Security Study
Travel and tourism are major industries in European countries such as Greece. The hotel industry is dedicated to making the accommodations for their patrons as enjoyable as possible. This means ensuring that hotel guests, visitors, and staff have a safe and secure environment. It is for this reason that many of the larger hotel chains have their own private security personnel who are entrusted to maintain the safety of the hotel grounds and immediate area surrounding hotel. There a delicate balance between maintain hotel security for tourists, having the daily operations of the hotel run smoothly, and keeping security services in the background but ye at the same time effective and visible. Maintaining this balance between effectiveness and suitableness is not easy. The current study interviewed Greek15 hotel employees, either hotel security personnel or hotel managers, regarding their opinions on major issues related to the security of their hotel as well as to security issues in the hotel industry in general. The data was subjected to thematic analysis and 11 major themes in the data were identified. These themes are discussed in their relation to current and future security issues in the hotel industry.
Introduction
Background
Safety is a basic human need and having a safe and secure environment is a top priority in nearly every model/theory of human needs or human motivation (e.g., Maslow 1943). This need for a safe environment is so basic that it is a major consideration even for tourists on holiday trying to escape the pressures of their everyday existence (Boakye 2010). Thus, vacationers away from home will typically want to stay in an environment that provides them with similar feelings of security that they experience when they are at home, otherwise they will not be willing to spend their hard-earned money on a hotel or on other tourist accommodations (Boakye 2010).
The success and reputation of a hotel or a hotel chain is highly dependent on its ability to produce a safe and secure environment for its guests, visitors, and employees (Santana 2012). One of the top priorities associated with providing a safe and secure environment is that the hotel must properly provide for the protection and maintenance of the assets of its guests, visitors, employees and yet not appear to be a military installation. Having a secure environment for tourists would include such things as providing the perception that there is a secure milieu associated with the hotel grounds; the actual ability to protect the physical assets of the guests, employees, and visitors; and the notion that other assets such as the intangible assets that the guests bring with them or acquire during their stay such as new relationships, their reputations, a sense of relaxation, and so forth are also secure (Santana 2012). Thus, any hotel's reputation as well as its standard conduct of business is dependent on the protection that the hotel affords to its guests, visitors, employees, contractors, the actual physical structure of the hotel premises, and all that is contained within the grounds of the hotel and surrounding area and everything pertinent to the hotel property (Boakye 2010; Santana 2012).
Hotel security systems and personnel must deploy numerous assets resources and invest significant energy in order to diminish the large number of potential security risks that hotels face (Clifton 2012). These risks include a number of different potential threats such as criminal activities that affect the guests, employees, or visitors of a hotel; sabotage; potential terrorism; potential injuries that can occur to individuals on the grounds; the threat of fire; and the threat of other potential natural or man -- made disasters (Clifton 2012). As travel and tourism increases and more and more people spend their time away from home there are simply more opportunities for criminals and other potential threats to hotel security to occur. While such things as theft and attacks on hotel guests represent extreme circumstances when one looks at the overall statistics, they also represent the vulnerability that many hotel guests face and the challenges to hotel security personnel to maintain a secure environment.
Some of the more common vulnerabilities that occur to guests and employees of hotels include physical attacks, theft of personal possessions, identity theft, or the theft of other possessions (Ho, Zhao, and Brown 2009), injuries to guests and hotel personnel, and the potential for the devastating effects from fire or other types of disasters (Boakye 2010). All of these risks cannot be avoided; however, the risks of these events occurring in the hotel can be mitigated through basic and enhanced security techniques and methods. Certainly the costs of the systems and manpower needed to make the hotel environment safe for guests, employees, and visitors has to be considered in the context of the overall security program. It is also noted by many researchers in tourism that it is a requirement for a hotel to provide a safe and secure environment in that hotel patrons, employees, visitors, and others have a legal right for this type of protection and security (e.g., Boakye 2010; Clifton 2012). As such, hotels can take basic steps towards creating a more secure environment and can utilize many different types of security techniques to decrease risk.
The basic steps are relatively inexpensive and the decision to employ more complex security techniques/systems depends on the budgets and financial ability of the hotel system (Clifton 2012). The empirical literature indicates that certain types of techniques/security systems are more cost-effective than others and it is a requirement of a hotel to at least provide minimal, affective, security measures for their guests, employees, and visitors (Clifton 2012). Thus, any of the financial situations of the hotel or hotel chain the decision-makers decide on the basic framework for the expenditures regarding security purposes and the security officers and management did their best implement them (Boakye 2010).
The current study investigates the factors that hotel security personal and hotel managers who are affiliated with one of three luxury hotels in Greece view as being important to provide for the safety of their guests. The hotel personal completed a questionnaire that asked them their opinions on various security-rated issues at the hotel in which they were employed and concerning their perceptions of security-related issues in the hotel industry in general.
Aims and Objectives
The objective of this dissertation is to capture the subjective opinions regarding hotel security of individuals who actual make a living in the hotel industry. The participants of this study are asked to give their opinions on important issues regarding hotel security as it relates to their actual experience in the field as well as their personal opinions on the hotel industry in general.
It is important to try and understand the perceptions of security personal as they are the individuals who actually get the first-hand experience in the day-to-day operations of keeping hotel patrons safe and secure (Clifton 2012). But just investigating the perspectives of hotel security personal would only result in uncovering a piece of the overall issues in hotel security. Security personal are only a part of a larger team. Also attempting to understand the viewpoints of hotel management personal regarding how security issues fit into the overall operation of the hotel is important because these individuals must balance the needs of security issues with other day-to-day issues involving other hotel employees, hotel patrons, and visitors in order to keep the facility running smoothly and efficiently. Their viewpoint tends to include a more integrated view of how security issues fit into the overall daily operations and routines of a larger system. Thus, the objective of this dissertation is to understand how the perspectives of both hotel security personal and hotel managers can help both guide researches and hotel personal to create a safer, more secure, and more efficiently-operating hotel environment.
Structure of This Dissertation
The dissertation begins with an extensive literature review that covers security factors in the hotel industry in Europe. Issues regarding both the practical and psychological ramifications of hotel security in the European tourist industry are discussed. Following the literature review is a comprehensive section of the methodology of the quantitative study that investigated the opinions of 15 hotel managers and security personal working in luxury tourist hotels in Greece. The section on data chapters reports the analysis of the data collected in the study and develops the major themes extracted from the responses to the questionnaire they were administered. The discussion section presents a comprehensive interpretation of the research findings based on the literature review as well as discussing how these findings can be used to guide future research as well as their practical applications in light of the study's strengths and weaknesses. Finally the bibliography and appendices sections present the references for citations and the materials used in the study.
Literature Review
Tourism is a significant contributor to the economies of European Union (EU) member states (European Commission 2013). The tourism industry directly generates more than 5% of the GDP of the EU with approximately 5.2% of the total labor force, which is roughly around 9.7 million jobs of individuals employed in the nearly 2 million enterprises that directly involved in the tourist industry in the EU (European Commission 2013). When all related sectors that are affected by the tourism industry are taken into account such as increased employment to industries like transportation, the restaurant industry, and so forth the probable contribution of tourism to the GDP in Europe tourism is more than 10% of the total EU GDP and tourism accounts for about 12% of the total EU labor force (European commission 2013).
In Greece where this dissertation is focussed, Tourism contributes more than 20% on of the GDP, covers 60% of the trade balance deficit, employs 1 out of 5 residents and generates more than 40 bl. total demands ? (SETE, 2013) It would be better to spell this reference in full for clarity Comment by Rudy: OK- now YOU added this paragraph, so I'll let you fix it according to your professor. You will also need to put these added references in the references section. I also do not think that this paragraph belongs here, but that is your call. If you add something make sure the spelling and grammar and I'd be more descriptive here. Your insert doesn't even make sense- what is 40 bl. Total demands?
Growth in tourism is also associated with opportunities for an increased incidence of crime (Botterill and Jones 2010). There appears to be a long-established relationship between increases in crime and tourism. Tourists are lucrative targets for several reasons. First, tourists will typically carry considerable amounts of money and credit cards and other valuables and they are not generally familiar with the area that they are in. Those are also vulnerable as they are more likely to be off guard and relaxed. Finally, tourists may often be less likely to report crimes due to wishing to avoid returning to testify against the perpetrator or further compromising their vacation (Botterill and Jones 2010).
