Tourism Management 24 (2003) 575–585

Tourist’s perceptions of safety and security while visiting Cape Town

Richard George*

School of Management Studies, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, Cape Town 7701, South Africa

Received 4 May 2002; accepted 23 October 2002

Abstract

Cape Town, a major tourist destination, has gained a reputation for being an unsafe place to go on holiday. The purpose of this

paper is to evaluate whether tourists, who visited Cape Town in August and September 2001, felt safe while staying at and touring in

the ‘Mother City’, and how they perceived safety and security in Cape Town. The findings, which were taken from a survey of 438

visitors to Cape Town, reveal that respondents had reasonably positive perceptions of safety and security, although they felt unsafe

going out after dark and using the city’s public transport. A number of personal factors, such as nationality and previous experience

of crime, were also found to affect respondent’s perceptions of safety and security. These findings are compared with several studies,

which include empirical research conducted at other international tourist destinations, and the South African Tourism data on

foreign visitor’s perceptions of tourism facilities in the country. In light of the findings, it is recommended that the tourism industry

and law enforcement agencies co-ordinate efforts to improve crime prevention measures in Cape Town.

r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cape Town; Tourism; Crime; Perceptions; Security; Safety

1. Introduction

Cape Town, the second largest city in South Africa, issituated in the Western Cape, which is one of thecountry’s nine provinces. Cape Town, also referred to asthe ‘Mother City’, is the southern-most metropolis onthe African continent and is an exciting tourist destina-tion for domestic and international tourists. It boastsnumerous tourist attractions, such as Table Mountain,Robben Island, excellent beaches, winelands, and first-class hotels and restaurants. Cape Town has oftencompeted for premier global positioning as the mostbeautiful city in the world, alongside destinations suchas Rio de Janeiro, Vancouver, and Sydney.

The South African government views tourism as itsmost important industry as it contributes up to R80billion (approximately US$8 billion) annually to thecountry’s gross domestic product (Weaver, 2001, p. 33).Cape Town is home to eight out of 10 of the country’stop tourist attractions and as a result attracts 52% of allinternational visitors to South Africa (Cape Metropo-litan Tourism 2001, p. 3). Cape Town’s popularity hasresulted in the steady growth of Western Cape tourism

sector over the past few years. The government has alsospent significant amounts of money on marketing theregion to both domestic and international tourists.Indeed, South African Tourism (the government’smarketing body) spent R450 million (U$45 million) ona marketing campaign in 2000, which targeted six mainmarkets, namely: the UK, Germany, Netherlands,France, Italy, and the USA.

Despite the steady increase in popularity with theinternational community, South Africa has developed areputation for being an unsafe place to visit. This is notsurprising as South Africa has extraordinary high levelsof violent crime. This claim is supported by Inter-national Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol) statis-tics, which indicate that by any standards, South Africahas an exceptionally high level of violent crime. Forinstance, according to an Interpol report in 1998, SouthAfrica had the highest recorded per capita murder ratecompared with those in a number of countries insouthern Africa, Latin and North America, and Europe.Interpol’s 1998 data shows that there were 59 murders inSouth Africa per 100 000 of the population, followed byColombia with 56 murders per 100 000 of the population(Masuku, 2001, p. 18). Namibia and Jamaica followedat positions three and four respectively. Of the countriessurveyed, South Africa also had the highest level of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

*Tel.: +27-21-650-4245; fax: +27-21-689-7570.

E-mail address: rgeorge@commerce.uct.ac.za (R. George).

0261-5177/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00003-7

recorded robbery and violent theft, with 208 incidentsrecorded per 100 000 of the population, followed bySwaziland and Spain (Masuku, 2001, p. 18).

Indeed, such crime statistics have led to South Africabeing labelled the ‘crime capital of the world’. Further-more, reports of an economic crisis in Zimbabwe, andthe issue of the HIV/Aids pandemic in South Africa andits neighbouring countries reported in the internationalnews media, may have also tarnished South Africa’simage as an international tourist destination (George,2001, p. 22). In addition, the novelty factor of the newSouth Africa and the ‘Mandela Magic’ may well be overand is reflected in the decreasing number of inter-national tourists visiting the country during the last coupleof years. Figures released by Statistics South Africa(2002), the country’s governmental research organisa-tion, show that South Africa received 5.7 million visitorsduring 2001. 1.4 million of these were from overseas and4.2 million were from Africa. When compared with theprevious year (2000), total overseas visitor numberswere down 3.7% and African visitor numbers weredown 2.2% (Statistics South Africa, 2002).

According to Statistics South Africa, although four ofSouth Africa’s main overseas source markets recordedgrowth in 2001: the Netherlands (+0.4%), the USA(+2.3%), Italy (+2.3%), the UK (+0.4%); the othertwo of the ‘Big Six’ markets were down: Germany(�0.1%) and France (�6.9%). The preceding year alsowitnessed a foreign arrival growth rate of �0.3% over1999 (Statistics South Africa, 2001). 2000 and 2001 arethe first years since 1986 that South Africa has recordeda decline in overseas tourist arrivals. These figures provequite disappointing considering SA Tourism’s extensivemarketing campaign in 2000, and given that worldforeign tourism is expected to grow at an average rate of4.5% and tourism to southern Africa at a rate of 7.3%over the coming years (WTO, 1997).

In a think-tank conference on safety and securityissues in the global tourism and hospitality industry, itwas concluded that crime would continue to escalate astravel increases. This is expected to become particularlyapparent in those destinations where there is a largediscrepancy between the wealthy and the poor (Olsen &Pizam, 1998). The South African tourism authoritieshave also recognised that crime could inhibit tourismdevelopment in the country. At a tourism safetyworkshop in June 2001, the Minister of EnvironmentalAffairs and Tourism, Valli Moosa, said that SouthAfrica is ‘a relatively safe place for internationaltourists’, but added that there is no way of testing thistheory (Weaver, 2001, p. 33).

The objectives of this study are to find out whethervisitors to Cape Town felt unsafe and whether theychose to limit their activities because they were afraidof crime. Furthermore, it aims to establish whetherspecific personal factors of the respondents, such as

demographic characteristics, related to their perceptionsof crime and safety in Cape Town. In essence, this paperaims to gain a greater understanding of individuals’perceptions of safety and security while visiting CapeTown.

