This article was downloaded by: [Dr Richard George]On: 13 August 2014, At: 08:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sport & TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjto20

Harnessing the power of football:safety-risk perceptions of sport touristsat the 2013 FIFA Confederations CupTM

in BrazilRichard Georgea, Kamilla Swarta & David W. Jenkinsa

a Department of Management Studies, University of Cape Town,Cape Town, South AfricaPublished online: 08 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Richard George, Kamilla Swart & David W. Jenkins (2014): Harnessing thepower of football: safety-risk perceptions of sport tourists at the 2013 FIFA Confederations CupTM inBrazil, Journal of Sport & Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/14775085.2014.944203

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2014.944203

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Harnessing the power of football: safety-risk perceptions of sporttourists at the 2013 FIFA Confederations CupTM in Brazil

Richard George∗, Kamilla Swart and David W. Jenkins

Department of Management Studies, University of Cape Town, Cape Town,South Africa

(Received 7 February 2014; accepted 9 July 2014)

Commissioned to host the 2014 FIFA (Federation Internationale de FootballAssociation) World CupTM tournament, Brazil was given access to a globalplatform which holds the power to stimulate considerable levels of tourismvalue. However, tourist anxiety surrounding safety and security raised ques-tions as to whether the event could successfully achieve the host nation’sdiverse set of underpinned socioeconomic objectives. As a benchmark ofsuccess in this regard, Brazil was first set to host the 2013 FIFA Confedera-tions CupTM, a prelude to the 2014 FIFA World CupTM tournament. Thisarticle investigates the constructs found to manage sport tourists’ safety-risk perceptions; and examines how the interrelationships amongst these con-structs can positively influence sport tourists’ repeat visitation intentions as apractice that drives tourism growth. First, a mediation model regarding theinterrelationships between safety-risk perception, satisfaction, and repeat vis-itation was synthesised from sport tourism literature. Following this, a self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 187 domestic and internationalsport tourists attending the 2013 FIFA Confederations CupTM in Rio deJaneiro, Brazil. The results provided support for the mediation model,whereby tourists’ decreased safety-risk perceptions directly and indirectlyimproved tourists’ propensity to return to the host destination, with event sat-isfaction occupying a mediating role. Managerial implications propose that itis the responsibility of the event stakeholders to shift any short-term speculat-ive investment in the safety and security improvements of the host destina-tion, to investment that is more long term and sustainable in nature. Inresponse, tourists are expected to demonstrate a greater propensity to returnto the host destination, serving as a core stimulant of future tourism value.

Keywords: sport tourism; mega-events; safety-risk perception; 2013 FIFAConfederations CupTM

Introduction

Mega-events such as the FIFA (Federation Internationale de Football Associ-ation) World CupTM and the Olympic Games have begun to attract growing

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

∗Corresponding author. Email: richard.george@uct.ac.za

Journal of Sport & Tourism, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2014.944203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

interest within the sport tourism literature of the past decade, offering a platformto showcase a purpose beyond the provision of entertainment (Darnell, 2010).One of the most prevalent trends that have emerged in this regard documents theinfluence that mega-events have in stimulating significant tourism growth forhost cities in emerging markets (Boo & Gu, 2010; Campo-Martınez, Garau-Vadell, & Martınez-Ruiz, 2010; George, 2012; Taks, Chalip, Green,Kesenne, & Martyn, 2009). In recent years, it has been the key stakeholdersin the political economy of international sport (e.g. FIFA and the InternationalOlympic Committee) that have provided this trend with greater impetus; com-missioning the hosting of the 2008 Olympic Games in China, and the 2010FIFA World CupTM in South Africa, as events that showcased this capability(Darnell, 2010). In alignment with the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China,and South Africa) model of emerging markets, the stakeholders’ next invest-ment was set to be in Brazil, which was commissioned to host two mega-events within three years: the 2014 FIFA World CupTM tournament and the2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games (Schissel, 2012). Included in the 2014FIFA World CupTM tournament is the 2013 FIFA Confederations CupTM,which is set as a prelude to the 2014 spectacle. This tournament is contestedby the winners of each of the six FIFA Confederation Championships(UEFA, CONMEBOL, CONCACAF, CAF, AFC, and OFC), along with theFIFA World CupTM holders and the host nation’s national team (FIFA.com,2013).

In alignment with its commitment to tourist sector development, Brazil’s bidto host these two upcoming mega-events was heavily underpinned by severalsocial, economic, and developmental objectives (Schissel, 2012). However,leading up to the 2013 FIFA Confederations CupTM, growing concern devel-oped surrounding safety and security risks associated with attending theevent (NDTV Sports, 2013). International incidences such as the rape of anItalian woman in Rio de Janeiro in March 2013 (BBC News, 2013a), the bomb-ings at the Boston Marathon, USA, in April 2013 (BBC News, 2013b), and therecent threat of riots and civil unrest across Brazil’s major cities (Daily MailReporter, 2013a) fully justified cause for concern.

Research in this field suggests that in order to manage any prevailing touristanxieties, event stakeholders should seek to develop a better understanding ofthe tourism components with which these risk concerns are associated (Boo& Gu, 2010; Kozak, 2001; Qi, Gibson, & Zhang, 2009). It is from this positionthat event stakeholders will be able to more effectively identify any potentialsources of tourism leverage, from which they can stimulate both current andfuture tourism value (Chalip, 2004).

The focus of past mega-event research has worked to uncover the factorsinfluencing the provision of mega-event legacy, and has clearly identifiedsport tourists’ travel-risk perceptions as a key deterrent in this regard, especiallyin relation to the stimulation of repeat visitation to the host destination (Boo &Gu, 2010; George, 2010; Neirotti & Hilliard, 2006; Qi et al., 2009; Sonmez &

2 R. George et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Graefe, 1998). In response, the literature proceeded to identify several con-structs that illustrate the potential to explain and manage the threat that tourists’travel-risk perceptions pose on their future travel intentions, namely satisfaction(Boo & Gu, 2010; Taylor & Toohey, 2007), previous travel experience (Boo &Gu, 2010; George, 2010; Qi et al., 2009), and destination image (George &Mawby, 2013; Qi et al., 2009). The strongest argument, in this regard, hasbeen presented for tourists’ satisfaction levels surrounding the event, whichwas presented based on the independent associations that this construct holdswith the travel-risk (Boo & Gu, 2010; Taylor & Toohey, 2007) and repeat vis-itation (Boo & Gu, 2010; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007) variables. Tourist satisfac-tion has also been previously tested as an event management mechanism for thisthreat (Boo & Gu, 2010), but was found to be insignificant in this instance.

