Description
The purpose of this paper is to analyze two studies pertaining to the National Mall and
Memorial Parks in Washington DC, to gain a better understanding of risk management perceptions and
processes as applied to urban cores that consistently host tourists and special events.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Bridging risk management perceptions and processes: the case of the National Mall and Memorial Parks
Margaret J . Daniels Minkyung Park Laurlyn K. Harmon Russell E. Brayley
Article information:
To cite this document:
Margaret J . Daniels Minkyung Park Laurlyn K. Harmon Russell E. Brayley, (2013),"Bridging risk management perceptions and processes:
the case of the National Mall and Memorial Parks", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 148 -
162
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2013-0021
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 338 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Bing Pan, Tzung-Cheng Huan, (2013),"New perspectives on festival and events research", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 115-117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2013-0018
Leah Noelle Bernick, Soyoung Boo, (2013),"Festival tourism and the entertainment age: interdisciplinary thought on an international travel
phenomenon", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 169-174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-04-2013-0023
Stephen W. Litvin, (2013),"Festivals and special events: making the investment", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 184-187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2013-0025
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Bridging risk management perceptions and
processes: the case of the National Mall
and Memorial Parks
Margaret J. Daniels, Minkyung Park, Laurlyn K. Harmon and Russell E. Brayley
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze two studies pertaining to the National Mall and
Memorial Parks in Washington DC, to gain a better understanding of risk management perceptions and
processes as applied to urban cores that consistently host tourists and special events.
Design/methodology/approach – The ?rst study is a qualitative analysis of open-ended commentary
that addresses issues pertaining to safety and security to garner an overarching sense of risk
management perceptions that National Mall visitors have when considering these parklands. The
second study involves participant observation, quantitative documentation and analysis of speci?c risk
management processes utilized during the 2007 National Independence Day Celebration.
Findings – The ?ndings of the ?rst study suggest that personal safety is viewed as paramount and that
visitors are not overly worried about the threat of terrorist activity, as illustrated by the strong feelings of
displeasure towards access obstructions and barricades. The results of the second study demonstrate
how separate areas of event risk management, including security checkpoints, public information
provision and law enforcement, merge during times of crisis.
Originality/value – The combined ?ndings of the two studies suggest a level of psychological
disconnect in terms of acceptance of safety measures that protect people versus those that protect
facilities, even though these measures are often synchronized. The sensibility to risk management
aesthetics that emerged is a valuable contribution that merits additional study.
Keywords United States of America, Open spaces, Crowd safety, Risk management, Tourism,
Urban cores, Outdoor events
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The National Mall & Memorial Parks (National Mall) systemis a unit of the National Park Service
(NPS) that is located in the heart of Washington DC (USA) and home to icons such as the
Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Memorial, Constitution Gardens, Korean War Veterans Memorial, Vietnam Veterans Memorial
and World War II Memorial (NPS, 2010a). In addition, this urban park includes signi?cant
cultural resources and downtown visitor destinations such as Pennsylvania Avenue from the
US Capitol to the White House. Museums on or near the parklands, such as those operated by
the Smithsonian Institution, are separate entities from the National Mall. Management teams
from these myriad sites often work collaboratively to achieve the overarching goals pertaining
to both long-term planning and short-term implementation.
Enjoyed by over 25 million national and international visitors every year, the National Mall is a
primary location for public events such as demonstrations, rallies and festivals. Annually, the
park receives over 3,000 applications for public gatherings resulting in more than 14,000
event-days (NPS, 2010b). In other words, as is the case in urban cores around the globe,
every day is an event day; yet, not all events are created equal, with some being more
evident and resource-intensive than others.
PAGE 148
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013, pp. 148-162, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2013-0021
Margaret J. Daniels,
Minkyung Park,
Laurlyn K. Harmon and
Russell E. Brayley are
based in the School of
Recreation, Health and
Tourism, George Mason
University, Manassas,
Virginia, USA.
The authors would like to
gratefully acknowledge the
National Park Service for
supporting this research.
Portions of this paper were
presented at the 2009 TTRA
International Conference and in
the August 2009 newsletter for
the Center for Infrastructure
Protection at George Mason
University.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The development vision of the National Mall has evolved since the 1700s and, along the way,
this open space surrounded by historical landmarks has served multiple interest groups with
inherent, and often competing, goals and priorities (NPS, 2007). A particularly complex
management task involves ?nding a balance between public access and protection of both
visitors and park resources. The purpose of this research is to gain a better understanding of
risk management perceptions and processes as applied to urban cores that consistently
host tourists and special events. Using the National Mall as the case site, the ?ndings of two
studies are detailed to shed light on:
1. risk management as perceived by visitors to the National Mall; and
2. risk management processes implemented at one of the largest annual outdoor festivals
held on the National Mall.
The ?rst study is an assessment of open-ended commentary that addressed issues
pertaining to safety and security to garner an overarching sense of risk management
perceptions that visitors have when considering the National Mall, while the second study is
an analysis of the speci?c risk management processes utilized during the 2007 National
Independence Day Celebration. Three research questions guided this endeavor:
RQ1. What are the overarching areas of risk management concern, as perceived by
National Mall visitors?
RQ2. What are festival-speci?c areas of risk management concern, based on an analysis
of safety and security processes utilized at the National Independence Day
Celebration?
RQ3. What speci?c linkages can be made between risk management perceptions and
festival-based processes, as applied to the National Mall?
Risk management de?ned, perceptions and processes
Risk management de?ned
Tourism-based locales and events held therein are subject to a wide variety of risks that
planners must anticipate and subsequently mitigate to protect both people and assets. Risk
management is an umbrella term that includes elements such as emergency, crisis, danger,
health, safety, security, compliance, legalities, ethics, insurance and decision analysis (Carr,
2001; Silvers et al., 2006). Broadly conceptualized, risk management refers to planned
strategies that are put in place to prevent and cope with anticipated and urgent situations
(Glaesser, 2003; Leopkey and Parent, 2009). The ability to anticipate primary areas of risk,
then, is central to an effective risk management plan.