2. The tourism–crime relationship

In recent years researchers have become interested inthe relationship between tourism and crime. The focusof much of the research detailing the associationbetween these two forces has sought to examine whethercrime and safety problems at a tourist destination havean impact on tourism demand, and whether the tourismindustry encourages criminal activity.

A number of writers have been interested in whethercrime and safety problems at a tourist destination havean impact on tourism demand (Dimanche & Lepetic,1999; Elliot & Ryan, 1993; Fujii & Mak, 1980; Kelly,1993; Levantis & Gani, 2000; Pizam & Mansfeld, 1996;Prideaux & Dunn, 1995). Literature within this spherehas also focused more specifically on tourist victimisa-tion at certain destinations (Chesney-Lind & Lind, 1986;Crotts, 1996; de Alburquerque & McElroy, 1999;Harper, 1983; Schiebler, Crotts, & Hollinger, 1996).Notably, Harper (2001) analysed the findings from thesevictimisation studies to compare tourist and residentpopulations’ crime experiences. Harper noted that thecrime experience of residents was greater than that oftourists in all of the studies except for Schiebler, Crotts,and Hollinger’s (1996) Florida study. Nevertheless,Harper concluded that as the crime experience increasesfor locals, it also tends to increase for visitors (2001,p. 1055). This is consistent with most of the studies,which shared the general consensus that crime againsttourists is more likely to happen in areas that experiencehigh crime rates.

Crime committed against tourists is not a newphenomenon (Tarlow & Muehsam, 1996, p. 12), yetresearchers have been circumspect to link touristvictimisation directly to tourism demand. This isbecause there are many exogenous factors that areinvolved in the tourist’s decision-making process. Someof these factors include economic considerations,accessibility, climate, changes in consumer trends, theamount of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ by intermediaries and theeffectiveness of marketing campaigns. Furthermore,tourism researchers have been hindered by a lack ofavailable data because most law-enforcing agencies donot distinguish between crime committed againsttourists and crime committed against residents. As Fujiiand Mak (1980, p. 34) note, data limitations oftenprevent researchers from being able to identify the directvictims of crime. Official crime statistics also possess anumber of methodological issues. For instance, many

ARTICLE IN PRESSR. George / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 575–585576

crimes are unrecorded, which means that the officialstatistics do not reflect the actual extent of crime. As thecriminologist Wiles (1971) argues, ‘there is a dark figureof crime sufficiently large enough to render reported andrecorded offences highly suspect as a basis upon whichto make inferences upon criminal behaviour in general’.Official statistics, therefore, do not provide a completemeasure of the incidence of crime (Black, 1970).Tourism researchers, have therefore either relied oninterviewing tourists as they leave the destination(Strangeland, 1998) or made use of police records thatidentified victims as tourists (Chesney-Lind & Lind,1986; de Albuquerque & McElroy, 1999; Schiebler,Crotts, & Hollinger, 1996).

Another area of tourism and crime research hassought to establish whether the tourism industryencourages criminal activity. Research undertaken inthis domain includes tourist areas where increasing crimerates are seen as an externality of tourism development(Chesney-Lind, Lind, & Schaafsma, 1983; Fujii & Mak,1979, 1980; Fukunaga, 1975; Jud, 1975; Kelly, 1993; Lin& Loeb, 1977; McPheters & Stronge, 1974; Nicholls,1976; Prideaux & Dunn, 1995; Urbanowicz, 1977;Walmsley, Boskovic, & Pigram, 1983). Findings suggestthat tourism does contribute to an increase in crimelevels. For instance, Nicholls (1976, p. 179) noted thataccording to police department statistics, increasedvisitor rates correlated to the increased number ofarrests to a holiday resort town in North Carolina in theUSA. Fukunaga (1975) and Fujii and Mak (1979) allfound similar results, arguing that increased crime ratesin rural areas of Hawaii are associated with thedevelopment of tourism. However, most of theseresearchers noted the difficulty in assessing the impactof tourism on crime. As Mathieson and Wall (1982, p.145) pointed out, the causes of crime, therefore, may notsolely be confined to tourism. Increased crime rates atspecific destinations may also be a result shared by otherindustries at the destination, such as the farming andmining industry. For instance, labourers and migrantworkers might participate in criminal activities. Never-theless, tourism lends itself to being blamed, since thisplaces the guilt on ‘others’ and diverts the scrutiny awayfrom more fundamental problems in society. In addi-tion, tourism-related crimes are highly publicised, thusresulting in a disproportionate emphasis on tourism asthe reason for such activity.

Begging, gambling and prostitution, which are oftensocial consequences of the tourism industry, are alsoassociated with criminal activity in certain host com-munities. For example, in his study into the impactof casino gambling on US communities, Long (1996,p. 341) found it led to an increase in crime rates.Another factor that should be taken into considerationwhen viewing the relationship between crime and thetourism industry is that tourism growth is usually

accompanied by an increase in the local population,which means that the actual number of crimes mightincrease without any actual growth in the per capitacrime rate.

Practically, it would be reasonable to suggest thatthere is a link between crime and tourism development,especially given the increased numbers of people lured toa tourist resort during a defined season, and also thattourists represent easy and lucrative prey to localcriminals. In addition, as Olsen and Pizam (1998, p. 2)point out, the changing demographics resulting in anolder and some believe, more vulnerable traveler, maycontribute to an increase in crime.

Tourists and certain tourist locations, therefore, havebeen found to be vulnerable to crime. Visitors, regardedby criminals as ‘easy targets’ or those that happen to bein the wrong place at the wrong time, may become crimevictims, and ensuing media attention may have anadverse affect on prospective travellers’ perceptions andultimately on visitor numbers to such destinations.

3. Tourist’s perceptions of safety

If a tourist feels unsafe or threatened at a holidaydestination, he or she can develop a negative impressionof the destination. This can be very damaging tothe destination’s tourism industry and can result in thedecline of tourism to the area. This can happen in thefollowing ways:

(i) Prospective tourists may decide not to visit thedestination because it has a reputation for having ahigh crime rate.

(ii) If tourists feel unsafe at a destination, they are notlikely to take part in activities outside theiraccommodation facility.

(iii) Tourists who have felt threatened or unsafe are notlikely to return to the destination, and they are notlikely to recommend the destination to others.

