ISRAELI BACKPACKERS

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 222–246, 2009 0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2008.11.002

ISRAELI BACKPACKERS The Role of Destination Choice Arie Reichel Ben-Gurion University, Israel Galia Fuchs College of Management, Israel Natan Uriely Ben-Gurion University, Israel Abstract: This quantitative study compares between backpackers who traveled to Central and South America with those who traveled to Southeast Asia in terms of attitudes and activities. A sample of Israeli ex-backpackers (N = 579) were interviewed by means of a structured questionnaire. The profiles of the two segments differ in terms of travel perceived risks, risk reduction strategies and other backpacker specific features. The findings indicate that the choice of a particular destination is associated with travel motivations, risk perceptions, trip planning, travel arrangements and risk reduction strategies. The results are discussed in light of recent studies indicating the increasing heterogeneity among backpackers, adding dimensions that were not previously explored. Keywords: destination choice, backpacking, segmentation, risk perception, risk reduction strategies. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Previous studies suggest that backpackers constitute a distinct category of tourism that differs from institutionalized mass tourism (Cohen 1972, 1973; Riley 1988; Sørensen 2003; Uriely, Yonay and Simchai 2002). However, the literature also indicates that backpacking is becoming less distinct from institutionalized tourism (Ateljevic and Doorne 2004; Hampton 1998; Loker-Murphy and Pearce 1995 and Schvvens 2002) and that backpacking cannot be regarded as a homogeneous category of tourism (Cohen 1972, 1973, 2003; Loker-Murphy 1996; Maoz 1999, 2007; Riley 1988; Uriely et al 2002). The existing variations in attitudes and behavior within the backpacking community are often associated with personal characteristics, such as the backpacker’s social class (Cohen 2003), age (Maoz 1999), gender (Elsrud 2001; Noy 2004) and country of origin (Noy and Cohen 2005; Maoz 2007; Teo and Leong 2006). However, several journalistic documentations Arie Reichel is the Dean of the Guilford Glazer School of Business and Management at BenGurion University, P.O. Box 653, Beer Sheva, Israel 84105, E-mail: [email protected]. He specializes in service marketing and management. Dr. Galia Fuchs is lecturer in the College of Management, Israel. She specializes in service marketing. Natan Uriely is Associate Professor at the Department of Hotel and Tourism Management at Ben-Gurion University. He specializes in tourism studies. 222

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

223

(Emmons 2000; Jidivijak 2004; Maneerungsee 2001) and ethnographic studies (Spreitzhofer 1998), which point toward differences between urban and rural enclaves of backpackers, suggest that attitudinal and behavioral variations within the backpacking community might also be related to the backpacker’s chosen region or destination of travel. Specifically, it is suggested that destination choice can serve as a basis for segmentation, as it is possibly related to attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of travel patterns. In this regard, note that the linkage between backpackers’ motives and their choice of visited destinations was empirically confirmed in a study on backpackers in Australia (LokerMurphy 1996). Yet, the issue of destination visited is only briefly addressed in Loker-Murphy’s study and requires further attention. The destinations that backpackers choose to visit and their typical routes of travel are considered, among other things, as seminal characteristics that distinguish them from mass tourists (Cohen 1972; Elsrud 2001; Maoz 2005; Noy 2004; Uriely et al 2002). In this context, contemporary backpacking literature stresses the role of geographical perception in backpackers’ identity formation. Specifically, backpackers’ expressions of self-identity and notion of self-fulfillment appear to be strongly associated with experiences in destinations that backpackers perceive as ‘‘far-away’’, ‘‘exotic’’, ‘‘authentic’’ and ‘‘spiritual’’ (Elsrud 2001; Hutnyk 1996, 1999; Noy 2004; Sørensen 2003). However, while destination choice is recognized as a symbolic key feature of backpacking, the literature lacks a systematic comparison between backpackers who travel to different geographical destinations. Such an inquiry appears to be useful in light of the growing diversity among destinations that host backpackers. In accordance with the conventional development process of tourist destinations (Butler 1980; Smith 1977), some of the destinations that were initially exclusively associated with backpacking were transformed over time into Western-like commercialized tourist spaces. For example, such processes were identified in the beaches of Goa in India and the beaches of Koh Sammui and Koh Phangan in Thailand (Westerhausen 2002), as well as in Khao San Road in Bangkok (Teo and Leong 2006). One might assume that the backpackers in these destinations would differ in terms of attitudes and activities from backpackers who defy the institutionalization of backpacking and, thus, travel to less developed destinations that are still exclusively associated with backpacking. Note that this assumption receives support in the aforementioned segmentation of backpackers’ within Australia (Loker-Murphy 1996). In an attempt to further advance this line of inquiry, the current study examines differences between Israelis who went backpacking in South and Central America and their counterparts in Southeast Asia. The historical development of Israeli backpacking is closely related to the features of a society that is geographically located in the ‘‘Middle East’’ but aspires to be perceived ‘‘Western’’ (Maoz 2007). Since the 1970’s, the quest for a ‘‘Western’’ identity has been manifested, among other phenomena, in the constantly growing popularity of backpacking-oriented trips to two major destinations in ‘‘Third World’’ countries: South or Central America and Southeast Asia. While the

224

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

former is occasionally addressed in Israeli terminology as ‘‘Latin America’’, the latter is usually referred to by Israeli backpackers as ‘‘The Far East’’ (Hamizrach Ha-Rachok). For Israelis, both destinations are geographically and culturally distant enough to be disassociated from the negative imagery of the ‘‘Middle East’’. At the same time, both destinations are also perceived as distant enough from ‘‘Western’’ and ‘‘Modern’’ culture and, thus, become suitable for backpacking. In this regard, the quest to be perceived as ‘‘Western’’ is paradoxically practiced by traveling mainly to ‘‘Non-Western’’ countries (‘‘Western’’ destinations, such as the US and Australia, might also be included in the conventional backpacking path but mostly for temporary work-related purposes). Note, however, that previous research suggests that although both aforementioned destinations are associated in Israel with backpacking, their tourist imagery is not identical. Specifically, the imagery of the ‘‘Far East’’ among Israeli backpackers has been that of spirituality, involving the activities of periods of sojourn in ashrams, passive relaxation on tropical beaches and the use of drugs (Mevorach 1997; Maoz 2004, 2005, 2007; Noy and Cohen 2005). In contrast, South and Central American destinations share an image of adventure-related sites that involve risky activities and extreme sports in natural settings, such as jungle trekking and mountain climbing (Noy and Cohen 2005). In congruence with the prevailing orientation of most backpacking research to rely mainly on qualitative methods, these observations rely predominantly on the researchers’ impressionistic interpretations derived from interviews and ethnographic data. Thus, a systematic quantitative comparison between Israeli backpackers who traveled to Southeast Asia versus those who traveled to South and Central America appears to be useful in an attempt to validate these observations. Furthermore, such a comparison would shed light on the role of destination choice as a discerning factor and segmentation basis within the backpacking population. Based on a large survey of Israelis who experienced backpacking (N = 579), the current study aims to fill these gaps in the literature by comparing the segment of respondents who traveled to Central and South America (N = 179) with those who traveled to Southeast Asia (N = 233) in terms attitudes and activities. Specifically, the profiles of the two segments will be compared and contrasted in terms of travel motivations, perceived risk, trip planning, travel arrangements and risk reduction strategies. BACKPACKER SEGMENTATION The heterogeneous nature of backpacking was already suggested in Cohen’s distinction between drifters and explorers (1972). In a subsequent article Cohen (1973) also pointed out differences between inward-oriented and outward-oriented drifters and between full-time and part-time drifters. Fifteen years later, Riley (1988) addressed the different motivations that exist among backpackers. Specifically, she argued that that while some backpackers are motivated by hedonistic considerations and perceive their trip as a period of recreation, others