General event risks range from mundane to catastrophic, including everyday worries such
as petty theft, minor accidents and traf?c jams to signi?cant emergency situations such as
bomb threats, severe weather conditions, ?res and riots. Risks are also event-speci?c, for
example, outdoor and indoor events have different levels of risk associated with inclement
weather, while managers of cultural festivals and sporting events have different resource
issues to consider when designing a risk management plan (e.g. Anderton, 2009; Cieslak,
2009). Event risks, when realized, bring into sharp focus the management’s preparedness
as there is generally a ?nite amount of time to mitigate the risk and how the situation is
handled can have a lasting impact on the reputation of the event (Mules, 2004). Because
there is so much to lose when a crisis situation goes awry, event practitioners, destination
managers and government of?cials desire an increased understanding of risk management
(Getz, 2008).
Risk management perceptions and urban cores
The event locale greatly in?uences perceptions of and planning for risk. Travelers to urban
cores tend to be more sensitive to personal safety and security issues than travelers to rural
or suburban sites, with good reason, as urban locations historically have higher rates of
criminal activity (Mitchell, 2006). In exploring the concept of tourist worry, Larsen et al. (2009)
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 149
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
found that tourists worry predominantly about personal safety issues such as petty crime,
and are much less concerned about global issues such as terrorism or war. Criminal activity
and fears of being victimized both tend to increase at night (e.g. George, 2003) and urban
of?cials will often create policies or recommendations regarding evening outings.
Coordinating the efforts of government of?cials, tourism personnel and police services
can also decrease the vulnerability of tourists (Smith, 1999; Tarlow and Santana, 2002).
Tourists visiting metropolitan districts often stand out, as the ‘‘characteristics exhibited by
tourists and tourist districts can increase the visibility of visitors as outsiders and make them
less con?dent in an unfamiliar environment’’ (Barker et al., 2003, p. 356). Urban areas are,
fairly or not, associated with personal danger, and select tourist locations around the globe
have been socially constructed as risky destinations (Carter, 1998). This characterization is
particularly harmful if the destination is also perceived as politically volatile and subject to
unrest (Fuchs and Reichel, 2010). Reimaging a destination that is widely regarded as unsafe
is no easy task, requiring both an ideological shift as well as concerted marketing endeavors
over time (Santos et al., 2008). Capturing the attitudes and voice of visitors and residents is
an important step to identifying and (re)structuring perceptions of risk (George, 2009;
Santos et al., 2008).
Risk management processes, urban cores and outdoor festivals
Planners in urban cores are sensitive not only to the protection of visitors, but must also be
cognizant of the protection of the surrounding buildings that often house priceless cultural
resources. The devastation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks resulted in a marked increase in
security measures at public facilities that, while essential, simultaneously decreased access
and undermined visitor experiences (Taylor and Toohey, 2006). Because the processes
needed for effective risk management may not align with visitor perceptions of what is
necessary, ?nding an appropriate balance between visitor access and resource security has
presented global challenges for tourism managers.
For festivals held in an open space, unpredictable weather presents a particular challenge
(Jones et al., 2006). In a study of thirty attributes that lead to festival failure, weather was
perceived as the second most likely contributing factor, following lack of corporate
sponsorship (Getz, 2002). Decisions must be made rapidly when hazardous conditions are
imminent. As such, contingency planning is pivotal to outdoor event management
processes so that personnel will remain calm and quickly assist visitors during emergent
weather-related situations.
In addition to weather, crowd control is a signi?cant safety consideration at major, outdoor
events. At large festivals, organizing and controlling the movement of hundreds of
thousands of individuals during an emergency situation must be handled ef?ciently and
assertively to minimize threats to safety. While extreme cases of event crowd control
mismanagement, such as rampages that lead to trampling deaths, are rare, they would
preferably be nonexistent. Managers should be attuned to event moments most likely to be
associated with palpable anticipation and/or linked with anti-social behaviors (Deery and
Jago, 2010).
Certain risks can be linked to particular types of events. For Independence Day celebrations
in the United States, ?reworks are the anticipated ?nale of this day of revelry. Event
managers must be aware of safety code standards for the types and number of shells
permitted as well as the minimum distance mandated between spectators and the ignition
area in order to prevent injury and associated litigation (Jackman, 2010).
In summary, extant research suggests that visitors to urban sites tend to worry about
micro-level personal safety threats more so than macro-level terrorist activities, while site
managers must be amply prepared for the likelihood of both. Accordingly, risk management
processes should showcase public safety measures for individuals while including plans
pertaining to facility protection and contingency planning. The current study involves an
assessment of risk management perceptions and processes, as associated with the
National Mall, to enhance the understanding of aligning visitor needs with site preparedness.
PAGE 150
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Methods
Study 1: risk management perceptions
The NPS released a comprehensive, 50-year vision plan for the National Mall in 2010 (NPS,
2010b). The four-year endeavor of completing the National Mall Plan involved numerous
studies and a series of comment periods, where members of the public were asked to share
their thoughts and opinions, in general, about the National Mall as well as respond to speci?c
questions pertaining to and drafts of the ultimate plan. The NPS management team felt from
the onset that it was essential to receive substantive feedback from the public regarding
their perceptions of the site as well as information regarding what they want to see and
experience when they visit this center of heritage and national identity (NPS, 2010b).
The data utilized for Study 1 were compiled from the responses to eight, open-ended
‘‘scoping’’ questions posted on the National Mall Plan website. Scoping questions are not
meant to direct a respondent in any particular area; instead, they offer broad concepts that
allow the reader to interpret each item in a number of ways and respond accordingly. The
questions were developed by NPS managers and written to address the following: what is
most important to visitors, what improvements they would like to see, types of facilities
needed, suggestions regarding facility appearance, desiredactivity opportunities, information
needs, events/ recreation suggestions and general comments. Directed publicity was used to
garner local and national interest in responding through a variety of written channels
(i.e. website, e-mail, surface mail, facsimile) or at one of the many associated public meetings.