In recent years there has been a plethora of crimeincidents at international tourist destinations. Tourismto Egypt, Florida, Kenya, Spain, Lebanon, and Yemen,for example, has been affected by reports that touristshave either been held hostage, accidental victims ortargets of crime or terrorism resulting in injury, rape,torture, and sometimes even death. Ensuing mediaattention has raised tourists’ concerns about safety,and ultimately led to cancellations to these destinations.In essence, the level and patterning of the touristmarket, both national and international, is skewed bypublic perceptions of safety.

Research into the relationship between tourism andcriminal acts affecting tourists’ safety, or perceptions ofsafety, started receiving attention in the early 1990s(Brunt, Mawby, & Hambly, 2000; Demos, 1992;

ARTICLE IN PRESSR. George / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 575–585 577

Milman & Bach, 1999; Pinhey & Iverson, 1994; Sonmez& Graefe, 1998). As with risk perceptions, when safetyconcerns are introduced into travel decisions, they arelikely to become the overriding factors, altering thecontext of conventional decision-making models andcausing travellers to amend travel plans. A commonfinding in this literature is that safety and security oftourists is a prerequisite for a prosperous touristdestination. Indeed, Sonmez and Graefe (1998, p. 120)claimed ‘if the destination choice is narrowed down totwo alternatives which promise similar benefits, the lesscostly one—one that is safe from threat—is likely to bechosen’.

Pearce (1988, p. 28) suggested that concern withpersonal security is a major factor in the decision-making process through which individuals make theirtravel choices. Several authors, however, have suggestedthat residents and tourists stand an equal chance ofbecoming a victim of crime. For instance, Prideaux(1996, p. 73) proposed that in the normal course ofevents tourists may expect to have at least the sameprobability of becoming victims of crime as residents ofthe area they are visiting. Gunn (1983, p. 27) supportedthis notion, claiming that: ‘crime can be an irrationalconcern and that statistically, visitors have an equal orgreater risk of being involved in a fatal car accident orsuffering a household injury at home’. The criticalfactor, therefore, is fear of the unknown, and risk. Thisis reiterated by Sonmez (1998, p. 120) in her research onterrorism and tourism, ‘the introduction of risk intotouristic decisions has the potential to disrupt routinedecision-making’.

Research conducted by Demos (1992) examined thesubject of tourists’ perceptions while on holiday inWashington, DC. Demos’s study involved interviewingvisitors (holidaymakers, business people and thosevisiting friends or relatives) to the city during the early1990s. The study was prompted by the possibility thatthe city’s tourism industry was under threat due to veryhigh crime levels. He found that the number of visitor’sprevious visits and their demographic profile such asgender, marital status, and level of education influencedtheir perceptions. He reported that a third of respon-dents were very much concerned with their safety beforearriving in the city, and 39% claimed that they did notfeel safe in the city after dark. Nevertheless, only a thirdof respondents saw safety as the main factor that mightdeter them from returning to Washington, DC; mostperceived that crime in the city would not discouragethem from a return visit (Demos 1992, p. 84).

In a similar study, Pinhey and Iverson (1994) exploredsafety concerns by focusing on typical holiday activitiesamong visitors to Guam. The authors reported thatJapanese visitors to Guam were more likely to reportconcerns about safety when they participated inactivities that did not take them too far away from

their hotels. Pinhey and Iverson (1994, p. 92) also notedthat younger, more affluent Japanese tourists felt lesssafe when taking part in a number of leisure pursuitsthan other respondents. This latter finding supportsDemos’ (1992) work which claims that visitors withhigher educational status were more likely to reportconcerns about safety than visitors with lower educa-tional levels. While focusing on several activities, Pinheyand Iverson’s (1994) exploratory study did not take intoaccount other tourist-related activities such as food,accommodation, transportation and visiting touristattractions.

Milman and Bach (1999, p. 384) assessed the impactof the industry’s crime preventative measures ontourists’ perceptions of safety in Orlando, Florida. Theyfound that respondents, who were surveyed at varioushotels and motels, generally perceived central Florida tobe a safe destination. Their findings revealed thattraveller’s previous exposure to crime influenced theiroverall sense of security (respondents who had beencrime victims prior to trip perceived central Florida tobe less safe than those who had not been victimised),and that certain security devices, such as CCTV (closedcircuit television), improved lighting and the employingof hotel security staff, provided visitors with a greatersense of security.

In a recent study, Brunt et al. (2000) surveyed Britishtourists to examine their perceptions and experiences ofcrime while on holiday. Unlike most other surveys, theirstudy did not make use of official police statistics buttheir own findings from a victim survey. Furthermore,the survey questions related to the respondent’s previousholiday experiences. Their findings, though taken from adifferent perspective, correspond to existing touristvictimisation literature, such as the studies carried outby Chesney Lind, and Lind (1986), de Alburquerqueand McElroy (1999), and Harper (2001), which claimthat tourists are more susceptible to victimisation thanlocal residents. The research conducted by Brunt et al.(2000, p. 423) also found that tourists showed low levelsof concern about safety, and even those that had beenvictims of crime (mainly property or motor vehicle theft)usually felt that their holiday location had been safe.

Mawby (2000) subsequently reviewed the findings ofBrunt et al. (2000) in the context of a risk–fear paradox.He noted that criminologists have been concerned thatthe fear of crime appears to be out of proportion to theactual risk of crime. On one hand, the news reports ofcrime magnify the danger of crime at destinations, andon the other hand, tourists’ fears might well be justified,given the evidence provided by tourism researchers ofhigh crime rates in tourist areas and the tendency oftourists to fall victims of crime. Mawby (2000, p. 101)proposed that tourists should be informed of the risks ofvisiting tourist areas in order to reduce fear of criminalincidences while holidaying. And this, according to

ARTICLE IN PRESSR. George / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 575–585578

Mawby (2000, p. 119), is where the paradox lies: ‘thefear of crime may be a deterrent to the growth oftourismyyet only if tourists are educated aboutriskywill crime (tourist-oriented) be reduced in thelong term’.

4. Fear of crime

The concept of ‘fear of crime’ has featured incriminology literature since the 1960s. Coupled withthe growth of victimisation surveys, the concept hasbeen used as an instrument of criminological researchand criminal justice policy.