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

225

are interested in meaningful experiences for self-development. Similarly, Uriely et al (2002) empirically demonstrated how Israeli backpackers differ in the degree of alienation from the home culture and thus travel in quest for different modes of tourist experiences. Their argument regarding the plural nature of backpacking is also based on the finding that some individual backpackers, referred to as ‘‘multi-type backpackers’’, corresponded to his single trip. Interestingly, one of the examples that Uriely et al (2002) provide for such a ‘‘multi-type backpacker’’ seems to comply with the aforementioned images of South America and Southeast Asia among Israeli backpackers: the former as a destination for adventure seekers and the latter as a destination that corresponds with those in search of passive relaxation and spirituality. Specifically, an Israeli backpacker whose trip included both destinations spoke about the following experiences: . . . ‘‘When I was in South America, I traveled like an adventurer who wants to reach the most remote destinations and hike the most challenging trails. When I arrived in Thailand, I needed to rest and went straight to the islands. I spent three weeks in Kho Pha-Ngan doing almost nothing except smoking dope and lying under the sun with other Israelis that I met there. After three weeks, I went to a meditation course in a Buddhist shrine that is also located in the south of Thailand. My ability to enjoy different kinds of experiences was also evident in India. I was fascinated by the sense of spirituality in Varanasi, and I had a great time in Goa, where moonlight parties with lots of drugs were the main attraction’’. . . (Uriely et al 2002:533).

The aforementioned Uriely et al (2002) study suggests that while backpacking appears to be heterogeneous in terms of the backpackers’ motivations and meanings (referred to as ‘‘type-related’’ attributes), the institutional arrangements and the practices associated with backpacking (referred to as ‘‘form-related’’ attributes), including the backpackers’ means of transportation and accommodation; flexibility of the itinerary; and patterns of planning, are yet to be further investigated The literature on backpacking also includes studies that associate attitudinal and behavioral variants within backpackers with individual socio-demographic characteristics, such as social class (Cohen 2003), age (Maoz 1999), gender (Elsrud 2001; Noy 2004) and country of origin (Noy and Cohen 2005; Maoz, 2007; Teo and Leong 2006). For example, Noy and Cohen (2005) suggest that Israelis and possibly Japanese differ from backpackers of other nationalities in terms of their inclination to restrict their interaction with co-nationals rather than with members of other nations. In this regard, previous studies on Israeli backpackers in both destinations the ‘‘Far East’’ and ‘‘Latin America’’ stress their inclination to establish national enclaves, in which many sojourn for extended periods (Maoz 2007; Uriely et al 2002). Accordingly, ‘‘Little Israel’’ sites can be easily found by recently arrived Israeli backpackers in various countries that attract backpackers, including India, Thailand, Australia, Columbia, Bolivia and Costa Rica. Cultural differences among backpackers were also studies by Noy and Cohen (2005) who found differences in musical fashions and use of drugs between middle-class and working-class backpackers. Dif-

226

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

ferences across age were addressed by Maoz (1999), who compared young Israeli backpackers with their older counterparts. Her study reveals that while the former tend to stay in the aforementioned backpacker enclaves and use them as a basis for tours, the latter spend prolonged periods of time in places that connect them to the local communities. Variations across gender were outlined with respect to the backpacking dimensions of risk taking and search for adventure. Empirical research in this area indicates that the risk and adventure narrative of travel appears to be more prominent among male rather than among female backpackers (Elsrud 2001; Noy 2004). As noted above, the literature tends to link the diverse nature of backpacking mainly with socio-demographic variables. In contrast, attitudinal and behavioral variants among backpackers were hardly associated with destination-related features, such as destination image, cost of living, type of available tourist attractions or the risk associated with the backpacking experience at a particular destination. However, a recent focus on a destination related dimensions by Teo and Leong (2006) utilize a postcolonial approach to depict the racialized and gendered nature of Khao San Road in Bangkok towards Asian Backpackers. Their study also indicates that the latter contest the Western domination in this well-known backpacker destination by increasing their numeric presence in specific spaces within it. The role of destination features was also addressed by ethnographers who observed differences between urban and rural enclaves of backpackers (Emmons 2000; Jidivijak 2004; Maneerungsee 2001; Spreitzhofer 1998). Specifically, these ethnographies indicate that while the former often serve backpackers’ instrumental purposes, such as trip arrangements and information gathering, the latter appear to be preferred for hedonistic purposes, including the use of drugs, participation in parties and rest. As noted by Cohen (2003), however, these differences as well as other developments within backpacking require further studies that are methodologically discerning, systematic and comparative. In this context, it is worth noting several studies that employed rigorous quantitative methods to measure backpackers’ behavior, such as spending patterns, favored accommodations and preferred activities in various destinations in Australia (Loker-Murphy 1996; Loker-Murphy and Pearce 1995). Specifically, the heterogeneous character of backpacking is stressed by Loker-Murphy (1996), who identifies four subgroups of backpackers with respect to their travel motivations: Escapers/Relaxers, Social/Excitement-Seekers, Self-Developers and Achievers. Based on Pearce’s ‘‘Travel Career Ladder’’ (1988), Loker-Murphy (1996) suggests that while the travel motivations of the Escapers/Relaxers address psychological needs of the lowest level, the Achievers seek to satisfy psychological needs of the highest level on Pearce’s ladder. A marginal part of this analysis indicates that Self-Developers were more likely to visit remote areas and destinations than Escapers/Relaxers. In terms of choice of accommodations, Self-Developers and Achievers were more likely to camp at national parks than Escapers/Relaxers. The most likely to stay in backpacker accommodations with shared facilities were Achiever and Social/Excitement-Seekers. Furthermore, Achievers