The public comment period extended from November 1, 2006 until March 16, 2007.
Four investigators analyzed the resulting data set using the constant comparison technique
(Henderson, 2006). For the ?rst stage of analysis, each researcher independently reviewed
and coded a sample of the data in order to identify predominant themes and sub-themes using
open coding (Maxwell, 1996). This was followed by a group comparison of the preliminary
results in which primary themes and secondary sub-themes were selected, integrated and
con?rmed within data subsets. Following the constant comparison analysis, three of the
researchers each independently coded one-third of the remaining data set using NVivo
(Version 7). Each piece of correspondence was assessed for distinct comments, thus portions
of respondent comments could be categorized into more than one theme. For the purposes of
this study, comments that were speci?c to risk management issues were of interest.
Study 2: risk management processes
One of the largest events organized by the NPS is the National Independence Day
Celebration, held annually on July 4. This National Mall event is held in conjunction with the
Smithsonian Folklife Festival and includes a variety of activities such as the National
Independence Day Parade, a Fourth of July Concert and a massive ?reworks display. While
federal government regulations prohibit event planners from taking headcounts on the
National Mall, ad-hoc evidence suggests that the National Independence Day Celebration
draws between 500,000 and 1 million revelers annually. This level of visitation places
extreme demands on the National Mall’s risk management services, further complicated by
the fact that historic monuments, memorials and federal administrative buildings are within
the immediate vicinity of the event.
On July 4, 2007, a study of the National Independence Day Celebration facilities and
services was completed to examine the effectiveness of festival implementation processes.
Data were collected using a participant observation approach aligned with a documentation
instrument developed by the researchers with considerable input fromNPS staff. No attempt
was made to interact with the festival visitors, as this was not permitted under the federal
restrictions placed upon this study. Relevant visitor comments that were overheard by data
collectors were noted, but no interaction took place and no requests for information were
made. The facilities and services reviewed for this study included:
B security checkpoints;
B public information and ?rst aid;
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 151
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
B law enforcement presence;
B restrooms;
B trash and recycling;
B food and beverage service; and
B drinking fountains.
For the purposes of this study, the ?rst three categories are of interest.
Security checkpoints involved inspections of any type of bag or pack for prohibited items. The
research team conducted ?ve-minute entry counts at designated times throughout the day to
determine the number of people waiting in line to enter and general mobility. Public information
and ?rst aid use were documented by counting the number of people visiting the permanent
and temporary information and ?rst aid areas within ?ve-minute periods at designated times
throughout the day. Law enforcement presence was assessed by taking ?ve-minute counts of
the number and type of public safety personnel at predetermined times and locations
throughout the day. While not in the original data collection plan, these areas converged when
a mandatory evacuation of the National Mall took place due to severe inclement weather.
Researchers took detailed notes of the evacuation of and reintroduction to the event site in
order to determine the effectiveness of the risk management processes under stress.
The sampling area was identi?ed based on information and maps provided by the NPS.
Importantly, the vast majority of the 2-mile data collection area is typically free access open
space that was fenced off to create the security checkpoints for this event. Four data collection
zones were created, moving from east to west across the National Mall (Figure 1). Zone 1
comprised the east end of the National Mall from3rd Street to 7th Street. Zone 2 encompassed
the west end of the National Mall from 7th Street to 14th Street. Zones 1 and 2 also included
Folklife Festival activities. Zone 3 included the Washington Monument and the surrounding
vicinity. Zone 4 housed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, the
Lincoln Memorial and the surrounding vicinity. The area encompassing the World War II
Memorial, Constitution Gardens and Re?ecting Pool included the designated ignition area for
?reworks. Access to this area and the associated safety zone was prohibited.
Systematic data collection occurred for 12 hours, broken into four shifts. Six researchers were
present from10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., followedby a newteamof six researchers who were on
site from 4:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. In order to reduce data collection fatigue, researchers
switched places after their ?rst 3-hour shift and collected data in a different zone for their
second shift. All members of the research team wore NPS volunteer hats and badges.
Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel to illustrate patterns found over the course of the
twelve hours of data collection. Once all data were entered into Excel, a team of four
researchers reviewed and summarized the recorded observations. To maximize the utility of
the data, the analysis was segmented by time period and/or zone, so recurring regularities
could be pinpointed by area.
Results
Study 1: risk management perceptions
During the public comment period, 977 pieces of correspondence were identi?ed as unique
individual visitor contributions (rather than form letters). All respondents were self-selected
in that they heard about the public comment period through one of the publicity channels
and chose to offer feedback. Geographically, 44 percent of the respondents resided locally
or semi-locally, with zip codes corresponding to Washington DC, Maryland or Virginia. With
the exception of West Virginia, all states within the United States were represented. Beyond
zip code, no personal or demographic information was requested based on federal
regulations imposed upon the study. From the 977 pieces of correspondence, a total of
2,964 comments were extracted and coded. As anticipated, respondents did not provide
answers in any de?ned pattern. Some systematically addressed each of the open-ended
items, while most simply shared their perceptions about the National Mall and indicated
PAGE 152
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
Z
o
n
e
s
a
n
d
c
h
e
c
k
p
o
i
n
t
s
a
t
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
D
a
y
C
e
l
e
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 153
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
desired changes. For the purposes of this study, comments analyzed were limited to those
speci?c to risk management; speci?cally, 112 unique comments were identi?ed within this
area.
Public scoping comments speci?c to risk management fell into three categories:
1. facility barricades and closures;
2. police presence; and
3. lighting and other support.
Each of these areas will be addressed, with sample comments, to illustrate visitor
perceptions of safety and security on the National Mall.
Facility barricades and closures. The ?rst category, facility barricades and closures, was
infrastructure based and pertained to perceptions of how safety and security are handled at
and around monuments, memorials and other buildings. Public feedback towards observed
facility protective measures illustrated a range of emotions, primarily negative, and also
involved considerable commentary regarding a desire to improve the aesthetic appeal of
permanent and temporary barriers.