The synthesised review of this literature clearly identifies tourists’ satisfac-tion levels surrounding an event as the tool that exhibits the greatest potential toexplain and manage the threat that tourists’ travel-risk perceptions pose on theirfuture travel intentions. Although this capability has been hypothesised andtested previously with an insignificant outcome (Boo & Gu, 2010), Booand Gu’s (2010) study geared its measurements of travel-risk, satisfactionand repeat visitation purely towards the event, which changes its host destina-tion on every occurrence. As a result, the findings of Boo and Gu’s (2010) studycould not comment on the significance of these relationships in the context ofthe destination. This means that destination marketers remain restricted in theirability to effectively respond to the threat of tourists’ perceived travel-risk ontheir future travel intentions to the host destination, beyond the speculativechanges which can be made to the independent variable itself.

The objective of this study is to determine how tourists’ satisfaction withtheir experience of Rio de Janeiro during the 2013 FIFA ConfederationsCupTM explains the relationship between their safety-risk perceptions of thehost destination, and their likelihood to revisit the host destination in thefuture. Moreover, the findings of this research are expected to inform destina-tion marketers as to the specific areas of the destination risk profile whichshould be targeted in order to more effectively manage the threat that tourists’safety-risk perceptions pose on their future travel intentions to the host destina-tion. This will assist event stakeholders by gearing the event more directlytowards the creation of future tourism value, and will support the creation oflegacy that underpins the success of an event bid.

Presented next is a discussion of the literature pertaining to travel-risk per-ceptions, satisfaction, and repeat visitation, along with an explanation as to howthese constructs are configured into a proposed conceptual model.

Modelled constructs

This study is based on previous research that investigated a variety of sporttourism-based constructs pertinent to mega-events, focusing specifically on

Journal of Sport & Tourism 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

those that demonstrate the potential to explain and manage the threat that safety-risk perceptions pose on legacy development for the host destination. In anattempt to highlight the most pertinent findings of this literature analysis, thisstudy hypothesises a new mediation model (Figure 1).

Perceived risk and sport tourism

Perceived risk is the uncertainty, negative consequences, and exposure to thepossibility of loss or injury an individual perceives when adopting a certain life-style or performing a particular activity (George, 2012; Reisinger & Mavondo,2005; Richter, 2003). When faced with certain levels of risk, individuals experi-ence anxiety (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2006); and in response they adapt theirbehaviour, whereby they suspend their purchase decision or adopt strategiesthat attempt to contain the level of risk they experience to a level that ismore tolerable (Mowen & Minor, 1998). In the context of destination market-ing, an individual’s perception of risk thus serves as a critical consideration fortravellers when selecting a destination for domestic and international travel(George, 2003; Rittichainuwat & Chakraborty, 2009; Sonmez & Graefe,1998). In this regard, researchers have also found that tourists’ perceptions ofrisk are affected by a number of individual determinants, such as: age (Floyd,Gibson, Pennington-Gray, & Thapa, 2004; Gibson & Yiannakis, 2002),gender (Carr, 2001; Kozak, Crotts, & Law, 2007; Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Qiet al., 2009; Sonmez & Graefe, 1998), and nationality (Fuchs & Reichal,2004; George, 2012; Qi et al., 2009; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2006).

Furthermore, in recent years travel-related risk has been associated withseveral dimensions, including health threats (Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Rittichai-nuwat & Chakraborty, 2009), terrorism (Arana & Leon, 2008), natural disasters(Faulkner & Vikulov, 2001), war and political instability (Gartner & Shen,1992), and crime in or around tourist destinations (Barker, Page, & Meyer,2003). In response, if individuals perceive a threat from any of these risk dimen-sions, they may be influenced to change their choice of travel destination, ormay even be discouraged to travel altogether (Kozak et al., 2007).

Despite the established significance of perceived risk as a predictor of travelbehaviour, there is a narrow scope of research that explores the significance ofthis construct in the context of sport tourism (Qi et al., 2009). Populating the

Figure 1. Proposed mediation model.

4 R. George et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

majority of this limited scope is research that focuses on terrorism as the keyrisk dimension relating to mega-events (Qi et al., 2009). However, as develop-ing nations have become more frequently selected to host mega-events, conven-tional crime has emerged as another key risk dimension surrounding sporttourism (Barker, Page, & Meyer, 2002; George, 2012). Based on the compara-tive nature of this study, tourists’ perceptions of risk in relation to crime andterrorism safety will be measured, serving as the most prevalently explored pre-dictive dimensions of travel-related risk. For methodical purposes, this con-struct will be labelled safety-risk perception.

Safety-risk perception

The literature has indicated a close association between disorder and terrorism,event tourism, and crime; especially in relation to mega-sporting events (Boo &Gu, 2010; George, 2012; George & Mawby, 2013; Zekulin, 2009). Further-more, travel-risk fostering from these relationships has intensified in recenttimes, following the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings and the threat ofriots and civil unrest in future host destinations (Daily Mail Reporter, 2013a).

The dimension of terrorism-risk is well documented in the context of mega-event tourism, with a particular focus lent towards the Olympic Games (Qiet al., 2009; Taylor & Toohey, 2007). The US Department of State defines ter-rorism as ‘premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against civi-lians and unarmed military personnel by sub-national groups . . . usuallyintended to influence an audience’ (1996, p. 4). Based on their ability toattract mass crowds of international tourists, mega-sporting events are, there-fore, perceived as ideal targets by terrorist groups, who identify tourists as‘soft’ targets (Richter, 1983).

Crime-risk is another dimension of travel-risk in the context of mega-eventtourism, and has received a growth in attention over the past two decades(George, 2012). This literature predominantly documents the significanteffect that crime has on a tourist’s decision-making behaviour, and hence jus-tifies the exploration of crime as a critical dimension of travel risk (Barkeret al., 2002). Crime has been found to be most prolific within large crowdsof tourists, given that: (i) criminals are more difficult to identify, (ii) thereexists a larger pool of potential victims, and (iii) tourists are more lucrativetargets as they tend to carry more money and additional valuables (Jarrel &Howsen, 1990).

Despite the growing interest in this subject area, there still remains an irre-futable need for additional empirical research which attempts to develop sol-utions that reduce the impact of crime and terrorism on the mega-event sporttourism industry (Barker et al., 2002; Boo & Gu, 2010). Research attemptingto fill this void has identified destination satisfaction, as a key travel-riskreduction dimension considered prior to repeat travel to a destination (Qiet al., 2009).

Journal of Sport & Tourism 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Satisfaction

Synthesising definitions published in previous studies, Giese and Cote (2002)identified three core dimensions of satisfaction: (i) satisfaction is a response(i.e. cognitive or emotional), (ii) the response pertains to a specific focus (i.e.expectations vs. experience), and (iii) the response occurs at a particular time.The context in which satisfaction has previously been defined is extremelydiverse, and as a result, Giese and Cote (2002) postulate that a contextuallysound definition of satisfaction should, at least, adhere to the three abovemen-tioned dimensions. Based on its relevance to the topic, and its accreditation tothe three core elements of satisfaction, this study will adopt a three-prongeddefinition suggested by Yoon and Uysal (2005).

