Journal of Tourism & Hospitality
Open Access

Risk Perceived by Local Communities in Emerging Destinations

Raquel Camprubí^{* *}Correspondence: Raquel Camprubí, Department of Business Organization and Management, University of Girona, Girona, Spain, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

A considerable amount of research on perceived risk has been published in a number of academic disciplines [1-3], such as economics, psychology, or statistical decision theory. In the field of tourism, study on perceived risk has traditionally focused on various issues related to travel experiences. A significant number of studies focus on risks perceived by tourists [1,2], and analyse various aspects of travel; for example, issues related to trip organization [4,5]; factors related to possible risks tourists might encounter in particular destinations [6,7]; or health [8,9] and personal/physical safety [10]. Both, health and personal/physical safety focusing on risk perception have emerged with particular interest regarding COVID-19 pandemic [11,12].

However, risk perception from the viewpoint of the local community where tourism is being developed has not yet been studied in-depth; despite the existence of a broad tradition on the review of residents’ perception [13]. This research note, therefore, proposes using risk perception theory to investigate local communities’ perceptions of emerging tourism destinations. This is expected to contribute to a better understanding of residents' perceptions in future study.

Teorethical Background

Risk perception conceptualisation

Several definitions of risk and risk perception stem from previous research on this topic, depending on the field and the focus of the review. Frequently, definitions of risk relate to the probability of misfortune or occurrences with negative outcomes [14-16]. Slovic point out that defining the term ‘risk’ is a challenging task due to the multiple meanings associated with it [15], and the fact that it can also be interpreted as a hazard, a probability, a consequence, or a potential adversity or threat. In the tourism field, risk is linked to misfortunes that can occur during the trip, or at the destination [16].

All domains of research conceptualize risk perception as a subjective assessment of the probability of encountering a specific hazard [17]. This includes evaluations of both the probability and the consequences of a negative outcome [18] and involves feelings of fear, anxiety and dread [19,20]. Thus, risk perception is an inherently subjective phenomenon. As Slovic points out, “risk does not exist ‘out there’, independent of our minds and cultures, waiting to be measured. Human beings have invented the concept risk to help them understand and cope with the dangers and uncertainties of life”. A sociological approach to risk claims that undesired events, uncertainties, and reality itself is a social construction [21]; consequently, risk is socially constructed [22,23]. In this context, information sources and mass media play a significant role in generating a social amplification of risk [24]. In the same vein and later Coleman, affirm that repeated exposure to mass media or other information sources (e.g., opinion leaders, activists, social organisations and public agencies) influence individuals’ risk perception and behaviour [25,26].

Risk perception and local communities

Research on risk perception within local communities has been carried out in various fields, such as sociology, psychology, health studies, economics and political sciences [27]. These studies mainly focus on determining risk perception from a collective point of view; thus, directing a social gaze at the issue. In these studies, the individual’s perception of risk takes second place, and a perception related to the physical integrity and general well-being of the society living in a particular place takes precedence. These studies focus on analysing the risk perception of the local community when faced with various possible misfortunes such as natural disasters [28,29], poor health, diseases, financial crises, or crime, using traditionally the psychometric paradigm [30-33].

Analysing risk perception within a local community is crucial for several reasons: to understand residents’ behaviour and attitudes; to anticipate public response to hazards; to determine what information is needed to be communicated and how and by whom this information should be communicated to the public [34].

Local communities’ perceptions of tourism

Local communities’ perceptions have been studied for over 35 years in the tourism field, and this “has undoubtedly contributed to a wider understanding and knowledge of the phenomenon” [35]. In particular, previous studies have mainly focused on two approaches. The first analyses the consequences of tourism development related to the positive and/or negative impact it has on the environment, the local economy, or the local culture [36,37] and more recently, a wide range of studies focusing on the negative consequences of tourism have emerged; these include over-tourism [38,39], tourism-phobia, and gentrification [40-42]. The second approach is to attempt to understand the way in which local communities support tourism by analysing residents’ perceptions [43-45]. These studies are traditionally underpinned by Social Exchange Theory [46], and consider that perceived benefits must be higher than perceived cost in order to obtain the support of residents. Sharpley notes that many studies remain ‘atheoretical’, and remarks that even these use a theoretical framework, stating that “the contribution of these studies to explaining or understanding residents’ perceptions remains unclear” [47].