At one end of the emotional spectrum, respondents appeared disappointed yet resigned to
observed security measures. Many comments were re?ective in nature, where a previous
visit was mentioned and compared to the current state. The comments below illustrate not
only that changes are evident to repeat visitors but that acceptance of security measures is
tempered by a concern for the loss of aesthetic appeal:
I was upset by the mish-mash of ‘‘security’’ fences surrounding our public buildings. I do
sincerely understand the need for safety but – this looks tacky and make-do. I was visiting the
same area in 1986 and everything was lovely and accessible. It seems a shame that, in the
interest of security, we have a nation’s capitol that looks like a yard sale.
We took the boys for a walk around the White House. I had not been here with themsince 2000, so
I was surprised that the side gardens were closed. I understand the need for security, but this is
the people’s house. I’m sad that my children, and any others, will not get to experience that
beautiful pathway alongside the White House.
I was disappointed in the way that the new security measures around the monuments have
distracted from the overall look. I found myself buying photos from photographers that were able
to take pictures before all the barricades went up.
The desire for aesthetic sensibility was also noted in multiple requests for more attractive
and less intrusive protective measures. Responses implied that those commenting are not
opposed to the placement of temporary and permanent barriers, but feel the NPS should be
more attentive to design integration:
The National Park Service should look into developing more attractive protective barriers to
surround our national monuments and memorials on the Mall.
How about concrete planters ?lled with ?owers and plants to solve the security issue?
Security barricades must be discreet and porous to pedestrians, but capable of stopping
vehicles. Easier said than done.
At the other end of the emotional spectrum, overt expressions of annoyance and anger were
noted. For this cohort of respondents, the barriers were not only unattractive, but
unacceptable. The points made imply that visitors do not feel at risk for a major terrorist
attack and that, even if one should occur, the measures in place would do little to stop the
threat. The repeated message, as conveyed in the quotes below, was to remove the security
measures:
I think that the security bollards, etc at the Lincoln/Jefferson are absolutely ridiculous – what
terrorist is going to waste his life blowing up a monument? Get rid of all of them.
For crying out loud, get rid of the blasted storm fences around the Washington Monument. They
are insulting.
Get rid of the jersey barriers and drift fences. They won’t matter to a deranged person.
PAGE 154
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Police presence. While public sentiment suggested that, by and large, there is enough or too
much facility protection, views changed when personal safety was addressed. Comments
entailed the need for public safety, the desire for enhanced police / patrol presence and
speci?c types of police support that are (or are not) necessary and acceptable.
While succinct comments such as ‘‘Park police are not visible enough’’ abounded, some
respondents wrote extended narratives regarding their personal experiences to make their
points.
Detailed accounts regarding the size of this urban parkland, as well as the potential for
assault, suggest that visitors feel that personal safety should be a primary focus for National
Mall managers:
Currently, there is not enough police/security presence on the National Mall to ensure the
protection of the great number of visitors. It is possible to walk fromone end of the National Mall to
the other and back and not see one uniformed of?cer. There should be thought given to hiring
seasonal/part-time of?cers provide suf?cient training and have them augment and support the
Park Police.
I was violently beaten by four young men between the ages of 14 and 20 who stole my brief case
and broke the orbital socket of my eye in the Southwest quadrant of the District. Until you are a
victim of a violent crime, it is dif?cult to imagine what goes through your head when you are lying
on the ground gasping for air and wondering whether or not you’re going to make it. Architects,
landscape architects, engineers and urban planners must make public safety priority one and
everything else follows.
Respondents were also vocal regarding the nature of public safety. Having a greater police
presence was viewed as necessary but not suf?cient. Suggestions were given regarding the
patrol types needed and equipment that should be made available. Requests for active and
overt personnel on and surrounding the parklands were consistent:
Forget the ninja out?ts and assault ri?es. Visitors want to see Park Police in uniform, on foot and on
horseback.
A person should be able to go walking or running on the National Mall at any hour of the day or
night, and feel safe. This probably means mostly increased police presence...bike patrols, foot
patrols, dog patrols, horse patrols, undercover of?cers, etc. Police cars that patrol the National
Mall should be high-pro?le four-wheel-drives that can easily jump the curb and pursue overland.
Volunteer neighborhood watch patrols equipped with cell phones could increase the number of
eyes on the National Mall. And a couple of ultralight police aircraft that could patrol from the air
and swoop down on a trouble spot in seconds would be a nice touch.
There should be thought given to hiring seasonal/part-time of?cers provide suf?cient training and
have them augment and support the Park Police, etc.
Lighting and other support. Lighting and other support services were seen as a necessary
complement to other security measures. Darkness and danger were perceived to go hand in
hand, and light was noted to maximize security, with points such as ‘‘Improved lighting will
improve visitor access, safety and quality of experience’’ repeatedly made. While the
occasional respondent reminisced about visits long ago enshrouded in darkness, not a
single comment indicated the desire for less lighting for future planning initiatives. On the
contrary, improved lighting was seen as essential for security purposes:
While I was delighted in lack of lighting back in the day, it makes me a bit nervous these days. The
Mall seems to be a mostly safe environment, but new, more comprehensive lighting would make it
much more accessible for nighttime visits.
One of the biggest improvements that needs to be made is on lighting the Mall up at night. It’s so
dark at night that the space could be seen as dangerous.
In addition to lighting, other risk management areas of support that were brought up
pertained to information provision and service attendants. The impression given was that
visitors do not want to feel uninformed during crisis situations, nor do they want to feel
isolated when attending to basic needs. Respondents gave a clear sense that they feel
vulnerable when visiting the National Mall and expect NPS managers to take steps to
decrease feelings of threat:
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 155
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
As for safety issues, perhaps signage or a speaker system directing the public on the National
Mall into shelters in case of terrorism or hurricane emergencies.
Public lavatories should be attended full time, as they are in most of Europe, to assure cleanliness
and safety.
Study 2: risk management processes
During the National Mall Independence Day Celebration, the three areas of data collection
that pertained directly to risk management issues included:
1. security checkpoints;
2. public information and ?rst aid; and
3. law enforcement presence.
