TOURISTS PERCEIVED RISK

War and Political Instability in Honiara City Solomon Islands November 25, 2021 

The purpose of this article was to examine the implications of perceived risk and international tourism in Solomon Islands. A review of current literature primarily included peer reviewed online journals. Most of the study was aligned towards Lepp and Gibson’s (2003) research on tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism as point of reference in studying Solomon islands tourism setting, and by reviewing other researchers’ work such as Cohen’s (1972) tourist typology, Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs and Pearce’s (1996) analysis of recent research in tourist behaviour. The study focus was more specifically targeted to identifying perceived risk factors associated with international tourism in Solomon Islands, and critically analyse whether those perceived risks disagree to Cohen’s novelty preference.

A survey of Australian students, volunteers, New Zealanders, Americans, Canadians, and Europeans, in general, was conducted and out of the 70 sampled responses, 42 of those were collected through print media on predetermined locations at Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast, and Auckland, Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, and London, Paris, Berlin and Dubai. 28 responses were collected online via monkey survey filter tool. The survey questionnaire generally ask about Solomon Islands in relation to tourism and perceived risk, and study findings pointed out that while there are present perceived risks, most of the respondents viewed Solomon Islands positively. In fact a majority of them plans to visit Solomon Islands given they have the time and money to do so. Henceforth the study ascertains present risk factors and concludes that Cohen’s novelty preference also applies to international tourism in Solomon Islands.

While it is clear that young adults’ perception of risk does vary, the study recommends that Solomon islands tourist authority; the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Solomon Airlines, and Tourism Solomons should implement perceived risk as an approach designed for its destination marketing, and if it wishes to continue providing sustainable tourism development and compete internationally. Then its policy and development strategy should be questioned in relation to understanding international tourists’ perceived risks, and its plans to increase or diversify into tourism investments.

Solomon Islands is new to tourism. It worked on a much lower base of international tourists compared to Fiji, Samoa, Cook Islands, Tahiti, Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea. In 2012, Solomon Islands National Statistics Office recorded a mere 3000 visitor arrival. Half of those were officials of RAMSI: Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. Around 2000 beds were listed in total room capacity nationwide in which most of the accommodations are located in Honiara - the capital city. On the face of it, international tourism in Solomon Islands is not well planned or developed. According to Butler’s (1980) concept of a destination life cycle Solomon Islands is said to be in its development stages. The best of its accommodations for example are reported to lack basic hygiene and cleanliness and clearly not a delight factor. It is not surprising that marketing agents espouse Solomon Islands using catchphrases such as so Solomons, so different, and so adventurous, phrases that befittingly describe Solomon Islands novel habitats and environment, as distinct from “The Hapi Isles” slogan, and as one adventurer tourist or novelty seeker stated, ‘beautiful above as it is beautiful below.’

Prior studies suggested that marketing Solomon Islands destination was a misadventure. Corrupt cronies manage it. As Douglas (2012) indicated, cruise liners avoided Honiara for all the right reasons. It is a dirty city; lacks planning, and local people are seen in news media attacking cruise passengers, despicable, and inadequate infrastructure and poor tourism facilities. For example, the burning of Honiara City on November 25, 2021 reflects a very poor touristic perspective of tourism Solomons.

Add to the fact that the growth in Australia’s outbound tourism because of appreciating Australian currency, and growing young adult Australians’ interest in adventure tourism was never used as advantage for target marketing. For instance although Australia is Solomon Islands primary source market, more young adult Australians were seen visiting Fiji and Vanuatu over this period than they did in Solomon Islands. Furthermore, only two international carriers service the Solomon Islands. One is the national carrier Solomon Airlines, and Virgin Australia. Each airline company however drives to maintain reasonable airfares, adequate air transportation routes, and better tourist traffic. Safety concerns too have deteriorated a lot than the previous years. This year for example visitor arrivals decreased by 98 per cent and drawn primarily from Australia which reflected public safety levels and preferences among visitors from New Zealand, North America, UK, and Europe to visit Solomon Islands via Australia. In addition, it indicated Solomon Islands competitive position.

Regional competition and the collaboration of south pacific island nations, destinations and tourism organizations consistently rated Solomon Islands poorly in terms of tourism development. Such low number and type of tourism attractions, and associated risk factors present and represented in mass media, such as the 2006 and 2021 civil unrest and recent tsunami tragedies underlined the connection between perceived risk and international tourism in the country. This paper thus articulates tourists’ risk perspective within Solomon Islands tourism context, and analyses how risks associated with international tourism in Solomon Islands are perceived by young adults in Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, UK, and Europe in general, and whether novelty or familiarity preferences does influence their perceptions. Therefore, from a touristic point of view by understanding tourists’ risk perspective and novelty preference, the study enhances Solomon Islands awareness of destination marketing and tourism development.