In order to continue to remain an important factor in the economic development of the EU tourism must become more attractive for people who are potentially interested in traveling and staying at EU sites and the tourist industry must be able to attract repeat business. This means understanding what factors potential customers or potential visitors consider when deciding on where to spend their leisure time and also understanding other factors that are important in drawing in tourists such as the integrity of tourist sites, making sure that recruitment for potential employees in these areas is effective in getting the best potential workers available, and considering the needs and desires of the indigenous populations in these areas (Santana 2012). The need to take into account all of these considerations have led to the notion of sustainable tourism by the tourism industry.
Sustainable Tourism and Hotel Safety
The tourism industry has developed the concept of sustainable tourism, which grew out of the concept of sustainable development, to define the notion of tourism in all market segments and all definitions of tourism types (see Lu and Nepal 2009). Sustainable tourism has been defined in a number of different ways; however, it is typically viewed as a positive approach intended to reduce the tensions and frictions that are created by the multifaceted interactions between the tourism industry, visitors, the environment, and the communities which are hosts to tourists (Lu and Nepal 2009). While the notion of sustainable tourism originally was used to describe the meshing of the needs of the indigenous populations and the environment with the tourist industry in its current conceptualization it all aspects of tourism including the needs of the tourists, the environment, and the needs of the inhabitants of the areas that are frequented by travelers (Global Sustainable Tourism Council 2013). This includes considering minimizing the negative impacts of tourism on the natural and cultural environment of these areas, supporting the maintenance and upkeep of the areas frequented by tourists, and maintaining the integrity of guests, employees, and the native populations in these areas. Sustainable tourism also focuses on all the broad issues affecting both the tourists and the inhabitants of a particular area such as minimizing potential terrorist attacks, the effects of potential natural disasters, partnering with local governments to the benefit of the communities involved, and other related issues (Global Sustainable Tourism Council 2013). Since 64% of all tourist overnight stays in the EU occur in hotels, the hotel industry is a viable part of the tourism industry in the EU (European Commission, 2013). Thus, any concerns regarding hotel security in this context would also consider all of these factors; however, the major focus of this paper is to understand how hotels can provide maximum safety and security for their hotel guests, visitors, and employees. Maintaining a secure environment in and around hotels frequented by tourists benefits both the tourists and the inhabitants of these areas by reducing the overall crime rate, reducing the potential for terrorism, keeping the areas clean, and so forth. Increasing the security of the hotel premises frequented by tourists is also a major factor contributing to the reputation and success of a hotel or hotel chain and for this reason safety and security need to be considered to fall under the over-arching term of sustainable tourism (Global Sustainable Tourism Council 2013).
Tourism is a part of contemporary trends combining passions of culture, recreation, and relaxation (Song and Gang 2008). The tourism industry and the choice to stay in a commercial hotel are affected by two major forces or two trends (Kurleto 2012). The first trend is related to the environmental issues of the destination such as its attractiveness as a tourist site, product labeling, or issues such as waste management. The second trend is related to the general level of security perceived to be associated with the particular destination (Kurleto 2012). This second trend has become an increasingly important factor in the consumer decision-making process regarding what tourist attractions individuals will frequent. For instance, despite offering many cultural and historical attractions for tourists there are several countries that are now perceived as being too dangerous to visit and tourism has sharply declined in these countries (for example see Piazzo 2014). Threats to the security of potential tourists are considered to be one of the most important aspects taken into consideration before these individuals decide on the types of destinations and accommodations they will seek (Kurleto 2012).
The importance of security as a motivating factor in determining where potential tourists will stay is consistent with many human psychological needs theories or motivation theories. Perhaps the most cited needs theory is that of Abraham Maslow (1943). Maslow's hierarchy of needs (1943) is composed of five levels of needs beginning with the most basic needs at the bottom to more abstract and self-fulfilling needs at the top. Maslow's hierarchy of needs from the basic to more advanced levels consists of physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness and love needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization needs at the highest level. Maslow's hierarchy of needs has been used as a framework for the evaluation of hotel resources and services (e.g., Duncan and Blugis 2011). Relating Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory to hotel selection by tourists would consider such things as food, cover prices, and so forth to accommodate physiological needs. Personal security, security of information, or security of the longings would qualify as safety needs. Interactions with hotel staff, guests, and family members would qualify as belongingness needs, whereas maintaining a sense of self-respect and getting respect from others during the stay would qualify as self-esteem needs (Duncan and Blugis 2011). Maslow believed the lowest four levels of needs are deficiency needs or requirements for physical and mental health (Maslow 1943). In relation to the hotel industry the safety needs then would be a primary consideration for tourists wishing to spend time away from home. If there is a perception that their safety and security is in danger tourists would be more likely to avoid such areas and if they feel threatened or their security is breached during their stay they are less likely to return or offer a positive recommendation to other potential visitors. Thus, hospitality sites viewed by potential customers as being unsafe will probably not flourish (O'Fallon, M.J. And Rutherford 2011).
It is also hard to envision individuals arguing against a moral imperative that hotel owners, managers, and employees should do their best to maintain a safe and secure environment for hotel guests, visitors, and their employees and that these business should invest a considerable amount of their income in maintaining the security of their grounds (Eurico, Oliveira, and Hoefnagels 2014; O'Fallon, M.J. And Rutherford 2011). Thus, in addition to the moral obligation that the hotel staff and hotel management has to provide for the safety of its guests and visitors maintaining the perception of safety and security on the premises is a basic economic factor in the sustainability of the business. Even if guests, visitors, employees are actually safe in reality the mere perception that the hotel grounds are not safe could drive them away (Duncan and Blugis 2011). Empirical evidence generated researchers in the tourism industry indicates that safety is a top concern for potential hotel guests when they are choosing a potential hotel.
Research Investigating Potential Hotel Guests' Choice Criteria
There are quite a few empirical studies that have focused on the types of hotel selection criteria consider potential tourists and many of these studies indicate that security concerns are important issues when customers select hotels. Often the price is one of the top factors in hotel selection (e.g., Ramanathan and Ramanathan 2011), consistent with Maslow's hierarchy (cost would fall within the physiological needs category); however, security concerns also take precedence in hotel selection. For instance, an early review by Dolnicar and Otter (2003) reviewed 21 studies published between 1984 and 2000 in hospitability research literature that identified important criteria that potential guests used in determining their hotel selection. The researchers identified 173 hotel attributes categorized them into 10 fields: services, image, room, price or value, location, hotel, security, marketing, food and beverage and others (e.g., gifts, hotel newsletter or hotel hours of operation). Specific security issues were identified as important in the hotel choice in 13 of the studies and other security-related issues such as hotel location and hotel image were identified in 17 of the 21 studies as important factors influencing consumer choice.
Early qualitative research designs also identified the importance of security factors as considerations for hotel choice. For example, Cho and Choi (2000) utilized Importance Performance Analysis (IPA), a qualitative method of inquiry used to provide directions for making strategic decisions in marketing and development, to ascertain what qualities of a particular hotel/hotel chain are most important to potential guests in the Hong Kong hotel industry. In IPA designs the participants fill out a four quadrant grid were each quadrant contains a specific feature/service that the firm offers and participants rate it on its desirability, efficiency, and the current performance of the institution regarding a domain. The researchers also used a quantitative analysis, in this case principal components analysis, to rate the relative importance of the particular attributes of a hotel regarding customer selection. Although the security factor in the principal components analysis contained only two components which were fire safety and visible security personnel, it was one of the most important considerations reported by hotel guests in their choice of hotel. In the qualitative IPA analysis the tourists rated the security factors of a hotel to be the most important consideration in their choice, whereas business travelers rated it as the second most important choice.
Feickert, Verma, Plaschka, and Dev (2006) completed interviews with 930 guests who had stayed at an EU economy, midrange, or luxury hotel in the year prior to the study. Using regression analyses the researchers found that individuals who traveled more and stayed in hotels more often were more likely to accept stricter security measures and were more likely to be willing to pay for them than were individuals who infrequently stayed in hotels. Moreover, females, leisure travelers, and individuals who had experienced a security breach previously were more likely to choose hotels based on the sophistication level of their security systems than were males, business travelers, or individuals who it not been the victim of a security breach. The researchers suggest that tourists with families and those who have traveled more often consider security measures as being extremely important in their choice of a hotel.
