Risk reduction and adventure tourism safety: An extension of the risk perception attitude framework (RPAF)

Abstract

Visitor safety is an important topic in adventure tourism but remains underexplored. Using a psychological approach, this study applies and extends Rimal and Real's risk perception attitude framework to include personality traits and emotions to understand adventure tourists' safety behaviours on site. Focusing on tidal-bore watching activities in China, this study consists of two phases: interviews with nine local stakeholders followed by a field survey involving 302 visitors.Cluster analyses were conducted and three visitors' groups were identified that varied in risk perception attitudes and safety behaviours. Mediation analyses were conducted to explore the role played by worry during visitors' decision-making related to safety behaviours. Based on the findings, this study provided managerial insight for developing risk communication strategies to engage visitors in self-protective behaviour. This study also provided recommendations on how to improve visitors' safety and to protect their lives in adventure-tourism sites in China.

Adventure or amusement? Image and identity challenges for the aerial adventure industry and implications for positioning and policy

“…The human factor would appear to play a much greater role in risk management than compared to amusement rides. Recent research has recognised the impact on risk management the behaviour of staff and participants has within adventure tourism (Clinch and Filimonau, 2017;Wang et al, 2019;Mathisen, 2019). Whilst aerial adventure parks thrive on the element of perceived risks, similarly to commercial adventure tourism (Rantala et al, 2018;, actual risks still remain if not managed appropriately, with particular emphasis on the human factor.…”

“…"Adventure" implies action, meaning this is not a passive experience, but one which is engaging, absorbing and requires commitment, both mentally and physically, from the participant as they go through the activity and through interaction with staff (Rantala et al, 2018). Indeed, the roles of staff and participants in relation to risk management of commercial adventure tourism has already been highlighted in previous research (Clinch & Filimonau, 2017;Giddy, 2018;Wang et al, 2019). To the contrary, amusement rides are inherently more passive experiences (Holyfield, 1999).…”

“…Giddy & Webb (2016) described adventure tourism as activities involving risks, thus arguably supporting this argument. In addition, whilst risk traditionally has negative connotations, in aerial adventure and adventure tourism, the connotation is largely positive (Wang et al, 2019). It is worth noting, though, this is a managed risk that, to a certain extent, becomes a perceived risk instead in commercial adventure tourism (Mackenzie & Kerr, 2013).…”

“…174) points out that 'today's adventure companies now compete to provide excitement and other intense emotions while guaranteeing the safety of those who do not actually wish to risk their lives experiencing these sensations'. Research suggests that whilst responsibility of participant safety has shifted from participants to operators as adventure tourism has commercialised, some responsibility still lies with the participant through their behaviours (Cater, 2006;Wang et al, 2019). Seemingly, risk is sufficiently more inherent in this type of activity as compared to traditional amusement rides, although this is still somewhat manufactured.…”

“…Giddy (2018) for example, reported on a relative lack of experience, often none, among participants in commercial adventure tourism, in relation to the specific activity at hand, which is also likely to shape the participants' image of the activity. Understanding this role, in relation to risk management procedures, therefore becomes critical to our understanding of the subsequent managerial and policy implications when positioning the industry appropriately (Giddy, 2018;Wang et al, 2019). Unlike previous research, which has mainly been interested in the consumer and, or, staff experience, this paper instead goes beyond this and seeks to understand how the industry is perceived by state agencies and the managerial and policy implications this may have going forward.…”