Yoon and Uysal’s (2005) definition states that satisfaction is the emotionalresult of three subconscious comparative paradigms. The first of these para-digms compares performance with expectations; indicating that the extent ofa tourist’s satisfaction is determined based on the degree to which the perform-ance of the experience exceeds, or fails to exceed, their expectations (Bitner,1990; Oliver, 1980; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). The second paradigm, based onequity theory (Oliver & Swan, 1989), equates a consumer’s cost to his/heranticipated rewards; suggesting that a tourist’s satisfaction is determined bythe extent to which the value of the experience equates to the time, effort,and money they spend on the experience (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). The third para-digm, based on norm theory (LaTour & Peat, 1979), compares tourists’ experi-ences with an ‘ideal standard’, most commonly formulated based on previousexperiences (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). This paradigm hypothesises that a tourist’ssatisfaction is determined by the extent to which the performance of the experi-ence exceeds, or fails to exceed, the performance of their previous experiences(Yoon & Uysal, 2005). These paradigms will be labelled as ‘expectation’,‘equity’, and ‘relative’ satisfaction.

The scope of initial research surrounding satisfaction in the context of mega-sporting events documents how the activities that sport tourists participate inserve as a core component in evaluating service performance; which in turn,can be inherently associated with their related satisfaction levels (Bitner,1990; Oliver, 1980). Progressive research then inferred that sport touristswho perceive different levels of travel-risk with regards to activities surround-ing an event may differ relatively in the amount of satisfaction they experienceby attending that event (Barker et al., 2003; Campo-Martınez et al., 2010). Morespecifically, it has been suggested that a negative statistical relationship existsbetween tourists’ levels of perceived travel-risk and their associated levels ofsatisfaction (Boo & Gu, 2010; Taylor & Toohey, 2007). The significance ofthis association, however, is under-researched, underlining a potential limit-ation to existing literature, especially in consideration of the documentedassociation that satisfaction levels hold with future travel intentions (Boo &Gu, 2010). Therefore, based on the aforementioned conclusions, and in the

6 R. George et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

interest of further informing this body of literature, the following hypothesis isderived:

Hypothesis 1: Sport tourists’ heightened safety-risk perceptions of Rio de Janeiroduring the 2013 FIFA Confederations CupTM significantly reduce their satisfac-tion levels with the host destination.

The relationship between travel-risk perception and satisfaction is most valu-able when attempting to predict future travel behaviour; where researchexplores the mediating role that satisfaction assumes in this regard (Boo &Gu, 2010).

Repeat visitation

The Olympic Games is the single most viewed multi-sport event in history, withthe London 2012 Olympic Games achieving a global reach of 3.6 billionviewers, featuring a record-breaking 8.2 million ticket sales (InternationalOlympic Committee, 2012). As these statistics suggest, mega-events attract asignificant amount of media attention and tourist visits for host destinations(George, 2012). As a result, these sporting spectacles hold the potential tooffer long-term benefits for host destinations in the form of flow-on tourism,a benefit fostered by securing repeat visitation (Taks et al., 2009).

Repeat visitation is defined as a tourist’s post-purchase decision to revisit adestination following a previous visit (Rittichainuwat, Qu, & Leong, 2003).Gitelson and Crompton (1984) explain that the decision to revisit a destinationis typically driven by five different motives, namely: (i) to further explore thedestination, (ii) to reduce the potential risk of having an unsatisfactory experi-ence, (iii) to expose the destination to other people, (iv) to assure that oneself issurrounded by the same kind of people, and (v) to preserve emotional childhoodattachments. These findings would suggest that when making decisions sur-rounding future travel plans, tourists leverage their information search capabili-ties in order to minimise the travel-risk, and consequentially maximise thesatisfaction which they experience on their trip (George, 2012).

Satisfaction is one of the most frequently referenced dimensions used toexplain repeat visitation (Bowen, 2001). Until recently, various studies reportedsatisfaction as being a strong predictor of behavioural intentions in the post-tripphase (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Chen & Gursoy, 2001; Kozak, 2001; Lee,Graefe, & Burns, 2004; Rittichainuwat, Qu, & Mongkhonvanit, 2002).However, results from a more recent study by Kaplanidou and Vogt (2007)suggest that satisfaction with a major sporting event was not a significant pre-dictor of tourists’ intentions to revisit a host destination. Recognising this con-trast, Kaplanidou and Vogt (2007) explain that the divergence of these findingsis a result of the study investigating a non-recurring event, which is more likelyto be evaluated separately from its host destination.

Journal of Sport & Tourism 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

The majority of research has found that satisfaction has a significant positiveinfluence on the likelihood of repeat visitation to a destination hosting a mega-event (Bigne, Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001; Boo & Gu, 2010; Chen & Gursoy,2001; Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000). Petrick, Morais, and Norman (2001)explain that highly satisfied individuals typically adopt more positive attitudestowards attending another event in the host destination, and are, thus, morewilling to consider repeating their purchase. Therefore, in consideration ofthe above conclusions, the following hypothesis is derived:

Hypothesis 2: Sport tourists’ satisfaction with attending the 2013 FIFA Confed-erations CupTM in Rio de Janeiro positively influences their intentions to revisitthe host destination in the future.

Finally, the area highlighted in tourism research found to threaten repeat visita-tion, is the issue of tourists’ perceptions of travel-risk whereby studies havereported conflicting results.

Research measuring safety and security risk at the 2004 Olympic Games(Neirotti & Hilliard, 2006) and at the 2008 Olympic Games (Boo & Gu,2010) reported that spectators who felt safe and expressed satisfaction withthe security measures associated with these mega-events were more likely toattend future Olympic Games. George (2012) explains that if tourists perceivetheir personal safety to be at risk whilst visiting a destination, they will adopt anegative image towards the destination and, in response, are less likely to revisitthe destination. However, various studies exploring crime-safety, in multipletourist destinations, reported that an experience of personal theft would notaffect a tourist’s decision to return to the afflicted destination (George, 2003;Holcomb & Pizam, 2006; Mawby, Brunt, & Hambly, 2000).

On review, perceived safety-risk is a core, prevailing factor in the destina-tion-selection process; inferring that when tourists are asked to indicate theirpreference between two destinations presenting similar benefits, they willselect the safer option (Sonmez & Graefe, 1998). Based on the above con-clusion, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 3: Sport tourists’ heightened safety-risk perceptions of Rio de Janeiroduring the 2013 FIFA Confederations CupTM significantly reduce their intentionsto revisit the host destination in the future.

Considering the significance of this hypothesised relationship in the sporttourism industry, and in order to more accurately define the motives surround-ing repeat visitation intentions, this study has geared its measure of repeat vis-itation towards exploring tourists’ perceptions of safety-risk.

The configuration of the hypotheses illustrated in the proposed mediationmodel would suggest that this study explores the mediating role of satisfac-tion, in the context of predicting tourists’ future travel behaviour. The onlydocumented research that tests similar hypotheses concluded that tourists’

8 R. George et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

level of satisfaction with the 2008 Olympic Games did not mediate therelationship between tourists’ travel-risk perceptions and their likelihood toattend the next Olympic Games (Boo & Gu, 2010). Surpassing this, ratherlittle is known in terms of the most appropriate approach available tomanage travel-risk perception, especially within the context of the host desti-nation itself.