While initially considered separately, the three areas were viewed as a whole when the
National Mall was evacuated due to severe lightning and thunderstorms.
Security checkpoints. Researchers documented operations speci?c to accessing the
festival area through seven of the twenty designated security checkpoints, as speci?ed by
NPS for review. The seven checkpoints locations selected were those most likely to be of
concern based on the potential for overcrowding. Appraisal was speci?c to entry counts, line
length and mobility. Once an hour on the half hour (e.g. 10:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., etc)
?ve-minute counts were taken at each of the designated entry checkpoints to determine how
many visitors successfully got through the bag check to access the festival site (Table I).
Upon the completion of the entry counts, researchers estimated the number of people
waiting in line (Table II) and took note of mobility, as measured on a scale of 0 through 3,
where: 0 ¼ gridlock, 1 ¼ slow movement, 2 ¼ moderate movement, and 3 ¼ free ?owing
(Table III).
The checkpoint data illustrated a series of surges at different locations and at speci?c times
during the day. These heavy traf?c periods were typically associated with the major events of
the day, such as the conclusion of the National Independence Day Parade and the reentry
after the evacuation period in preparation for the ?reworks display. To speed up the
checkpoint process, visitors were separated into ‘‘inspect’’ and ‘‘don’t inspect’’ lines based
on whether or not an individual was carrying any type of handbag or backpack. However,
considerable annoyance regarding prohibited items was observed and documented. The
fact that no information regarding forbidden items was posted resulted in a last-minute
disposal of belongings that slowed the inspection process and irritated visitors. Further,
several of the entry points were abruptly closed at the onset of the ?reworks display, leaving
some groups of visitors temporarily separated and overtly distraught. The security checks
themselves varied from cursory to thorough, with the primary in?uence directly related to the
amount of gridlock.
Table I Five-minute entry counts by checkpoint and time
Checkpoint
Time 2 4 5 6 8 9 12
10:30 a.m. 45 89 37 56 5 62 60
11:30 a.m. 25 51 148 148 6 98 63
12.30 p.m. 19 95 279 85 105 59 53
1:30 p.m. 19 65 180 339 190 156 157
2:30 p.m. 24 115
a
269 170 172 47
4:30 p.m. 77 50 34 19 36 27 53
5:30 p.m. Evacuation
6:30 p.m. Evacuation
7:30 p.m. 178 115 64 63 38 67 85
8:30 p.m. 23 64 108 72 59 150 31
9:30 p.m. Exit
Note:
a
Count not taken during this hour
PAGE 156
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Public information and ?rst aid. Public information included permanent waysides as well as
temporary information tents, event signage and information stations. Designated ?rst aid
sites were located in three of the four zones. Counts were taken to determine the number of
people visiting each of these areas within a ?ve-minute period, by zone (Table IV). It was
commonly noted that there was no one working at the information tents, decreasing the
overall effectiveness of this service. Information provision was clearly desired and valuable.
For example, the information tent in Zone 2 had an average of 17 visitors per ?ve-minute
period, while the event signage in Zone 1 was read by an average of 30 visitors per
?ve-minute period. The ?rst aid station in Zone 2 was noted as dif?cult to locate due to limited
signage. Similarly, the ?rst aid station in Zone 3 was not evident at ?rst, but then ?ags and
lights were added to direct visitors to the location. First aid in Zone 4 was in a highly visible
area. All three ?rst aid stations had an average of two visits per ?ve-minute period.
Table III Mobility by checkpoint and time
Checkpoint
Time 2 4 5 6 8 9 12
10:30 a.m. 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
11:30 a.m. 2 2 3 2 3 3 3
12.30 p.m. 3 2 3 2 2 3 3
1:30 p.m. 3 2 3 1 1 3 3
2:30 p.m. 3 2
a
2 2 2 3
4:30 p.m. 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
5:30 p.m. Evacuation
6:30 p.m. Evacuation
7:30 p.m. 2 2 2 0 3 0 2
8:30 p.m. 1 2 2 0 3 2 3
9:30 p.m. Exit
Note:
a
Assessment not taken during this hour; 0¼gridlock, 1 ¼ slow movement, 2 ¼ moderate movement, 3 ¼ free ?owing
Table II Lines for entry by checkpoint and time
Checkpoint
Time 2 4 5 6 8 9 12
10:30 a.m. 0 5 0 0 0 1 22
11:30 a.m. 0 5 2 10 0 0 27
12.30 p.m. 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
1:30 p.m. 0 10 0 150 150 0 10
2:30 p.m. 0 10
a
75 7 5 0
4:30 p.m. 19 0 0 0 15 13 8
5:30 p.m. Evacuation
6:30 p.m. Evacuation
7:30 p.m. 60 10 10 250 13 53 25
8:30 p.m. 52 20 6 275 0 50 45
9:30 p.m. Exit
Note:
a
Count not taken during this hour
Table IV Average usage of public information and ?rst aid in ?ve-minute period
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
Wayside 2 4 n/a 7
Information tent 15 17 1 5
Event signage 30 7 n/a n/a
Information station 8 n/a n/a 9
First aid n/a 2 2 2
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 157
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Law enforcement presence. Law enforcement patrols were available on bicycle, on foot, at
incident command centers, on mounted horse and in vehicles. Counts were taken once an
hour, on the hour, to determine the number and type of law enforcement personnel observed
within a ?ve-minute period (Table V).
In general, law enforcement personnel were readily visible during the National
Independence Day Celebration. A notable strength was the variety of active patrols seen
throughout the day. Foot patrols were most commonly observed, allowing visitors to quickly
seek assistance if needed. There were ?ve-minute periods, however, where absolutely no
lawenforcement of?cers were spotted within one zone while an overabundance of personnel
could be found in another, suggesting the need for more coordinated service delivery.
Groupings of of?cers were at times seen congregating in shaded areas, seeking respite
from the heat of the day. Tented public safety areas strategically placed throughout the
festival area would allowfoot patrols, in particular, to be more evenly distributed during break
periods.
