New Zealand Travel Agent Practice in the Provision of Advice for Travel to Risky Destinations

Abstract

Travel agents are one of the most important influencing factors in the travel decision-making process. In terms of safety, there is a growing expectation that travel agents should, as do tour operators, assess destination safety even more critically than a member of the general travelling public. However, the provision of safety advice by travel agents is challenged by the increasingly complex and competitive environment in which they work. Travel safety, while looming large in the thoughts of the general travelling public, may not be a high priority function for travel agents. This paper reports on research undertaken into the attitudes and behaviours of travel agents in New Zealand. A nationwide survey attempts to discern the personal and employment related characteristics of travel agents that may be important influences upon agents' Brent Lovelock is affiliated with the

Obstacles to Ethical Travel: Attitudes and Behaviors of New Zealand Travel Agents with Respect to "Politically Repressed" Destinations

“…The fi ndings from Lovelock's (2003) study on agents' travel safety advice mirror that of previous research into health advice (Lawton & Page, 1997) where generally poor (or lack of) advice is given by travel agents. A common theme across research into travel health advice is the argument used by travel agents that they are not doctors and it is not their business to provide detailed health information (Dawood, 1989;Lawton & Page, 1997).…”

“…This research was built upon previous work undertaken within New Zealand and abroad focusing upon health advice or safety advice provided by travel agents (Lawton & Page, 1997;Lovelock, 2003). While there has been an emphasis on health and safety, to date there has been little empirical research (especially in New Zealand, but abroad too) that has examined the political aspects of travel advice.…”

“…The main contribution of much tourism ethical research has been on a conceptual level (e.g., to contribute to the idea of a "tourism industry ethic") (Fleckenstein & Huebsch, 1999;Hultsmann, 1995;Payne & Dimanche, 1996). Notwithstanding the above work, empirical research specifi cally investigating tourism industry ethics is sparse, examples including that of Fennell and Malloy (1999), who examine the ethics of a range of different types of tourist operators, and Lovelock (2003), who investigates the ethics of travel agents with respect to the provision of travel safety advice.…”

“…Based upon previous research into tourism industry ethics (Fennell & Malloy, 1999;Holden, 2003;Lawton & Page, 1997;Lee & Spisto, 2001;Lovelock, 2003;;Roehl, 1990;Smith & Duffy, 2001), the importance of the stakeholders in terms of infl uencing ethical decisions is depicted by the strength of the link in the fi gure. Potentially, the strongest infl uences appear to be the client and the employer (intrasocietal)-to whom the travel agent may feel the greatest ethical duty.…”

Get out of jail! Locked up and detained abroad – when tourists become prisoners

“…The outcome from their research revealed that travel risks were being dismissed by travel agents with no detailed health information being given. In a survey of New Zealand travel agents, Lovelock (2004) found that perceptions of destination safety were not reflected in the travel agent's behaviour with respect to selling travel packages. This was put down to a number of possible reasons: that the travel agent would probably not be travelling there so feel less personal risk, the relationship between the travel agent and client and client profile, and the influence of external information sources.…”