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

227

were ranked the highest and Self-developers the lowest in a variety of preplanned and structured activities. Clearly, Locker-Murphy’s types represent distinct segments within backpackers. The issue of travel risk is considered to be an integral part of the backpacking experience and central to the construction of backpacker identity (Elsrud 2001; Gibson and Jordan 1998a, b; Lepp and Gibson 2003). In addition, risk perceptions are strongly associated with tourists’ destination choice (Fuchs and Reichel 2004, 2006; Pizam and Mansfeld 1996; So¨nmez and Graefe 1998b). Accordingly, risk-related perceptions and behavior appear to be relevant to the attempt of this study to compare between backpackers who traveled to different destinations. In general, the tourism experience is prone to influence by specific factors, such as bad weather, unfriendly locals, airport strikes, distasteful local food, terror, crime, political unrest, disease, and natural disasters that raise the level of tourists’ perceived risk (Fuchs and Reichel 2004, 2006; Mansfeld 1992; Pizam and Mansfeld 1996; Reisinger and Mavondo 2005; Rohel and Fesenmaier 1992; Seaton and Bennett 1996; So¨nmez 1998; So¨nmez and Graefe 1998a; Tsaur, Tzeng and Wang 1997; Witt and Moutinho 1995). Reisinger and Mavondo (2005) utilized 13 travel risk perceptions ranging from cultural to equipment/functional, financial, health, physical, political, psychological, satisfaction, social, airplane hijacking, bomb explosion, biochemical attack, to time. As noted above, tourists’ perceived risk is also identified in the literature as a determinant of visitation patterns in various destinations. In this respect, So¨nmez and Graefe (1998b) examined types of risk associated with international travel and the overall degree of safety felt during such travel, as well as the effect on the likelihood of travel to, or avoidance of, certain geographic regions on the respondent’s next international vacation. Fuchs and Reichel (2004) compared and contrasted the destination risk perception of tourists from different nations and found destination risk perception to be a multidimensional concept that varies across nationalities and cultures. Reisinger and Mavondo (2005) found that travel risk perception was a function of cultural orientation and psychographic factors. Studies in the field of consumer behavior indicate that as soon as the consumer has experienced a certain level of risk, his/her behavior changes, from delaying the purchase, to using strategies designed to reduce the level of risk to ‘‘tolerable’’ (Mowen and Minor 1998; Roselius 1971). Among mass tourists, Fuchs and Reichel (2004) found risk reduction strategies ranging from collecting information to travel agents, friends and relatives, the Internet, to making short trips and choosing popular destinations. The issue of travel risk particularly associated with the backpacking experience was the focus of several studies. For example, Lepp and Gibson (2003) associate higher levels of perceived risk with organized and individual mass tourists. Accordingly, Lepp and Gibson (2003) conclude that what may be a source of concern for conventional mass tourists may be a source of excitement for explorers and drifters (akin to backpackers). This perspective is congruent with early conceptual-

228

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

izations of non-institutionalized tourists as adventure seekers (Cohen 1972; Vogt 1976). Furthermore, it receives support from Elsrud (2001) who found that risk and adventure are central to the construction of backpacker identity. Specifically, it appears that backpackers’ narratives tend to include accounts on their supposedly adventurous experiences as part of their attempt to distinguish themselves from conventional mass tourists (Elsrud 2001). Nevertheless, a recent study by Reichel, Fuchs and Uriely (2007) indicates that backpacker experience risk perceptions are multidimensional and seem to be relatively similar to the perceptions of individual and organized mass tourists. To conclude, the issue of backpacker experience risk perceptions requires further investigation. In this context, additional risk issues such as risk reduction strategies should be examined as well. In this respect, it can be assumed that searching for information on the selected destination from various sources or consulting with peers would serve to reduce risk perceptions. These practices may boost confidence in the decision to travel in general and about a choice of destinations, in particular. Note that none of the studies on backpackers has yet employed quantitative research methods to compare backpackers in a specific destination with their counterparts in another destination in terms of behavioral profiles. The only exception is Locker-Murphy’s study that briefly mentions destination choice within Australia. In addition, taking into account the relatively limited empirical and quantitative research on the risk perception of the backpacker experience, the current study will attempt to identify the various dimensions of backpacking experience risk perceptions. Given recent indications of the growing heterogeneity within backpacking in terms of motivation, risk perceptions, attitudes and personal characteristics (Ateljevic and Doorne 2004; Cohen 2003; Maoz 2005; Riley 1988; Uriely et al 2002; Reichel et al 2007), it is expected that the risk perceptions as well as risk reduction strategies associated with the backpacking experience would be heterogeneous as well. In this context, the study examines possible variations in risk perceptions of backpackers whose destination was South America versus the Far East. As noted above, these two destinations are the prime choice of Israeli backpackers (Maoz 2005) .The current study is based on the assumption that apparent differences would exist between the two segments not only in terms of risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies, but also in terms of their motives, planning patterns and kinds of transportation and accommodation. In sum, the purpose of this exploratory study is to compare the backpacking experience behavioral profiles of sub-segments who selected different parts of the world as their destinations. In this study, Israeli backpackers who chose the Far East as their destination versus those who chose to travel in South America are compared. The comparison is conducted in terms of the following dimensions: motives for the backpacking experience, risk perception associated with that experience, risk reduction strategies, planning patterns and kinds of transportation and accommodation.

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

229

Method To explore backpackers’ risk perception, risk reduction strategies, motives and planning mode, a questionnaire was applied. The risk perception part of the questionnaire is based on Fuchs and Reichel’s (2004, 2006) questionnaire, which measures tourist destination risk perception. This questionnaire was designed according to accumulated literature on consumer risk perceptions as well as specific tourist destination risk perceptions, that is, Rohel and Fesenmaier (1992), So¨nmez (1998), So¨nmez and Graefe (1998a, b), Tsaur et al (1997). The above questionnaire was adapted to the backpacker segment by referring to the literature about backpacking experience and motives (e.g., Elsrud 2001; Lepp and Gibson 2003) and through a series of indepth interviews conducted by the authors with 12 backpackers who at the time attended two major universities in Israel. The interviews were semi-structured, focusing on the backpacking experience and on risk perception toward the trip and destination chosen. Specific issues raised by the backpackers were integrated into the questionnaire. For example, statements such as ‘‘I worried that at the delay in joining the workforce or in acquiring education because of the trip would influence my future success’’; ‘‘I worried that my behavior during the trip would have a negative effect on Israelis I might encounter in some circumstances in the future’’ and ‘‘In case you had planned to experience the use of drugs, you worried about the side effects of the drugs.’’(See Appendix A for sample of questions on backpacker risk perceptions). The final questionnaire begins with a clarifying question as to whether the respondent has had a backpacking experience during the last three years. The following section deals with motives for visiting the last backpacking destination, such as visiting new sights, new experiences and meeting local people. The next part of the questionnaire includes questions about planning the trip and actual implementation, including fellow travelers and modes of transportation and accommodation. Next, the aforementioned questions about the risk perception of the backpacking trip before it took place were included. The respondents were asked about perceptions prior to their trip in order to assess their level of risk prior to the experience, that is, before risk reduction strategies were employed and possibly also before their trip took place. The questionnaire also included information about past experience and socio-demographics. The backpacker-adapted questionnaire was tested for clarity on a group of 16 students with backpacking experience. After minor modifications, the final version of the questionnaire was ready for distribution. A group of six tourism and hospitality management students were trained in administering questionnaires as part of a senior year seminar. The students were closely supervised by the authors. The sampling method was similar to snowball effect. The core group of backpackers was identified through a call for participation in a study on backpackers posted at the authors’ institutions. At an early stage of data collec-

