See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233203682

Safety and Security as Part of the Hotel Servicescape for

Meeting Planners

Article in Journal of Convention & Event Tourism · June 2008

DOI: 10.1080/15470140802104557

CITATIONS READS

54 22,607

2 authors:

Tyra L Warner Seyhmus Baloglu

College of Coastal Georgia University of Nevada, Las Vegas
10 PUBLICATIONS 176 CITATIONS 107 PUBLICATIONS 18,175 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tyra L Warner on 11 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Safety and Security as Part of the Hotel
Servicescape for Meeting Planners
Tyra W. Hilliard, JD
Seyhmus Baloglu, PhD

ABSTRACT. The physical features of a service business—its

“servicescape”—play a significant role in both a consumer’s choice and
satisfaction. Most hotels use physical features like meeting space, guest
rooms, and public areas to market their properties to meeting planners. The
study examines how hotel safety and security attributes influence the site-
inspection practices of meeting planners, and the relative importance of hotel
safety and security attributes in influencing a meeting planner’s decision to
choose a hotel as the site for a meeting as well as her/his willingness to pay
more for a hotel with safety and security certification. The study also ex-
plored the relationship of meeting planners’ experience level and the nature
of the meetings they plan in relation to the importance they place on hotel
safety and security attributes. Three dimensions of the 20 hotel safety and
security attributes were found: (1) visible safety features, (2) documentation
and staff training, and (3) general security features. Further analyses showed
that “visible safety features” and “documentation and staff training” play
a significant role in the hotel site inspection practices of meeting planners.
“Documentation and staff training” also had a positive impact on planners’
site selection of a hotel with a safety and security certification over one

Tyra W. Hilliard is a part-time faculty member in Meeting & Event Management

for UNLV Singapore and The George Washington University.
Seyhmus Baloglu is a professor in the Department of Tourism and Convention
Administration and Associate Dean of Research in the William F. Harrah College
of Hotel Administration at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Address correspondence to: Tyra W. Hilliard, 3345 S. Stafford Street, A2,
Arlington, VA 22206 (E-mail: [email protected]).
Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, Vol. 9(1), 2008
Available online at http://jcet.haworthpress.com


C 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1080/15470140802104557 15
16 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

without. In addition, the meeting planners’ willingness to pay more for a

hotel with a safety and security certification was positively influenced by
the “documentation and staff training” and “general security” features. The
implications of these findings and future research issues are discussed.

KEYWORDS. Servicescape, safety, security, hotel, meeting planner

INTRODUCTION

Meeting planners are important customers to hotels because meet-

ing planners, like travel agents, may represent a large amount of busi-
ness (Rutherford & Umbreit, 1993). It is therefore important that ho-
tel management understand how meeting planners make hotel site se-
lection choices for meetings and what hotel attributes meeting planners
consider when making site recommendations or decisions. In this way,
hotels can most effectively market to meeting planners and differentiate
their properties from others. Because the physical features of a service
business play a significant role in both a consumer’s choice and satisfac-
tion, most hotels use physical features like meeting space, guest rooms,
and public areas to market their properties to meeting planners. “Ser-
vicescape” is a label that has been given to the collectively perceived
physical features of a service business like a hotel (Bitner, 1992). This
research explores physical attributes of a hotel’s servicescape beyond
specific meeting-related attributes. In addition to hotel features and ser-
vices like meeting space and audio-visual equipment, safety and security
has been well established (even before September 11, 2001) as an im-
portant factor for consideration of hotels by travelers, meeting planners,
and meeting participants (Himmelberg, 2004; Hinkin & Tracey, 2003a;
Enz & Taylor, 2002; Weaver & Oh, 1993; Wuest, Emenheiser, & Tas,
1998).
This research was based on the premise that meeting professionals vary
in the degree to which hotel safety and security attributes are important.
The study examines how hotel safety and security attributes influence the
site-inspection practices of meeting planners and the relative importance
of hotel safety and security attributes in influencing a meeting planner’s
decision to choose a hotel as the site for a meeting. More specifically, the
study investigates the following research questions:
 Hilliard and Baloglu 17

1. What hotel safety and security attributes are sought by meeting plan-
ners during site inspection?
2. What hotel safety and security attributes are more likely to have an
impact on hotel site selection?
3. What hotel safety and security attributes are more likely to have an
impact on the meeting planners’ willingness to pay more for a hotel
with a safety and security certification?