This leaves event stakeholders poorly informed as to the specific areas of thedestination risk profile which should be targeted in order to more effectivelymanage the threat that tourists’ safety-risk perceptions pose on their futuretravel intentions to the host destination. It also highlights a potential limitationin the existing literature, indicating that this mediation effect needs to be inves-tigated further (Campo-Martınez et al., 2010).

Methodology

Sampling

This study targeted domestic and international tourists attending any of thethree 2013 FIFA Confederations CupTM matches hosted in the city of Rio deJaneiro. This target population is in alignment with the findings of studies con-ducted by George (2012) and Qi et al. (2009) who investigated travel-risk per-ceptions at the 2010 FIFA World CupTM and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games,respectively.

To ensure a representative sample of the target population, this study defineddomestic tourists as all event attendees who were Brazilian residents, but did notreside in Rio de Janeiro; and international tourists as all event attendees whowere residents of a foreign country (Turco et al., 2012). In order to accountfor sampling frame error, respondents were screened before the data collectionphase to ensure that they satisfied the criteria for the target population.

The sampling technique that was used in this study was non-probability pro-portional quota sampling. The quota sampling method involved a two-stageprocess. First, the control characteristic that determined the quota was enforcedby the fieldworker through the use of one verbal and two written screeningquestions, all three of which validated whether the respondents were part ofthe predetermined sample. In terms of identifying a representative sample,the literature suggests a number of converging appropriate quota proportions,the most significant of which reports that 58% and 42% of event attendees atthe 2006 FIFA World CupTM were domestic tourists and international tourists,respectively (Germany, 2013). However, considering the unique nature of theFIFA Confederations CupTM, which is typically considered as a prelude tothe FIFA World CupTM, the event is expected to have somewhat less of an inter-national appeal. Following this, when respondents were determined to be a partof the quota, sample elements were selected based on the fieldworker’sjudgement.

Journal of Sport & Tourism 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 187 domestic and inter-national tourists at three different matches at the 2013 FIFA ConfederationsCupTM in Brazil during the period 15–30 June 2013. The final realisedsample included a total of 183 usable questionnaires, representing a 97%response rate. The remaining four questionnaires were deemed unusable asthey contained a number of non-response items.

Data collection

Research data were collected through the use of a structured, direct surveymethod; issuing respondents with a self-administered questionnaire containingfixed-alternative questions (Malhotra, 2010). These questionnaires were disse-minated amongst respondents using the (mall) Event-Intercept personal (face-to-face) interview method of administration (Malhotra, 2010). The question-naire was translated into Portuguese, Italian, Japanese, and Spanish in orderto cater for non-English-speaking respondents. The questionnaire was eitheradministered in hard copy, if requested in a foreign language, or was adminis-tered through the use of an IPod Touch if the respondent had a comprehensiveunderstanding of the English language.

Instrument and procedures

The questionnaire included four sections: (i) satisfaction, (ii) perception oftravel-risk, (iii) repeat visitation, and (iv) demographics. The details of thefirst four individual sections are outlined in Table 1.

The satisfaction construct, illustrated in Table 1, was measured using threeindividual items. The points of the single item that measures expectation satis-faction range from 1 (Much Worse Than I Expected) to 5 (Much Better Than IExpected); equity satisfaction range from 1 (Definitely Not Worth It) to 5 (Defi-nitely Well Worth It); and relative satisfaction range from 1 (Much Worse) to 5(Much Better). In terms of their specific dimensions, a high score on the satis-faction scales indicates that respondents were satisfied, and a low score indi-cates respondents were dissatisfied.

The points of the 15 items that measure safety-risk perception and repeat vis-itation, illustrated in Table 1, range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (StronglyAgree) and 6 (Do Not Know). For the safety-risk perception scale, a highscore indicates that respondents perceive safety-risk to be high in Rio deJaneiro, and a low score indicates that respondents perceive safety-risk to below in Rio de Janeiro. For the repeat visitation scale, a high score indicatesthat respondents intend to revisit Rio de Janeiro in the future, and a lowscore indicates that respondents do not intend to revisit Rio de Janeiro in thefuture.

In order to validate the proposed mediation model, Smart PLS statisticalsoftware package was used to perform structural equation modelling and path

10 R. George et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

analysis (Malhotra, 2010). Data were also analysed using the SPSS statisticalpackage in order to obtain both the descriptive and inferential statistics thatcannot be calculated in Smart PLS.

Results

Descriptive statistics

The realised sample consisted of 183 respondents, 64.5% of whom were dom-estic tourists and 35.5% were international tourists from overseas. Themajority of respondents were between the ages of 22–29 (35.5%) and 30–39 (33.9%) years. Moreover, most respondents were aware of incidences ofcrime in Brazil during the build up to the 2013 FIFA ConfederationsCupTM (61.0%). Twenty-five per cent of total respondents had personallyexperienced crime in Brazil; and of these, 65% had experienced a form ofrobbery and 32.5% had been assaulted. However, a majority of these inci-dences were reported by Brazilian nationals, and thus are not likely to haveoccurred in direct relation to the hosting of the event. In relation to previoustravel experience, 33% of respondents indicated that it was their first visit toRio de Janeiro, while 29.5% indicated that they had visited the city on 10 ormore occasions.

Table 1. Measurements and scales.

Constructs;Dimensions Scale design Items Literature

Questionrange

Satisfaction 5-Point Likert 3 Adapted from: Yoon andUysal (2005)

5–7

Expectationsatisfaction

5-Point Likert 1 Adapted from: Yoon andUysal (2005)

5

Equity satisfaction 5-Point Likert 1 Adapted from: Yoon andUysal (2005)

6

Relativesatisfaction

5-Point Likert 1 Adapted from: Yoon andUysal (2005)

7

Safety-riskperception

6-Point Likert 10 Adapted from: George (2012),George and Mawby (2013).

8–17

Perception ofcrime-Safetya

6-Point Likert 5 Adapted from: George (2012),George and Mawby (2013).

8–12

Perception ofterrorism riskb

6-Point Likert 5 George and Mawby (2013). 13–17

Repeat visitationc 6-Point Likert 5 Adapted from: George (2012),George and Mawby (2013).

18–22

aItems 8 and 10 reversed scored.bItems 14 and 16 reversed scored.cItems 20 and 21 reversed scored.

