael. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketin g, 14 (2), 83 108. Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2011). An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies of first time vs. repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination. Tourism Management, 32 (2), 266 276. Fyall, A., & Garrod, B. (1998). Heritage tourism: At what price? Managing Leisure, 3 (4), 213 228. Graham, B. (2002). Heritage as knowledge: Capital or culture? Urban Studies, 39 (5 6), 1003.

PAGE 135

135 Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (3), 682 708. Gartner, W. C., & Shen, J. (1992). The impact of T iananmen S quare on C hina's tourism image. Journal of Travel Research, 30 (4), 47 52. George, R. (2010). Visitor perceptions of crime safety and attitudes towards risk: The case o f T able M ountain N ational P ark, C ape T own. Tourism Management, 31 (6), 806 815. Gerber, S. B., & Finn, K. V. (2005). Using SPSS for windows: Data analysis and graphics New York, NY: Springer New York. doi:10.1007/0 387 27604 1 Gibson, H., & Yiannakis, A. (2002). Tourist roles: Needs and the lifecourse. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (2), 358 383. Hair, Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis New York: Macmillan. Japan National Tourism Organiza tion. (2011a, March 25). Visitor Arrivals and Japanese Overseas Travelers (2011 2 2012 12 ) Retrieved on January 28, 2013, from http://www.jnto.go.jp/jpn/downloads/110325_monthly.pdf Japan National Tourism Organization. (2011b, January 26 ). JNTO 2010 [Japanese] Retrieved on January 28, 2013, from http://www.jnto.go.jp/jpn/downloads/110126_houmonchi2010.pdf Japan National Tourism Organization. (20 11c, January 26). JNTO 2010 [Japanese] Retrieved on January 28, 2013, from http://www.jnto.go.jp/jpn/downloads/110126_houmonchi2010_attach.pdf Japan Nation al Tourism Organization. (2012 a March 16). (2012 2 2011 12 ) [Visitor Arrivals and Japanese Overseas Travelers]. Retrieved on September 1, 2012, from http://www.jnto. go.jp/jpn/downloads/120316_monthly.pdf Japan National Tourism Organization. (2012 b January 20 th ). 27.8 621 9 [Japanese]. Retrieved September 1, 2012, from http://www.jnto.go .jp/jpn/downloads/12.0120_monthly.pdf Japan National Tourism Organization. (2013a, March 21). 2012 1 12 / [Visitor Arrivals by Country/Area & Purpose of Visit for Jan. Dec. 2012 (provisional figures)]. Retrieved on April 7, 2013, from http://www.jnto.go.jp/jpn/reference/tourism_data/visitor_trends/2012_december_z antei.pdf

PAGE 136

136 Japan National Tourism Organization. (2013b, Januray 25). (2012 12 ) [Visitor arrivals] Retrieved on January 28, 2013, from http://www.jnto.go.jp/jpn/news/data_info_listing/pdf/130125_monthly.pdf Japan Tourism Agenc y. (2012 a April 9). Message from Commissioner Retrieved on September 1, 2012, from http://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/en/about/message.html Japan Tourism Agency (2012 b March). Research stu dy on economic impacts of tourism in Japan. Retrieved on January 28, 2013, from http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000220421.pdf Japan Tourism Agency (2013, April 1). 25 [Japanese]. Retrieved on April 7, 2013, from http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000994301.pdf Jimura, T. (2011). The impact of world heritage site designation on local communit ies A case study of O gimachi, S hirakawa mura, J apan. Tourism Management, 32 (2), 288 296. Law, R. (2006). The perceived impact of risks on travel decisions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8 (4), 289 300. Lee, T. H., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measur ing novelty seeking in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 19 (4), 732 751. Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (3), 606 624. Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2008). Sensation seeki ng and tourism: Tourist role, perception of risk and destination choice. Tourism Management, 29 (4), 740 750. Levenson, M. R. (1990). Risk taking and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5 8 (6), 1073. Tourism management 17 (3), 183 190. Mansfeld, Y. (1994). The middl e east conflict and tourism to I srael, 1967 90. Middle Eastern Studies, 30 (3), 646 667. Maser B., & Weiermair, K. (1998). Travel decision making: From the vantage point of perceived risk and information preferences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 7 (4), 107 121. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality ( 2 nd ed. ). New York: Harper & Row. McKercher, B. (2002). Towards a classification of cultural tourists. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4 (1), 29 38.