It is also likely that a meeting planners’ professional characteristics

would influence the importance they place on hotel safety and security
attributes. Therefore, the study also explored the possible relationship be-
tween hotel safety and security features and meeting planners’ professional
characteristics such as experience level, and the nature of the meetings they
plan—including both size of meetings and location.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Bitner (1992) coined the term “servicescape” to describe the “built envi-
ronment” or physical aspects of a consumption setting (p. 58). According
to Bitner, the servicescape is comprised of three distinct environmental
dimensions: (1) ambient conditions like temperature, noise, odor, etc; (2)
space/function; and (3) signs, symbols, and artifacts including signage
and style of décor. Johnson, Mayer, and Champaner (2004) used the term
“atmospherics” in a similar manner with regard to the physical aspects
or atmosphere of casinos. Bitner’s initial research on this issue addressed
how the servicescape affects both employees and consumers. Subsequent
research has focused primarily on the effect of servicescape on consumers’
decision making and satisfaction (Johnson et al., 2004; Hoffman, Kelley,
& Chung, 2003; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994). A psychological approach
to servicescape is the explanation of how it contributes to approach and
avoidance behaviors (Bitner; Hoffman et al., 2003). At its most basic, the
approach and avoidance phenomenon can be considered the underlying
cognitive response leading to a consumer’s decision. Thus the bottom-
line issue is: How does the hotel servicescape contribute to a consumer’s
decision to choose Hotel A over Hotel B?
The servicescape of a service business, including hotels, is unique be-
cause the hotel guest is “in the factory” where the service is produced
and consumed simultaneously (Bitner, 1992, p. 57). Because of this first-
hand experience, the hotel’s servicescape will have a strong impact on a
18 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

consumer’s perception of the service experience (Hoffman et al., 2003).

Indeed, the hotel servicescape may provide indications about the hotel’s ca-
pabilities and quality even before the consumer chooses the hotel (Bitner).
This is especially true for meeting planners, who may have an opportunity
to “sample” a hotel during a site inspection prior to making a site-selection
decision for a meeting. Thus, a hotel’s physical environment can play a
strategic role in marketing by giving the meeting planner (or any con-
sumer) a visual representation of the hotel’s total offering, an indication
of how the hotel might help the meeting planner achieve her or his goal,
and may differentiate one hotel from another (Bitner). Any description of
the hotel’s servicescape may oversimplify the reality of the package of
services and goods that hotels provide. Bitner specifically mentions that
hotels have elaborate physically complex environments, but specifies that
careful management of the entire complex servicescape can be used to
achieve marketing and organizational goals.
There is no doubt that marketing to the individual hotel guest is different
than marketing to the meeting planner. This research focuses on meeting
planners, who are important customers to hotels because meeting planners,
like travel agents, may represent a large amount of business (Rutherford
& Umbreit, 1993). In fact, a study reported in 2000 found that travel
agents and meeting planners booked nearly one out of every two hotel
rooms (Dube’ & Renaghan, 2000). Clark, Price, and Murrman (1996)
identified a number of potential hotel site-selection decision makers in
their study of association meeting planners, but the research that will be
discussed here indicates that meeting planners virtually always have some
role in this decision making, such as conducting site inspections, making
recommendations, or making the final decision themselves. Thus, hotels
that focus on group business are wise to consider how meeting planners
make site-selection decisions and which factors influence their decisions.
The selection of a hotel for a meeting, like other consumer decisions, is
influenced by a variety of factors (Wuest et al., 1998). Meeting planners
generally have a better sense than the average consumer of what hotels
have to offer for meetings and for guests (Dube’ & Renaghan).
The perceived quality of the servicescape by all consumers should
be considered by hotel marketing executives (Wakefield & Blodgett,
1994). Research has been done on the types of hotel attributes that cre-
ate value for and loyalty in meeting planners (Dube’ & Renaghan, 2000).
These attributes included quality of services (functional, interpersonal, and
meeting-related), communication, guest rooms and non-meeting services,
facility design and accommodations, and deals and incentives (Dube’ &
 Hilliard and Baloglu 19