A great deal of the more recent research that has concentrated on the potential tourists' selection criteria for choosing a hotel is quantitative in nature. For instance, Hilliard and Baloglu (2008) explored the consumer's willingness to pay more money for their stay based on the security features of the particular hotel. The researchers were particularly interested in what they termed the hotel's 'servicescape' or physical features that are related to the perception of enhanced security and how this plays an important role in customer choice and customer satisfaction. The researchers found that three dimensions played an important role in customer choice: visible safety features, physical documentation of enhanced security measures and staff training, and other general security features such as safes or electronic ID cards. Abdullah and Mohad (2012) performed a correlational analysis on the internal attributes of hotel services and customer satisfaction, customer repeat business, and overall occupancy rates. They found a significant positive correlation between the customers' view that security was both visible and efficient and customer satisfaction, repeat business, and overall occupancy rates in Asian hotels. Sohrabi et al. (2012) investigated selection factors of Tehran hotels using a factor analytic approach with hotel guests' ratings of particular hotel features as the data. Several factors were uncovered in the analysis; however, the security and protection factor accounted for the largest amount of the variance in the data when compared to other factors such as comfort, cleanliness, hotel staff, or hotel services. Hove, Mudzura, Runyowa, et al. (2013) found a positive relationship between enhanced security measures and customer loyalty and customer retention in hotels and catering facilities in Zimbabwe.
There is also empirical research that uses the Service Quality model, often abbreviated as the 'SERVQUAL' model, as a tool for understanding the issues affecting the service quality in the hotel industry. The outcomes of this research have contributed to the understanding of the dimensional structure of the service quality in the hotel service industry. The SERVQUAL model was developed by a group of researchers in 1988 (see Buttie 1996) and subsequent research has collapsed the model into five factors that include reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy, and responsiveness (the acronym RATER; Crick and Spencer, A. 2011). The model has also been applied as a tool to understand the gap between customer expectations and management perceptions regarding issues of customer satisfaction. The use of the SERVQUAL model has consistently indicated that customers expect secure and safe accommodations during their stay and this expectation often exceeds other desires/expectations of the guests. For example, Boon-itt and Rompho (2012) used the SERVQUAL model to determine the expectations of guests that stayed at three-star and four-star hotels in Bangkok, Thailand and found that the customers' number one expectation was that the facility was perceived as being safe and secure. There was also a significant gap between what hotel managers considered the number one customer concerns of price or comfortable accommodations compared to the actual customer concerns of security.
The importance of the need for solid hotel security measures in order to generate business and to retain customers has even turned up in research that did not use it as a qualifier for hotel selection. For example, Ramanathan and Ramanathan (2011) used data from online customer ratings of 664 hotels in the UK to determine important factors in the ratings of a hotel. Using a regression model analysis to identify attributes of a hotel that were either critical, important termed 'satisfiers', or not important termed 'dis-satisfiers', it was found that the value of the hotel for the cost was most the most important attribute in the guests choice; however, security issues were also mentioned as important even though they were not part of the prominent attributes being analyzed by the researchers.
Thus, it can be seen that customers expect to be safe and secure when they check into a hotel. There is sufficient to empirical evidence that indicates that potential customers consider the security factors of a particular hotel as being extremely important when they are considering which hotels to frequent. When potential customers perceive that a particular facility lacks in its approach to the security and safety of its guests they are more likely not to consider it as a viable alternative (. Hotel security mangers are burdened with the task of not only making their hotels safe and secure, but also making them appear to be safe and secure.
Certain factors of the hotel environment, hotel clientele, or the area surrounding the hotel can contribute to the potential for criminal activities occurring in the hotel itself. The potential security measures used in hotels are often based on these types of risk factors and these play important role in how security assets are utilized in hotels (e.g., see Boakye 2010). Empirical research has also investigated the factors that are related to the potential that a particular facility is at risk for crime. These factors are discussed next.
Risk Factors
Research has indicated that the most common crime committed in hotels is theft; however, any number of other crimes can occur from assault to murder to kidnapping and other terrorist acts (Boakye 2010; Eurico, Oliveira, and Hoefnagels 2014; Ho, Zhao, and Brown 2009; Kannan 2013; Krkoska and Robeck 2009). Several theories have been proposed to explain the types of risk factors that increase the potential for any crime that can occur in a hotel. There is no empirical research that delineates very specific risk factors for very specific types of crimes that occur in hotel settings (Boakye 2010; Eurico et al. 2014).
Routine Activities Theory and Defensible Space Theories. The conclusions of the more current research regarding the risk of crime occurring in hotels are consistent with the more classic research in hotel security by Cohen and Felson (1979) and Newman (1973). Cohen and Felson (1979) introduced the notion of routine activities where victimization risk is higher among facilities that experience routine and constant exposure to criminals and have an environment that is more criminal -- friendly. Thus, a high degree of target suitability, close proximity to motivated potential offenders, and low -- level security measures contribute to the risk of being victimized. Quantitative research studies have found significant correlations with these three aspects of routine activities theory and increased crime rates in public facilities including hotels (Clifton 2012; Ortmeier 2013; Santana 2012).
Newman (1973) posited the idea of defensible space that argued that crime rates can be reduced by attending to the physical vulnerability of the particular property. According to this notion there are two aspects of defensible space that are directly related to crime rates.
Newman's (1973) first aspect is natural surveillance which is the capacity of people to be able to view the inside or outside of non-private areas such as hotels. Thus, centralized entrances for hotels and/or electronic locks on entrance doors can reduce potential criminal activity.
Newman's (1973) second aspect, image and milieu, is related to the perception of the hotel property and surrounding environment. If image is negative the particular area will be stigmatized and more likely to be a high crime area. For instance, if the area surrounding a particular hotel is perceived as an unsafe zone characterized by such things as graffiti, littering, panhandlers, etc. The hotel will be at greater risk for victimization than those areas without such features.
The current research regarding elements that increase the risk of hotel crime mirrors the findings of Cohen and Felson (1979) and Newman (1973).
Recent Findings. Research indicates that criminal acts tend to be concentrated on particular types of people, places, and things (Banergee 2013; Clifton 2012; Ortmeier 2012; Santana 2012). This particular observation is important and offers opportunities for understanding how the identification of certain types of situations and the high risk targets for criminals can help hotel security forces to eliminate these situations or environmental conditions (Santana 2012). Empirical research is in hotel security and crime prevention has developed to guide prevention efforts that capture different aspects of these variables (Boakye 2010).
Eck, Clarke, and Guerette (2007) referred to both the situations ad types of facilities that are at increased risk as "risky facilities"; however they are best described as "risky situations." Risky situations can be treated as an extension of the concept of repeat victimization (Eck et al. 2007; Santana 2012). Treating risky situations in this manner differentiates between the individuals who were the victims of crime from the location or situation at which the particular crimes occur most often (Banergee 2013). There are three major variables to consider.
The first risky situation that is important to consider would be the size of the facility (Boakye 2010; Ortmeier 2012). All other things being equal larger facilities would be expected to provide more opportunities for criminal activities than with smaller facilities as they are harder to defend. Some researchers suggest that in order to determine if the size of the facility is a significant factor in the crime rate there one should simply divide the number of crimes by the size of the facility in order to get a risk quotient (Eck et al. 2007; Ortmeier 2012; Santana 2012). According to Eck et al. (2007) if this quotient is constant then the size of the facility would be an important factor in attracting criminal activity, whereas if it is not then researchers believe that other factors must be at work.
The second variable to consider is the perceived quality of the particular facility/object is also often a risky situation (Banergee 2013; Boakye 2010; Ortmeier 2012). For instance, some parking facilities in hotels may have higher levels/rates of vehicle theft even if the overall number of vehicles victimized is small (Banergee 2013). In hotels with restaurants that serve alcohol crime rates also tend to be higher and security measures more strict (Carpenter and Dobkin 2010).
This aspect also refers to the ease at which criminals can operate. For instance, less visible security measures or perceived inept security measures by criminals may be more attractive targets (Santana 2012). Moreover, certain types of individuals or certain facilities or environments tend to be repeat victims of crime (Banergee 2013; Clifton 2012; Ortmeier 2012; Santana 2012). These individuals/environments may be perceived as easy targets, or individuals may take more risks, or they just may frequent more vulnerable facilities; however, the research also indicates that repeat victims are less likely to be found in low crime facilities (Clifton 2012). Researchers suggest examining the distribution of crime (the number and rate of crimes committed relative to the specific type of target; Clifton 2012; Eck et al. 2007). If a particular aspect of the facility is responsible for drawing in more criminal activities then that aspect will have a higher number and rate of criminal acts relative to other aspects of the same facility (Eck et al. 2007).