230

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

tion, it became apparent that backpackers form a special bond that enabled us to contact numerous subjects based on recommendations of fellow backpackers. Moreover, approximately half of the subjects were approached on the train, while on their way to school. This informal non-random method yielded hundreds of responses, as most of those who identified themselves as having backpacking experience were ready to cooperate. The informal Israeli culture, as evident during inter-city train rides, makes it simple to approach people and ask for cooperation without a sense of intrusion. Note that the response rate is impossible to estimate, as it was not clear who did not agree to respond based on lack of motivation or lack of backpacking experience. Nevertheless, the unusually large sample, total of 579 usable questionnaires, gives a certain level of parametric statistic comfort. Out of the total sample, only those who indicated their first backpacking trip either to South America or to the Far East were included in the comparative analyses (n = 412). Specifically, out of total 412 first time visitors, 233 backpackers chose to travel to the Far East and 179 chose to travel to South America. These two destinations are the most popular choice for Israeli backpackers (Maoz 2005). Other destinations included Africa and Europe. Results Out of the 579 respondents, 302 (52.2%) were male, and 277 (47.8%) were female. The average age was 25. The youngest was 19 and the oldest 39. The respondents averaged 14 years of formal education. Most of the respondents (94.6%) served in the military, mandatory service in Israel. Among those who served in the military, 204 (37%) served in combat units. As noted above, 233 chose the Far East while 179 chose South America. These two groups of backpackers were compared and contrasted regarding the issues of perceived risk, risk reduction strategies, motives for the trip and planning mode. Backpacker Background. In order to examine background differences between the two groups in terms of gender, military service and military combat experience, cross-tabulations with v2 (Chi-square) tests were employed. Accordingly, it was found that destination choice is independent of gender, military service and military combat experience. (See Appendix B). Differences between the two groups in terms of age were examined by means of t-Test. The results indicated that the average age in the Far East group was 25.2 with standard deviation of 2.0, and the average age in the South American group was 25 with standard deviation of 2.3. Clearly, the two groups are almost identical age wise (t = 0.76, p = 0.65). Perceived Risks. To examine differences between the two groups in terms of risk perception, a two-step analysis was carried out. First, risk

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

231

perception dimensions were identified by means of factor analysis. The second step involved a discriminant analysis of the two groups. As noted earlier, risk dimensions were measured based on Fuchs and Reichel’s (2004) destination risk perception questionnaire. Specific additional questions related to the backpacking experience originating from in-depth interviews with backpackers were added to this questionnaire as illustrated in the aforementioned Method section. Principal components analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation was used to extract perceived risks of the backpacking experience. A summary of the results of the PCA are presented in Table 1. The cut-off point of variable inclusion in a particular factor was above 0.5 (see: Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham 2006: 129). Accordingly, twenty five variables were grouped into 8 factors. Factor 1, ‘‘Site-related physical’’, captures the risk perception which stems from visiting particular destinations. Factor 2, ‘‘Socio-psychological’’, reflects the socio-psychological risk stemming from the backpacker’s decision to take the trip. Factor 3, ‘‘Physical harm’’, focuses on possible physical harm. Factor 4, ‘‘Expectations’’, indicates the fear that the trip would fall short of the expectations. Factor 5, ‘‘Socio-political’’, encompasses the fear of danger that stems from the socio-political condition of the destination. Factor 6, ‘‘Financial risk’’, reflects the financial risk involved in selecting a particular destination. Factor 7, ‘‘Mass risk’’, depicts the worry of over-commercialized and crowded sites. Factor 8, ‘‘Behavioral risk’’, represents the fear of the possibility of danger due to the backpacker’s behavior. The above eight risk factors account for 62.65% of the total variance and were used for the comparison between the backpackers who chose South America versus those who chose Far East. The comparison between the risk perception profiles of each group of backpackers, based on their destination choice, was carried out by means of discriminant analysis. Discriminant analysis is used primarily to predict membership in two or more mutually exclusive groups (Churchill and Iacobucci 2005). This multivariate technique addresses the situation of a nonmetric dependent variable (in our case, group membership of either ‘‘South America’’ or the ‘‘Far East’’). In this type of situation, the researcher is interested in prediction and explanation of the relationships that affect the category in which a particular person is located (Hair et al 2006). Standardized discriminant coefficients are used to compare the contributions of the independent variables as predictors of group membership regardless of the scales used for measuring each variable. As such, the standardized coefficients are interpreted in much the same way as regression coefficients (Churchill and Iacobucci 2005). The signs of the coefficients are arbitrary, but they indicate which variable values results in large and small function values and associate them with particular groups. This interpretation of the association between group membership and particular independent variables can be determined by the sign of the group centroids versus the signs of the standardized discriminant weights (Malhotra 2007). In our case, for example, a particular risk perception profile (a combination of variables) serves as a predictor of classification into the choice of either

232

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

Table 1. Backpackers Risk Perception: Principal Components Analysis Results (Varimax Rotation) Factor

Loading

Factor 1 ‘‘Site-related physical’’ Q37 Food safety Q45 Food taste Q38 Cheating Q51 Acceptability of facilities Q46 Crime Q56 Diseases

0.78 0.70 0.62 0.60 0.56 0.55

Factor 2 ‘‘Socio-psychological’’ Q57 Self-image Q50 Way family thinks Q44 Negative impression in the future Q62 Way friends thinks Q43 Effect on future success

0.73 0.69 0.66 0.66 0.61

Factor 3 ‘‘Physical Harm’’ Q41 Car accidents Q61 Natural disasters Q58 Injury Q48 Terrorism

0.73 0.66 0.65 0.58

Factor 4 ‘‘Expectation’’ Q66 Not meet the expectation Q60 Dissatisfaction Q67 Make a mistake in choosing the destination Q55 Waste of time

0.77 0.77 0.74 0.56

Factor 5 ‘‘Socio-political’’ Q52 Political unrest Q54 Hostile natives Q49 Strikes

0.69 0.67 0.63

Factor 6 ‘‘Financial’’ Q40 Unexpected extra expenses Q47 Impact on financial situation Q66 More expensive than other destinations

0.77 0.70 0.62

Factor 7 ‘‘Mass’’ Q59 Commercialized Q64 Crowded

0.81 0.77

Factor 8 ‘‘Behavioral’’ Q63 Side effects of drugs Q42 Negative impressions on locals

0.66 0.62

% of Variance Explained

Eigenvalue

10.53

3.27

9.18

2.92

8.92

2.85

8.13

2.82

7.96

2.53

7.38

2.29

5.87

1.83

0.47

1.44

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

233

the ‘‘Far-East’’ or ‘‘South America’’. Also, these profiles might serve as possible multivariate characteristics of the two groups under investigation. Specifically, while originally serving as independent variables aimed at predicting group membership, in our case to one of two possible destination choices, they can be interpreted as ‘‘determinants’’ or ‘‘sub-segment profiles’’. In addition, Wilkes’ Lambda is often used to test the statistical significance of the discriminant function. Large values of Lambda indicate that group means do not appear different, while small values indicate differences between these means. Examining the signs of the discriminant function coefficients in reference to the signs of the two centroids as depicted in Table 2, indicates that Far-East backpackers are associated with a profile consisted of ‘‘mass’’, ‘‘socio-psychological’’, ‘‘physical harm’’, ‘‘behavioral’’ and ‘‘expectations’’ risk dimensions. South America backpackers, on the other hand, are associated primarily with ‘‘socio-political’’ and ‘‘financial’’ risk dimensions. The classification results indicated 59.1% correctly classified cases. Wilkes’ Lambda for the above function is 0.94 (p = 0.02), indicating the group means are different. Risk Reduction Strategies. Table 3 depicts the results of discriminant analysis comparing the Far East and South America segments in terms of risk reduction strategies. Interpreting Table 3 in line with the above analysis indicates that the Far East backpackers are associated with searching for information in magazines and to a lesser degree are associated with limiting the duration of the trip and gathering information from friends. On the other hand, the South America backpackers are associated mainly with search for information in stores and meeting places of backpackers, from travel guides, the Internet and travel agents. The discriminate