Renaghan). It is important to note that the hotel attributes, and therefore

components of the servicescape, of importance to meeting planners were
not all specifically meeting-related. This research proposes to further the
prior studies done about how hotel attributes contribute to value for and
loyalty in meeting planners by drilling down into one specific area that
may span Dube’ & Renaghan’s attribute categories of facility design, com-
munication, and services—hotel safety and security attributes.
It is well established that safety and security are factors of concern
for travelers and hotel guests. Prior studies have explored the importance
of hotel safety and security to travelers generally (Himmelberg, 2004;
Mariner, 1995), to businessmen and businesswomen (McCleary, Weaver,
& Lan, 1994), to older travelers (defined as over-50) (Wuest et al., 1998),
and to meeting planners (Hinkin & Tracey, 2003a, 2003b; Rutherford &
Umbreit, 1993; Weaver & Oh, 1993). Although hotel safety and secu-
rity issues are not limited to terrorism concerns, in this post-9/11 world
safety and security are issues of importance not only to meeting plan-
ners, but to hotels and non-hospitality businesses alike (Enz & Taylor,
2002). Hotels are under increased pressure from court rulings, insurance
companies, meeting planners, and travelers to address safety and secu-
rity issues (Mariner, 1994). The 10,000 hotel guests who sue hotels each
year for security-related lapses also contribute to the hotel’s need to ad-
dress these issues proactively (Jensen, 2004). What has not been explored
widely is how safety and security attributes contribute to the overall im-
pression of a hotel and whether safety and security attributes can be used
as a marketing tool for hotels, at least with savvy consumers like meeting
planners.
Hotels have a unique challenge when it comes to safety and security
because safety and security standards that are very high or very visible
may appear to contradict the hotel’s goal of creating a hospitable and
welcoming environment for guests (Enz & Taylor, 2002). Although some
believe that travelers want to see visible indicators of security in hotels,
hotels have to carefully balance security and hospitality, as both factors
are critical to customer satisfaction (Himmelberg, 2004; Enz & Taylor).
Hotels also have to balance safety with convenience (Enz & Taylor). Bitner
(1992) indicated that the servicescape influences the perception and beliefs
that a consumer holds about a business. For this reason, one concern for
hotels may be that too much visible security may elicit from customers a
cognitive response that the hotel is unsafe. How much security is too much
security may be a ripe area for research, especially in terms of comparisons
between U.S. hotels (in which much of the security is behind the scenes)
20 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

and some non-U.S. hotels which often have more visible and overt security
features.
There has been a great deal of research in the hospitality industry on
the issue of service failure and service recovery. Hoffman et al. (2003)
combined the concept of service failure with the concept of servicescape
by conducting a critical incident analysis of service failures relating to the
design and management of the servicescape. By definition, a service failure
leads to customer dissatisfaction (Hoffman et al.). Service failure therefore
may have some detrimental effect on a hospitality business, depending on
their scope and the importance of the service to the customer. When the
concept of service failure is applied to hotel safety and security attributes,
however, the meaning of “failure” is magnified. If the hotel servicescape
failure is defective or missing smoke alarms, for example, “service failure”
could end up being a euphemism for serious injury or even death. While
Hoffman et al. specifically mention “failure to accommodate emergencies”
among their litany of possible servicescape failures, they do not elaborate
on this important area. Luchars and Hinkin (1996) address the issue of the
cost of recovery from a service failure, including actual costs and opportu-
nity costs. With a service failure relating to hotel safety and security, these
costs might be significantly higher and may also include other intangible
costs like public relations and image damage. When hotel servicescape
features like hotel safety and security attributes are concerned, certainly
the cost of prevention would be less than the cost of recovery from a service
failure (Luchars & Hinkin).
As mentioned above, safety and security are important to both travel-
ers and meeting planners. Although meeting planners will always be con-
cerned about meeting-related hotel servicescape factors like meeting-room
size and location of breakout rooms, safety and security are also impor-
tant factors to meeting planners (Hinkin & Tracey, 2003a). Rutherford and
Umbreit (1993) identified “crisis management” as one of the seven dimen-
sions of key service-encounter interactions between a meeting planner and
hotel employees. Weaver and Oh (1993) established safety and security
facilities as important hotel services to both frequent and infrequent trav-
elers. While not identifying their audience as meeting planners, Weaver
and Oh found a safe and secure hotel environment among the top concerns
of a subscriber’s list of Corporate Meetings & Incentives magazine, read
widely by meeting planners and incentive travel personnel. Although not
specifically using the terms safety or security, Weber (2000) found that
hotel staff members’ ability to deal with unexpected problems ranked in
the top three for importance during a meeting. In the most recent study of
 Hilliard and Baloglu 21

its kind, Hinkin and Tracey found that security ranked as the number-one
factor contributing to meeting effectiveness by both meeting planners and
meeting participants, even prior to September 11, 2001 (Hinkin & Tracey,
2003a, 2003b).
Virtually all of the studies mentioned above have used an overall and
general assessment of hotel safety and security. In an effort to be more
specific and categorize which hotel safety and security attributes are of
importance to hotel guests, Enz and Taylor (2002) developed a hotel safety
index and a hotel security index based on five attributes in each of the two
indices. The attributes used in their indices were based on a study funded
by the American Hotel & Lodging Association. Ten total and seven unique
attributes were identified, as some attributes were used in both indices.
These attributes included: sprinklers, smoke detectors, safety materials (in
room), safety videos (in room), security cameras, electronic locks, (rooms
located along) interior corridors (Enz and Taylor). Although a great start
to evaluating a hotel in the area of safety and security attributes, it does not
seem likely that these seven unique attributes can provide a comprehensive
analysis of hotel safety and security. Indeed, SafePlace, a Delaware cor-
poration providing independent safety and security accreditation of hotels,
has identified an undisclosed number of safety and security attributes for
hotels within six safety and security categories: fire protection, security,
health and life safety, physical facility attributes, processes and procedures,
and required documentation (SafePlace, n.d.). The study discussed in this
article expands on Enz and Taylor’s seven attributes, using additional at-
tributes derived from the SafePlace criteria.

