Security And Security Case Study

3.4.4 Reactions in the Case of Occurrence of Security or Safety Threats
To get a little more specific information on particular security and safety issues, respondents were asked to indicate their likeliness to visit a destination in the occurrence of particular threats. For the next set of questions, the respondents were asked how likely they would visit a destination if a particular security or safety incident occurred in their holiday destination shortly before their departure. This was measured on a 6-point Likert scale, 1 indicating very unlikely and 6 indicating very likely. Table 4 below illustrates the mean scores of the whole sample and indicates that there is definitely a difference in the intention to visit a region despite particular
This part of the thesis should help to answer the question what the role security and safety play in the destination choice process compared to other push and pull factors. Based on the literature review, eleven push factors and twenty pull factors were tested in the questionnaire. Table 8 illustrates the mean scores of the pull factors and Table 9 shows the mean scores of the push factors. It is visible that the most important push factors for the respondents for their last vacation were “to have fun”, “timeout from everyday life” and “to see something new”. In terms of pull factors, which scored slightly lower than the push factors, “landscape and nature”, “cultural attractions” and “weather” have the highest mean score. When it comes to the specific security and safety related pull factors in destination choice, “low rate of crime”, “low likelihood of natural disasters”, “political stability”, “low rate of diseases”, “low likelihood of terror attacks” and “security and safety” are ranked in the middle
However, the variable “to do exciting activities” had to be extracted as it could not be clearly categorized to one of the initial three factors. “To impress family and friends” could be designated to Factor 2, however, the factor loading indicated only .297 and because of the low value it was not retained for the analysis. After eliminating the variables which were not representative enough for the EFA, only two push factors could be created. Table 10 below presents the EFA for the push factors. The first factor shows an eigenvalue of 4.035, explaining 40.4% of the variance. For the second push factor, the eigenvalue is 1.646, explaining 12.6% of the variance. The Factor Correlation Matrix indicates that the two push factors are correlated. The grand mean of factor 1 is 4.56 and the grand mean of factor 2 is