Evacuation. The mandatory evacuation tested the combined capabilities of the checkpoint
system, public information system and law enforcement. At 5:10 p.m., safety and security
personnel coordinated efforts with the event management team to make public
announcements regarding an immediate evacuation of the National Mall based on the
National Weather Service advisory of imminent severe lightning and thunderstorms.
Simultaneously, a list of pre-designated safe haven locations was given. Where available,
public address systems were utilized; however, in many areas they had limited reach.
Accordingly, bicycle, foot and vehicle patrols worked together to direct visitors to the nearest
designated buildings. Many spectators were reluctant to evacuate, and multiple notices
from law enforcement and event of?cials were necessary. Complete evacuation of the
National Mall took 35 minutes. Additional staff members were located outside the security
perimeter to answer questions and guide visitors to safe haven locations.
The safe haven period lasted for close to two hours. While visitors could elect to leave the
sites of their own free will, they could not reenter the National Mall proper and all activities
were suspended during the evacuation. Where viable (e.g. museums), visitors were able to
view exhibits and displays in the safe have locales. However, public information once the
initial evacuation of the National Mall was complete was almost nonexistent. Visitors were not
given any weather or event updates during the safe haven period, and numerous complaints
indicating uncertainty regarding when and whether the festival activities would resume were
overheard.
When the National Mall checkpoints reopened at 7:00 p.m., a chaotic reentry occurred.
While a clear plan of action was in place for evacuation, no such plan was evidenced for the
mass festival reentry. Blockades used earlier in the day were removed to speed up access,
inviting a surge of anxious visitors. Checkpoint clearance was again mandated, but was very
Table V Observed law enforcement presence in ?ve-minute period
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
Time No. Type No. Type No. Type No. Type
11:00 a.m. 1 F 0 – 7 B,F,M,V 8 V
12:00 p.m. 2 V 14 F,V,I 7 B,F,M 10 F,V
1:00 p.m. 0 – 3 M 50 F 0 –
2:00 p.m. 3 F 0 – 5 F 10 F,V
3:00 p.m. 0 – 0 – 23 F,M,V 2 F,V
5:00 p.m. 6 M,V
a a
1 M 4 F,M,V
6:00 p.m. Evacuation
7:00 p.m. 2 F 3 B,F 7 F
a a
8:00 p.m. 3 B,F 2 M 16 F,V 6 F
9:00 p.m. 0 – 6 F 2 B 3 F
Notes: –No law enforcement presence observed during the ?ve-minute period associated with this hour;
a
no data collected during this
hour; B¼bicycle patrol; F ¼ foot patrol; I ¼ incident command center; M ¼ mounted horse; V ¼ vehicle
PAGE 158
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
inconsistent. Some staff members inspected bags in a perfunctory manner, while others
remained vigilant and their lines moved very slowly. Gridlock was particularly high at
checkpoint 6 (Table II; Table III).
Discussion
Research Question 1 pertained to perceptions of risk management concern, as indicated by
National Mall visitors. The public commentary of Study 1 illustrated blunt views and strong
emotions regarding safety and security on the National Mall. Visitors clearly want to feel
personally safe, but are offended by the presence and nature of facility barricades. Most
enlightening was the sensibility to the aesthetics of the permanent and temporary facility
barriers placed throughout the National Mall. The National Mall is often referred to as the
‘‘front yard’’ of the United States and residents and national visitors are very opinionated
regarding its purpose as well as the messages that are sent to the rest of the world based on
the upkeep and appearance of the parklands, monuments and memorials (Daniels et al.,
2009). While urban planners and tourism managers have heightened awareness regarding
the necessity of protecting cultural icons, this study suggests that more attentiveness should
be given to how the security measures blend into or detract from the overall appeal of the
sites where they are utilized. Temporary barricades that are utilized for events, such as those
installed for the National Independence Day celebration, would seemingly be less
problematic from an aesthetic sense; however, the sheer number of daily events that take
place in urban locales such as Washington DC make them a constant visual irritant.
The anonymity and open-ended nature of the responses associated with Study 1 allowed for
a level of disclosure that may not have been realized using other data collection methods.
Respondents who submitted feedback were not required to share personal information.
Many took the opportunity to vent, and a high level of irritation was evident in the responses
speci?c to safety and security. This research endeavor illustrates how to involve the public in
overarching risk management planning processes in a way that encourages honest and
thorough feedback.
Research Question 2 focused on festival-speci?c areas of risk management concern,
highlighted through the analysis of safety and security processes implemented during the
National Independence Day Celebration. As Independence Day festivals are ubiquitous in
the United States and similar celebrations abound around the globe, these ?ndings are
applicable to most outdoor festivals of this type, and particularly those in urban locales.
Advanced preparation was obvious in the careful mapping of the site, the fencing of the
2-mile festival site for checkpoint purposes, the clear separation of visitors from the ?rework
ignition area, the variety of information channels, the availability of ?rst aid stations, the range
of security personnel and a predetermined plan of action for evacuating hundreds of
thousands of visitors. Conversely, pinpointing risk management concerns allows for
continuous improvement and operates as a learning environment that can assist with future
festival planning. Further, it is not often that large event areas have to be completely
evacuated. Managers of outdoor events of all sizes can bene?t from the knowledge gained
as a result of the National Mall evacuation. Ten suggested areas of ?ne tuning include
recommendations for:
1. adequate personnel to coordinate event entry when checkpoints are mandated;
2. training to ensure that checkpoint searches are conducted in a consistent manner;
3. signage to indicate prohibited items within a festival area;
4. clear markers for information and ?rst aid stations;
5. consistent staf?ng of information booths;
6. coordinated public safety equally spread throughout the festival site;
7. a sound system that reaches all festival areas;
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 159
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
8. predetermined messages that address potential crisis situations to decrease the
transmission of contradictory information;
9. ongoing communication when event crises occur; and
10. coordination with managers of nearby buildings regarding procedures to follow during
and after safe haven periods.