METHODOLOGY

Survey Instrument
The questionnaire was comprised of four components. First, profes-
sional demographics regarding number, type, and location of meetings as
well as experience level and certifications, if any, held by meeting pro-
fessionals were collected. These demographic questions were based on
similar questions used by meetings-industry trade publications to qual-
ify meeting professionals for complimentary subscriptions. Second, the
instrument included four five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree
to 5 = Strongly Agree) questions about the current practices of meeting
professionals regarding hotel safety and security attributes during the site
22 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

inspection and selection process. Third, respondents were asked how im-
portant 20 specific hotel safety and security attributes were to their hotel
site selection decisions. The same five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly
Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) was used. The 20 specific hotel safety
and security attributes were chosen based on the SafePlace hotel accred-
itation program criteria (SafePlace, n.d.). While the 20 attributes used in
the survey are not an exhaustive list of safety and security attributes, they
are representative of four areas of safety and security used by SafePlace in
its accreditation program: fire protection, security, health and life safety,
and processes and procedures. Fourth, respondents were asked to give their
level of agreement on two statements regarding hotel safety and security
certification.

Data Collection
The survey was distributed to a convenience sample of meeting profes-
sionals at two different meetings-industry conferences. The first conference
was Meeting Professionals International World Education Congress, held
July 10–13, 2005 in Miami, Florida. The second conference was Meeting
World, held July 26–27, 2005 in New York, NY. Surveys were distributed in
several different sessions at these conferences with instructions to respon-
dents that only meeting planners (as opposed to meeting industry suppliers
or partners) should complete the survey. Respondents were also instructed
not to complete the survey a second time if they had completed it in an-
other session. Participation was voluntary and the researcher distributed
and collected surveys personally in each session. A total of 100 completed
surveys were collected.

Data Analysis
Data were first explored for possible entry errors and outliers as well
as significant violations of normal distribution. Factor analysis, employing
principal component analysis with varimax rotation and factor scoring,
was performed to reduce the number of hotel safety and security attributes
into meaningful dimensions. The resulting factors were used in subsequent
multiple regression analyses to evaluate their relationships with meeting
professionals’ site inspection and selection decisions. The assumptions
of the multiple regression analysis such as normality, linearity, and ho-
moscedasticity were assessed. The factor scores were saved by using the
Anderson-Rubin method as it has been found unbiased and superior to the
other two commonly used methods for estimating factor scores (i.e., the
 Hilliard and Baloglu 23

regression method and Bartlett’s method) in terms of ensuring orthogonal

estimates and small residual between the sample and estimated covari-
ance matrix (Lastovicka & Thamodaran, 1991; Ercan, Uysal & Yoshioka,
2003).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Respondents’ Professional Profile
Because the research issue focused on the decision-making process and
considerations of meeting professionals, the number, type, and location
of meetings as well as experience level and certifications, if any, held by
respondents were judged to be more germane to the research issue than
traditional personal demographics like age, gender, etc. (see Table 1). A
slight majority of the respondents (55%) plan meetings for corporations.
A large majority (78%) plan 15 or more meetings per year for their or-
ganizations. Although the size of meetings varied widely, from 25 people
or less up to over 5,000, less than a third of respondents (31%) plan large
meetings of 3,000 people or more. Respondents use many different types
of meeting facilities and a single respondent may use different facilities
for different meetings held by their organization. Downtown hotels were
the most prevalent type of facility used (86%), followed closely by resort
properties (78%). All but one respondent plan meetings in the United States
(99%), but nearly half also plan meetings in Canada (51%) and Europe
(47%). Again, a single meeting professional may plan meetings in several
different destinations. A large majority of meeting professionals conduct
meeting site inspections (79%) and recommend sites to decision makers
(75%). Interestingly, only 45% are the final decision makers themselves.
Finally, over a third (38%) of respondents hold an industry certification
of some kind, with the Certified Meeting Professional (CMP) designation
being the most common (30%).

Descriptive Statistics of the Current Practices of Meeting

Professionals
While most respondents strongly agreed that safety was an important
factor when selecting a hotel for a meeting, there was significant vari-
ance in the actions taken to address safety and security issues during the
RFP process, site inspection process, and decision making process (see
Table 2).
24 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

TABLE 1. Respondent Professional Profile (N = 100).