The third variable to consider in any estimation of risk factors leading to higher criminal activities in the area would also consider the presence of potential offenders in an area (Boakye, 2010; Clifton, 2012; Santana 2012). Researchers in the hotel security differentiate between two types of offender explanations: facilities that attract potential offenders (Clifton 2012) and facilities are located in areas where more potential offenders live (Assaf, Josiassen, and Agbola, 2015; Santana 2012). The first instance potential criminals may travel great distances to get to highly attractive targets such as perceived easy targets or perceived high-yield targets, whereas in the second instance the luxury of having a target in one's particular home area results in more potential criminal activities. Hotel managers may be more apt to make security visible in the second instance than in the first, thus creating the potential for more criminal activities in facilities that may not be located in high crime areas but are attractive targets to potential criminals (Assaf et al., 2015; Boakye 2010).
Hotel security managers and security personal will design their interventions based on these perceptions and will assess the potential of risk based on the aforementioned factors (Boakye 2010; Santana 2012).
Specific Actions/Strategies to Ensure Hotel Security
While there is a lack of small sample empirical quantitative research investigating the effectiveness of hotel security systems/policies there are quite a number of case studies, policy papers, and opinion papers that suggest the types of measures that hotel security teams should utilize or that make recommendations of the steps needed to ensure effective security protection (e.g., Eurico et al. 2014; Kannan 2013; Krkoska and Robeck 2009; O'Fallon and Rutherford 2011; Ortmeier 2012). There are several factors that are discussed in the research literature that are suggested to ensure secure environments.
The first factor is having a professional and objective security team. The vast majority of research regarding hotel security states that one of the most important, if not the most important, measure to ensure a safe and secure hotel environment is the security team itself (Kannan 2013; Lebeau 2012; Reece 2010).
The second consideration is that security teams should be thoroughly trained to understand the particular risks and assets of the environment they work in and should be trained to work and cooperate with other hotel staff, guests, visitors, etc. This training should also include other hotel staff in order to alert staff as to what types of activities to report to the security team and how to report them (Clifton 2012; Clarke 2010; Enz 20009). In addition, the training and policies of the security team should be in line with the hotel safety manual and in instances where the manual may not effectively describe or characterize a situation modifications should be made (Krkoska and Robeck 2009; Steele 2009).
The third consideration is that security managers should be able to list and assess all security risks as well as being able to analyze and compare all current measures aimed at maintaining hotel security (Ortmeier 2012). This includes things like updating and using the most effective automated security systems, security cameras, as well as maximizing the supervision and monitoring of at risk areas (Eurico et al. 2014; Kannan 2013). For example, limiting the number of hotel access areas and vulnerable times (in the evening), making sure that there are automated locking systems for entryways, etc. can cut down the incidence of criminal activities (Ortmeier 2012).
The fourth consideration would be to make security measures highly visible. Empirical research indicates that potential criminal acts and other threats to hotel security can be significantly reduced by the mere visible presence of security measures (Kannan 2013; Reece 2010). Such things as having highly visible surveillance cameras throughout the hotel and parking lot, having highly visible security personnel in the hotel, making sure that security employees request to see government -- issued identification cards from anyone who enters the building at high risk times, and having the staff and security conduct rounds of the hotel and motel grounds to make sure that these areas are free of intruders or suspicious characters (Lebeau 2012; Steene 20009).
Fifth, having the security team routinely discuss and develop contingency plans for potential security breaches will make sure that unforeseen issues can be handled (O'Fallon and Rutherford 2011). In addition, having the security teams routinely engage in drills designed to give them practice on how to handle threats and breaches of security will result in more efficient security measures (Clifton 2012; Ortmeier 2012).
Finally, evaluating the current security measures and make improvements were needed as quickly as possible (Eurico et al. 2014; Kannan 2013; Krkoska and Robeck 2009; O'Fallon and Rutherford 2011; Ortmeier 2012).
There are some more specific measures to consider as well. For instance, making sure that all locks are updated regularly (Enz 2009; Kannan 2013). Locks that can electronically track who goes in and out of rooms and out of the hotel are efficient measures in tracking potential security breaches (Kannan 2013). Deadbolt locks in hotels rooms are extremely effective at preventing thefts (Enz 2009).
The use of electronic software to monitor hotel activities is a highly effective means of alerting the security team to potential security breaches (Kannan 2013). More advanced systems have voice alerts software that can be used to warn people who are all captured on surveillance.
Engaging hotel customers and asking them about their stay is useful in getting feedback and developing relations (Clarke 2010). When security officers communicate with clients (and even hotel staff) the security of the hotel tends to benefit (Eurico et al. 2014).
Making sure that security measures include cyber security surveillances keeps the system updated. Today many hotels have Wi-Fi systems, automatic checkout, and other electronic services and these systems can be hacked. It is important for security teams to have the latest surveillance equipment to monitor these potential issues and to be able to identify any potential breaches (Kannan 2013). Security personal should also make sure that alarms, notification systems, sprinkle sizzles, etc. are operational at all times (Eurico et al. 2014; Kannan 2013; Krkoska and Robeck 2009; O'Fallon and Rutherford 2011; Ortmeier 2012).
An additional concern for security teams is that the security measures be cost-effective; that the hotel management can endorse and support the measures that the security managers feel are necessary (see Lacey 2011). Security teams need to be able to operate both effectively and efficiently.
Thus, while there is a moral and financial imperative to maintain hotel security, there is a large gap in the empirical literature regarding how hotel managers, hotel security managers, and hotel security personnel view the effectiveness of their own security measures. Since hotels are responsible for the protection and property of their guests, visitors, employees it would be useful to compare the attitudes and observations of both hotel managers and hotel security personnel regarding the effectiveness of their current security measures and understanding any suggestions/concerns they have regarding their specific situation. The current study uses a qualitative research design that captures the attitudes of both hotel managers and security personnel at three major luxury hotels in South Greece.
Methodology
Participants
The participants consisted of 15 employees in three hotels of the Costa Navarino project, which is a luxurious destination hotel chain in South Greece. Each of the participants completed an informed consent form prior to their participation in this study. The informed consent form was approved by the University of Leicester Human Subjects Review Board and all procedures were performed with the participants' utmost confidentiality in mind. A copy of the informed consent form can be found in Appendix A.
The sample consisted of eight participants reporting that they were either security managers or security personnel and seven individuals that were involved in hotel management. Eleven of the participants were male; three were female. All three of the female participants were involved in hotel management.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was developed by the researcher based on the peer literature regarding hotel security. There were a total of 17 open-ended questions, each with several sub-questions or request for elaboration. The questions inquired regarding specific security problems in the hotel, the types of security issues that seem to be most bothersome to the clientele, the number of repeat business the hotel sees, the types of preventive measures used in the hotel, the area surrounding the hotel and if that contributes to any security issues, training for the security personnel, and the effectiveness of the current security measures used by the hotel. Table one displays the categories covered by the questionnaire. Comment by Rudy: Why on earth did you put "insert table one to seven in here? There is only ONE table here
A copy of the questionnaire used in this research appears in Appendix B.
Procedure
Prior to giving the questionnaire to the participant and after obtaining informed consent the researcher met with the entire group of participants twice for an hour at a time to allow the researcher to explain the basic scope of the research project, explain the questionnaire to them, and answer any questions they had regarding the format of the questionnaire. Each participant was given a hard copy of the questionnaire in order to write notes and take down any information they needed to know in order to understand the questions. The questions were reviewed with the participants and then the researcher forwarder an e-mail to each participant asking them to have the questionnaire back by a specific date. The participants completed the questionnaires and if they had any questions for the researcher they were free to contact him at their convenience and ask him. All research protocols were completed and returned to the researcher on time.
Confidentiality
The participants were assigned a code number in order to ensure their confidentiality. The participants' names were never enter into any formal record other than a code list of the participants' name and corresponding code number that was kept in a secure computer file accessible only to the experimenter. All data and analyses were stored on a secure computer accessible only to the experimenter. Following the completion of all data analyses and result write-up the hard copies of the data will be shredded and all electronic information erased.