Developed largely as a result of crime surveys, such asthe 1982 British Crime Survey (BCS), the term fear ofcrime was based on the responses to questions whichwere designed to probe how respondents felt (safe orunsafe) while in public situations, such as using pubictransport or walking in his or her neighbourhood. Inessence, the BCS report compared the chances of fallingvictim to crime with other incidents, such as beinginvolved in a car accident or having an accident athome. Following publication of the BCS, criminologistsfocussed on relationship between fear of crime and therisk of victimisation. (Gottfredson, 1984). Indeed,Hough and Mayhew (1983, p. 22) suggested thatcriminologists have been concerned that the fear ofcrime appears to be out of proportion to the risk ofvictimisation. A weak association was thus identifiedbetween fear of crime, as reported in victimisationsurveys, and actual risk. This was known as the‘paradox of fear’ debate and is best summarised asthus: ‘those who fear crime least are most likely toexperience it’ (Stanko, 2000, p. 21).

Garofalo (1979) used National Crime Survey datafrom eight US cities to compare personal victimisationrates with individual’s responses to the question as towhether they felt safe their neighbourhoods at night.Garofalo’s findings led him to conclude that fear is notbased merely on risk and experience of crime, but alsosocialization, media presentations of crime, and theextent to which respondents felt reassured by policepresence. Such patterns are also pertinent in the contextof tourism. For instance, tourists’ fear of crime may bederived from several sources, such as their ownexperience of crime, discussions about crime with theirfriends and acquaintances, exposure to crime throughmass media (television, the Internet, newspapers andradio), and perceptions of actual crime rates as well astheir perceptions of police effectiveness at the destination.

Criminology studies also showed that fear forpersonal safety was found to differ among specificsubgroups. For instance, women and elderly peoplewere more concerned about personal safety and thereforerestricted their activities to avoid potential encounters

with violence (Stanko, 2000; Gardner, 1995). Accordingto the literature, fear of crime also appears to meandifferent things depending on location. For example,some people may be afraid inside their home, but notoutside, and vice versa. Put another way, differentpeople feel unsafe in different places. Indeed, feelingsof unsafety may cause tourists to avoid particulardestinations and taking part in certain activities at adestination.

5. Methodology

A survey, involving a sample of 438 visitors to CapeTown, was undertaken during mid-August to mid-September 2001, towards the end of the Cape’s tourism‘green season’. Visitors to Cape Town were surveyed atpopular attractions in Cape Town. These included the V& A Waterfront, visited by 43% of all international andAfrican tourists visiting the Western Cape (SouthAfrican Tourism, 2001, p. 11), the Cape Town TourismInformation Centre, visited by 203,000 tourists in 2000(Cape Town Tourism, 2001), and Cape Town Interna-tional Airport, which received 41% of all air arrivals inwinter 2000 (Cape Town Tourism, 2001, p. 10). Theselocations were chosen as it was felt that they wouldprovide a reasonable representation of the targetpopulation. Furthermore, in an attempt to get arepresentative cross-section of visitors, the surveys werecompleted at different times during the period.

The survey instrument was a self-administered, two-part questionnaire. Questions in the first part of thesurvey asked about respondents’ socio-demographicsand the duration of their holiday. In the second part,respondents were asked about their perceptions of crimeand their intentions for future visits to Cape Town.

The breakdown of the sample included 113 ques-tionnaires, which were placed at three tourist informa-tion kiosks at the V & A Waterfront, 84 questionnairesat the Cape Town tourism information centre in theCBD, and 55 questionnaires at the newly opened touristinformation kiosk in St. George’s Mall, in the citycentre. 59 questionnaires were placed at the tax refundkiosk at the V & AWaterfront. The tax refund kiosk is afacility for non-resident passport holders to claim aVAT refund prior to departure at Cape Town Interna-tional Airport. Thus, this proved to be an ideal locationfor a survey as it can be assumed that visitors claimingat the kiosk had consumed most of their holidayduration, and were about to leave the country. Inaddition, the claim procedure involved tourists complet-ing forms—many were couples or families where oneperson would complete the tax claim allowing time for acompanion to fill out the questionnaire. Hundred andtwenty-seven questionnaires were also placed at theinformation desk at Cape Town International Airport

ARTICLE IN PRESSR. George / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 575–585 579

departures hall—a suitable sampling source as mostrespondents had completed their holiday and weredeparting the country.

The survey consisted of general questions concerningtourists’ characteristics (origin, age, gender); questionsregarding their purchasing habits, and questions regard-ing their perceptions of safety while visiting Cape Townand taking part in activities. Responses to consumerbehaviour and perceptual questions were measured on anumber of attributes, including whether they wouldrecommend Cape Town to friends and colleagues upontheir return to their country of origin, and whether theywould tell others that Cape Town is a safe place to visit.In addition, respondents were asked how safe they feltwhile taking part in activities, such as touring the cityduring the day, walking in the city after dark, usingpublic transport in the city, and staying at theiraccommodation unit. For each item, respondents useda five-point Likert-type scale to rate their likelihood ofrecommending Cape Town as a place to visit, as a safeplace to visit, and whether they would return. Similarly,respondents were asked to express their overall sense ofsafety on a number of issues, such as touring the city inthe daytime, walking the streets at night, using publictransport, staying in hotel/accommodation unit andmaking use of public transport. Their perception ofsafety was measured on a 1–5 scale where 1=very safe

and 5=very unsafe. Respondents were also askedwhether they had encountered crime or felt that theirlife was in danger during their stay in Cape Town.Finally, respondents were asked the likelihood of theirreturning to Cape Town. If they answered ‘somewhatunlikely’ or ‘very unlikely’ they were then asked tochoose one of the following main reasons: ‘expense’,‘concerns about crime’, ‘want to visit other destina-tions’, and ‘don’t know’.

Independent measures used in the analysis includedrespondent’s gender, age, whether it was their first-timevisit or not, the purpose of their visit to Cape Town(i.e. holiday, business trip, visiting friends and relatives),the number of days that they had already stayed inCape Town, the number of days that they had spent inSouth Africa, in which area of Cape Town they werestaying, and where they came from. Cross-tabulationwas used to investigate the relationship of thesecharacteristics to respondents’ perceptions of safety inCape Town.

The findings from this study were compared to SouthAfrican Tourism’s bi-annual survey. Each year SouthAfrican Tourism (SA Tourism), the country’s tourismmarketing organisation, commissions two surveys (onein August and one in December) to assess the travelpatterns and perceptions of departing foreign touristsregarding South Africa’s infrastructure, facilities andsecurity. In particular, their August 2000 surveyinvolved 2616 respondents who left South Africa from

three of the country’s international airports (SATourism 2000). The survey utilised a three-point Likertscale (good, fair, and poor).