Organization
Type Frequency Percent Meeting Destinations Frequency Percent

United States 99 99
Corporation 55 55 Canada 51 51
Association/ 18 18 Europe 47 47
Non-profit
Independent 17 17 Caribbean 37 37
Government 5 5 Mexico 32 32
Medical 5 5 Asia 20 20
Australia 8 8

# of Meetings Frequency Percent Decision Making Frequency Percent

Per Year
Conduct site inspection 79 79
1 to 3 4 4 Recommend to 75 75
decision maker
4 to 9 12 12 Final decision maker 45 45
10 to 14 6 6 No responsibility 0 0
15 or more 78 78

Large Frequency Percent Certifications Held Frequency Percent

Meetings
(3000+)

Yes 31 31 CMP 30 30
No 69 69 CMM 3 3
CSEP 1 1

Types of Frequency Percent CEM 1 1

Facilities
Used

Downtown 86 86 Other certification 3 3

hotel
Resort 78 78 No certification 64 64
Suburban 49 49
hotel
Conference 47 47
center
Convention 43 43
center
Airport hotel 40 40
Gaming 28 28
facility
Cruise ship 16 16
 Hilliard and Baloglu 25

TABLE 2. Current Practices Regarding Use of Hotel Safety and Security

Attributes (Means).

Mean Std. Dev.

Safety is an important factor when selecting a hotel for a meeting. 4.242 0.980
I routinely ask about hotel safety and security attributes during 3.606 1.219
site inspections.
Hotel safety and security attributes play a significant role in my 3.434 1.162
decision to choose a hotel for a meeting.
I routinely ask about hotel safety and security attributes in RFPs. 2.989 1.241

Removing neutral responses gives a clearer picture of the current prac-

tices of meeting professionals (see Table 3). It is interesting and somewhat
disconcerting to note that six respondents actually disagree or strongly
disagree with the statement “Safety is an important factor when select-
ing a hotel for a meeting.” Although a majority do ask about safety and
security attributes during a site inspection and factor those attributes into
site-selection decisions, some do not.

Descriptive Statistics of the Hotel Safety and Security Attributes

The 20 specific hotel safety and security attributes were categorized into
four areas based on the SafePlace accreditation program (SafePlace, n.d.):
security, fire, health and life safety, and processes and procedures. The most

TABLE 3. Current Practices Regarding Use of Hotel Safety and Security

Attributes (Removing neutrals) N = 100.

Strongly Agree/Agree Strongly Disagree/Disagree

Safety is an important factor when 79 6

selecting a hotel for a meeting.
I routinely ask about hotel safety
and security attributes during
site inspections. 56 21
Hotel safety and security 47 20
attributes play a significant role
in my decision to choose a
hotel for a meeting.
I routinely ask about hotel safety 34 36
and security attributes in RFPs.
26 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

TABLE 4. Importance of Hotel Safety and Security Attributes to Site

Selection Decisions.

Mean Std. Dev.

Hotel located in a low-crime area 4.444 0.798 Security

Smoke detectors 4.171 1.187 Fire
Well-lit and marked emergency exits 4.171 1.170 Fire
24-hour security staff 4.142 1.112 Security
Sprinkler system 4.131 1.218 Fire
Audible and visual fire alarms on guest 4.051 1.213 Fire
floors
Electronic key cards for guest rooms 4.030 1.083 Security
Audible and visual fire alarms in public areas 4.010 1.208 Fire
Guest rooms located along interior corridors 3.969 1.705 Security
Controlled after-hours access to hotel 3.949 1.106 Security
Staff training in CPR, first aid, and other 3.918 1.164 Process
Training program for staff action in crises 3.917 1.114 Process
Security cameras in public areas 3.786 1.177 Security
In-room safety materials for guests 3.757 1.212 Process
Written policies for assisting disabled guests 3.707 1.197 Health and Life
in emergencies
Written security plans 3.646 1.223 Health and Life
Automated external defibrillator (AED) 3.566 1.230 Health and Life
on-site
Back-up electrical generator 3.545 1.319 Health and Life
Parking facility connected to hotel building 3.500 1.177 Security
Safety videos playing on in-room guest 2.918 1.172 Process
televisions

important attributes included a hotel located in a low-crime area, smoke

detectors, well-lit and marked emergency exits, a 24-hour security staff,
and a sprinkler system (see Table 4). Fully one-half of attributes with the
highest means were security and fire protection. Processes and procedures
and health and life safety all fell into the lower half of importance to
meeting professionals.

Descriptive Statistics Regarding Hotel Safety and Security

Certification Preferences
The fourth set of questions in the questionnaire asked respondents to
give their level of agreement on two statements regarding hotel safety and
security certification. Most respondents indicated that they would choose a
hotel with a safety and security certification over one without, but a smaller
 Hilliard and Baloglu 27

TABLE 5. Hotel Safety and Security Certification

Preferences (Descriptive Statistics).

Mean Std. Dev.

I would be more likely to select a hotel that has a

safety and security certification. 4.182 0.896
I would be willing to pay more for a hotel that has a 3.820 1.190
safety and security certification.

number would pay more for a hotel with a safety and security certification
(see Tables 5 and 6).