Data Analysis.
This study utilizes a thematic analysis which is a qualitative design. Qualitative analysis is an iterative process where the analyses begin after at least some of the data has been collected (Guest, MacQueen, and Namey 2011). In some cases further data is gathered on the basis of that initial analysis; however, in the current study all 15 questionnaires were returned before data analysis began.
Using an inductive approach the data from the 15 questionnaires was subjected to a thematic analysis. Thematic analyses are the most common form of analyses in quantitative research designs (Guest et al. 2011). Thematic analysis emphasizes the identification and examination of themes within the data which are patterns that occur in the descriptive responses of the participants that are common to more than one participant (Saldana 2009). In the classical sense the thematic analysis is completed via the six coding phases in order to identify and understand the established patterns in the data (Braun and Clarke 2006; Guest et al. 2011). Then the themes become the categories for the analysis (Bazeley 2009). These phases consist of first ) becoming familiar with the data, followed by generating the initial coding scheme, next the experimenter searches for major themes within the codes, afterwards reviews these themes, then gives the themes names and defines them, and finally produces the final conclusions and description of the themes (Braun and Clark 2006; Guest et al. 2011).
In the current analysis the responses from the 15 participants were evaluated and while this thematic analysis was undertaken with no a priori theoretical guidelines, one can still anticipate that the reactions to any organizational policy's effectiveness can fall into three general categories: positive, negative, and/or neutral (Saldana 2009). Thus, while this is an a priori assumption it is very broad and does not violate the principle of not attempting to identify theoretical concepts while coding data in a thematic qualitative analysis (Rogers & Goodrick, 2010). Thus, initial scanning of the data looked to categorize the overall responses into these three compartments. In addition, while there are three general categories of responses, this does not mean that any one participant would necessarily generate only positive, negative, or neutral responses. It is quite possible that respondents would generate a mix of these three major categories. These three general categories served as guidelines for the initial coding and analysis of the comments from the participants in order to prepare the data into categories for identifying themes.
Following the identification of responses as positive, neutral or negative, the thematic analysis was done according to the six step specifications described by Braun and Clarke (2006) and .integrating those steps into a more broad methodology. After reading and transcribing the data into the initial codes (positive, negative, or neutral) the codes were grouped according to themes and the data was reduced to a number of themes and instances that the theme is expressed by each participant. Themes were reviewed and combined when two related themes were expressed within the same sentence. Themes were developed in order to be simple and recognizable from the actual statements made by the participants as opposed to the researcher insinuating them from the data (Srivastava and Hopwood 2009). The process of developing categories was documented so that the decisions of the types of themes in the data could be clearly understood and scrutinized by understanding discrete pieces of data, categorizing data, and finally identifying overall patterns (Rogers & Goodrick, 2010; Srivastava and Hopwood 2009) . The overall goal was to use a classic approach and a thorough approach incorporating Braun and Clarke's (2006) six steps of thematic analysis (Bryman, Bell, and Teevan 2012). Thus, the final analyses consisted of these steps:
First the researchers prepare by means of a literature search. A preliminary literature review prepares the researcher for the issues relevant to the current research; however; it is important remain objective regarding the data collection. Next, the experimenter makes sure to be thorough during data collection by recording, observing, and following the data. When possible the experimenter can ask questions, observe the participants, and ask for clarification. The next step consists of constantly comparing ideas, often termed a comparative analysis. Here the experimenter codes everything and continually ask questions regarding what the data is telling him such as "What is the data saying?" "What is happening?" "What category is being indicated here?"
The next step consists of memoing, which includes beginning to theorize ideas about the codes and their relationships and meaning. This can occur during data collection as well as when one is coding data. Again this is theorizing and not just summarizing (although both occur). At this point one can begin to reconcile the data with the literature. During this step the research also engages in sorting the data and theorizing so that he can begin sorting the memos into an outline of a theory, look at relationships between concepts, and if need be collect more data or develop more memos. Finally the researcher reviews the results in order to ensure that the final analysis was comprehensive.
During the analysis the appropriateness and consistency of coding and coding descriptions were reviewed by returning to interview segments to check and refine codes and searching for omissions (Rogers & Goodrick, 2010). Data was analyzed by looking at the two different groups (hotel managers and security personnel) and how their perceptions and responses either paralleled or different as well as looking at an overall entire group analysis. In this way each set of responses was considered and concept mapping was used to identify patterns, similarities and differences between the participants' responses. It is important to remember that in a qualitative analysis there are many possible explanations for the data. When one is coding the data it is important to make sure to be as open as possible and simply summarize what is being relayed. In a theoretical approach the core concepts reveal themselves they are not forced out of the data by the researcher or one's expectations (Bazeley 2009).
Advantages of the Design and Analysis
There are a number of advantages to the qualitative/thematic design used in this study (see Guest et al. 2011; Ritchie et al. 2013; Rogers and Goodrick, 2010). First the thematic analysis and method in this study is quite flexible and allows the researcher to consider the nuances of every response. This allows for a more in-depth analysis of the data.
Second the method is relatively unencumbered by complex statistical limitations and allows for a real-world approach to understanding the responses of the participants. This ensures that the results are straightforward. The method is useful method for working with the research participants as collaborators. In other words, getting together with all of the research participants together and discussing the results could be done without having to explain complex and advanced statistical concepts. Likewise, other interested parties and hotel security can readily understand the results without sophisticated statistical about.
Thus, this type of methodology can usefully summarize a large body of data that offer a very useful explanation of the data set. Thematic analysis is an excellent technique that highlights the similarities and differences across the data and allows for social interpretations as well as more personal/psychological interpretations of the data. Moreover, the results can produce unanticipated insights that might not be considered with another method of analysis. In the current study the results and identification of themes can be useful for producing policy developments in hotel security that might not have been considered previously by interested parties.
Disadvantages
No empirical research study is without its disadvantages and no empirical methodology is perfect. There are several disadvantages to the current design and method (see Guest et al. 2011; Ritchie et al. 2013; Rogers and Goodrick, 2010).
First, the generalizability is extremely limited in this design due to the use of a convenient sampling method. Next, the participants completed the questionnaire on their own time and the researcher did not perform a live interview with them. Thus, there is potential for misinterpretation of the participants' intent and meaning for some of the questions as the researcher was not there to ask for clarification of responses that may have been unclear.
There are issues with the qualitative analysis also. For instance, in qualitative thematic analytic studies there is always a concern for reliability due to the potential for a wide variety of interpretations that could be produced by multiple researchers. The thematic analyses may also miss the nuances and data sets. In many cases there is limited interpretive power if the analyses are not theoretically based. Finally, thematic analysis can be complicated by the language/terms used by the participants. Researchers may mistakenly conclude that the same term used by different participants means the same thing.
Ethical Concerns
Researchers should always take every precaution to maintain the confidentiality of their participants (Bryman et al. 2012). This means making sure that the data is properly coded, the protocols are safe and secure, and any formal reports regarding the data do not include any identifying information that could reveal the identity of any of the participants. It is also important for the researcher to make sure that the data is treated with integrity, analyzed according to accepted methods, and then any claims or inferences made regarding the data are consistent with the information that is in the data itself (Bryman et al. 2012).
Data Chapters
An important caveat for the reader to be aware of here is that although there were 15 participants, eight security personal and seven hotel managers, not every participant answered every question or answered every part of every question completely. Some questions were left blank by some of the participants and some of the questions were not answered fully by several participants. There was also a tendency for survey participants not to elaborate on their answers when asked to do so by the questionnaire. Thus, when comparisons between the number of security officers and hotels mangers answering a particular question or a particular aspect of a question are made, the total counts may not always add up to 15. In those instances the missing data is due a participant not fully answering or completely answering all the parts of the question under consideration.
As observed in Table 1 there was some overlap in the domains that the questions covered. The specific results of each question will be discussed in light of the question's major focus. The first domain of the questionnaire tapped the participants' beliefs about the major types of security concerns that their hotel site dealt with as well as those that the hotel industry in general dealt with. The quantitative findings regarding the demographic variables of the sample are discussed first.