Tourism Risk Perception of Local Communities

Risk perception can be acknowledged as being an antecedent to the perception of impacts of tourist activity in a particular place, bearing in mind that risk can be regarded as a hazard, a probability, a consequence and a potential adversity or a threat [48], before tourism impacts have materialised.

In fact, there is a general assumption that tourism development is positive and brings new opportunities [5]; but not all the local communities only see the potential benefits of tourism. In a particular place, the novelty of tourism might generate uncertainty, fear and anxiety in its local community. Therefore, as in other fields, tourism is likely to generate a perception of risk in its residents, and this needs to be analysed and understood in order to be managed. For example, the study carried out by Joo focusing on how residents perceive risky the arrival of tourists in COVID-19 pandemic times has showed the relevance of this approach [9].

As such, study in this area should focus on using risk perception theory as a way to deepen and better understand residents' perceptions. In particular, study should centre on three main axes. Firstly, understanding the type and patterns of tourism development risks the local community perceives before the impacts of tourism are evident. Considering preceding research in residents’ perception [4], this might include economic, sociocultural and environmental risks; secondly, understanding feelings of fear, anxiety and dread felt by local community towards tourism development in their city or region; and thirdly, influencing factors such as gender, age, personal background, etc. This approach enables the following questions to be answered: Does the arrival of tourists provoke feelings of fear, anxiety or dread in the local community? Is the arrival of tourists perceived as a threat by the local community? Is the development of physical infrastructure perceived as a danger by local community? What type of risks is perceived by the local community regarding local tourism development?

Traditionally, risk perception has been studied by means of psychometrics, using hazard taxonomy to understand and predict responses to risk [48]. Although, it could be useful the development of a measurement scale to evaluate judgements on tourism development within a destination; here, it is proposed to focus on the roots, in order to get an in-depth comprehension of the phenomenon.

As noted above, risk perception is highly subjective, and it can vary from person to person. In order to understand risk perception from the point of view of a population living in a destination, firstly, it is necessary to understand the particular elements that affect individuals emotionally and cognitively; as well as, the dimension of social construction risk perception when the individual belong to a community. In this sense, it is necessary to be able to go further and use qualitative methods that allow this complete understanding [9].

Therefore, an inductive qualitative approach to local community’s risk perception is proposed. This research approach will allow a complete and in-depth understanding of the phenomenon, considering the research questions pointed out above. In this sense, ethnography [23], and personal indepth interviews [25], could be highly useful to collect relevant information; and narrative analysis can be appropriate considering the nature of this topic to emerge the main elements that characterise risk perception of residents. In this sense, narrative analysis includes “a set of methods of inquiry that focuses on the of narratives, namely representations of realities that can assume different written and oral forms; (thus,) narratives should be regarded as constructs representative of individual or collective meanings” [36]. In any case, this proposal is open and aims to discuss and reflect about ways to risk perception of local communities where tourism is becoming a new phenomenon.

Conclusion

This paper calls for the need to review perceptions of local community living in an emerging tourist destination using risk perception theory. As Sharpley argues, studying residents' perceptions requires greater clarity and theoretical focus. Using risk perception theory to residents’ perceptions may shed more light on this topic, and provide greater insights into risks stemming from tourism in emerging destinations that local communities consider to be possible dangers or misfortunes, and the feelings associated with them. Particularly, during the recovery period after the COVID-19 pandemic might be crucial to inquiry risks perceived by local community, especially in destinations that are still in an initial development stage. Probably health risks will play a very important role that must be analyzed and considered.