Table 2. Discriminant Analysis Results of Far East versus South America Backpackers Risk Dimensions Risk Dimensions ‘‘Mass’’ ‘‘Socio-psychological’’ ‘‘Socio–political’’ ‘‘Financial’’ ‘‘Expectation’’ ‘‘Behavioral’’ ‘‘Site-related physical’’ ‘‘Physical Harm’’

Standardized Coefficients 0.62 0.58 0.63 0.67 0.13 0.23 0.05 0.26 Functions at Group Centroids

1—‘‘Far East’’ backpackers N = 232 2—South America backpackers N = 179 Wilks’ Lambda = 0.94 Chi-square = 24.10, df = 8, Sig. = 0.02

0.22 0.28

234

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

function correctly classified 60.6% of the cases. Wilks’ Lambda for the above function of risk reduction strategies is 0.93 (p = 0.02), demonstrating that the group means are different. Motives for the Trip. As indicated by Table 4, Far East backpackers are primarily associated with the following motives: spiritual growth, detachment from modern life, detachment from Israeli society, experimenting with drugs and seeing new places. The South America segment, on the other hand, is associated with extreme sports, time off, checking the possibility of living else where, entertainment and to lesser degree getting acquainted with new cultures. The classification results indicated 67.00% correctly classified cases. Wilkes’ Lambda for the above function is 0.89 (p = 0.00), demonstrating that the group means are different. Early Planning. Table 5 depicts the results of the discriminate analysis comparing the two groups in terms of early planning. As can be interpreted from Table 5, Far East backpackers are associated with early planning of the length of stay at each destination. Their South America counterparts, on the other hand, are mainly associated with early planning of destination alternatives. The classification results indicated 60.2% correctly classified cases. Wilkes’ Lambda, for the ‘‘early planning’’ function is 0.97 (p = 0.05), indicating that group means are different.

Table 3. Discriminant Analysis of Far East versus South America Backpackers— Risk Reduction Strategies Risk Reduction Strategies

Searching for information in stores and meeting places of backpackers Searching for information in travel guides Searching for information on the Internet Gathering information from travel agents Gathering information from friends Cooperative decision making Consulting with people who had previously visited the destinations Limiting the duration of the trip Reducing the cost of the trip Avoiding dangerous destinations Searching for information in magazines

Standardized Coefficients 0.84 0.31 0.24 0.11 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.19 0.06 0.01 0.53 Functions at Group Centroids

1—‘‘Far East’’ backpackers N = 233 2—South America backpackers N = 179 Wilks’ Lambda = 0.93 Chi-square = 24.40, df = 11, Sig. = 0.02

Centroid 0.24 Centroid 0.32

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

235

Choice of Accommodation and Transportation. Table 6 depicts the results of discriminant analysis comparing the Far East and South America segments in terms of their choices of accommodations and means of transportation. As demonstrated in Table 6, Far East backpackers are associated mainly with purchasing of vehicles and staying in guests houses. South America backpackers, on the other hand, are associated mainly with sleeping bags, participating in organized trips, renting cars and utilizTable 4. Discriminant Analysis of Far East versus South America Backpackers—Motives for the Trip Motives

Standardized Coefficients

Extreme sports Spiritual growth Treks Detachment from Israeli society Experimenting with drugs Entertainment Detachment from modern life Time off Parties Personal coping Seeing new places Checking the possibility of living else where Enjoying new experiences Meeting locals Getting acquainted with new cultures

0.84 0.32 0.02 0.31 0.23 0.17 0.32 0.35 0.05 0.01 0.21 0.18 0.09 0.06 0.15 Functions at Group Centroids

1—‘‘Far East’’ backpackers N = 231 2—South America backpackers N = 178

Centroid 0.31 Centroid 0.40

Wilks’ Lambda = 0.89 Chi-square = 47.36, df = 15, Sig. = 0.00

Table 5. Discriminant Analysis Far East Backpackers versus South America Backpackers—Early Planning Early Planning Early planning of destination alternatives Early planning of the duration of stay at each destination Early planning of return date

Standardized Coefficients 0.67 0.17 0.01 Functions at Group Centroids

1—‘‘Far East’’ backpackers N = 232 2—South America backpackers N = 178 Wilks’ Lambda = 0.97 Chi-square = 13.02, df = 8, Sig. = 0.05

Centroid 0.16 Centroid 0.21

236

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

ing public transportation. The classification results indicated 71.5% correctly classified cases. Wilkes’ Lambda for the ‘‘choice of accommodation and transportation’’ function is 0.75 (p = 0.00), signifying that the group means are different. CONCLUSIONS The backpacking phenomenon has become significant in both social and economic terms. Once a small negligible sector of drifters, who were often unwelcome by local authorities, backpackers have become a powerful tourist segment whose economic benefits to developing host communities are well established. This apparent change might be linked to the growing similarities between backpackers and institutionalized tourists (Hampton 1998; Loker-Murphy and Pearce 1995 and Schvvens 2002) as well as to the growing diversity among backpackers (Cohen 1972, 1973, 2003; Noy and Cohen 2005; Riley 1988; Uriely et al 2002). The assumption of this paper was that in addition to these developments, backpackers can be distinguished according to their choice of a particular destination. Put it in simple terms, it can be argued that stating the destination of choice can predict to which segment of backpacker the person belongs. Furthermore, the profiles of each segment can be depicted in terms of travel risk perceptions, risk reduction strategies, motives for the trip, planning mode, as well as preferred type of transportation and accommodation. Clearly, the current study illustrates not only the heterogeneous nature of the backpacker segment as related to the choice of a destination region on the globe, but also identifies specific profiles of individuals associated with a particular choice. Specifically, the current study indiTable 6. Discriminant Analysis Results Far East versus South America Backpackers Accommodation and Transportation Means Accommodation and Transportation Sleeping bags Participating in organized trips Guides Purchasing of vehicles Renting of cars Public Transportation Hitchhiking Staying with locals Staying in hotels Staying in guests houses

Standard Coefficients 0.64 0.48 0.02 0.49 0.40 0.39 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.22 Functions at Group Centroids

1—‘‘Far East’’ backpackers N = 232 2—South America backpackers N = 175 Wilks’ Lambda = 0.75 Chi-square = 114.69, df = 10, Sig. = 0.00