Journal of Sport & Tourism 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

The means associated with the safety-risk perception, repeat visitation, andsatisfaction constructs (refer to Table 2) are 2.850, 4.213, and 3.747, respect-ively. This implies that, on average, respondents were neutral with regards totheir perceptions of safety-risk, strongly agreed with an intention to revisitRio de Janeiro, and felt that the host destination was worth visiting based ontheir satisfaction with the event. In general, however, an ANOVA test, insupport of the conclusions of existing literature (George, 2012), indicates thatrespondents who travelled alone (M ¼ 3.159) were more safety-risk perceptivethan those who travelled with family (M ¼ 2.673) and friends (M ¼ 2.759).With the literature offering limited insight into the observed group compositionproportions of sport tourists at mega-events, and with this study reporting themajority of its respondents as travelling with friends (45.4%) and family(21.9%), this realised sample may marginally underestimate the sample popu-lation’s average perceptions of safety-risk. In addition, an independent samplet-test, again in support of the conclusions of existing literature (Boo & Gu,2010; Carr, 2001; Lepp & Gibson, 2003; Qi et al., 2009), indicates thatfemale respondents (M ¼ 3.16) perceived significantly greater safety-riskthan male respondents (M ¼ 2.73). In this regard, this study reports the majorityof its respondents as male (72.7%), in alignment with a number of previouslyobserved gender proportions (George, 2012; Taylor & Toohey, 2007; Turcoet al., 2012). As a result, this realised sample effectively accounts for genderproportion disparity when estimating the sample population’s average percep-tions of safety-risk.

Measurement model

In relation to the measurement model, the reliability and validity were analysedusing the Confirmatory Factor Analysis technique.

For internal consistency reliability, both the Cronbach alpha and Compo-site Reliability measures (refer to Table 3) for the safety-risk perception con-struct exceed the 0.7 benchmark (Nunnally, 1978). In addition, both repeatvisitation and satisfaction are approaching internal consistency reliability, astheir Cronbach a values are 0.632 and 0.637, respectively. In terms of indi-cator reliability, all items loaded on to the corresponding latent variablestructures. Although most items exhibited item loadings less than 0.7,

Table 2. Summated scale descriptives (n ¼ 183).

Mean SD

Safety-risk perception 2.850 0.754Repeat visitation 4.213 0.645Satisfaction 3.747 0.664

Note: SD, standard deviation.

12 R. George et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

only three item loadings (RV3, CR2, and CR6) were below the minimalthreshold of 0.5 (Malhotra, 2010). Nevertheless, these items were retained;as CR2 (0.457) and CR6 (0.359) both measure the safety-risk perceptionlatent variable, which was found to be statistically reliable. Furthermore,RV3 (0.486) is approaching the 0.5 threshold, and when deleted has noeffect on the reliability of the repeat visitation latent variable. Based onthese findings, the scales used to measure the key constructs were foundto be reliable.

With respect to convergent reliability, all items loaded significantly on totheir corresponding latent variables. However, only the satisfaction constructwas found to have average variance extracted (AVE) values that exceededthe 0.5 threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Although the AVE values of allthe latent variables do not adhere to the 0.5 threshold, it can be concludedthat the model exhibits convergent reliability; as all latent variables illustratesignificant factor loadings, and composite reliability at the 0.7 threshold(Malhotra, 2010).

Finally, discriminant validity was considered in two steps. First, the Fornelland Larcker (1981) criterion was used to determine whether the square root ofeach construct’s AVE values were greater than the correlations amongst it, andany other latent variables within the model. Second, the loadings of the indi-cators on their assigned latent variables were reviewed, attempting to determineas to whether these loadings were higher than their cross loadings on all otherlatent variables.

Following this analysis, it could be concluded that the Fornell–Larcker cri-terion was met, with all items loading on to their respective latent variables(refer to Table 4). Thus, in conclusion, the measurement model exhibits discri-minant validity.

Structural model

To begin, all of the paths hypothesised between the latent variables were esti-mated. This assisted in determining any mediation effects, and indicated thepredictive power of the model.

The results indicate that the model explains 16.8% of the variation that existswithin the repeat visitation construct (refer to Figure 2); and as a result, this

Table 3. Reliability indicators of the measurement model.

AVE Composite reliability Cronbach a

Safety-risk perception 0.348 0.838 0.799Repeat visitation 0.403 0.767 0.632Satisfaction 0.572 0.799 0.637

Note: AVE, average variance extracted.

Journal of Sport & Tourism 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

implies that the variance explained by the model is relatively weak (Chin,1998). Regardless of this weak explanation, however, all hypothesised pathsexcept one were found to be significant at the 0.05 (5%) significance level. Vali-dating both hypotheses 1 and 3, the model indicates that tourists’ heightenedsafety-risk perceptions during the 2013 FIFA Confederations CupTM signifi-cantly reduce their satisfaction levels and repeat visitation intentions surround-ing the host destination, respectively. In addition, validating hypothesis 2, themodel indicates that tourists’ satisfaction with the hosting of the 2013 FIFAConfederations CupTM positively influences their intentions to revisit the hostdestination in the future. As a result, these findings conclude that satisfactionpartially mediates the relationship between travel-risk perception and repeatvisitation.

Discussion

The results of this research indicate that the data offer support for the proposedmediation model, which is maintained by three core findings. The first of whichconcludes that tourists who experienced lower perceptions of travel-risk withinRio de Janeiro were found to exhibit a stronger intention to return to the hostdestination in the future. This relationship has been well documented inmega-event literature, in multiple contexts; with Qi et al. (2009), Boo and Gu(2010), and George (2010) all reporting on the positive relationship theyfound to hold between tourists’ reduced perceptions of travel-risk and theirrepeat visitation intentions surrounding both the event and the host destinationitself.

Table 4. Latent variable correlation matrix.

1 2 3

1. Safety-risk perception 0.59022. Repeat visitation 20.2978 0.63493. Satisfaction 20.3435 0.3650 0.7563

Note: AVEs on diagonal in bold.

Figure 2. Structural model.

14 R. George et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

The second core finding of this research found that as tourists’ safety-riskperceptions of Rio de Janeiro declined, the more likely they were to feel satis-fied with their decision to travel to the host destination for the 2013 FIFA Con-federations CupTM. This finding is somewhat progressive in the realm ofmega-event research, due to the link that this relationship holds with the hostdestination, as opposed to the event itself. Previous research of a similarnature supports such findings, whereby Boo and Gu (2010) found that as tour-ists’ travel-risk perceptions decline, their event satisfaction levels increasesignificantly.

The third and final core finding of this research indicates that tourists whowere satisfied with their decision to travel to Rio de Janeiro for the 2013FIFA Confederations CupTM were more likely to revisit the host destinationin the future. This is consistent with existing literature, which documents a posi-tive relationship between event satisfaction and repeat visitation (Baker &Crompton, 2000; Boo & Gu, 2010). Nevertheless, this finding again remainssomewhat progressive, based on the link that this relationship holds with thehost destination, as opposed to the event itself.

Managerial implications

The primary contribution of this research is held in the identification and vali-dation of tourist destination satisfaction as a variable that can explain andmanage the threat that tourists’ travel-risk perceptions pose on their futuretravel intentions to the host destination. The discovery and validation of amediation relationship in this context offers a number of practical implicationsfor mega-event stakeholders, especially for those that operate in emergingmarkets.