Research Question 3 was raised to consider the speci?c linkages that can be made between
risk management perceptions and processes, as applied to the National Mall. Taken
together, these studies showcase a risk management divide that destination and event
managers must bridge when trying to simultaneously protect individuals and icons. In
support of previous research, personal safety appears to be paramount, as no visitor wants
to be subject to injury or crime (e.g. George, 2009). Proactive policing techniques that
involve the input of visitors and tourism of?cials are essential to sustainable tourism
development, in particular in urban areas that are perceived to be unsafe (Tarlow and
Santana, 2002).
While visitors desire personal safety, they do not wish to be inconvenienced or aesthetically
offended by security measures that are intended to protect the built environment. The
?ndings of this research suggest a level of psychological disconnect in terms of acceptance
of safety measures that protect people versus those that protect facilities, even though they
are often synchronized. The aesthetics of risk management offers a particularly ripe area for
future research. The level of offense taken to the installment of a new safety barrier may be
in?uenced not only by design features, but may also be the result of levels of familiarity, place
attachment, the cultural signi?cance of the site, perceived increase of access constraints,
the surrounding landscape or invasion of privacy concerns (Kennicott, 2010).
In the case of urban cores, it is instructive to re?ect upon issues that apply to the locale as a
whole in light of those which affect a speci?c event, and vice-versa, as it is often dif?cult to
separate the two. This point is particularly relevant with open space events, where the
activities will be witnessed and experienced to an extent by all individuals within the
immediate vicinity, and not just those within the con?nes of the designated event space.
When event risks are realized, the management plan will also affect all within the surrounding
area. Most metropolitan tourism areas do not have a structured plan in place for emergency
ingress to local facilities. The evacuation procedures that were implemented during the
National Independence Day Celebration offer an example of tourist safe haven planning.
Simultaneously, for urban areas that host a multitude of tourists and events on a daily basis,
both visitor perceptions and event-speci?c processes can inform risk management
planning, with an ideal goal of branding the destination as safe, as evidenced through a
subtle protection of facilities and an overt display of personal safety features and services.
References
Anderton, C. (2009), ‘‘Commercializing the carnivalesque: the V Festival and image/risk management’’,
Event Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-51.
Barker, M., Page, S.J. and Meyer, D. (2003), ‘‘Urban visitor perceptions of safety during a special event’’,
Event Management, Vol. 41, pp. 355-361.
Carr, N. (2001), ‘‘An exploratory study of gendered differences in young tourists perception of danger
within London’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 565-570.
Carter, S. (1998), ‘‘Tourists’ and travellers’ social construction of Africa and Asia as risky locations’’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 349-358.
Cieslak, T.J. (2009), ‘‘Match day security at Australian sport stadia: a case of eight venues’’, Event
Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 43-52.
Daniels, M.J., Harmon, L.K., Park, M. and Brayley, R.E. (2009), ‘‘National Mall & Memorial Parks: past,
present, future’’, in Frost, W. and Hall, C.M. (Eds), Tourismand National Parks: International Perspectives
on Development, Histories and Change, Routledge, Oxford, pp. 282-297.
PAGE 160
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Deery, M. and Jago, L. (2010), ‘‘Social impacts of events and the role of anti-social behavior’’,
International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 8-28.
Fuchs, G. and Reichel, A. (2010), ‘‘An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptions and risk
reduction strategies of ?rst time vs repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 266-276.
George, R. (2003), ‘‘Tourists’ perceptions of safety and security while visiting Cape Town’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 575-585.
George, R. (2009), ‘‘Visitor perceptions of crime-safety and attitudes towards risk: the case of
Table Mountain National Park, Cape Town’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 805-815.
Getz, D. (2002), ‘‘Why festivals fail’’, Event Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 209-219.
Getz, D. (2008), ‘‘Event tourism: de?nition, evolution, and research’’, TourismManagement, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 403-428.
Glaesser, D. (2003), Crisis Management in the Tourism Industry, Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington,
MA.
Henderson, K. (2006), Dimensions of Choice: Qualitative Approaches to Parks, Recreation, Tourism,
Sport, and Leisure Research, Venture Publishing, State College, PA.
Jackman, T. (2010), ‘‘Fireworks company to pay $4.75 million to explosion victim’’, The Washington Post,
November 13, pp. B1, B3.
Jones, B., Scott, D. and Khaled, H.A. (2006), ‘‘Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning:
a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital Region’’, Event Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Kennicott, P. (2010), ‘‘Atruly monumental security issue’’, The Washington Post, November 8, pp. A1, A13.
Larsen, S., Brun, W. and Øgaard, T. (2009), ‘‘What tourists worry about – construction of a scale
measuring tourists worries’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 260-265.
Leopkey, B. and Parent, M.M. (2009), ‘‘Risk management strategies by stakeholders in Canadian major
sporting events’’, Event Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 153-170.
Maxwell, J.A. (1996), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mitchell, J.T. (2006), ‘‘Con?icting threat perceptions at a rural agricultural fair’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1298-1307.
Mules, T. (2004), ‘‘Evolution in event management: the Gold Coast’s Wintersun Festival’’, Event
Management, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, pp. 95-101.
National Park Service (NPS) (2007), ‘‘A history of the National Mall and Pennsylvania Avenue National
Historic Park’’, available at: www.nps.gov/nationalmallplan/Documents/mallpaavhistory.pdf (accessed
3 May 2010).
National Park Service (NPS) (2010a), ‘‘The National Mall & Memorial Parks’’, available at: www.nps.gov/
nama/index.htm (accessed 18 May 2010).
National Park Service (NPS) (2010b), ‘‘Final National Mall Plan/Environmental Impact Statement’’,
available at: www.nps.gov/nationalmallplan/FEISdocs.html (accessed 15 November 2010).
Santos, C.A., Belhassen, Y. and Canton, K. (2008), ‘‘Reimaging Chinatown: an analysis of tourism
discourse’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1002-1012.
Silvers, J.R., Bowdin, G.A.J., O’Toole, W.J. and Nelson, K.B. (2006), ‘‘Towards an international event
management body of knowledge (EMBOK)’’, Event Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 185-198.