Empirical study on this topic has clear, practical implications for destination managers and decision-makers, as demonstrated in other fields which have applied this theory. Hence, obtaining a deeper understanding of residents’ risk perception gives four main outcomes: firstly, understanding the feelings (fear, anxiety, etc.) and attitudes of the local community regarding tourism; secondly, understanding critical aspects of tourism development; thirdly, establishing policies that pacify the local community regarding possible negative effects of tourism development, thus reducing fear, anxiety and other negative emotions associated with perceptions of high level risk; and finally, designing strategies to avoid perceived risks having a tangible, negative impact.

References

1. Andereck KL, Valentine KM, Knopf RC, Vogt CA. Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Ann Tour Res. 2005;32(4):1056-1076.
2. Armstrong PM, Brunet LR, Spielman A, Telford III SR. Risk of Lyme disease: Perceptions of residents of a Lone Star tick-infested community. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:916-925.
3. Bimonte S, Punzo LF. Tourist development and host–guest interaction: An economic exchange theory. Ann Tour Res. 2016;58:128-139.
4. Cocola-Gant A. Tourism gentrification. In Handbook of gentrification studies. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2018.
5. Coleman CL. The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Commun Res. 1993;20(4):611-628.
6. Deng R, Ritchie BW. International university students’ travel risk perceptions: an exploratory study. Curr Issues Tour. 2018;21(4):455-476.
7. Eyles J, Taylor SM, Baxter J, Sider D, Willms D. The social construction of risk in a rural community: Responses of local residents to the 1990 Hagersville (Ontario) tire fire. Risk Analysis. 1993;13(3):281-290.
8. Floyd MF, Pennington-Gray L. Profiling risk perceptions of tourists. Ann Tour Res. 2004;31(4):1051-1054.
9. Fuchs G. Low Versus High Sensation‐seeking Tourists: A Study of Backpackers' Experience Risk Perception. Int J Tour Res. 2013;15(1):81-92.
10. Fuchs G, Reichel A. Tourist destination risk perception: The case of Israel. J Hosp Mark Manag. 2006;14(2):83-108.
11. George R, Swart K. International tourists' perceptions of crime–risk and their future travel intentions during the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ in South Africa. J Sport Tour. 2012;17(3):201-223.
12. Huete R, Mantecon A. The rise of tourismophobia. Research hypothesis or ideological noise? PASOS: Revista de Turismoy Patrimonio Cultural. 2018;16(1):9-19.
13. Jonas A, Mansfeld Y, Paz S, Potasman I. Determinants of health risk perception among low-risk-taking tourists traveling to developing countries. J Travel Res. 2011;50(1):87-99.
14. Joo D, Xu W, Lee J, Lee CK, Woosnam KM. Residents’ perceived risk, emotional solidarity, and support for tourism amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. J Destin Mark Manag. 2021;19:100553.
15. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, et al. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk analysis. 1988;8(2):177-187.
16. Kellens W, Zaalberg R, Neutens T, Vanneuville W, De Maeyer P. An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the Belgian coast. An Int J. 2011;31(7):1055-1068.
17. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull. 2001;127(2):267.
18. Maitland R, Newman P. World tourism cities: Developing tourism off the beaten track. Routledge. 2014.
19. Martínez J. Percepción y aceptabilidad del riesgo”. In J. Martínez and G. La Rocca (Eds.) En torno al riesgo. Contribuciones de diferentes disciplinary perspectivas de análisis. 2017.
20. Maser B, Weiermair K. Travel decision-making: From the vantage point of perceived risk and information preferences. J Travel Tour Mark. 1998;7(4):107-121.