Previous investigations have identified four major risk factors: terrorism, war and political instability, health concerns, and crime.

In relation to international tourism in Solomon Islands, perceived risks associated with terrorism gained popularity in September 11, 2001. After the terrorist attacks on the United States, international tourists were perceived more as specific targets of terrorist organizations. The Bali bombing in 2002 for example was a close to home event that witnessed the killing of more than 200 tourists. As Sonmez (1998) stated that, an attack on tourists can symbolize an attack on their government. Like terrorism, political instability and war are high risks factor as well. As Hollier (1991) pointed out that war and political instability can completely disrupt international tourism. For example in 1998 during ethnic tensions in Solomon Islands, and the ongoing unrest since November 25, 2021 international tourists and foreign delegates were evacuated and caused a massive redirection of tourists away from the country. According to Enders (1992), war and political instability can also affect neighboring countries. This phenomenon has been identified as the ‘generalization effect’, such as the 2000 coup in Fiji and the ensuing political instability in the region that negatively impact other pacific island countries including the Solomon Islands.

The generalization effect also applies to health related risk. Endemic diseases such as viral infections like swine flu, and Covid19 (the corona virus) can ruin tourism. As Carter (1998) found that healthcare as a perceived risk factor can generalize destinations as either safe or unsafe. In Solomon Islands, the DCGA Government has been very vigilante in keeping our Covid19 free status. Whereas in Tahiti, Fiji, and Papua New Guinea for example HIV and Covid19 was reported to reach crisis point, and it is feared that tourists may perceive the epidemic proportions of HIV and Covid19 in those countries as a healthcare risk associated with other pacific island countries as far removed as Solomon Islands. According to Cossens (1994), the South Pacific region is widely regarded as safe from infectious disease however malaria, dengue fever, food and water quality are perceived as greater healthcare risks.

Crime as a perceived risk factor of international tourism implied the perception that tourists are perceived as easy targets for criminals. As Pizam (1999) stated that typically, criminals target tourists and foreigners because they are perceived to ‘carry large amounts of money and engage in risky behaviors’. For instance tourists are commonly perceived to visit nightclubs, drink too much alcohol, and stay in places that make them look out of place or unfamiliar with the local culture, language and customs, and somewhat in need of local support. On the other hand, Pizam, Tarlow and Bloom (1997) found that British tourists are not so concerned about crime as a perceived risk, because they tend to intermingle with local groups and may have their support. Unlike Chinese and Japanese tourists. However, whether or not tourists are seeking novelty, Basala (2001) argued that tourists felt much safer in familiar environments and perceive novel environments or unfamiliar places as high risk.

There has been little academic research that explores novelty as an indicator of perceived risk or a constraint on tourism, as Lepp and Gibson (2003) analyzed that despite recent growth in novelty vacations, general studies for many years have focused largely on novelty as a motive. For example, Crompton (1979) research analyzed novelty as a pull factor that affect destinations. Wahlers and Etzel (1985) investigations also found that ‘stimulation deficit could be countered with travel to novel destinations whereas stimulation overload could be countered with travel to familiar environments’. In Bello and Etzel (1985) comparative study of tourists types who chose novelty and those who chose familiarity suggested that individual choices stay true to one’s individual lifestyle, psychological qualities and environmental characteristics. Elsrud (2001) further stated that ‘novelty as a pull factor may equally repel others’.

Hence, the question why tourists are at variance in seeking novelty appeals to Cohen’s work on international tourist typology. According to Cohen (1972) ‘there are four types of international tourists based on their preference for either familiarity or novelty: the organized mass tourist, the individual mass tourist, the explorer, and the drifter’. The four types of tourists correspond to familiarity at one end of the spectrum to novelty at the other extreme. It is understood that tourists recognize their need for novelty or familiarity and some researchers considered those tourist roles as indicators of perceived risk (Lepp and Gibson, 2003).