Data Chapter One: Quantitative Demographic Differences between Hotel Managers and Security Personal
The demographic data was subjected to a quantitative analysis to determine if there were any significant demographic differences between the security personal and the hotel managers. One hotel manager participant did not complete the demographic section of the questionnaire; therefore, that person's demographic information, other than their gender, could not be included in any comparative analyses.
As reported above all eight of the security managers were male and there were three females among the seven hotel managers, thus there was obviously an important different gender mix between the two groups.
The mean age of the overall sample was 43.43 (7.75) years of age, the mean level of education for the entire sample was 14.57 (2.28) years of education, the mean number of years working in the hotel industry was 12.71 (7.68) years, and the mean number of years working at their current facility was 4.21 (1.12) years. There were some significant differences in the demographic makeup of the two groups.
The mean years of reported education equaled 12.89 (standard deviation of 1.45 years) for security personnel and 16.8 years (standard deviation of 1.09 years) for hotel management personnel. This difference was significant such that participants reporting that they were involved in hotel management had a significantly higher mean level of education than those reporting that they were involved in security t (12) = -5.22, p = .001.
The mean age of the security personal was 41.33 years (standard deviation of 7.82 years) and 47.33 years (standard deviation of 6.02 years) for hotel managers. This difference was not found to be significant, t (12) = -1.58, p = .13.
The number of years working in the hotel industry was significantly different between the two groups, t (12) = -1.75, p = .05 with security personnel having a mean level of experience in the hotel industry of 9.2 years (standard deviation of 5.74 years) and hotel managers reporting a mean level of hotel experience of 16.33 years (standard deviation of 8.8 years).
None of the hotel management personal answered the question regarding their years of experience working in security in the hotel industry. The majority of them indicated that they had no experience working in hotel security. Security personnel had been working in the security field for an average of 8.64 years (standard deviation of 9.22 years).
The qualitative analysis of the questionnaire is discussed in the remaining sections.
Data Chapter Two: Specific Security Concerns of Hotels
Questions one, four, five, and six dealt with the perceived security concerns of the particular hotel that the participant was employed in, the security concerns of hotels in general, as well as the perceived prevalence of these concerns and their perceived severity.
Question one asked the participants what they believed to be the most common security concerns or major security issues at the particular hotel site at which the participant was employed. According to the responses of the participants, the most common concern for both the security personnel and hotel managers was theft. Theft was reported as the major security concern at their hotel by seven of the security personnel and four of the hotel managers. Every participant mentioning theft as a common security concern at their site was clearly referring to the theft of tangible personal property of an individual, either a hotel guest or a hotel staff member. None of the participants mentioned data theft or cyber crime when discussing theft as a concern, unless the question specifically asked about cyber crime. This indicates that a common theme among both the security personnel and hotel management personnel was that when asked to spontaneously report what they believed to be the major or most common security concern and their hotel they believed that the theft of personal property was the most common security concern.
The overall descriptions of theft included theft of guest items by unknown persons, theft of staff items by unknown persons, and theft of guest items by staff. A few specific areas of the hotel site were mentioned by several of the participants as being particularly vulnerable to theft including guest rooms, recreation areas such as swimming pools, and adjacent areas to the hotel such as parking lots or beeches. Guest rooms and recreational areas of the hotels were perceived as being more vulnerable to potential theft than were other areas of the hotel or hotel grounds.
The second most common security concern or security problem at the specific site mentioned by the participants was loss of personal property by guests or staff. This type of loss was unrelated to loss of property occurring due to theft but instead was defined as being loss of property due to the property being misplaced by either the guest or hotel employee. Sometimes lost property was initially reported as stolen, but was later found to be misplaced.
Issues with disruptive guests was the third most common security issue mentioned by the participants and every participant that mentioned this is a security concern also mentioned that there were was alcohol involved in these situations. Trespassing on the hotel grounds was the fourth most common security concern mentioned by the entire sample.
Other common security concerns mentioned by security officers but not listed by hotel managers included potential hotel fires, issues with the rooms, issues with staff, privacy issues, complaints about staff availability, and complaints about technical issues such as being able to log on to the internet, indicating that security officers have a broader viewpoint of the types of security issues that typically occur in their work environment compared to the hotel managers.
Question Number 4 inquired as to what the participant believed was the major security risk threat for hotels in general as opposed to the major threat at their site alone. The most commonly cited major risk encountered by hotels by both security personnel and hotel managers was the threat of a fire followed by the threat of another type of natural disaster. Six of the security personnel and two of the hotel managers rated the threat of fire as the number one major security risk concern for their site and three of the security personnel and two of the hotel managers rated a natural disaster as the second most important security risk concern for their site. Data theft or the theft of personal property was reported as a major security concern by only one of the security officers and two of the hotel managers. It was reported as a secondary concern by the two of the security officers. Other important concerns mentioned by the participants included the threat of terrorism or kidnapping, an attack or assault on hotel patrons, accidents occurring to hotel patrons, and the threat of break-ins to hotel rooms.
Question number five asked the participants to rate three forms of crime based on their severity. While the theft of personal possessions was the most spontaneously cited security concern by the participants, when given a forced choice question that required them to rank human trafficking, theft of guests' personal possessions, or data theft in order of their perceived severity, nine of the fifteen participants ranked human trafficking as the most severe crime. In contrast to their spontaneous rankings of commonly occurring crimes where it was clear that the theft of personal property was considered to be a more common occurrence, data theft was ranked as being a more serious crime than theft of personal possessions by 13 of the 15 participants. Nine of the 15 participants ranked the three types of crime in order of severity as: human trafficking as the most severe crime followed by data theft and finally the theft of personal items.
Question six asked the participants to discuss their specific opinion regarding cyber crime and other forms of Internet related criminal activity affecting the operations in hotels. This was one of the few questions where the participants were in a unanimous agreement. All of the participants agreed that cyber crime was a major concern for their hotel and if not checked cyber crime had the potential to seriously damage the image and reputation of their hotel. While not specifically asked about potential ways to control cyber crime, several participants offered suggestions as to the reduction of cyber crime. These responses will be considered in the section covering the results of the participants' perceived effectiveness in their site's ability to deter criminal activities.
The next domain involved the participants' beliefs regarding how their customers viewed hotel security issues.
Data Chapter Three: Perceived Customer Reactions or Concerns Regarding the Hotel's Security
While Question Number one focused on the more common security concerns of the site, Question Number 3 asked the participants what security problems they believed were the most worrisome to hotel patrons at their site. Again, the recurring theme of the theft of personal possessions was mentioned by the majority of the participants as being what they believed to be the most bothersome concern of their guests. Six of the security personnel and the 3 of the hotel managers reported that they believed that the theft of personal possessions was the most worrisome security issue of their patrons and one other security officer and hotel manager mentioned theft as one of the top concerns of their guests.
The second most commonly mentioned concern was that the patron would have some type of a medical mishap or accident. Four security managers and one hotel manager mentioned that they believed that this was a major concern of the hotel patrons. Four security managers mentioned that they believed that a major concern of the patrons was the potential for a hotel fire. Other concerns that security personnel believed were worrisome for patrons included the threat of terrorism, kidnapping, other natural disasters, and human trafficking. One hotel manager believed that the most worrisome security concern for the patrons was the types of strict security measures that the hotel followed that restricted the patrons' ability to enjoy themselves during their vacation.
The research literature on the concerns of tourists when choosing a hotel indicated that hotel security was a major factor many tourists considered when making a choice about a hotel (Clifton 2012). In addition, the research literature indicated that many repeat customers consider security issues important when choosing their hotel destinations (Santana 2012). Question number two asked participants if they believed that security was a major concern for returning or repeat hotel patrons. Nearly every participant responded that repeat guests were indeed very concerned about the security issues of the hotels they stayed in and that if their hotel did not provide sufficient security measures their guests would most likely not return. All eight of the security officers endorsed this viewpoint and all of the hotel managers except for two endorsed this viewpoint. However, one of the hotel managers said that security was only a major concern for hotel patrons that had previously been the victim of some type of crime in a hotel and not for patrons that it had no such experience, thus this answer was at least in part an agreement with the others. The other hotel manager believed that security concerns were not a consideration at all for potential repeat guests. Several of the participants also reported that security concerns were extremely important in getting repeat VIP business which helped establish a better reputation for the hotel and also drew other guests and other types of business.