The first practical implication that this study proposes is based on the findingthat tourists’ safety-risk perceptions of Rio de Janeiro directly influence theirpropensity to return to the host destination in the future. In this regard, thisstudy suggests that event stakeholders, who have bid to host mega-eventswith the intention of leveraging tourism value, are advised to invest moreheavily in provisions that make their city a safer destination for tourists tovisit. Due to the extensive set of research that has previously documented thesignificance of this relationship the literature already documents a number ofuseful suggestions that detail the specific areas in which they can target thisinvestment. Previous examples of this include the employment of additionalsafety and security forces, as exhibited by the British Government leading upto the 2012 London Olympic Games (George & Mawby, 2013), as well asthe efforts of the Brazilian Government to eradicate drug-related violence inRio de Janeiro leading up to the 2013 FIFA Confederations CupTM (DailyMail Reporter, 2013b). The only issue with investing in safety and security pro-visions in this regard, despite it being somewhat effective, is that this invest-ment is expensive and speculative in nature. With a better understanding of

Journal of Sport & Tourism 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

the effect that tourists’ safety-risk perceptions of a destination have on theirrepeat visitation intentions of that destination, event stakeholders will be ableto make more informed decisions as to the areas of the destination’s riskprofile where an investment will prove most effective.

This highlights the importance of the discovery and validation of tourist des-tination satisfaction as a variable that can explain and manage the threat thattourists’ travel-risk perceptions pose on their future travel intentions to thehost destination. More specifically, the partial mediating role that tourists’ sat-isfaction with the host destination adopts in this regard offers a number of keypractical implications. The first practical proposition is informed by the way inwhich individuals measure their perceptions of safety-risk and levels of satisfac-tion surrounding the destination. Typically, both of these measures are linked tothe activities in which tourists participate in during their trip to a destination,with the attendance of the associated mega-event only occupying one ofthese spots (Barker et al., 2003; Campo-Martınez et al., 2010). As a result,instead of focusing short-term speculative investment on improving thesafety and security features of the mega-event itself, event stakeholders areadvised to diversify their safety and security investment across a number ofkey tourist activities throughout the host destination. More specifically, eventstakeholders should invest in longer term sustainable safety and securityimprovements (i.e. CCTV cameras, access control stations, and protocol adap-tations) in order to prolong the initial heightened impression tourists holdduring the event to a fixed impression that can form a safety and securitylegacy following the event. More targeted investment, in this regard, willensure that event stakeholders’ safety and security improvements willstrengthen tourists’ intentions to revisit the host destination, both directlythrough observation and indirectly through an unobserved increase in satisfac-tion. Furthermore, safety and security improvements that are longer term innature are likely to remain prevalent in the minds of tourists for longer,which is especially important if there is a lengthy disconnect between tourists’first experiences with a destination, and their subsequent considerations toreturn to the destination at a later stage.

Another core practical proposition of this research is uncovered by the influ-ence that tourists’ satisfaction with a host destination has on their intentions torevisit the destination at a later stage. This proposition is informed by the docu-mented means in which individuals measure the levels of satisfaction that theyassociate with a destination (cf. Yoon & Uysal, 2005) and how this measurelinks to their potential motives for repeat visitation.

With respect to ‘equity’ satisfaction, event stakeholders are advised to mini-mise the time, money, and effort required of tourists to plan and partake in a trip tothe host destination. Possible reductions in time and effort could be achieved bystreamlining and packaging the booking process; offering the capability for tour-ists to book accommodation, transport, and tickets for activities all on a singlebooking platform. Furthermore, reductions in perceived cost could be achieved

16 R. George et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

by strategically pricing the proposed travel packages and limiting the inflation ofactivity prices during mega-events. To strengthen repeat visitation intentions inthis regard, event stakeholders are advised to employ post-trip promotionalefforts which remind tourists of the ‘equity’ satisfaction that this experience pro-vided them with. These efforts should suggest that this experience can be easilyreplicated and will minimise any unnecessary risk that can be associated withpurchasing an alternative, potentially unsatisfactory experience.

With respect to ‘expectation’ satisfaction, event stakeholders are advised toensure that tourists’ trips to the host destination, for the purpose of attending amega-event, successfully exceed their expectations. This can be achieved by shift-ing investment away from extravagant marketing campaigns and redirecting ittowards improving customer service operations. This strategy will force event sta-keholders to remain reliant on the status and reputation of the mega-event alone toattract initial tourist visits. Investments in customer service operations shouldfocus on offering training courses for local workers across all sectors, aimed atimproving their language skills and business etiquette. ‘Expectation’ satisfactionwill strengthen tourists’ repeat visitation intentions in this regard, with the help ofadditional, tailored post-trip promotional efforts. These promotional effortsshould leverage the ‘expectation’ satisfaction established during the tourists’initial experience of the destination, whilst attending the mega-event and use itto promote the idea that the host destination is able to exceed any prevailing expec-tations of the destination; especially those that can be linked to tourists’ motiv-ations for repeat visitation (cf. Gitelson & Crompton, 1984).

Finally, with respect to ‘relative’ satisfaction, event stakeholders have littlecontrol over tourists’ reported measures, due to their inability to control tourists’previous travel experiences. The best strategy for event stakeholders in thisregard would be to support the shift of investment into the improvement of cus-tomer service operations, which would strengthen the relative performance ofthe host destination when compared to previous alternative destination experi-ences. Furthermore, ‘relative’ satisfaction will strengthen tourists’ repeat visita-tion intentions in this regard, with the help of additional, tailored, post-trippromotional efforts. These promotional efforts should leverage the ‘relative’satisfaction established during the tourists’ initial experience of the destination,whilst attending the mega-event, and use it to reinforce the idea that a repeatvisit to the host destination is the choice of future travel that is most likely tofulfil any prevailing future travel motives.

It should be noted that in order to most effectively leverage the satisfactionestablished during the tourists’ initial experience of the destination, whilstattending the mega-event, the proposed post-trip promotional efforts shouldbe targeted specifically at potential repeat travellers and should be gearedtowards highlighting the ability of the destination to fulfil the documentedmotives typically associated with destination repeat visitation (cf. Gitleson &Crompton, 1984). In this regard, all post-trip promotional content shouldpromote: (i) information about areas of the destination which have not yet

Journal of Sport & Tourism 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

been visited, (ii) the ease within which the destination can replicate and guar-antee a satisfactory visit, (iii) potential package deals that encourage travel inlarger groups, and (iv) informed trip suggestions based on previous travelpatterns.

Limitations

The main limitation of this study surrounds the amount of variance the modelexplains, 0.168. Typically, an explanation of a greater proportion of variance ina model is desirable; Malhotra (2010) suggests that values exceeding 0.60 areconsidered acceptable. However, Colton and Bower (2002) report that it is acommon misconception that models with low R-squared values can exhibitno meaningful relationships in the data. In fact, Colton and Bower (2002)suggest that research which reflects human behaviour can often fail toexplain high proportions of variance; concluding that significant inferencesfrom the data can still hold practical importance.