Quite a few other studies corroborated Cohen’s tourist typology. Their findings suggested that Cohen’s work on tourist roles support the idea that it is possible to distinguish tourists based on tourist roles, and that is the degree of novelty they seek. Pearce (1985) for example identified 15 travel-related roles. Yiannakis and Gibson (1992) identified three underlying dimensions associated with tourist roles. In addition, for the same reason, Lee and Crompton (1992) suggested that novelty is a good predictor of tourist role preference, and may form part of the destination evaluation process. Impressively all the subsequent studies agreed that Cohen’s tourist typology interprets the differences among tourists in the degree of novelty or familiarity preference, which may translate into differences in perceived risk levels that are associated with international tourism. Those subsequent studies however did not explore perceived risk in relation to Cohen’s typology. Instead, more research work identified other factors that influence perceived risk.

Besides the tourist role concept, Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992) categorized tourists into three groups based on perceived risk that suggested tourists set risk as the excitement of tourism and also as a quest for novelty, which is similar to Cohen’s explorer/drifter tourist typology. However, in a survey of 500 international tourists, Sonmez and Graefe (1998) found that perceived risk is a stronger predictor of avoiding a destination than of planning to visit one. For example, tourists who perceive terrorism as a high risk factor will avoid the Middle East (Lepp and Gibson, 2003).

Past travel experience also impact on tourist choices. According to Pearce (1996), experienced international tourists perceive less risk. He put forward the idea based on Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs that ‘more experienced tourists seek to satisfy higher order needs, while less experienced tourists are more likely to be occupied with lower order needs such as food and safety’. In addition to that, Pearce (1996) further assumed that older tourists might be more experienced. However, Sonmez and Grafe (1998) survey found that age did not influence an individual’s perception of risk. Nevertheless, interestingly Gibson and Yiannakis (2002) earlier investigation of the tourist role concept established that preference for risk related tourism tended to decrease with age, for example backpacker tourism (Cohen 1973).

Thus far, previous investigations like Loker-Murphy 1996; Carr 2001; Elsrud 2001; Riley 1988; Scheyvens 2002; Uriely, Yonay and Simchai 2002 discussed that in terms of motivation, backpacker tourism as a non-institutionalized style is no longer the same as it was once thought to be. Backpacker tourism nowadays is more institutionalized with its own routes, accommodations, and regions and thus reduces backpacking as a novelty. For instance, recent research like Uriely, Yonay and Simchai (2002) suggested that backpacker tourism is not homogeneous despite the fact that they share an identity based on their form of travel. Instead, some backpackers are akin to Cohen’s drifter typology whilst others prefer diversionary and recreational modes of tourism. As Lepp and Gibson (2003) explained, backpackers are assumed as drifter tourists yet their style is that of the explorer role.

Gender also associates with risk studies. For example Sonmez and Graefe (1998) survey found that gender did not influence tourist’s perception of risk, yet more research have found gender to influence touristic choices (Carr 2001; Deem 1996; Gibson and Jordan 1998a, Uysal 1996; Squire 1994; Wearing and Wearing 1996).

Lately nationality too has been found to associate perceived risk with international tourism. Actually perceived risk and international tourists are well known to vary by nationality. A case in point for example was pointed out by Seddighi, Nuttall and Theocharous (2001) research that found levels of perceived risk varied among travel agents from six Western European countries (Lepp and Gibson, 2003).

This paper proposes that to measure perceived risk and international tourism in Solomon Islands, international tourists, tourist role (as an indicator of novelty or familiarity preference), past touristic experience, age, gender, and nationality should all be considered in the survey. The purpose of the survey is twofold: one to identify the perceived risk factors associated with tourism in Solomon Islands and two to determine if the degree of risk associated with each factor varies according to tourist role, tourist travel experience, and gender, age or nationality.

Four research questions that directed this study are: what factors of perceived risk are associated with international tourism in Solomon Islands; whether tourists’ preferences for novelty or familiarity did influence their perceptions of such risks; whether other variables such as tourist experience, gender, age or nationality influences their perceptions of it; and whether perceived risks of international tourists disagree to Cohen’s novelty preference. 

On March 2013, systematic sampling procedures were used to survey 70 Bond University students and members of the Bond Community. Two methods were used over a three-week period to collect the sample data. First spatial locational sampling was used to identify areas on campus in which students come together. The main library and the Media Learning Center were identified and intended for the study and on a scheduled day survey; questionnaires were printed out and distributed to students on the same time of the day in which sample data were collected at each location. Secondly, to maximize the chances of obtaining a representative sample, online sampling was designed and launched in the monkey survey site whereby an open web link was used to collect responses from students’ email and students’ Facebook group. In addition, participants of the online survey included those who are active members of the Bond Community Network.