The research for this paper is intended to complementSA Tourism’s bi-annual survey. This paper is morespecialised as it focuses on Cape Town, and is thus ableto detail what the broader SA tourism study does not,namely visitors’ perceptions of safety and security inCape Town.

6. Discussion and findings

Of the 438 respondents, over three-quarters of visitors(79%) were visiting Cape Town for the first time, theremainder (21%) had been to the city at least oncebefore. There were 229 male respondents (53%) and 207female respondents (47%). Table 1 compares some ofthe findings with that of SA Tourism’s 2000 survey. Thefindings clearly indicate that more leisure tourists thanbusiness tourists were surveyed in this study comparedto that of SA Tourism. These findings, however, are notsurprising given that the questionnaires were distributedat leisure attractions in Cape Town, which attract moreleisure tourists than business visitors.

Almost a third (32%) of respondents were aged 25–34years, only 4% of the sample was 65 or older. Onehundred and thirteen respondents (26%) were from theUK, followed by 92 Americans (21%), 81 ‘other’ (19%),52 Germans (12%), 23 from France (5.5%), 22 from theNetherlands (5%), 20 from Australia/NZ (4.5%), 13Italians (3%), 11 South Africans (2.5%), and 9 Asians(2%). These findings are consistent with SA Tourism’smain target markets (UK, Germany, Italy, France, theNetherlands, and the USA).

The majority of visitors (301 or 69%) were very likelyto recommend Cape Town as a place to visit to theirfriends. This is consistent with the SA Tourism survey,which stated 68% of visitors would recommend SouthAfrica to others. 71.4% of respondents in this studywere either ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to recommend CapeTown as a safe destination. Notably, Milman and Bachreported that 95.7% of respondents in their researchindicated that they would recommend Florida as a safetourist destination (Milman & Bach, 1999, p. 377).However, in this study, 84 (or almost 20%) respondentswere unsure whether they would recommend Cape

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Comparison of findings to SA Tourism survey

Study findings SA Tourism 2000

Holidaymakers 73% 42%

Business 10% 28%

VFR 17% 19%

Length of stay 15 days 15 days

R. George / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 575–585580

Town as a safe place to visit. On a brighter note, a littlemore than 50% of visitors claimed that they would bevery likely to return to Cape Town (compared to 62% ofthe SA Tourism study).

Two hundred and twenty (49.7%) respondents feltsafe touring Cape Town during daytime (see Table 2).However, when asked: ‘How safe do you feel walkingthe Cape Town streets after dark?’, 25.1% (108) ofrespondents for this study felt somewhat unsafe, and11.1% (48) of respondents felt very unsafe walking afterdark in the city. This finding is compatible with theresearch carried out by Demos who found that 38.8% ofvisitors felt unsafe after dark in Washington, DC(Demos, 1992, p.83). Findings in this study also revealthat 37.9% (166) of respondents were unsure whetherthey felt safe or not in Cape Town after dark, comparedto Demos’s (1992) finding that 20.6% of visitors whowere uncertain.

Based on these findings, it can be concluded thatvisitors to Cape Town were hesitant to walk the streetsof Cape Town after dark. It can therefore be presumedthat visitors to Cape Town remained in their hotels afterdark, or made use of private taxis or transport providedfor them by their hotel to get them to and fromentertainment venues such as restaurants, theatres, the V& A Waterfront, and so on. In addition, the presence ofinformal parking attendants and street children thatroam the city by day and night may have contributed tovisitor’s negative perceptions.

Fifty-eight respondents (14%) felt reasonably unsafeand 24 (or 5.8%) felt very unsafe using public transportin the city of Cape Town. A further 172 (41.2%) wereunsure about how safe they felt using public transport.The media coverage on taxi violence in the Western

Cape during the last couple of years may well havecontributed to these negative perceptions regardingpublic transport in the city. There are several means ofpublic transport in Cape Town, which include privatetaxis (metered), buses, mini bus taxis (unmetered), andtrains. The latter two are considered unsafe for tourists,and many visitors are advised by locals and tourismstakeholders not to use these forms of public transportespecially after dark.

The questionnaire not only aimed to establish howtourists felt regarding safety while visiting Cape Town,but also if there were any specific demographiccharacteristics (for instance, visitor’s nationality) thatrelated to their perceptions of safety in Cape Town. Across-tabulation analysis was used to investigatewhether there was any significant relationship betweencharacteristics and perceptions. Table 3 shows the cross-tabulation of purpose of visit to Cape Town andvisitor’s perceptions of safety when walking the streetsafter dark. Although no relationship was found, it isclear that those respondents who were on holiday feltless safe than those who were visiting Cape Town forbusiness.

An association (p=0.01489) was found between ageand whether visitors had encountered any danger or feltthat their lives were in danger during their stay. Over aquarter (25.5%) of those under the age of 35 encoun-tered a dangerous incident, or felt that their lives were indanger while visiting Cape Town. This compares to 11%of those over the age of 35. In addition, 27% of thoseunder 35 did not know whether they felt safe or notcompared to 8% of those older than 35. This suggeststhat younger visitors were more likely to feel unsafe thanolder visitors during their stay in the city. Several

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Assessments of safety by visitors to Cape Town

N Very safe Safe Unsure Unsafe Very unsafe % Mean

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Touring city in daytime 436 36.2 49.8 10.3 3.0 0.7 100.0 1.82

Walking streets after dark 432 6.2 19.2 38.4 25.1 11.1 100.0 3.12

Using public transport 417 15.3 23.7 41.2 14.0 5.8 100.0 2.70

Driving around city 407 32.1 37.7 25.3 3.4 1.5 100.0 2.04

Staying in accommodation 435 71.7 22.7 3.7 1.0 1.0 100.0 1.36

Table 3

Perceptions of safety walking the streets after dark

Purpose of visit N Very safe Safe Unsure Unsafe Very unsafe %

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

VFR 72 4.2 18.3 41.6 27.8 8.3 100.0

Holiday 314 5.4 20.1 38.5 23.6 12.4 100.0

Business 46 15.2 15.2 32.7 30.4 6.5 100.0

N 432 27 83 166 108 432

p=72814

R. George / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 575–585 581

reasons can be suggested to explain this relationship.Firstly, it may well be that younger tourists are morelikely to venture out in the evening and thus encounter adangerous incident or feel unsafe. Secondly, oldervisitors may be more experienced and wiser travellers.Thirdly, younger visitors were more likely to havestayed in backpacker-type accommodation, located inless safe areas, as opposed to older ‘mass tourists’ whostayed at resorts or hotels at the V & A Waterfrontcomplex.