21. Muler V, Coromina L, Gali N. Overtourism: Residents’ perceptions of tourism impact as an indicator of resident social carrying capacity-case study of a Spanish heritage town. Tour Rev. 2018;73(3):277-296.
22. Mura P, Sharif SP. Narrative analysis in tourism: A critical review. Scand J Hosp Tour. 2017;17(2):194-207.
23. Neuburger L, Egger R. Travel risk perception and travel behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: A case study of the DACH region. Curr Issues Tour. 2021;24(7):1003-1016.
24. Nunkoo R, Ramkissoon H. Developing a community support model for tourism. Ann Tour Res. 2011;38(3):964-988.
25. Nunkoo R, Ramkissoon H. Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Ann Tour Res. 2012;39(2):997-1023.
26. Parkhill KA, Pidgeon NF, Henwood KL, Simmons P, Venables D. From the familiar to the extraordinary: local residents’ perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK. Trans Inst Br Geogr. 2010;35(1):39-58.
27. Peacock WG, Brody SD, Highfield W. Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida's single family homeowners. Landsc Urban Plan. 2005;73(2-3):120-135.
28. Pizam A. Tourism's impacts: The social costs to the destination community as perceived by its residents. J Travel Res. 1978;16(4):8-12.
29. Qi CX, Gibson HJ, Zhang JJ. Perceptions of risk and travel intentions: The case of China and the Beijing Olympic Games. J Sport Tour. 2009;14(1):43-67.
30. Rasoolimanesh SM, Ali F, Jaafar M. Modeling residents’ perceptions of tourism development: Linear versus non-linear models. J Dest Mark Manage. 2018;10:1-9.
31. Roszkowski MJ, Davey G. Risk perception and risk tolerance changes attributable to the 2008 economic crisis: A subtle but critical difference. J finan serv prof. 2010;64(4):42-53.
32. Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. 2011.
33. Seraphin H, Sheeran P, Pilato M. Over-tourism and the fall of Venice as a destination. J Destin Mark Manag. 2018;9:374-376.
34. Sharpley R. Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tour Manag. 2014;42:37-49.
35. Sjöberg L, Moen BE, Rundmo T. Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. 2004;10(2):665-612.
36. Slovic P. Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In D. Golding and S. Krimsky (Eds.), Theories of Risk. 1992.
37. Slovic P, Peters E. Risk perception and affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006;15(6):322-325.
38. Slovic P, Weber EU. Perception of risk posed by extreme events. In Applegate, Gabba, Laitos, and Sachs (Ed.). Regulation of Toxic Substances and Hazardous. 2002.
39. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Why study risk perception? Risk analysis. 1982;2(2):83-93.
40. Stone RN, Grønhaug K. Perceived risk: Further considerations for the marketing discipline. Eur J Mark. 1993;27(3):39-50.
41. Tsaur SH, Tzend GH, Wang KC. Evaluating tourist risks from fuzzy perspectives. Ann Tour Res. 1997;24(4):796-812.
42. Wise N. Using ethnographic and participatory approaches in tourism and hospitality research. In R. Nunkoo (Ed.) Handbook of Research Methods for Tourism and Hospitality Management. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2018;115-122.
43. Wolff K, Larsen S, Øgaard T. How to define and measure risk perceptions. Ann Tour Res. 2019;79:102759.
44. Wyant BR. Multilevel impacts of perceived incivilities and perceptions of crime risk on fear of crime: Isolating endogenous impacts. J Res Crime Delinq. 2008;45(1):39-64.
45. Yin RK. Qualitative research from start to finish. New York. Guilford Press. 2011.
46. Zerva K, Palou S, Blasco D, Donaire JA. Tourism-philia versus tourism-phobia: Residents and destination management organization’s publicly expressed tourism perceptions in Barcelona. Tour Geo. 2019;21(2):306-329.
47. Zhan L, Zeng X, Morrison AM, Liang H, Coca-Stefaniak JA. A risk perception scale for travel to a crisis epicentre: Visiting Wuhan after COVID-19. Curr Issues Tour. 2020:1-18.