In the study the sample data was analyzed using the monkey survey filter tool and excel analysis modes (frequencies and variance), which basically displays individual responses and full summary of all questions and responses complete with charts and tables. Ten questionnaires were designed to measure perceived risks associated with international tourism in Solomon Islands, and five specific risk factors were grouped into those ten specific questions according to a predetermined conceptual model. It was felt that young adults at Bond University would perceive risks associated with international tourism in Solomon Islands differently. The study focus was to define the role of novelty in perceived risks and to measure the variability of novelty preference and risk aversion in relation to Cohen’s tourist role, past experience, and gender, age, or nationality. Hence, the analysis of the study was based on the null hypothesis that young adults’ perception of risk does not vary according to preference for Cohen’s tourist roles, experience, and gender, age or nationality. 

The age of the sample was restricted to ages 18 and above because it was felt that the age below 18 is categorized as child, and as young adults, that life stage may possibly affect touristic choice and perceived risk. As would be expected on Bond University campus Gold Coast Australia, 61% of respondents were between the ages of 18 and 22, with the remainder between 23 and 38, and of the total only 1 skipped or did not respond. Of the 70 respondents, 43 were female (63%), 25 male (36%), and 2 skipped. In general the resulting sample is comparable to Bond University in terms of gender ratio (women to men 43:25 ratio; 24% are international students). The nationality composition of the sample was 76% Australia, 6% United States, 5% China, 3% Germany, and 2% each for France, New Zealand, Norway, Russian Federation, Burundi, Malaysia, Rwanda, and 4 skipped.

In the sample population 68% never visited the south pacific region, and as to their south pacific tourism experience 22% visited Fiji, 12% visited Vanuatu, 3% visited Samoa and Tonga respectively, and 7% visited other Pacific Islands. 0% visited the Solomon Islands. In addition, 52% of the respondents have no idea about the Solomon Islands, however 28% thinks it is an island paradise. Further 94% thinks Solomon Islands culture and lifestyle is friendly and loveable, and 25% thinks Solomon Islands is not at all risky, 66% thinks it is little risky, 7% risky, and 1% very risky. According to the study’s tourist role typology 67% of the respondents considered themselves as Adventurous traveler, 4% as Backpacker, 21% as Organized Group Traveler, and 7% as Business Traveler.

Fig.1 characteristics regarding decisions about perceived risks and international   tourism in Solomon Islands.

Source: Survey Monkey 2014

The second part of the study contained 11 items as illustrated in figure 1 that actualized risk factors associated with international tourism in Solomon Islands. These are self-administered fixed-choice questionnaire, which was used on a five-point scale (5□strongly agree to 1□ strongly disagree) to test each recognized risk factor. The leading questions ask about Solomon Islands in general and 49% strongly agree that it is exciting and adventurous, 36% agree, and 14% not sure. Further 25% strongly agree that it is different whilst 3% strongly disagree. 3% agree it is not safe whereas 35% disagreed. Asked if respondents are worried about food and water quality and if they might get sick 51% agreed and 34% disagree. In addition, when asked if they are worried that they may not be treated right 12% agreed and 42% disagree. Further, when respondents are asked if they are afraid of theft, tsunamis, terrorism, and war 81% agreed and 126% disagree. Besides 22% agree to travel to Solomon Islands if trip is organized by a travel agent and 28% disagree along with 26% who strongly disagreed. The last part of the questionnaire asked about touristic choices and 67% of responses plan to visit Solomon Islands, 32% were not sure, and 2% choose to avoid travelling to Solomon Islands.

There were five perceived risk factors identified in the study. Four of those five risk factors (terrorism, political instability and war, health concerns, and crime) were derived from the literature with the exception of ‘tsunamis’, and each risk factor is interpreted using the five-point scale (5□strongly agree to 1□ strongly disagree). A mean score greater than or equal to three suggests a perceived risk. Further, a hypothesis test of those perceived risks provide for a stronger rationale to accept or rejecting present risks in favor of a more recognized risk factor or preconceived relationship between perceived risks and novelty preference among young adults at Bond University. As a result, the study’s indication of tsunamis as a present risk factor in Solomon Islands was originally poised because of successive earthquakes and tsunamis in recent years. However, since the correlation between tsunami as a perceived risk and respondents recorded a low mean of 1.86, and a significance level of α = 2.91 that was indicated in the rejection region. ‘I am scared of tsunamis’ was dropped and thus making the factor less perceived as a major risk factor compared to other risk factors.