A statistical relationship was found between whererespondents came from and whether they were likely torecommend Cape Town as a safe place to visit. 37.5% ofthose that are very unlikely to recommend Cape Townas a safe place to visit are from Britain. Furthermore 9%stated they were either unlikely or very unlikely toreturn to Cape Town, of these, 30% stated theirconcerns about crime. This latter finding is supportedby Demos’s (1992, p. 84) study where a third ofrespondents saw safety as the main issue that might

deter them from returning to Washington, DC. Simi-larly, a statistical relationship was found between wherevisitors are from and the amount of fear visitors feltwalking the Cape Town streets after dark. In particular,respondents from the UK and Germany felt unsureor unsafe regarding walking the streets of Cape Townafter dark.

In so far as the demographic profiles of visitors to thecity affected attitudes, gender did not appear to be asignificant factor affecting visitors’ perceptions of CapeTown’s safety conditions. One might presume thatwomen are more likely to be more vulnerable to crimeand hence possess greater fear. Interestingly, the currentdata suggests that this is not the case. This contrastswith Demos’s findings that women were far more waryabout walking the streets of Washington, DC after dark.

Not surprisingly, the data suggested an associationbetween whether respondents had encountered anyincident or felt that their life was in danger and thelikelihood of returning. More than half (54.4%) who

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

One-way ANOVA results of variations of perceptions of safety and socio-demographic factors of visitors to Cape Town

Socio-demographic variables N Rec CT safe F1 Safe day F2 Safe night F3 Safe transport F4 Safe Hotel F5 Return CT F6

Gender F=0.210 F=3.174* F=0.579 F=3.069 F=0.141 F=0.316

Male 229 2.12 1.88 3.11 2.79 1.37 1.81

Female 207 2.88 1.74 3.19 3.61 1.35 1.80

Age F =2.483* F =0.6513 F =0.262 F=1.403 F=1.386 F=1.328

o24 80 2.30 1.76 3.18 2.72 1.43 1.81

25–34 140 2.20 1.86 3.20 2.84 1.41 1.89

35–44 95 2.02 1.83 3.07 2.54 1.37 1.63

45–64 104 1.93 1.75 3.13 2.73 1.23 1.80

65> 19 1.89 2.05 3.26 2.42 1.42 2.10

Times to CT F=2.051 F=0.301 F=0.381 F=1.475 F=0.772 F=18.421**

First time 344 2.13 1.82 3.13 2.74 1.36 1.91

Second time or more 94 1.97 1.80 3.21 2.58 1.38 1.41

Length of stay F=1.143 F=1.764 F=0.819 F=1.241 F=1.515 F=0.996

1–10 348 2.06 1.80 3.14 2.69 1.32 1.84

10> 94 2.15 1.95 3.21 2.79 1.41 1.40

Purpose of visit F=0.022 F=0.301 F=0.567 F=1.245 F=3.489 F=6.574**

Holiday 319 2.09 1.80 3.17 2.72 1.31 1.88

VFR 72 2.12 1.84 3.19 2.68 1.43 1.80

Business 47 2.11 1.89 3.00 2.70 1.59 1.30

Nationality F=2.663** F=1.119 F=4.114** F=0.968 F=1.869 F=2.406

UK 113 2.16 1.96 3.26 2.85 1.31 1.88

Germany 52 2.19 1.75 3.60 2.61 1.36 1.71

USA 92 1.85 1.65 2.72 2.65 1.28 1.79

Italy 58 1.92 1.69 3.31 2.45 1.30 1.46

Netherlands 11 2.68 1.76 3.19 2.80 1.23 2.54

France 9 1.65 1.69 2.95 2.22 1.34 2.04

SA 2.10 1.81 2.54 2.54 2.09 1.36

Asia 2.00 1.88 2.77 2.55 1.55 1.77

Other 2.24 1.82 3.30 2.74 1.39 1.60

*pp0.05.

**pp0.01.

R. George / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 575–585582

claimed that they were very likely to return to CapeTown stated that they had not encountered an incidentor felt that their life was in danger during their stay. Anassociation was found between those that encountered adangerous incident, or felt that their life was in danger,and how they felt about going out in the city after dark.72.5% of those that had encountered danger felt unsafegoing out after dark, compared to 31.4% of those thathad not encountered any danger.

The findings in Table 4 show that there was astatistical relationship between visitors’ perceptions ofsafety and the socio-demographic factors of gender, age,number of visits to Cape Town, purpose of visit, andnationality. There was a significant difference betweengender groups with regards to safety during the daytimeand the safety of public transport. Female visitors ratedthese factors lower (less safe) than male visitors.Surprisingly, there were no gender differences regardinghow safe respondents felt after dark. It can therefore beassumed that neither male nor female felt particularlysafe walking the streets after dark, and females feltparticularly vulnerable during the daytime. Age groupswere found to vary significantly on the ‘recommendCape Town safe’ factor. The 45–64 and 65> rated thesevariables higher (safer) than the younger age groups.

With regard to nationality, several significant differ-ences were found in the recommend Cape Town safe,and ‘safety after dark’ factors. Americans felt reason-ably safe walking the streets of Cape Town after darkand are likely to recommend Cape Town as a safe place,compared to German visitors who are only reasonablylikely to recommend Cape Town as a safe place to visitand are unsure about safety after dark.

Respondent’s purpose of visit was found to vary inthe ‘return to Cape Town’ factor. For instance, asignificant difference was noted between those that cameto Cape Town on holiday or VFR, and those that cameto Cape Town on business in terms of likelihood ofreturning. Both holiday and VFR visitors rated theirlikelihood of returning to the city lower (less likely) thanbusiness visitors. This finding suggests that leisure andbusiness visitors look for different attributes in adestination; VFR and particularly holidaymakers havethe option of where they choose to holiday whereasbusiness people are constrained by their options.