Question number 11 asked if the participant believed that the guests were satisfied with the level of security at the particular site the participant worked at. This is an important consideration as it has been established that hotel security is believed to be an important feature that attracts repeat hotel patrons. The entire sample unanimously agreed that they believed that the guests were very satisfied with the level of services offered by their site. One security officer did mention that the staff was sometimes dissatisfied with the security measures that the security department had to enforce; however, no participant believed that the guests were dissatisfied with the security services they were receiving during their hotel stay.
An important aspect of the literature on hotel security has investigated hotel site vulnerabilities relate to criminal acts (Banergee 2013; Clifton 2012; Ortmeier 2012; Santana 2012). The next domain tapped the participants' beliefs regarding the types of vulnerabilities that their site may have.
Data Chapter Four: Site Vulnerabilities
Question 12 specifically asked about the perceived area surrounding the hotel and its relation to crime in the particular hotel site. Nine of the participants reported that the area surrounding their hotel site was low in criminal activity. The most common reason for this perceived lack of criminal activity in the area surrounding the hotel was that that area surrounding the hotel was mostly an agricultural area and hence the crime rate in that area was low. There was total agreement between the security personnel and the hotel managers regarding this notion as the five security personnel and four hotel managers who reported that the area surrounding their site was low worked in the same hotels. Only one participant, a security officer, reported that the crime surrounding his site was at a medium level and two of the security personnel reported that the crime in the area surrounding their hotel site was high. The high crime area was believed by the security officers to be related to the economic conditions of the surrounding area. Three of the hotel managers reported that they were unsure about the level of crime in the area surrounding their hotels.
Participants were also queried regarding their perception of the effectiveness of their particular site's efforts to curtail criminal activities as well as how the hotel industry performed in preventing crime.
Data Chapter Five: Perceived Effectiveness in Curtailing Criminal Activities
Question number seven asked the participants if they believed that security professionals at the hotel where they worked were adequately trained to confront new forms of crime. The sample was split on this question. Overall, seven participants said yes, seven participants said no, and one participant was undecided regarding this issue. However, six of the security personnel, an overwhelming majority of the security personal in the sample, reported that they believed that security officers were not adequately trained to confront new forms of crime, whereas six of the hotel managers reported that they believed that security officers were adequately trained. A common trend in all these answers was that training should be ongoing for security personnel because criminals are very adaptable and can change their tactics quickly.
Despite the differences regarding the adequacy of security training observed in question number seven the sample uniformly answered 'yes' to question number 16 which asked them if their particular site had a policy and set of documented procedures for confronting criminal activities and for dealing with emergencies. Moreover, 11 of the participants, six security officers and four hotel managers which represented a large majority of respondents, reported that training sessions in the policies of the particular site were held twice a year. Three of the security personnel reported that training sessions on the site's policies and procedures were held once a year and to hotel managers did not know how often training sessions and security procedures were offered at their site.
Question number eight asked the participants what types of security methods aimed at preventing criminal activities they believed hotels employed most often. There was quite a bit of variance in the responses to this question. The most common method cited by the participants was the use of visible security officers or visible security patrols. Seven of the security personnel and four of the hotel management personnel reported that the use of patrols or visible security officers was an important preventive measure used by security teams working in the hotel industry.
The visibility factor was closely followed by the use of electronic monitoring systems such as security cameras and other electronic methods of surveillance as an important preventive measure used in the hotel industry. Six of the security officers and two of the hotel managers reported that electronic surveillance systems were extremely important preventive security measures used in the hotel industry.
Other security measures believed to be commonly used by the hotel industry were mentioned. The participants also believed that controlling entrances and exits to both the hotels and to the hotel rooms were important preventive security measures commonly used in the hotel industry. Four of the hotel managers and three of the security officers listed electronic key card room lacking systems as important preventive measures used in the hotel industry. Four of the hotel managers and one of the security personnel listed a centralized control entrance way for the hotel as an important preventive security measure. Adequately trained security staff was listed by two of the hotel personnel and three of the security managers as an important preventive measure. Other measures perceived to be important preventive measures listed by security officers only included cooperation with staff and local authorities, the use of safety deposit boxes in the hotel and in the hotel rooms, and the use of dog patrols.
Question number 10 asked the participants if they believed that the hotel sector was doing enough to prevent and combat criminal activity in hotels. Only three of the participants answered this in a positive manner. Six of the security officers and three of the hotel managers believed that the hotel industry was not doing enough to prevent crime and combat in hotels and three participants were unsure.
When queried as to whether the site that the participant worked would be a potential target considered by criminals planning some type of crime in question number nine, the majority of participants indicated that they did not believe that criminals would choose their hotel for a potential crime. However, there was a difference in the opinions of the security personnel compared to the hotel managers. The security personnel were evenly split on whether criminals would choose their particular hotel for a crime. Four of the security personnel participants said that criminals would not choose their facility due to tight security measures, difficulty accessing sensitive hotel areas, or difficulty escaping once committing a crime. However, four of the security personnel said that criminals would be likely to target their hotel due to the type of clientele the hotel catered to and be reputation of the hotel as a haven for wealthy guests. Four of the hotel managers said that criminals would not choose their hotel for a potential crime due to its location or it's very tight security measures, whereas two of the hotel managers were unsure if criminals would choose their hotel as a potential target.
Data Chapter Six: Perceptions Regarding Industry Regulations and Law Enforcement Cooperation
Question number 13 asked participants if they believed that the local legislation empowered the security staff to offer risk free environment in the hotel. A very slight majority of participants answered yes to this; however, there were differences between the security officers' perceptions and the hotel managers' perceptions. Five of the security officers answered that they believed that local legislation allowed them to offer a risk-free environment, whereas three of them strongly answered in a negative fashion. Four of the hotel managers answer this question in the affirmative, whereas only two answered it negatively. One hotel manager was unsure.
The most common complaint from security offers who answered question 13 negatively was that they were not empowered with the same types of procedural rights as actual police officers and this hindered their ability to perform their duties correctly. For example, the inability of security officers to actually search suspects or actually arrest suspects in the same way police officers can was mentioned by all of these three security officers as a major hindrance to their ability to perform their duties efficiently. One of the hotel managers mentioned that arming all security officers would be more empowering to them. Thus, the general theme for those individuals answering negatively on this question was that security officers needed to be able to act more like actual police officers in order to do their job effectively.
Question 14 asked if the participants believed that the hotel employees were aware of sensitive issues surrounding security and if their notion of customer service included security policies and procedures. The overwhelming majority of participants answered this question in the affirmative indicating that they believed that hotel employees were aware of sensitive issues and that the notion of customer service did involve security procedures and policies. Only one hotel manager answered this question negatively stating that he did not believe that employees were fully aware of sensitive issues raised regarding security policies and procedures. There was very little elaboration on themes for this question.
Question 15 asked for any additional issues not covered in the questionnaire. All of the participants reported there were no additional issues that they felt were no other important issues that needed to be discussed. In addition, question number 17 asked the participants whether they were aware of any criminal activities that had occurred in other hotels over the past year. This was question was uniformly answered negatively by all of the participants and therefore was not included in the analysis.
Data Chapter Seven: Major Themes Extracted from the Data
During the first run through the researcher identified 22 themes in the data. However, upon closer inspection many of these themes were related. A review of the data resulted in combining many of these related themes. Following the review of the data there were 11 major themes extracted from the qualitative thematic analysis of the data and several other secondary themes or minor trends in the data were also identified. In the current description the number of the theme refers to its order of identification or extraction, not to its significance relative to other themes. Major theme number one is the first major theme extracted; it is not a more important theme than theme number two, theme three, and so forth.
The first major theme extracted from the thematic analysis is that both the security managers and hotel managers in this sample considered the theft of personal items in the hotel as being a major security concern for their hotels as well is a major concern of their hotel guests. This theme is extracted from question number one and question number three specifically. There are some secondary issues regarding security concerns for hotels the company's questions. The first one is that the perception of security personnel hotel managers regarding other customer concerns is different from what they believe to be major security concerns for hotels. The sample reported that they believe that customers' second concern was having some type of an accident, whereas this concern was not spontaneously offered when the sample was queried about major concerns for their specific hotel. A minor theme related to this is that these hotel managers and security personnel considered the primary targets for theft to be either in the hotel, such as the hotel rooms, or in the areas immediately surrounding the hotel.