Centroid 0.50 Centroid 0.66

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

237

cates that Israeli backpackers who chose to travel to ‘‘Far East’’ are associated with motives of spiritual growth; detachment from Israeli society; experimenting with drugs; detachment from modern life; and seeing new places. In contrast, South America backpackers are associated with the motives of extreme sports; entertainment; time off; checking the possibility of living else where; entertainment; and to lesser degree getting acquainted with new cultures. These results are fairly but not fully consistent with previous research regarding the imagery of these two destinations among Israeli backpackers. Specifically, the results of the current analysis are congruent with the imagery of the ‘‘Far East’’ (Southeast Asia) among Israeli backpackers as ‘‘spiritual’’, associated with periods of sojourn in ashrams and the consumption of drugs (Dayan 1999; Maoz 2007; Mevorach 1997; Noy and Cohen 2005). Also, the revealed profile of the backpackers destined for South America is congruent to a large degree with Noy and Cohen’s (2005) observation of South and Central American destinations as having an image of adventure-related sites that involve risky activities and extreme sports in natural settings, such as jungle trekking and mountain climbing. By and large, the differences between the two profiles can be interpreted with reference to Maoz’s (2004) distinction between the sluggish ‘‘settlers’’ group who tends to settle for long periods in backpackers’ enclaves and the restless ‘‘conquerors’’ group of Israeli backpacker who wish to ‘‘conquer the land by foot’’ (Maoz 2004:111). Specifically, the ‘‘settlers’’/‘‘conquerors’’ distinction can be applied to the analysis of the profiles of Israeli backpackers’ destination choice groups: The former are more likely to go to Southeast Asia, whereas the latter seem to favor South and Central America. Additional support for this distinction derives from the revealed travel arrangements of the two groups. The Far East backpackers are associated with early planning of the length of stay at each destination; an inclination to stay in guest-houses (usually located in backpackers’ enclaves); and purchasing cars. Their South American counterparts, on the other hand, are associated with early planning of destination alternatives; using sleeping bags; participating in organized trips; renting cars; and utilizing public transportation. Their use of various means of transportation, flexibility in accommodation and their willingness to consider various alternative destinations within the region of choice may reflects their active and flexible approach to travel. These revealed differences in the backpackers’ travel arrangements also suggest that in addition to the heterogeneity of backpacking as a type of tourism, there is a certain level of heterogeneity in terms of form of tourism (Uriely et al 2002). With respect to the issue travel risk, the results of the current study are not congruent with previous literature depicting backpackers as voluntary risk takers and adventure seekers (Cohen 1972; Elsrud 2001; Lepp and Gibson 2003; Vogt 1976). Instead, the results provide support to Reichel et al (2007) observation that contemporary backpacking complies with conventional consumer behavior and becomes less distinct from institutionalized forms of tourism. In this context, the findings of the current study can be conceptually compared with

238

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

the results of two previous studies on institutionalized tourist (Fuchs and Reichel 2004, 2006), given that the risk-perception scales utilized in here are based significantly on the latter. It appears that compared to the institutionalized tourists, backpackers seem to put more emphasize on issues related to the social environment and personal internal processes. In addition, backpackers specifically express fears about the consequences of a trip on their academic studies, career development and self image. This may stem from the uniqueness of this segment’s age or life style. Nevertheless, the comparison between the current study and the studies of Fuchs and Reichel (2004, 2006) reveals similarities in terms of both the structure and the content of the perceived risk factors. Specifically, many of the risk dimensions revealed in the current study, such as ‘‘financial’’, ‘‘socio-psychological’’, ‘‘physical harm’’ and ‘‘expectation’’ risk factors are quite similar to the risk dimensions found by Fuchs and Reichel (2004, 2006). Both backpackers of the current study and the institutionalized mass tourists studied by Fuchs and Reichel (2004, 2006) establish tourist risk perceptions as a multi-dimensional phenomenon, congruent with consumer behavior literature (Bettman 1973, 1975; Dowling 1986; Grahame, Dowling and Staelin 1994; Reichel et al 2007; Jacoby and Kaplan 1972; Peter and Ryan 1976; Zikmund and Scott 1973) as well as with other studies on perceived risk in tourism (Reisinger and Mavondo, 2005; Rohel and Fesenmaier, 1992; So¨nmez, 1998; So¨nmez and Graefe, 1998a; Tsaur et al 1997). With regard to the revealed differences between the two destination-related profiles, the South American segment was characterized by socio-political and financial risks. On the other hand, the ‘‘Far-East’’ segment is concerned with masses, physical harm, socio-psychological factors, unmet expectations and behavioral risks. It can be argued that the former risk factors are relatively easy to assess and even somewhat ‘‘objective’’. With the exception of ‘‘physical harm’’, the risk factors associated with the ‘‘Far-East’’ segment are highly subjective, focusing on the human dimension of the backpacking experience: the perception of their behavior in the eyes of locals; the chosen destination will be too commercial and crowded; dissatisfaction with the trip; and the compatibility (or rather incompatibility) of the trip with self-image. It appears that in comparison to their counterparts, the ‘‘Far-East’’ backpackers are more concerned with their symbolic status as backpackers than institutionalized tourists. This interpretation is congruent with both the observed sensitivity of Western backpackers in Asia to ‘‘road status’’ (Sørensen 2003), and the transformation of seminal backpacker destinations in Asia into commercialized tourist spaces (Teo and Leong 2006; Westerhausen 2002). The differences between the two segments can be added to the growing, yet limited, set of studies that illustrate that different psychological, cultural, psychographic as well as demographic dimensions of tourist segments are associated with different patterns or profiles of travel and destination risk perceptions (Fuchs and Reichel 2004; Lepp and Gibson 2003; Reisinger and Mavondo 2005). The comparison between the two segments in terms of risk reduction means was highly exploratory, due to the lack of previous studies that

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

239

has dealt with such issues before. The results of the current study justify the exploratory approach by indicating interesting patterns. Specifically, the South America group is associated with numerous means for risk reduction. They search for information in stores and meeting places of backpackers, utilize travel guides and the Internet, and gather information from travel agents. Their ‘‘Far East’’ counterparts appear to be less active in terms of risk reduction behavior. They are associated mainly with the risk reduction strategy of searching for information in magazines, and to a lesser degree with limiting the duration of the trip and gathering information from friends. This can be attributed to two alternative explanations: One, the aforementioned risks associated with the South America group can be actually mitigated and reduced through the application of the given repertoire of risk reduction strategies. However, the highly subjective and human-oriented risks associated with ‘‘Far East’’ travelers can hardly be mitigated by utilizing external ‘‘hard data’’ risk reduction strategies. A more internal psychological process of self-assurance and conviction are possibly needed. Two, these findings can be alternatively interpreted along with the aforementioned ‘‘settlers’’/‘‘conquerors’’ distinction (Maoz 2004). Specifically, compared to those who travel to Southeast Asia, the Israeli backpackers who travel to South America are more mobile in terms of destinations visited and tend to utilize more diversified means of transportation and accommodation. Accordingly, they also need to be more proactive in terms of preparing themselves to the possible risks associated with the different conditions they plan to engage in. From a marketing perspective, it is relatively easy in the South American case to supply the requisite information to travel agents, stores and meeting places of backpackers, develop sites on the Internet and issue travel guides that will mitigate this segment’s risk perceptions. The images associated with the revealed destination-related profiles might serve as themes for positioning and promoting destinations. Given that some of the communities in both regions of choice face dire economic conditions, the backpackers segment can be of paramount economic significance and contribute to local communities. Note, however, that the symbolic images of both the ‘‘Far East’’ and South America among Israeli backpackers reflects a Western-centric perspective that refers to theses relatively deprived destinations mainly as exotic playgrounds, in which pleasure and self-fulfillment can be gained (Hutnyk 1996, 1999; Teo and Leong 2006). This hegemonic perspective might comply with the desire of Israelis in general and Israeli backpackers in particular to be regarded as ‘‘Westerns’’ (Maoz 2007), but this might also be considered offensive by the growing number of Asians and other non-Westerns backpackers (Teo and Leong 2006). In response to the increasing participation of the latter in the backpacking market segment, the positioning and promotion of contemporary backpacker destinations in line with their Western-centric images should be reconsidered. Specifically, it is argued that even in terms of economic viability, backpacker destinations should move away from images and themes that exclude non-Western backpackers and adopt a more egalitarian discourse that responds to demographic changes.