PAGE 137

137 McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism: The partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management. New York: The Haworth Press. McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2003). Testing a cultural tourism typology. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5 (1), 45 58. Millar, S. (1989). Heritage management for heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 10 (1), 9 14. Mil o, K. J., & Yoder, S. L. (1991). Recovery from natural disaster: Travel writers and tourist destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 30 (1), 36 39. Ministry of Finance Japan. (2011, October 21). The Outline of the 3rd Supplementary Budget of FY2011. Retri eved on September 1, 2012, from http://www.mof.go.jp/english/budget/budget/fy2011/11sb03.pdf Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2012a, May 22). Opinion Poll: 2012 U.S. Image of Japan Retrieved on January 28, 2013, from http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2012/5/0522_04.html Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2012b, May 22). Opinion Poll: 2012 U.S. Image of Japan (Full Text) [PDF] R etrieved on January 28, 2013, from http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2012/5/pdfs/0522_04_02.pdf M oney, R. B., & Crotts, J. C. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations. Tourism Management, 24 (2), 191 202. Moreira, P. (2008). Stealth risks and catastrophic risks: On risk perception and crisis recov ery strategies. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23 (2 4), 15 27. Murphy, P. E., & Bayley, R. (1989). Tourism and disaster planning. Geographical Review, 36 46. Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (2), 2 49 260. National Police Agency. (2013, March 11). [Japanese]. Retrieved on April 7, 2013 from http://www.npa.go.jp/archive/keibi/biki/higaijokyo.pdf National Trust for Historic Preservation (n.d.). Heritage Tourism. Retrieved on April 7, 2013, from http://www.preservationnation.org/information center/economics of revitalization/heritage tourism/ Oliver, R. L. (198 0). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 460 469.

PAGE 138

138 Palmer, C. (1999). Tourism and the symbols of identity. Tourism Management, 20 313 322. Park, K., & Reisinger, Y. (2010). Differe nces in the perceived influence of natural disasters and travel risk on international travel. Tourism Geographies, 12 (1), 1 24. Pearce, P. L. (1988). The U lysses factor: Evaluating visitors in tourist settings. New York: Springer Verlag. Pearce, P. L. (1 996). Recent research in tourist behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 1 (1), 7 17. Pizam, A., Reichel, A., & Uriely, N. (2001). Sensation seeking and tourist behavior. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 9 (3 4), 17 33. Pizam, A., Je ong, G. H., Reichel, A., van Boemmel, H., Lusson, J. M., Steynberg, L., . Montmany, N. (2004). The relationship between risk taking, sensation seeking, and the tourist behavior of young adults: A cross cultural study. Journal of Travel Research, 42 (3), 251 260. Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14 (4), 55 58. Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2006). Heritage site perceptions and motivations to visit. Journal of Travel Research, 44 (3), 318 326. Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (1), 238 254. Prentice, R. (1993). Tourism and heritage attractions. London: Routledge. P rentice, R. C., Witt, S. F., & Hamer, C. (1998). Tourism as experience: The case of heritage parks. Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (1), 1 24. Pretes, M. (2003). Tourism and nationalism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (1), 125 142. Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet (2012, Ap ril 17). The Opening Ceremony of the WTTC Global Summit Retri eved on September 1, 2012, from http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/actions/201204/17wttc_summit_e.html Qi, C. X., Gibson, H. J., & Zhang, J. J. (2009). Perceptions of risk and travel intenti ons: The case of C hina and the B eijing O lympic G ames. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14 (1), 43 67. Qualtrics. (n.d.). Cite or Reference Qualtrics Retrieved on July 18, 2 013 from http://www.qualtrics.com/university/researchsuite/research resources/other resources/cite or reference qualtrics/

PAGE 139

139 Rec onstruction Agency. (2012a, August 21). [Japanese]. Retrieved on April 7, 2013, from http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/20120821_shinsaikanrenshihoukoku.pdf Reconstruction Agency (2012b, June 11). [Japanese]. Retrieved on June 28, 2012 from http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/120611torikumitogenjo.pdf Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2005). Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk perception. Journal of Travel Research, 43 (3), 212 225. Richards, G. (2007). Introduction: Global trends in cultural tourism. In G. Richards (Ed.), Cultural tourism: Glo bal and local perspectives (pp. 1 24) New York: The Haworth Press Richards, G. (2001 a ). The development of c ultural tourism in Europe. In G. Richards (Ed.), Cultural attractions & E uropean tourism (pp. 3 29) Wallingford: CAB International Richards, G. (2001 b ). The market for c ultural a ttractions. In G. Richards (Ed.), Cultural attractions & E uropean tourism (pp. 31 53 ) Wallingford: CABI International Richards, G. (1996). Production and consumption of E uropean cultural tourism. Annals of Tourism Rese arch, 23 (2), 261 283. Rittichainuwat, B., & Chakraborty, G. (2009). Perceived travel risks regarding terrorism and disease: The case of Thailand. Tourism Management, 30, 410 418. Roehl, W. S. (1990). Travel agent attitudes toward C hina after T iananmen S qu are. Journal of Travel Research, 29 (2), 16 22. Roehl, W. S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1992). Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 30 (4), 17 26. Ryan, C. (1995). Islands, Beaches and life stage marketing. In M. Collins & T. Baum (Eds.). Island Tourism: Management Principles and Practice (pp. 79 93). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ryan, C. (1998). The travel career ladder: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 25, 936 957. Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultura l tourism and business opportunities for museums and heritage sites. Tourism Management, 16 (5), 361 365. : Disruption of the motherhood myth. Tourism Review International 9,(2), 139 154.