7. Conclusion

Most tourism–crime research to date has focused oncrime at certain tourist destinations rather than taking asample of visitors to a destination and examining theirperceptions of safety and security. This study wouldappear to demonstrate that visitors to Cape Town havereasonably positive perceptions, although respondentsclaimed that they were wary of going out after dark and

making use of the city’s public transport. Findings alsosuggest that tourists’ nationality, duration of stay, andwhether they had encountered any crime influenced theirperceptions of safety and security in Cape Town. Anumber of key findings, derived from the study, areconsistent with other empirical studies, i.e.: tourists limittheir activities at destinations for fear of crime; touristswho have encountered a crime incident during theirholiday are more likely to feel less safe; and tourists aregenerally more wary about going out after dark thanduring the daytime.

As research suggests, tourists have every reason tofear crime, as they are more susceptible to crimevictimisation than local residents in areas that havehigh crime rates. In order to reduce or allay visitors’ fearof crime, law enforcement agencies and the tourismindustry should co-ordinate efforts to implement crimeprevention measures. For instance, on arrival, visitorscould be provided with an information brochure whichinforms them of the differences between modes of taxis(i.e. metered and unmetered), the various routes andtimes that the taxis run, and so on. Security measuresalso need to be increased to make it safer for tourists togo out in the evening and public transport needs to bemade safer. In turn, improved safety initiatives shouldhelp disperse visiting spending to a wider spectrum oftourist facilities, such as restaurants, theatres, andleisure facilities away from hotels and tourist resorts.At a community level, individuals need to be encouragedand trained to work in the tourism industry so that theycan witness and reap some of the economic benefits tobe gained from tourism. Such an initiative should helpto instil a sense of pride in the community and thusdiscourage individuals from becoming involved intourist-related criminal activities.

This paper has given rise to several challenges for thetourism industry. Firstly, the tourism industry needs tofind a way to warn tourists about safety and securitywithout deterring them from visiting or taking part inactivities at the destination. Secondly, SA Tourismcannot just increase its spend on altering false ornegative perceptions as it may increase tourist numbersyet will not improve actual safety and security measuresat the destination. For instance, a couple of negativecrime incidents involving tourists may counter anymarketing efforts. The third task, and perhaps the mostchallenging, is for local tourism authorities to improvesecurity of tourists without discriminating against thelocal community’s rights to protection. In essence, a co-ordinated effort by all is required to work towardproviding a harmonious place for locals and visitorsalike.

If tourist destinations are to remain prosperous, theissue of safety and security of tourists is paramount.After all, a lack of security for visitors affects the twomain components of tourism, namely the decision as to

ARTICLE IN PRESSR. George / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 575–585 583

whether tourists visit, and the scope of activities thatthey take part in at the destination.

8. Study limitations and future research

Preliminary findings for this study were based onexploratory research. One of the limitations of thisresearch was that self-administered questionnaires,which possess a number of weaknesses, were employedas the method of data collection. With a self-adminis-tered method there is no control over the researchsetting (Bailey 1978, p. 156). As such, visitors were leftto complete the questionnaire at their own will.Furthermore, the questionnaire may have been passedon to a family member who had encountered a crimeincident during his or her visit.

One of the drawbacks of the research was that thequestionnaire failed to ask respondents at which stage oftheir trip they were. On the one hand it may be thatthose tourists at the end of their visit, particularly thosethat did not encounter any incident, felt safe. On theother hand, those respondents who had just arrived (inCape Town) for the first time may well have felt lesssecure. However, the empirical research carried out byMilman and Bach (1999, p. 375) suggested that tourists’perceptions of safety and security were not necessarilyaffected after arrival at the destination. Needless to say,future research within this subject area should recognisethe respondent’s stage of trip to determine any possibleassociations.

Several problems exist in measuring fear of crime.Ironically, it may be the very carrying out of crimesurveys which serve to increase sensitivity to the risks ofcrime, as situating questions about fear within a crimesurvey may consequently elicit higher levels of anxietythan would otherwise be the case. The environment inwhich the survey took place may have also influencedvisitors’ responses. Most of the surveys were completedat relatively safe locations, such as the V & A Water-front (a leisure and shopping complex), the internationalairport, and so on. In addition to these situationalfactors, respondents may well have been influenced bytheir past holiday and/or crime experiences, conversa-tions with family and friends, and the media. Research isrequired to examine how these factors affect each stageof the tourist’s decision-making process within thecontext of crime.

The question as to whether tourists fear crime morethan locals has not yet been documented in the tourismand crime research literature. Similarly, whether touristvictims of crime are more fearful than non-victims, andwhether tourists are more or less likely than locals toreport an incident has not yet been studied. Finally,whether tourists are susceptible to different crimescompared to locals needs further attention. Based on

the survey findings, the following additional researchpriorities are encouraged:

* examine the type of crimes which tourists are mostanxious about at destinations;

* analyse the extent to which tourists use personalcrime–risk reduction strategies (i.e. reducing amountof jewelry worn) while at a destination;

* conduct a tourist crime victim survey at specificdestinations; and

* examine tourists’ perceptions of safety in differentareas within a destination.

References

Bailey, K. D. (1978). Methods of social research. New York: Free Press.

Black, D. (1970). Production of crime rates. American Sociological

Review, 35(4), 733–748.

Brunt, P., Mawby, R., & Hambly, Z. (2000). Tourist victimisation and

the fear of crime on holiday. Tourism Management, 21(4), 417–424.

Cape Metropolitan Tourism (2001). Cape Town: Statistical guide.

Cape Town: CMT.

Cape Town Tourism (2001). Annual Report 2000/2001, Cape Town:

CTT.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Lind, I. Y. (1986). Visitors as victims: Crimes

against tourists in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13,

167–191.

Chesney-Lind, M., Lind, I.Y., & Schaafsma, H. (1983). Salient factors

in Hawaii’s crime rate. Report No. 286, Youth Development and

Research Center, University of Hawaii-Manoa.

Crotts, J. C. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on tourist criminal

victimisation. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 7(1), 2–9.

de Alburquerque, K., & McElroy, J. (1999). Tourism and crime in the

Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 968–984.

Demos, E. (1992). Concern for safety: A potential problem in the

tourist industry. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(1),

81–88.

Dimanche, F., & Lepetic, A. (1999). New Orleans tourism and crime:

A case study. Journal of Travel Research, 38(August), 19–23.