240

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

To achieve this goal, future studies need to focus on the consumption of backpacker destinations by non-Western backpackers. The current study consists of four limitations that should be taken into consideration: the use of convenience sampling, data collection after their return from the trip, insufficient information about expenditures and the focus on Israeli travelers only. Clearly, the data collected utilizing the snowball technique and the convenience of train rides limits the external validity of the findings. Moreover, relying on one nation only, Israel, again limits the ability to generalize the results. As noted above, changes in the demographics of backpackers call for future studies that cover the variety of backpacker segments, especially with respect to the growing involvement of non-Westerns in the backpacking phenomenon. The ‘‘ex-post-facto’’ limitation is associated with relying on past experience. The subjects were asked about their backpacking experience and expenditures several years after the experience took place. Obviously, there must be some distortions of perception and memory. Future studies should attempt to have more accurate information about spending patterns to gain better insight into the economic and marketing power of various backpacker segments. Despite the limitations of this study, it might serve as a point of departure for identifying differences among segments of backpackers as based on their destination choice. In this context, it is worth noting that quantitative studies that measure backpackers’ motives, background, risk perceptions and specific preferences for tour arrangements are relatively rare. Apparently, the phenomenon of backpacking has become a focus of attention among researchers, not only because of the intriguing behavioral patterns and the interest in ‘‘alternative’’ modes of tourists, but also partially to the recognition in the economic benefits and marketing challenges associated with a relatively ‘‘frugal’’ segment, whose growing size has considerable impact on growing economies. The notion of backpackers as ‘‘early adopters’’ of remote destinations gives considerable value to their behavioral, economic and marketing role. Clearly, more quantitative as well as qualitative studies will reveal more information about the behavioral nature of this segment of tourists and further explore the identified limitations of the current study. APPENDIX A: A SAMPLE OF QUESTIONS ON BACKPACKERS’ EXPERIENCE Risk Perceptions The following statements refer to your feelings prior to your trip. For each of the statements, please indicate the number that represents the relative level of your agreement or disagreement on the scale. (the scale ranges from 1 = ‘‘did not worry at all’’, to 7 = ‘‘was very worried’’). Overall Risk Perception Q36 Q70

Prior to my trip, I worried that the destinations I chose were risky. I worried that the destinations I chose were riskier than others.

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

241

Risk Dimensions Q37 Q38 *Q39 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43

Q44

Q45 Q46 Q47 Q48 Q49 Q50 Q51 Q52 *Q53 Q54 Q55 Q56 Q57 Q58 Q59 Q60 Q61 Q62

I worried about food safety problems during my trip. Prior to my trip, I worried about financial cheating during my trip. I worried about weather problems during my trip. Prior to my trip, I worried about unexpected extra expenses during the trip. I worried about getting injured in a car accident during my trip. I worried that my behavior would have negative impressions on locals. I worried that at the delay in joining the workforce or in acquiring education because of the trip would influence my future success. I worried that my behavior during the trip would have a negative effect on Israelis I might encounter in some circumstances in the future. I worried that the food during the trip would not be good/would be tasteless. Prior to my trip, I worried about crime at destinations. I worried that my trip would have an impact on my financial situation. I worried about terrorism at the destinations I would visited. I worried about possible strikes during my trip. I worried that my trip would change the way my family thinks of me. I worried that the facilities available to the public at the destination would not be acceptable. I worried about being exposed to danger due to political unrest in the destinations I would be visiting. I worried that planning and preparing for the trip would take too much time. I worried about hostile natives at the destinations. Prior to my trip, I worried that my trip would be a waste of time. Prior to my trip, I worried about infectious diseases. I worried that my trip would not be compatible with my self-image. I worried about getting injured during my trip. I worried that the destination I would reach would be too commercialized or touristy. Prior to my trip, I worried I would not receive personal satisfaction from my trip. Prior to my trip, I worried about natural disasters in the destinations such as earthquakes, floods and storms. I worried that my trip would change the way my friends think of me.

242

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

Q63

(In case you had planned to experience the use of drugs) You worried about the side effects of the drugs. Q64 I worried the places I would reach would be too crowded. Q65 I worried that the destinations I had chosen would have be more expensive than other destinations. Q66 I worried that the trip would not meet my expectations. Q67 I worried that I would make a mistake in choosing the destinations. *Q68 I worried about the unwelcoming attitude of the local employees in the tourism industry. *Questions that are not included in the extracted factors.

APPENDIX B: CROSS-TABULATIONS AND CHI-SQUARE TESTS OF BACKPACKER BACKGROUND VARIABLES AND DESTINATION CHOICE A. Gender and destination choice Male

Female

Total

‘‘Far East’’ South America

120 95

113 83

233 178

Total

215

196

411

Chi-square = 0.71, p = 0.39

B. Military service and destination choice Served in the military Did not serve in the military Total Far East 221 South America 172

12 5

233 177

393

17

410

Total

Chi-square = 1.37, p = 0.32

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

243

C. Military combat experience and destination choice Military combat experience 82 71

Far East South America Total

No military combat experience

153

134 102 236

Total 216 173 389

Chi-square = 0.38, p = 0.30

REFERENCES Ateljevic, I., and S. Doorne 2004 Theoretical Encounters: A Review of Backpacker Literature. In The Global Nomad: Backpacker Travel in Theory and Practice, G. Richards and J. Wilson, eds., pp. 60–76. Clevedon: Channel View. Bettman, J. 1973 Perceived Risk and Its Components: A Model and Empirical Test. Journal of Marketing 10:184–190. 1975 Information Integration in Consumer Risk Perception: A Comparison of Two Models of Component Conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology 60:381–385. Butler, R. W. 1980 The concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer 24:5–12. Cohen, E. 1972 Toward a Sociology of International Tourism. Social Research 39(1):164–189. 1973 Nomads from Affluence: Notes on the Phenomenon of Drifter Tourism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 14(1–2):89–103. 2004 Backpacking: Diversity and Change. Tourism and Cultural Change 1(2):95–110. Churchill, G. A., and D. Iacobucci 2005 Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations (9th ed.). Mason, Ohio: South Western. Dowling, G. R. 1986 Perceived Risk: The Concept and Its Measurement. Psychology and Marketing 3:193–210. Elsrud, T. 2001 Risk Creation in Traveling: Backpacker Adventure Narration. Annals of Tourism Research 28:597–617. Emmons, R. 2000 Peaceful days in Pai. Bangkok Post Horizons, Feb. 24, 12. Fuchs, G., and A. Reichel 2004 Cultural Differences in Tourist Destination Risk Perception: An Exploratory Study. Tourism 52(1):21–37. 2006 Tourist Destination Risk Perception: The Case of Israel. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 14(2):81–106. Gibson, H., and F. Jordan 1998a Traveling Solo: A Cross-Cultural Study of British and American Women. Leeds, UK: Leisure Studies Association.