Factor Analysis
Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed to
reduce the 20 hotel safety and security attributes into meaningful dimen-
sions. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was excellent
(0.930), indicating that principal component analysis is very appropriate to
use on this data. The latent root criterion (eigenvalues >1) and scree plot
revealed three-factor solution explaining 74.1% of the total variance. The
dimensions were labeled as follows: 1) visible safety features, 2) docu-
mentation and staff training, and 3) general security features (see Table 7).
The factor scores were saved by using Anderson-Rubin method to be
used as independent variables in multiple regression analyses. It should be
noted that the assumptions of the regression analyses were tested and met
before proceeding to use the technique.

TABLE 6. Hotel Safety and Security Certification Preferences

(Removing neutrals) N = 100.

Strongly Agree/Agree Strongly Disagree/Disagree

I would be more likely to select a 78 4

hotel that has a safety and
security certification.
I would be willing to pay more for 51 15
a hotel that has a safety and
security certification.
28 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

TABLE 7. Factor Analysis of Hotel Safety and Security Attributes

with Varimax-Rotation (N = 100).

Hotel Safety and Security Attributes F1 F2 F3 Communality

Hotel located in a low-crime area .860 .361 .265 .895

Smoke detectors .854 .332 .247 .898
Well-lit and marked emergency exits .847 .398 .229 .901
24-hour security staff .836 .297 .335 .928
Sprinkler system .834 .342 .289 .941
Audible and visual fire alarms on .607 .521 .341 .756
guest floors
Electronic key cards for guest rooms .540 .182 .528 .603
Audible and visual fire alarms in .244 .780 .251 .532
public areas
Guest rooms located along interior .290 .764 .251 .686
corridors
Controlled after-hours access to hotel .384 .738 .246 .746
Staff training in CPR, first-aid, and .285 .699 .312 .467
other
Training program for staff action in .447 .690 .180 .726
crises
Security cameras in public areas .541 .676 .250 .711
In-room safety materials for guests .269 .646 .369 .708
Written policies for assisting ADA .578 .610 .066 .813
guests in emergencies
Written security plans .147 .489 .455 .753
Automated external defibrillator .287 .273 .767 .668
(AED) on-site
Back-up electrical generator .261 .294 .756 .626
Parking facility connected to hotel .138 .156 .699 .731
building
Safety videos playing on in-room .346 .510 .553 .730
guest televisions
Eigenvalue 12.3 1.4 1.2
Variance Explained (%) 29.1 27.7 17.3
Cumulative Variance Explained (%) 29.1 56.8 74.1

Note: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.934. F1 = Visible Safety Features;

F2 = Documentation and Staff Training; F3= General Security Features

Importance of Safety and Security Factors During Site Inspection

The three items measuring safety and security considerations during
site inspection were averaged to create a composite measure. The relia-
bility of the items was very satisfactory (Cronbach Alpha = 0.84). This
composite measure was regressed on the three factors, which showed that
 Hilliard and Baloglu 29

TABLE 8. The Impact on Considering Hotel Safety and Security during

Site Inspection.

Unstandardized Standardized
Independent Variables Coefficient Coefficient t-value Sig.

(Intercept) 3.33 34.4 0.000

Visible Safety Features 0.413 0.383 4.285 0.000
Documentation and Staff Training 0.385 0.361 4.036 0.000
General Security Features 0.138 0.125 1.400 0.165

Note: The R2 = 0.305 (F = 12.7, p < 0.000)

Visible Safety Features (β = 0.383, p < .001) and Documentation and

Staff Training (β = 0.361, p < .001) were considered by the meeting
planners during site inspection (Table 8). The variance explained was
30.5%.
The Impact on Selecting a Hotel with Safety and Security Certifica-
tion
The statement “I would be more likely to select a hotel that has a safety
and security certification over one that does not” was regressed on the
three factors. The coefficient of determination (R2 ) was .254, indicating
that approximately 25% of the total variation of the likelihood to select a
hotel with a safety and security certification was explained by the three
reduced factors.
Two factor scores, Documentation and Staff Training (β = 0.448, p <
.001) and General Security Features (β = 0.157, p < .10), had significant
and positive impact on the hotel selection (Table 9).
Impact on Willingness to Pay More for a Hotel with a Safety and
Security Certification
When regressed on Willingness to Pay More for a Hotel with a Safety
and Security Certification, the three factors explained 22.5% of the vari-
ation. As with hotel selection, Documentation and Staff Training (β =
0.412, p < .001) and General Security Features (β = 0.217, p < .05)
were found significant. The Visible Safety Features were not signifi-
cant at 0.05 probability level (Table 10). This can be explained by the
fact that many attributes in the Visible Safety Features are required by
30 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

TABLE 9. The Impact on Selecting a Hotel with Safety and Security

Certification.

Unstandardized Standardized
Independent Variables Coefficient Coefficient t-value Sig.