Elliot, L., & Ryan, C. (1993). The impact of crime on Corsican

tourism: A descriptive assessment. World Travel and Tourism

Review, Special Report (Part Three), 287–293.

Fujii, E. T., & Mak, J. (1979). The impact of alternative regional

development strategies on crime rates: tourism vs. agriculture in

Hawaii. Annals of Regional Science, 13(3), 42–56.

Fujii, E. T., & Mak, J. (1980). Tourism and crime: Implications for

regional development policy. Regional Studies, 14, 27–36.

Fukunaga, L. (1975). A new sun in Kohala: The socio-economic

impact of tourism and resort development on a rural community in

Hawaii. In W. Finney, & F. Watson (Eds.), A new kind of sugar:

Tourism in the Pacific. Honolulu: East West Center.

Gardner, C. (1995). Passing-by: Gender and public harassment.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Garofalo, J. (1979). Victimisation and fear of crime. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16(1), 80–97.

George, R. (2001). The Impact of crime on international tourist

numbers to Cape Town. Crime Prevention and Community Safety:

An International Journal, 3(3), 19–29.

Gottfredson, M. (1984). Victims of crime: The dimensions of risk.

London: HMSO (Home Office Research Study No. 81).

Gunn, C. (1983). Report of tourism-environment study panel. In D. J.

Walmsley, R. M. Boskovic, & J. J. Pigram (Eds.), Tourism and

crime: An Australian perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(2),

136–155.

ARTICLE IN PRESSR. George / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 575–585584

Harper, D. (1983). The tourist as crime victim. Paper read at the

Academy of Criminal Justice Science Meetings. San Antonio, TX.

Harper, D. (2001). Comparing tourists’ crime victimization. Annals of

Tourism Research, 28(4), 1053–1056.

Hough, M., & Mayhew, P. (1983). The British crime survey: First report.

London: HMSO (Home Office Research Survey Study No. 76).

Jud, G. D. (1975). Tourism and crime in Mexico. Social Sciences

Quarterly, 56, 324–330.

Kelly, I. (1993). Tourist destination crime rates: An examination of

Cairns and the Gold Coast, Australia. The Journal of Tourism

Studies, 4(2), 2–11.

Levantis, T., & Gani, A. (2000). Tourism demand and the nuisance

of crime. International Journal of Social Economics, 27(7/8/9/10),

959–967.

Lin, V. L. Y., & Loeb, P. D. (1977). Tourism and crime in Mexico:

Some comments. Social Science Quarterly, 58, 164–167.

Long, P. T. (1996). Early impacts of limited-stakes casino gambling on

rural community life. Tourism Management, 17(5), 341–353.

Masuku, S. (2001). South Africa: World crime capital? Institute for

Security Studies, 5(1), 16–21.

Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and

social impacts. Singapore: Longman.

Mawby, R. I. (2000). Tourists’ perceptions of security: The risk-fear

paradox. Tourism Economics, 6(2), 109–121.

McPheters, L. R., & Stronge, W. B. (1974). Crime as an environmental

externality of tourism: Florida. Land Economics, 50, 359–381.

Milman, A., & Bach, S. (1999). The impact of security devices on

tourists’ perceived safety: The central Florida example. Journal of

Hospitality and Tourism Research, 23(4), 371–386.

Nicholls, L. L. (1976). Tourism and crime. Annals of Tourism

Research, 3(4), 176–182.

Olsen, M. D., & Pizam, A. (1998). Think-tank findings on safety and

security. Paris: International Hotel and Restaurant Association.

Pearce, P. L. (1988). The Ulysses factor: Evaluating visitors in tourist

settings. New York: Springer.

Pinhey, T. K., & Iverson, T. J. (1994). Safety concerns of Japanese

visitors to Guam. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 3(2),

87–94.

Pizam, A., & Mansfeld, Y. (Eds.) (1996). Tourism, crime and

international security issues. Chichester: Wiley.

Prideaux, B. (1996). The tourism crime cycle: a beach destination case

study. In A. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Tourism, crime and

international security issues (pp. 59–77). Chichester: Wiley.

Prideaux, B., & Dunn, A. (1995). Tourism and crime: How can the

tourism industry respond? Australian Journal of Hospitality

Management, 2(1), 7–15.

Schiebler, S., Crofts, J., & Hollinger, R. (1996). Florida tourists’

vulnerability to crime. In A. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Tourism

crime and international security issues (pp. 37–50). Chichester:

Wiley.

Sonmez, S. F. (1998). Tourism, terrorism, and political instability.

Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2), 416–456.

Sonmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Influence of terrorism, risk on

foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1),

112–144.

South African Tourism (2001). A survey of South Africa’s international

tourism market. Johannesburg: Decision Surveys International,

August.

Stanko, E. (2000). Victims R Us: The life history of ‘fear of crime’

and the politicisation of violence. In T. Hope, & R. Sparks

(Eds.), Crime, risk and insecurity. (pp. 13–30). London:

Routledge.

Statistics South Africa (2001). Midyear estimates 2001. Cape Town:

Statistics South Africa.

Statistics South Africa (2002). Midyear estimates 2001. Cape Town:

Statistics South Africa.

Strangeland, P. (1998). Other targets or other locations? British Journal

of Criminology, 38, 61–77.

Tarlow, P. E., & Muehsam, M. (1996). Theoretical aspects of crime as

they impact the tourism industry. In A. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld

(Eds.), Tourism, crime and international security issues (pp. 11–22).

Chichester: Wiley.

Urbanowicz, C. (1977). Integrating tourism with other industries in

Tonga. In B. H. Farrel (Ed.), The social and economic impact of

tourism on pacific communities. Santa Cruz: University of Santa

Cruz.

Walmsley, D. J., Boskovic, R. M., & Pigram, J. J. (1983). Tourism and

crime: An Australian perspective. Journal of Leisure Research,

13(2), 136–155.

Weaver, T. (2001). Tourism safety: Can SA crack it? The Journal of

South African Tourism, 1(3), 32–37.

Wiles, P. (1971). Criminal statistics and sociological explanations of

crime. In W. G. Carson, & P. Wiles (Eds.), Crime and delinquency

in Britain. London: Martin Robertson.

World Tourism Organisation. (1997). Tourism: 2020 vision. Madrid:

WTO.

ARTICLE IN PRESSR. George / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 575–585 585