In the study the four recognized risk factors and their mean score and level of significance (α) are: Terrorism (2.51, α 1.96, n = 64); Political instability and war (2.89, α 1.05, n = 69); Health concerns (4.60, α .10, n = 69); Crime (3.18, α .31, n = 69). First terrorism is composed of two items: ‘I think Solomon Islanders are terrorists’ and ‘I am afraid of terrorism’ was included mainly because of its global significance, and tourism literature suggests that trends in global tourism are most severely affected by it. To whatever extent such phenomenon combined with war and political instability holds certain level of significance in Solomon Islands tourism context and perceived risks. For example as noted in the study, perceived risk of terrorism does vary by tourist role. Adventurous tourists and backpackers perceived terrorism as little risk to no risk at all than the other tourist roles such as organized group travelers and business travelers who perceived it to be little risky, risky, or very risky.

Further terrorism-related risks varied significantly by tourism experience. For example, the study revealed that on average more than 80% of respondents with south pacific tourism experience perceived terrorism as no risk at all compared to those with no experience.  Besides age inconstancy, gender and tourist role vary considerably in terms of terrorism as a perceived risk, for example the study population (mostly female and age ranged between 18 and 22) thinks Solomon Islanders are not terrorists, however by interacting gender and age inconstancies with Cohen’s tourist role typology, which is the most powerful independent variable in explaining variation in novelty preference, there is significant variation in relation to terrorism, war and political instability as perceived risk factors.

In the study on average, more than 80% of adventurous young female adults are less afraid of political instability and war compared to 65% of business young male adults who perceived terrorism and war as very risky. The study also corroborated previous research that perceptions of risk associated with political instability and war by tourist role varies considerably, for example the study learned that the adventurous traveler perceived war and political instability to be less of a risk but other tourist roles such as 73% of those categorized as organized group traveler thinks that a war might break out whilst they are in the Solomon Islands. Furthermore, health concerns and related risks too have varied much by tourist role, age and gender. For example, health concerns and food and water quality worries resulted in a majority of respondents being worried that they might get sick. All the intended variables by role, experience, age or gender hold the same results established in the study findings for perceived risks associated with crime (theft).

In the study, the notion of novelty preference associated with perceived risk is strongly supported. The study recognizes the four major risk factors of international tourism, and recommends that terrorism, political instability and war, health concerns, and crime are perceived risk factors associated with international tourism in Solomon Islands. Actually, health concerns as well as food and water quality was identified as a risk factor most unfavorable among the respondents extending to novelty as well as familiarity seekers. The study resonate previous rhetoric that organized group travelers (familiarity seekers) perceive higher risks than adventurous travelers (novelty seekers) do. Further, the study also noted that those who partake in south pacific tourism experience have distinctive touristic choice in relation to perceptions of terrorism and war associated risks. As mentioned earlier those respondents perceived no risk at all than those who have no travel experience in the south pacific. Generally however compared to other regions the south pacific embraces a very positive image, for example as revealed in the study respondents whether they have experience or not, and having no idea about the Solomon Islands thinks that it is an island paradise, friendly and loveable.      

Clearly, the sample data on the one hand may be inconsistent in certain instances when measuring the correlation and regression of major risk factors and novelty preference of the said population, as per the sample data is presumed to be the population of study, and 76% of the respondents were Australians. On the other hand, it shows that such inconsistencies influence the level of perceived risks that respondents attach to touristic choices. As Cohen (1972) exemplified that ‘organized and independent mass tourists’ (familiarity seekers) perceptions of risk are similar because they have nearly the same requirements for safe tourism. Risk perceptions of explorers and drifters (novelty seekers) are similar because they are consistently motivated. Therefore, organized and independent mass tourists should differ from explorers and drifters in their perceptions of risk.’ This suggestion is corroborated by the outcome of the study whereby terrorism, political instability and war, health concerns, and crime are all perceived as less risky by novelty seekers (adventurous traveler and backpacker) than by those who prefer familiarity (organized group traveler and business traveler). ‘Indeed, what may be a source of fear for the organized mass tourist may be a source of excitement for the drifter (Lepp and Gibson, 2003)’.

Further, women and men are different in terms of war, health risks and crime. However, the contradiction in relation to gender did not influence an individual’s perception of risk. In the literature, Hawes (1988) accepted otherwise that ‘gender does influence touristic choices’. Equally, the study found gender to be dependent on tourist role, and through the interaction of those variables, it was established that adventurous women perceived less risk than businesspersons did. Similarly, the study maintained that interaction between gender and tourist role in relation to war-associated risks appears to be suggestive of a relationship. For example the study finds that the more adventurous one gets the less afraid he or she becomes, thus gender variations may only indicate psychological factors and differences in their level of stimulation. As Deem (1986) hypothesized that, ‘this may overcome the influence of socialization whereby some females have learned not to take as many risks as their male counterparts’. To whatever extent there are similarities and differences in perceptions of risk among men and women and in relation to their respective gender and tourist role.