A further limitation to the study surrounds the extent to which the finalrealised sample differs slightly from the targeted sample, in terms of thequota proportions. The implications of reporting a greater sample of domestictourists, than the predetermined reported quota, suggests that this realisedsample: (i) may marginally underestimate the sample populations’ overall per-ception of safety-risk, due to the de-sensitivity to risk that domestic tourists willhave experienced whilst residing in the country and (ii) may marginally over-estimate the sample populations’ overall intention to revisit the host destination,as domestic tourists travel behaviour in this regard will be more routine.

The final limitation of the study surrounds the extenuating circumstancesunder which the fieldwork was conducted. During the data collectionprocess, a number of violent protests occurred within the research area thatdirectly influenced the event on which the research was based. As a result, itis entirely possible that under these unique set of circumstances, this researchrecorded measures of safety-risk perceptions that were higher than typicallyexpected, and measures of satisfaction and intentions to revisit the host destina-tion that were higher than typically expected, as demonstrated by the significantrelationships illustrated in the model. This is in response to the reports andencounters of violent mobs, strong repressive actions from the local police,and general public disruption across Brazil’s major cities.

Future research

Further research should investigate the incorporation of additional constructssuch as information search, as modelled by Taks et al. (2009), in order toexplain more variation in the conceptual model. The decision to exclude infor-mation search from this mediation analysis was based on the composition ofthis study’s targeted sample, which reported 64.5% of respondents as domestic

18 R. George et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

tourists. Snepenger and Snepenger (1993) explain in this regard, that routinetrips made by domestic tourists require very little or no information search,compared to overseas trips made by international tourists which require exten-sive external information search. As a result of this study receiving such a highproportion of domestic tourists, it was determined that the construct of infor-mation search would hold little relevance amongst this study’s realised sample.

Complimenting this line of research, future studies could further investigatewhich safety-risk information sources are the most prominent in reducing tour-ists’ perceptions of safety-risk surrounding a host destination. Previous researchhas identified: television, magazines, and newspapers (Chen & Gursoy, 2000;Fodness & Murray, 1999; Money & Crotts, 2003) as the most popular pre-trip information sources; however, no past research has statistically associatedthese communication platforms with the ability to control travel-related riskperceptions. Research of this nature would highlight the areas where event sta-keholders should focus their investment in an attempt to tackle tourists’ safetyand security anxieties surrounding the host destination. An investment of thisnature would be expected to further increase tourists’ propensity to return toa host destination, forming a stimulant for socioeconomic value and tourismgrowth opportunities.

Finally, future studies could also investigate the role that destination imageadopts within this mediation model. Previous research has documented a linkbetween tourists’ images of the destination and their perceptions of travel-risk (Qi et al., 2009). Furthermore, this study’s findings suggest that destinationimage can be inherently linked to the creation of ‘expectation’ satisfaction, anotion that is supported by existing literature (Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007).Research of this nature has the potential to shift the implications of thismediation model from being purely mitigating in nature to being able to offermore predictive courses of action. In this respect, event stakeholders will beinformed as to both the pre-trip and post-trip communication strategies thatare most effective in stimulating repeat travel intentions amongst tourists, fol-lowing the hosting of a mega-event.

References

Arana, J. E., & Leon, C J. (2008). The impact of terrorism on tourism demand. Annalsof Tourism Research, 35(2), 299–315.

Baker, D., & Crompton, J. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions.Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785–804.

Barker, M., Page, S., & Meyer, D. (2002). Modelling tourism crime: The 2000America’s Cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 762–782.

Barker, M., Page, S., & Meyer, D. (2003). Urban visitor perceptions of safety during aspecial event. Journal of Travel Research, 41(4), 355–361.

BBC News. (2013a). Rio de Janeiro bus rape: Shock over latest Brazil attack. Retrievedfrom http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22421512

Journal of Sport & Tourism 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

BBC News. (2013b). Newspaper review: Papers reflect on Boston bombings. Retrievedfrom http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22178829

Bigne, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variablesand after purchase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22(6),607–616.

Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surround-ings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 69–82.

Boo, S., & Gu, H. (2010). Risk perception of mega-events. Journal of Sport & Tourism,15(2), 139–161.

Bowen, D. (2001). Antecedents of consumer satisfaction and dis-satisfaction on long-haul inclusive tours: A reality check on theoretical considerations. TourismManagement, 22(1), 49–61.

Campo-Martınez, S., Garau-Vadell, J. B., & Martınez-Ruiz, M. P. (2010). Factorsinfluencing repeat visits to a destination: The influence of group composition.Tourism Management, 31(6), 862–870.

Carr, N. (2001). An exploratory study of gendered differences in you tourists percep-tion of danger within London. Tourism Management, 22(1), 565–570.

Chalip, L. (2004). Beyond impact: A general model for sport event leverage. In B. W.Ritchie & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: Interrelationships, impacts and issues(pp. 226–252). Clevedon: Channel View.

Chen, J. S., & Gursoy, D. (2000). Cross-cultural comparison of the information sourcesused by first-time and repeat travelers and its marketing implications. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management, 19(1), 191–203.

Chen, J. S., & Gursoy, D. (2001). An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty andpreferences. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,13(2), 79–85.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equationmodeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research(pp. 89–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colton, J. A., & Bower, K. M. (2002). Some misconceptions about R2. InternationalSociety of Six Sigma Professionals, EXTRAOrdinary Sense, 3(2), 20–22.

Cronin, J. J. Jr., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality,value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in serviceenvironments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.

Daily Mail Reporter. (2013a). Riot police, tear gas and fire . . . but it’s not for real!Brazilian authorities prepare for Confederations Cup with World Cup just oneyear away. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2332849/Brazil-security-forces-prepare-riots-Confederations-Cup.html

Daily Mail Reporter. (2013b). Cleaning up Brazil’s most dangerous favelas: Howarmed police are waging war on vicious drug cartels that rule the slums of Rio asthey fight to make the city safe before the 2016 Olympic Games. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2342458/Cleaning-Brazils-dangerous-favelas-How-armed-police-waging-war-vicious-drug-cartels-rule-slums-Rio-fight-make-city-safe-eyes-world-turn-2016-Olympic-Games.html

Darnell, S. C. (2010). Mega sport for all? Assessing the development promises of Rio2016. In R. Barney, J. Forsyth, & M. Heine (Eds.), Rethinking matters Olympic:Investigations into the socio-cultural study of the modern Olympic movement,10th international symposium for Olympic research (pp. 498–507). London,ON: International Centre for Olympic Studies. Retrieved from http://www.uwo.ca/olympic/files/downloads/2010_edition_collection.pdf

20 R. George et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Faulkner, B., & Vikulov, S. (2001). Katherine, washed out one day, back on track thenext: A post-mortem of a tourism disaster. Tourism Management, 22, 331–344.