PAGE 140

140 Smith, S. L. (1990). A test of Plo g's allocentric/psychocentric model: Evidence from seven nations. Journal of Travel Research 28 (4), 40 43. Snmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998 a ). Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (1), 112 144. Snme z, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998 b ). Determining future travel behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research, 37 (2), 171 177. Timothy, D. J. (2011). Cultural heritage and tourism: An introduction Bristo l: Channel View Publications Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2006). Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued traditions and new perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1 (1), 1 16. Trimpop, R. M., Kerr, J. H., & Kirkcaldy, B. (1998). Comparing pers onality constructs of risk taking behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 26 (2), 237 254. US Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (2011, August 22). U.S. Department of Commerce Releases First Cultural Heritage Visitor Profile: Interna tional Cultural Heritage Traveler Arrivals Up 14 Percent Over 2009. Retrieved on April 7, 2013, from http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/tinews/archive/tinews2011/20110822.html Wahlers, R. & Etzel, M. (1985). Vacation preference as a manifestation of optimal stimulation and lifestyle experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 17,283 295. World Tourism Organization. (1997). Tourist Safety and Security : Practical Measures fo r Destinations ( 2 nd ed .) Madrid: World Tourism Organization. World Tourism Organization (2012a). Annual Report 2011. Retrieved on Apri l 7, 2013, from htt p://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/annual_report_2011.pdf World Tourism Organization. (2012b). UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2012 Edition Retrieved on April 7, 2012, from http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights12enhr_ 1.pdf World Tourism Organization (n.d. a ). Sustainable Development of Tourism Cultural Heritage. Retrieved on April 7, 2013, from http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/cultural heritage 1 World Tourism Organization (n.d. b ). Sust ainable Development of Tourism Collaboration with UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved on April 7, 2013, from http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/collaboration unesco world heritage centre

PAGE 141

141 World Economic Forum. (2013a, March 6). The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013. Retrieved from on March 20, 2013, fro m http://www.weforum.org/reports/travel tourism competitiveness report 2013 World Economic Forum. (2013b, March 6). The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013 D ownload full Report (PDF). Retrieved on March 20, 2013, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TT_Competitiveness_Report_2013.pdf Yale, P. (1997 ). From tourist attractions to heritage tourism (2 nd ed.) ELM publications. Zalatan, A. (1996). The determinants of planning time in vacation travel. Tourism Management, 17 (2), 123 131. Zeppel, H., & Hall, C. M. (1992 ). Arts and heritage tourism. In B. Weiler & C. M. Hall (Eds.), Special i nterest t ourism (pp. 47 68 ) London: Belhaven Press. Zuckerman, M. (1971). Dimensions of sensation seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36 (1), 45. Zuckerman, M., E ysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J (1978). Sensation seeking in E ngland and A merica: Cross cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology; Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46 (1), 139.

PAGE 142

142 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Eri ka Yoshida earned her bachelor s degree from Kansai Gaidai Univeristy Japan in March, 2008 After graduation, aiming to apply for graduate schools in 2011, h er strong research interest in heritage tourism and historic preservation pushed her to get practi cal experiences in the tourism and museum industry. She worked at a travel agency for one year and a museum for over two years before entering graduate school. Fortunately, she was admitted to the University of Florida and, in 2011, she started her life as a master s student. Through th is thesis endeavor she has had a wonderful and precious time at the University of Florida. Everyone she met and everything she received at the university are and will be valuable and meaningful through her entire life. Even a fter receiving her master s degree, her adventure will continue. One of her goals is to get a job in the heritage tourism industry and introduce more people to the excitement of experiencing new things filled with nostalgia and romanticism, which they ha ve never had before.