The fact that age was significant in explaining the differences in tourist roles and their perception of risk was also supported by previous research, and the study reinforced those discussions in the literature such as Gibson and Yiannakis (2002), Cohen (1973) and earlier investigation of the tourist role concept which established that preference for risk related tourism tended to decrease with age, such as backpacker tourism. This also relates to the work of Maslow (1943) and Pearce (1996) who hypothesized that ‘more experienced tourists will seek to satisfy higher order needs, while those less experienced are more likely to be occupied with lower order needs such as food and safety’. In the study for example young adults at Bond University actually substantiates those previous studies and uphold the view that young adults perceived less risk associated with international tourism in Solomon Islands. Generally, the study’s young adult population 63% of which are female and 61% age ranged between 18 and 22 prefer risk related tourism. Likewise, it follows that the more experienced and young are more concerned with health, food and water quality, which demonstrates that there are infrequent and unexplained variations within tourist roles, experience, and gender, age or nationality.

As the sample was collected mainly of Bond University students, the generalizability of the findings is limited to similar populations defined by young adults, socioeconomic status, and nationalities comprised mostly of Australians. The study thus underwrites a specific point of view related to young adult Australians and few other nationalities. It demonstrates that major risk factors associated with international tourism in Solomon Islands does increase knowledge and appreciation of the destination and its market in relation to novelty preference and perceived risk. The researched information will influence perceptions of risk among young adults and their likelihood of visiting Solomon Islands. For this reason, the study was important from a touristic point of view in terms of destination marketing, tourism planning and development. As Lepp and Gibson (2003) stated ‘it seems logical that marketers can improve the image of a destination by decreasing the perception that specific risk factors are present’.

Thus, it appears that variances among young adults in relation to novelty preference and risk aversion can be explained by means of their level of perceived risk in which they associate with tourism. The study findings confirm interactions between risk factors and all intended variables revealed that novelty seekers possibly would accept higher levels of risk. The study also demonstrates that personality, psychological traits and environmental characteristics are also important in understanding tourist role, novelty preference, and variances in the perception of risks associated with international tourism in Solomon Islands. In summary, the study reject the null hypothesis that young adults’ perception of risk does not vary according to preference for Cohen’s tourist roles, experience, and gender, age or nationality. Nonetheless it is important to build on the study and understand the knowledge base of international tourism in Solomon Islands to be more aware of the fact that young adults’ perception of risk does vary according to preference for Cohen’s tourist roles, experience, and gender, age or nationality and that the variance in young adults’ perceived risk corresponds to their likelihood of visiting or avoid destinations.

Recommendations:

• Understanding tourists’ perceived risks are important to Solomon Islands economic plans to increase or diversify into tourism investments.

• Solomon Islands tourism authority ought to reason with the cost of lost tourism revenues in relation to major risk factors like terrorism, political instability and war, health concerns and crime. 

• Destination studies should include the major risk factors, as perceived risk might influence a successful image, target marketing and promotion. 

• Although controlling risk perception may be difficult when faced with political instability and natural disasters and mass media, understanding real and perceived risks factors help marketers target tourists with a higher tolerance for risk (novelty seekers).

• Solomon Islands tourism marketers ought to guard against the “generalization effect” as perceived risk could have severe economic consequences. 

• In light of recent events such as the 2006 and 2021 civil unrest and health concerns, understanding the factors of perceived risk is vital to the larger notion of international tourism.A 

• Solomon Islands tourism plans and policy should be aware that risks cause stress among tourists, thus awareness of real and perceived risks and novelty preference will assist decision makers make informed decisions and informed marketing strategies. 

• Solomon Islands ought to amend its accepted tourism development strategy that encourages large investments and high-class resorts and hotels. This means the sustainability of such policy and development strategy should be questioned. 

• Familiarity in terms of high-class resorts and hotels that cater to the organized and independent mass tourists should be encouraged to a certain degree and environment. As they are highly risk aversion type and may be the most likely to abandon vacation plans in the face of perceived risk. 

• More focus should be on sustainable ecotourism and adventure tourism that is more accommodating to Solomon Islands novel environments and novelty seekers.