FIFA.com. (2013). More than 588,178 tickets sold for the FIFA Confederations Cup.Retrieved from http://www.fifa.com/confederationscup/organisation/ticketing/news/newsid=2075224/index.html

Floyd, M. F., Gibson, H., Pennington-Gray, L., & Thapa, B. (2004). The effect of riskperceptions on intentions to travel in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(2–3), 19–38.

Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1999). A model of tourist information search behaviour.Journal of Travel Research, 37(3), 220–230.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of MarketingResearch, 18(3), 382–388.

Fuchs, G., & Reichal, A. (2004). Cultural differences in tourist destination risk percep-tion: An exploratory study. Tourism, 52(1), 21–37.

Gartner, W. C., & Shen, J. (1992). The impact of Tiananmen Square on China’s tourismimage. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 47–52.

George, R. (2003). Tourists’ perceptions of safety and security while visiting CapeTown. Tourism Management, 24(8), 575–585.

George, R. (2010). Visitor perceptions of crime-safety and attitudes towards risk: Thecase of Table Mountain National Park, Cape Town. Tourism Management, 31,806–815.

George, R. (2012). International tourists’ perceptions of crime-risk and their futuretravel intentions during the 2010 FIFA World CupTM in South Africa. CrimePrevention and Community Safety, 14(2), 79–103.

George, R., & Mawby, R. (2013). Security at the 2012 London Olympics: Spectators’perceptions of London as a safe city. Security Journal, 21, 95–116.

Germany. (2013). National tourist board. ‘A time to make friendsTM’: The 2006 FIFAWorld CupTM and its effect on the image and economy of Germany. Berlin:Government Printer.

Gibson, H., & Yiannakis, A. (2002). Tourist roles: Needs and the life course. Annals ofTourism Research, 29(2), 358–383.

Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2002). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy ofMarketing Science Review, 2000(1), 1–24.

Gitelson, R. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1984). Insights into the repeat vacation phenom-enon. Annals of Tourism Research, 11(1), 199–217.

Holcomb, J., & Pizam, A. (2006). Do incidents of theft at tourist destinations havea negative effect on tourists’ decisions to travel to affected destinations? InY. Mansfeld & A. Pizam (Eds.), Tourism, security and safety: From theory to prac-tice (pp. 105–124). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

International Olympic Committee. (2012). Marketing report London 2012. Retrievedfrom http://www.olympic.org/Documents/IOC_Marketing/London_2012/LR_IOC_MarketingReport_medium_res1.pdf

Jarrel, S., & Howsen, R. M. (1990). Transient crowding and crime. American Journalof Economics and Sociology, 49(4), 483–493.

Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2007). The interrelationship between sport event and des-tination image and sport tourists’ behaviours. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3–4),183–206.

Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behaviour at two distinct destinations. Annals of TourismResearch, 28(3), 784–807.

Journal of Sport & Tourism 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Kozak, M., Crotts, J. C., & Law, R. (2007). The impact of the perception of risk oninternational travellers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(1), 233–242.

LaTour, S. A., & Peat, N. C. (1979). Conceptual and methodological issues in consu-mer satisfaction research. Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 431–437.

Lee, J., Graefe, A., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioralintention among forest visitors. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(1),73–82.

Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 606–624.

Malhotra, N. (2010). Marketing research: An applied orientation (6th ed.). Cape Town:Pearson.

Mawby, R. I., Brunt, P., & Hambly, Z. (2000). Fear of crime among British holiday-makers. British Journal of Criminology, 40(2), 468–479.

Money, R. B., & Crotts, J. C. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on infor-mation search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations. TourismManagement, 24(2), 191–202.

Mowen, J., & Minor, M. (1998). Consumer behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

NDTV Sports. (2013). Brazil football chief admits 2014 World Cup safety concerns.Retrieved from http://sports.ndtv.com/football/news/202819-brazil-football-chief-admits-2014-world-cup-safety-concerns

Neirotti, L. D., & Hilliard, T. (2006). Impact of Olympic spectator safety perceptionand security concerns on travel decisions. Tourism Review International, 10(1),269–284.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satis-

faction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(1), 460–469.Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influ-

ences on merchant and product satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(1),372–383.

Petrick, J. F., Morais, D. D., & Norman, W. C. (2001). An examination of the determi-nants of entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of TravelResearch, 40(1), 41–48.

Qi, C. X., Gibson, H. J., & Zhang, J. (2009). Perceptions of risk and travel intentions:The case of China and the Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Sport & Tourism,14(1), 43–67.

Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2005). Travel anxiety and intentions to travel interna-tionally: Implications of travel risk perceptions. Journal of Travel Research,43(3), 212–225.

Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2006). Cultural differences in travel risk perception.Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 20(1), 13–31.

Richter, L. K. (1983). Tourism politics and political science: A case of not so benignneglect. Annals of Tourism Research, 10(3), 313–315.

Richter, L. K. (2003). International tourism and its global public health consequences.Journal of Travel Research, 41(4), 340–347.

Rittichainuwat, B., & Chakraborty, G. (2009). Perceived travel risks regarding terror-ism and disease: The case of Thailand. Tourism Management, 30(3), 410–418.

Rittichainuwat, B., Qu, H., & Leong, J. (2003). The collective impacts of a bundle oftravel determinants on repeat visitation. Journal of Hospitality and TourismResearch, 27(1), 217–236.

22 R. George et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014

Rittichainuwat, B. N., Qu, H., & Mongkhonvanit, C. (2002). A study of the impact oftravel satisfaction on the likelihood of travelers to revisit Thailand. Journal ofTravel & Tourism Marketing, 12(2), 19–43.

Schissel, L. (2012). Rio 2016: Mega-event urban planning and imagining the anti-Olympics scale-shift process (Unpublished thesis). University of Miami.

Snepenger, D., & Snepenger, M. (1993). Information search by pleasure travellers. InM. A. Kahn, M. D. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of hospitality andtourism (pp. 830–835). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Sonmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Determining future travel behaviour from pasttravel experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research,37(1), 171–177.

Taks, M., Chalip, L., Green, B. C., Kesenne, S., & Martyn, S. (2009). Factors affectingrepeat visitation and flow-on tourism as sources of event strategy sustainability.Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14(2–3), 121–142.

Taylor, T., & Toohey, K. (2007). Perceptions of terrorism threats at the 2004 OlympicGames: Implications for sport events. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(2), 99–114.

Turco, D., Tichaawa, T., Moodley, V., Munien, S., Jaggernath, J., & Stofberg, Q.(2012). Profiles of foreign visitors attending the 2010 FIFA World Cup in SouthAfrica. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance,1(1), 73–80.

US Department of State. (1996). Patterns of global terrorism: 1996. Washington, DC:Author.

Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satis-faction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1),45–56.

Zekulin, M. (2009). Olympic security: Assessing the risk of terrorism at the 2010Vancouver Winter Games. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 12(1), 1–25.

Journal of Sport & Tourism 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Ric

hard

Geo

rge]

at 0

8:28

13

Aug

ust 2

014