(Intercept) 4.190 50.6 0.000

Visible Safety Features 0.127 0.143 1.543 0.125
Documentation and Staff Training 0.393 0.448 4.836 0.000
General Security Features 0.143 0.157 1.693 0.094

Note: The R2 = 0.254 (F = 9.85, p < 0.000).

law. The attributes included in Documentation and Staff Training and

General Security Features may be considered over and above the norm
and this may explain their meaningful relationship to a meeting profes-
sionals’ willingness to pay more for a hotel with a safety and security
certification.
One can surmise that meeting professionals are unwilling to pay more
for the hotel safety and security attributes included in Factor 1 because
many of them are required by law in many countries.

Relationships Between Professional Profile and Hotel Safety and

Security Factor Scores
No significant relationships have been found between the three factors
and professional profile of the respondents except for the fact that there
was a significant positive relationship between the number of years of
experience and Documentation and Staff Training (r = 0.275, p < .01).

TABLE 10. The Impact on Willingness to Pay More for a Hotel with a
Safety and Security Certification.

Unstandardized Standardized
Independent Variables Coefficient Coefficient t-value Sig.

(Intercept) 3.503 31.65 0.000

Visible Safety Features 0.058 0.050 0.529 0.598
Documentation and Staff Training 0.474 0.412 4.357 0.000
General Security Features 0.260 0.217 2.302 0.024

Note: The R2 = 0.225 (F = 8.40, p < .000).

 Hilliard and Baloglu 31

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this study was to examine hotel safety and security
attributes as part of the hotel servicescape from the perspective of the
meeting planner. This involved exploring the attitudes of meeting plan-
ners regarding hotel safety and security generally as well as analyz-
ing how specific hotel safety and security attributes influence the site-
inspection practices of meeting planners and the relative importance of
hotel safety and security attributes in influencing a meeting planner’s de-
cision to choose a hotel as the site for a meeting. Consistent with prior
studies, respondents clearly indicated that safety is an important factor
when selecting a hotel for a meeting, and a majority of them ask about
hotel safety and security attributes when conducting hotel site inspec-
tions. Safety and security play a significant role in most respondents’
hotel site decisions. While it is easy for meeting planners to say that
safety is important, determining which hotel safety and security attributes
are important to meeting planners has proven elusive to researchers thus
far.
From the factor analysis conducted in this study, three dimensions of
safety and security attributes were found. Full explanations of the three
factors are found in Table 7, but the three dimensions have been labeled:
Visible Safety Features (including visible, obvious attributes like smoke
detectors and sprinkler systems), Documentation and Staff Training (in-
cluding employee training in first aid, CPR, and crisis response), and
General Safety Features (including having safety videos in guest rooms
and a back-up electrical generator). In general, respondents seemed most
concerned with safety and security features they could see and touch–
aspects of the hotel’s physical plant, or “Visible Safety Features.” This
contributes to the notion that hotel safety and security attributes are an
important part of a hotel’s servicescape—these visible safety features are
part of what contribute to the meeting planner’s overall perception of a
hotel. These Visible Safety Features attributes along with Documentation
and Staff Training attributes were considered by meeting planner respon-
dents during site inspections. Documentation and Staff Training along with
General Security Features had a significant and positive impact on actual
hotel selection and the meeting planners, willingness to pay more for a
hotel with a safety and security certification. This would seem to indicate
that a company like SafePlace may have a growing market of properties
to accredit if hotels choose to use safety and security as a means of build-
ing customer equity. While government regulation may not influence a
32 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

hotel’s decision to provide specific security features, highlighting their

presence to meeting planners may influence decision making and satisfac-
tion with the hotel’s servicescape (Enz & Taylor, 2002).
The study done by Enz and Taylor (2002) indicated that convention
hotels performed reasonably well according to separate safety and security
indices created, and that convention hotels were active in revamping their
safety and security processes and standards following September 11, 2001.
This would seem to indicate that those who own and operate convention
hotels may already be aware of the importance of safety and security to
their customer base. Continuing research on the importance of specific
safety and security attributes to meeting planners should help hotels in
redesigning their hotel facilities and services (Hinkin & Tracey, 2003a).
Meeting planners have a continuous involvement with and need for hotels,
so hotels are wise to consider the needs and preferences of meeting planners
both when designing facilities as well as when marketing their facilities
(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994). Overall satisfaction with a servicescape
influences the intentions of a customer to return (Johnson et al., 2004).
For meeting planners, this means bringing more meeting business to a
hotel. Not yet prevalent in U.S. hotels is the notion of marketing a hotel
as “a safe place” (Wakefield & Blodgett, p. 74). Still, hotels can create a
marketing message that reinforces the safety message (Hinkin & Tracey,
2003a). Meeting planners should be perceived as marketing partners with
the hotel (Dube’ & Renaghan, 2000). To effectively utilize this relationship,
hotels must continue to assess what is of importance to meeting planners.
Feedback from planners can help provide guidance in facility and service
design as well as marketing.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The survey upon which this study was based was administered to a con-
venience sample of meeting planners attending two conferences. The study
should be repeated with a randomly drawn sample from a defined popu-
lation of meeting planners. Additionally, the sample was heavily skewed
toward corporate planners (over 50%). This may have skewed the survey
results, as corporate planners often have different meeting requirements,
including safety and security issues. Finally, the survey used 20 hotel safety
and security attributes drawn from a list derived from the SafePlace ac-
creditation program. Because the full scope of the attributes included in
the SafePlace accreditation is confidential, the subset was not scientifically
 Hilliard and Baloglu 33