The threat of cyber crime or cyber crime itself was only spontaneously mentioned as a major concern for the hotel industry by one participant. However, when directly asked about cyber crime, data theft, and other electronic -- related types of criminal activities the sample unanimously agreed that these were important considerations for the hotel industry in general. Thus, the threat of cyber crime as an important consideration for the hotel industry was considered to be a secondary theme in the data.
A second important major theme that is consistent with the findings in the empirical research is that both the security personnel and hotel managers believe potential repeat customers consider the security of their facility as an important factor when deciding if they will return to the hotel the future (e.g., Kurleto 2012). Even though these questions were not directly asked in the questionnaire, it could also be inferred that it is highly probable that security personnel and hotel managers would also report that they believed that the level of security in the hotel is an important feature that attracts new customers and also that security features of the hotel are important in getting previous customers to recommend the hotel as well, given that they reported that they believed that repeat business is very dependent on their security measures .
A third major theme extracted from questions three, four, and five is that the majority of both the security personnel and hotel managers considered a security risk factor for the hotel industry is being different from a security concern for their particular hotel. When queried as to what the sample believed to be the major security risk factor in the hotel industry majority of the participants reported that the risk of a fire was the number one risk factor for the hotel industry and that the risk of having a natural disaster occur was the number two risk factor. This is markedly different than the response by both security personnel the hotel managers that theft of personal property was the major security concern for their specific hotel and their patrons.
An additional secondary theme coming from these questions is that the perceived severity of a particular crime by both security personnel and hotel managers appears to be related to how much it affects the reputation of the hotel and security department as well as its potential to be reported in the media. For instance, several security personnel participants and hotel managers reported that more severe criminal activity such as human trafficking and identity theft were more severe because they were more likely to affect the overall reputation of the hotel is being a desirable place to stay and that they would more likely receive publicity than such crimes as theft of personal property.
A fourth major theme extracted from the data, particularly from questions number nine and question number 12, was that having a hotel situated in an area with low crime made it less vulnerable to potential criminal activities. This theme was extracted by looking at how security managers and hotel managers answered the question regarding the level of crime in the area surrounding the hotel and their belief that their hotel would be a target for potential criminal activity. Those participants reporting that the area surrounding the hotel's loan crime were also more likely to report that their hotel would not be a target for criminals. There was not enough data to support the alternate form of this theme: that having a hotel in a high crime area led to the potential for more criminal activities in the hotel, although two participants reported that they believed that the two factors were related.
A secondary theme related to these findings is that security personnel may believe that criminals consider the hotel clientele is an important factor when deciding where they will strike. The participants who reported that their hotel was likely to be considered by criminals as a potential target also reported that the reason for this was that their clientele consisted of wealthy individuals with considerable assets.
A fifth major theme in the data is that there is a wide gap between hotel managers and security personnel regarding the perception of how effectively security officers are trained. Security officers and security personnel were more likely to believe that security personnel were not adequately trained to deal with the ever-changing activities of potential criminals, whereas hotel managers will far more likely to say that security personnel receive adequate training in this area.
The sixth major theme extracted from the data is that hotel management and security personnel do not always agree on the issues of security at their hotel sites. Typically this split occurred between the hotel managers' perception of every day or routine security issues such as the effectiveness of training, whether or not their particular hotel site is an attractive target for criminals, or for other procedural matters. When hotel managers and security personnel were asked about the opinions of their customer base or on general overall issues in the hotel industry there was a trend towards more agreement on the issue. When discussing specific issues such as specific risk factors in the hotel and the adequacy of training there was a sharp disagreement between the two groups.
While there was quite a bit of variance in the responses to what types of security measures were used in the hotel industry is clear that both the hotel managers and security personnel believe that the visible presence of security officers and electronic security surveillance systems were the most common preventive security measures used in the hotel industry. This major theme is consistent with the research regarding the effectiveness of security measures (Clifton 2012).
The eighth major theme was extracted from the data in question number 10 was that both the security personnel, managers tended to believe that the hotel industry was not doing enough to effectively combat the potential for crime in their hotels. A majority of the participants answered this question negatively. There were a variety of reasons offered for this reasoning such as the cost of effectively controlling terminal activities in hotels was prohibitive, training for hotel security personnel was inefficient at crime prevention, that many hotels do not have separate security staff, or that the size of the facility was prohibitive to controlling or preventing crime. Even though the number of elaborations regarding question 10 were small, there was a gap between the expressed opinions of the security personnel and the hotel managers regarding their perception that the hotel industry was not doing enough to prevent crime. Security personnel were more likely to report that effective security prevention measures were perceived as being cost prohibitive by hotel management or hotel owners; whereas management personnel were more likely to say that the size of the facility was related to the facilities' inability to control or to prevent criminal activities. However, the small number of participants offering explanations for their answers does not allow development of a theme as to why the majority of participants believed that the hotel industry was not effective in preventing potential criminal activities.
The ninth major theme extracted from the data was that the hotel security personnel and the hotel managers agreed that hotel employees were aware of the potential issues that were a part of making security services a part of customer service. Thus, the perception of the sample was that hotel staff and managers considered security services as a part of the entire customer service package and hotel staff willing to accept the security measures in their hotel as a component of the hotel services that are provided for the benefit of the customer, even in the event of them being inconvenient. While every participant except supported this opinion, there was very little elaboration of what types of potential 'sensitive issues' were actually being raised by the presence of security and the implementation of security services. From the answers of the respondents it is clear that they simply took the question to mean that they believed that the hotel staff considered the services of the security department has an integral part of the entire package of hotel customer services.
The tenth major theme extracted from the data was that security officers who believe that they are not empowered by legislation to perform their duties believe this because they perceive that they do not have similar powers to or rights as the local police force. While the majority of security officers did not endorse the position that local legislation does not empower them to perform their duties, those that maintained that local legislation did not empower them to offer a risk-free environment in the hotel chose this is the major reason for their perception. Thus, it may be that security personnel who believe they are limited in their ability to deter criminal activity believe that this inability is due to the notion that they are not part of genuine law enforcement agencies.
The eleventh major theme extracted from the data is that both security personal and hotel managers displayed an in-group bias (Guth, Ploner and Regner 2009) regarding their perception their hotel compared to other hotels. For instance, despite the difference of opinion regarding the poor effectiveness of preventing crime in the hotel industry the information gleaned from questions 11 and nine indicate that both the security personnel and hotel managers believe that their customers are extremely satisfied with the level of security and the security services that their hotel offers. This represents an interesting gap between how the participants perceive the effectiveness of crime prevention in the hotel industry in general compared to the efforts of their own facility. There appears to be a gap between how the participants viewed the efforts of their particular group or hotel site and the effectiveness of the efforts in the rest of the hotel industry.
After the identification of the major themes in the data the researcher reconsidered them and reviewed the answers to the questions produced by the participants in a final attempt to identify any important issues that had not been identified. The same 11 major themes were identified in the reanalysis of the data.
Discussion
The current study conducted a thematic analysis of the answers produced to a questionnaire by 15 individuals who worked either in hotel security or hotel management in three luxury tourist hotels in Greece. The participants answered questions regarding their opinions on issues of hotel security as they related to their own hotel or the hotel industry in general. The thematic analysis produced 11 major themes and several secondary themes.
There were significant quantitative differences between the hotel managers and security personnel in their overall level of education; however, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the questions that these individuals answered in this study would be affected by educational attainment and in reviewing the data there was no reason to suspect that this differences in educational level contributed to any differences in how the hotel mangers answer questions compared to security personal.
Hotel managers also displayed a significantly higher mean number of years of experience working in the hotel industry than did the security personnel; however, again there is no reason to suspect that this would be a factor influencing any differences in the responses of these two groups as none of the hotel managers reported that they had any experience working in hotel security. It may be that the perspective of being a hotel manager or a security officer results in differences of opinions and gaps in agreement on issues of security (see Xu 2010), but one's level of education or experience working in the hotel industry did not appear to confound the results.
There were no females in the security personal group and three of seven of the hotel management group were females which represents about 43% of the hotel management sample. However, when investigating if the female participants may have answered these security-related questions differently than their male counterparts in the hotel management group, there was no evidence to suggest that such a trend existed in this data. Thus, a discussion of the 11 major themes and secondary extracted from the data and how the two different groups responded other similarly or differently to them is not believed to be affected by the gender of the participants.
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.