244

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

1998b Shirley Valentine Lives! The Experiences of Solo Women Travelers. Paper presented at the fifth Congress of World Leisure and Recreation Association, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Grahame, R., G. R. Dowling, and R. Staeling 1994 A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk Handling Activity. Journal of Consumer Research 21:119–134. Hair, J., F. W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham 2006 Multivariate Data Analysis (Sixth ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Hampton, M. 1998 Backpacker Tourism and Economic Development. Annals of Tourism Research 25:639–660. Hutnyk, J. 1996 The Rumour of Calcutta: Tourism, Charity and the Poverty of Representation. London: Zed Books. 1999 Magical Mystical Tourism. In Travel Worlds: Journeys in Contemporary Cultural Politics, R. Kaur and J. Hutnyk, eds., pp. 94–119. London: Zed Books. Jacoby, J., and L. Kaplan 1972 The Components of Perceived Risk. Advances in Consumer Research 3:382–383. Jidvijak, S. 2004 Worshiping at the altar of hedonism, Bangkok Post, May 24, 25. Lepp, A., and H. Gibson 2003 Tourist Roles, Perceived Risk and International Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 30(3):606–624. Loker-Murphy, L. 1996 Backpackers in Australia: A Motivation-Based Segment Study. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 54(4):23–45. Loker-Murphy, L., and P. Pearce 1995 Young Budget Travelers: Backpackers in Australia. Annals of Tourism Research 22:819–843. Malhotra, N. K. 2007 Marketing Research: An applied Orientation (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Maneerungsee, W. 2001 Budget heaven lifts profile, Bangkok Post, Jan. 25, 8. Mansfeld, Y. 1992 From Motivation to Actual Travel. Annals of Tourism Research 19:399–419. Maoz, D. 1999 My Heart is in the East: The Journey of Israeli Young Adults to India. Unpublished Thesis Master, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Maoz, D. 2004 The Conquers and the Settlers: Two Groups of Young Israeli Backpackers. In Global Nomad. Backpacker Travel in Theory and Practice, G. Richards and J. Wilson, eds., pp. 109–122. Clevedon: Channel View. 2005 Young Adult Israeli Backpackers in India. In Israeli Backpackers: From Tourism to Rite of Passage, C. Noy and E. Cohen, eds.,. Albany: State University of New York Press. 2007 Backpackers’ Motivations: The Role of Culture and Nationality. Annals of Tourism Research 34(1):122–140. Mevorach, O. 1997 The Prolonged Journey after Army (In Hebrew). Ph.D. Dissertation in Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Mowen, J., and M. Minor 1998 Consumer Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Noy, C. 2004 The Trip Really Changed Me: Backpackers’ Narrative of Self-Change. Annals of Tourism Research 31:78–102. 2005 Israeli Backpackers: Narrative, Interpersonal Communication, and Social Construction. In Israeli Backpackers: From Tourism to Rite of Passage, C. Noy, and E. Cohen, eds., Albany: State University of New York Press.

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

245

Noy, C., and E. Cohen 2005 Israeli Backpackers: From Tourism to Rite of Passage. Albany: State University of New York Press. Pearce, P. 1988 The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist in Tourist Settings. New York: Springer-Verlag. Peter, P. J., and M. Ryan 1976 An Investigation of Perceived Risk at the Brand level. Journal of Marketing Research 13:184–188. Pizam, A., and Y. Mansfeld 1996 Tourism, Crime and International Security Issues. John Wiley & Sons. Reichel, A., G. Fuchs, and N. Uriely 2007 Perceived Risk and The Non-Institutionalized Tourist Role: The Case of Israeli Student Ex-Backpackers. Journal of Travel Research 46:217–226. Reisinger, Y., and F. Mavondo 2005 Travel Anxiety and Intentions to Travel Internationally: Implications of Travel Risk Perception. Journal of Travel Research 48:212–225. Riley, P. 1988 Road Culture of International Long-Term Budget Travelers. Annals of Tourism Research 15:313–328. Rohel, W., and D. Fesenmaier 1992 Risk Perception and Pleasure Travel: An Exploratory Analysis. Journal of Travel Research 30:17–26. Roselius, T. 1971 Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods. Journal of Marketing 35:56–61. Schvvens, R. 2002 Backpacker Tourism and Third World Development. Annals of Tourism Research 29:144–164. Seaton, A., and M. Bennett 1996 The Marketing of Tourism Products: Concepts, Issues and Cases. London: International Thomson Business Press. Smith, V. 1978 Hosts and Guests. Oxford: Blackwell. So¨nmez, S., and A. Graefe 1998a Influence of Terrorism Risk on Foreign Tourism Decisions. Annals of Tourism Research 25:112–144. 1998b Determining Future Travel Behavior from Past Travel Experience and Perceptions of Risk and Safety. Journal of Travel Research 37(4):171–177. So¨nmez, S. 1998 Tourism, Terrorism and Political Instability. Annals of Tourism Research 25:416–456. Sørensen, A. 2003 Backpacker Ethnography. Annals of Tourism Research 30:847–867. Spreitzhofer, G. 1998 Backpacking Tourism in Southeast Asia. Annals of Tourism Research 25:979–981. Teo, P., and S. Leong 2006 A Postcolonial Analysis of Backpacking. Annals of Tourism Research 33(1):109–131. Tsaur, S., G. Tzeng, and K. Wang 1997 Evaluating Tourist Risks from Fuzzy Perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research 24(4):796–812. Uriely, N., Y. Yonay, and D. Simchai 2002 Backpacking Experiences: A Type and Form Analysis. Annals of Tourism Research 29:519–537. Vogt, J. 1976 Wandering: Youth, and Travel Behavior. Annals of Tourism Research 4(1):25–41.

246

A. Reichel et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 222–246

Westerhausen, K. 2002 Beyond the Beach: A Biography of Modern Travelers in Asia. Bangkok: Lotus Press. Witt, S., and L. Moutinho 1995 Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zikmund, W., and Scott, J., 1973 A Factor Analysis of Multidimensional Nature of Perceived Risk. Proceedings of the Southern Marketing Association (Houston TX), p. 1036.

Submitted 28 February 2008. Resubmitted 26 September 2008. Resubmitted 30 October 2008. Final Version 20 November 2008. Accepted 23 November 2008. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: John T. Coshall.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com