drawn. Instead, the subset was determined from a list provided by Safe-
Place. SafePlace personnel reviewed the list and indicated that it was
representative of the areas of accreditation. A future study could include a
more comprehensive list of attributes, which might yield more meaningful
dimensions in principal component analysis.
Additional areas of research should include how and if hotels use safety
and security attributes in marketing to meeting planners or to the public in
general. In particular, a comparison of the practices of U.S. and non-U.S.
hotels would be interesting. Another aspect of future research could include
an analysis of how safety and security attributes contribute to a hotel’s
customer equity. If hotel safety and security attributes are important aspects
of the hotel servicescape to meeting planners, they must have some impact
on both a meeting planner’s decision to use a hotel as well as a meeting
planner’s satisfaction with a hotel. While there is only so much that can
be done with meeting space, audio-visual equipment, food and beverage,
and other typical meeting-related services, technology, accreditation, and
advances in security procedures give the savvy hotel an area in which to
differentiate from others.

REFERENCES

Bitner, M.J. (1992). The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees.
Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71.
Clark, J.D., Price, C.H., & Murrmann, S.K. (1996). Buying centers: Who chooses conven-
tion sites? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 72–76.
Dube’, L., & Renaghan, L.M. (2000). Marketing your hotel to and through intermediaries.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 73.
Enz, C.A., & Taylor, M.S. (2002). The safety and security of U.S. hotels: A post-September-
11 report. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 119–136.
Ercan, S., Uysal, M., & Yoshioka, C. (2003). Segmenting the Japanese tour market to
Turkey. Journal of Travel Research, 41(3), 293–304.
Himmelberg, M. (2004, February 17). Safety is a top concern for travelers, who like to see
visible security. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, p. 1.
Hinkin, T.R., & Tracey, J.B. (2003a). The service imperative: Factors driving meeting
effectiveness. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(5/6), 17–26.
Hinkin, T.R., & Tracey, J.B. (2003b). Continued relevance of “Factors driving meeting
effectiveness.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(5/6), 27–30.
Hoffman, K.D., Kelley, S.W., & Chung, B.C. (2003). A CIT investigation of servicescape
failures and associated recovery strategies. Journal of Services Marketing, 17, 322–340.
Jensen, D. (2004). Playing it safe. Sales and Marketing Management, 156(3), 53.
 34 JOURNAL OF CONVENTION & EVENT TOURISM

Johnson, L., Mayer, K.J., & Champaner, E. (2004). Casino atmospherics from a customer’s
perspective: A re-examination. UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal, 8(2), 1–10.
Lastovicka, J. L., & Thamodaran, K. (1991). Common factor score estimates in multiple
regression problems. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 105–12.
Luchars, J.Y., & Hinkin, T.R. (1996). The service-quality audit. Cornell Hotel and Restau-
rant Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 34–41.
Mariner, T. (1995). Facing the security challenge. The Bottom Line, 10(4), 36.
McCleary, K.W., Weaver, P.A., & Lan, L. (1994). Gender-based difference in business
travelers’ lodging preferences. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
35(2), 51–58.
Rutherford, D.G., & Umbreit, W.T. (1993). Improving interactions between meeting plan-
ners and hotel employees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(1),
68–80.
SafePlace Corporation (n.d.). SafePlace: the independent provider of safety accreditation.
Retrieved August 2, 2005, from http://www.safeplace.com/index 2002 revised.shtml
Sirakaya, E., Uysal, M., & Yoshioka, C. F. (2003). Segmenting the Japanese tour market to
Turkey. Journal of Travel Research, 41, 293–304.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings. The Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66–76.
Weaver, P.A., & Oh, H.C. (1993). Do American business travelers have different hotel
service requirements? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
5(3), 16–21.
Weber, K. (2000). Meeting planners’ perceptions of hotel-chain practices and benefits.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 32–38.
Wuest, B.E.S., Emenheiser, D.A., & Tas, R.F. (1998). The importance of hotel/motel
products and services as perceived by older consumers. Marriage & Family Review, 28,
225–238.

View publication stats