Smith, G. (1999), ‘‘Toward a United States policy on traveler safety and security’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 62-65.
Tarlow, P.E. and Santana, G. (2002), ‘‘Providing safety for tourists: a study of a selected sample of tourist
destinations in the United States and Brazil’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 424-431.
Taylor, T. and Toohey, K. (2006), ‘‘Impacts of terrorism-related safety and security measures at a major
sport event’’, Event Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 199-209.
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 161
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
About the authors
Margaret J. Daniels is an Associate Professor in the School of Recreation, Health and
Tourism, George Mason University, USA. Margaret J. Daniels is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Minkyung Park is an Assistant Professor in the School of Recreation, Health and Tourism,
George Mason University, USA.
Laurlyn K. Harmon is an Assistant Professor in the School of Recreation, Health and Tourism,
George Mason University, USA.
Russell E. Brayley is a Professor in the School of Recreation, Health and Tourism, George
Mason University, USA.
PAGE 162
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_454967371.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to analyze two studies pertaining to the National Mall and
Memorial Parks in Washington DC, to gain a better understanding of risk management perceptions and
processes as applied to urban cores that consistently host tourists and special events.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Bridging risk management perceptions and processes: the case of the National Mall and Memorial Parks
Margaret J . Daniels Minkyung Park Laurlyn K. Harmon Russell E. Brayley
Article information:
To cite this document:
Margaret J . Daniels Minkyung Park Laurlyn K. Harmon Russell E. Brayley, (2013),"Bridging risk management perceptions and processes:
the case of the National Mall and Memorial Parks", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 148 -
162
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2013-0021
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 338 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Bing Pan, Tzung-Cheng Huan, (2013),"New perspectives on festival and events research", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 115-117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2013-0018
Leah Noelle Bernick, Soyoung Boo, (2013),"Festival tourism and the entertainment age: interdisciplinary thought on an international travel
phenomenon", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 169-174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-04-2013-0023
Stephen W. Litvin, (2013),"Festivals and special events: making the investment", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 184-187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2013-0025
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Bridging risk management perceptions and
processes: the case of the National Mall
and Memorial Parks
Margaret J. Daniels, Minkyung Park, Laurlyn K. Harmon and Russell E. Brayley
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze two studies pertaining to the National Mall and
Memorial Parks in Washington DC, to gain a better understanding of risk management perceptions and
processes as applied to urban cores that consistently host tourists and special events.
Design/methodology/approach – The ?rst study is a qualitative analysis of open-ended commentary
that addresses issues pertaining to safety and security to garner an overarching sense of risk
management perceptions that National Mall visitors have when considering these parklands. The
second study involves participant observation, quantitative documentation and analysis of speci?c risk
management processes utilized during the 2007 National Independence Day Celebration.
Findings – The ?ndings of the ?rst study suggest that personal safety is viewed as paramount and that
visitors are not overly worried about the threat of terrorist activity, as illustrated by the strong feelings of
displeasure towards access obstructions and barricades. The results of the second study demonstrate
how separate areas of event risk management, including security checkpoints, public information
provision and law enforcement, merge during times of crisis.
Originality/value – The combined ?ndings of the two studies suggest a level of psychological
disconnect in terms of acceptance of safety measures that protect people versus those that protect
facilities, even though these measures are often synchronized. The sensibility to risk management
aesthetics that emerged is a valuable contribution that merits additional study.
Keywords United States of America, Open spaces, Crowd safety, Risk management, Tourism,
Urban cores, Outdoor events
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The National Mall & Memorial Parks (National Mall) systemis a unit of the National Park Service
(NPS) that is located in the heart of Washington DC (USA) and home to icons such as the
Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Memorial, Constitution Gardens, Korean War Veterans Memorial, Vietnam Veterans Memorial
and World War II Memorial (NPS, 2010a). In addition, this urban park includes signi?cant
cultural resources and downtown visitor destinations such as Pennsylvania Avenue from the
US Capitol to the White House. Museums on or near the parklands, such as those operated by
the Smithsonian Institution, are separate entities from the National Mall. Management teams
from these myriad sites often work collaboratively to achieve the overarching goals pertaining
to both long-term planning and short-term implementation.
Enjoyed by over 25 million national and international visitors every year, the National Mall is a
primary location for public events such as demonstrations, rallies and festivals. Annually, the
park receives over 3,000 applications for public gatherings resulting in more than 14,000
event-days (NPS, 2010b). In other words, as is the case in urban cores around the globe,
every day is an event day; yet, not all events are created equal, with some being more
evident and resource-intensive than others.
PAGE 148
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013, pp. 148-162, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2013-0021
Margaret J. Daniels,
Minkyung Park,
Laurlyn K. Harmon and
Russell E. Brayley are
based in the School of
Recreation, Health and
Tourism, George Mason
University, Manassas,
Virginia, USA.
The authors would like to
gratefully acknowledge the
National Park Service for
supporting this research.
Portions of this paper were
presented at the 2009 TTRA
International Conference and in
the August 2009 newsletter for
the Center for Infrastructure
Protection at George Mason
University.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The development vision of the National Mall has evolved since the 1700s and, along the way,
this open space surrounded by historical landmarks has served multiple interest groups with
inherent, and often competing, goals and priorities (NPS, 2007). A particularly complex
management task involves ?nding a balance between public access and protection of both
visitors and park resources. The purpose of this research is to gain a better understanding of
risk management perceptions and processes as applied to urban cores that consistently
host tourists and special events. Using the National Mall as the case site, the ?ndings of two
studies are detailed to shed light on:
1. risk management as perceived by visitors to the National Mall; and
2. risk management processes implemented at one of the largest annual outdoor festivals
held on the National Mall.
The ?rst study is an assessment of open-ended commentary that addressed issues
pertaining to safety and security to garner an overarching sense of risk management
perceptions that visitors have when considering the National Mall, while the second study is
an analysis of the speci?c risk management processes utilized during the 2007 National
Independence Day Celebration. Three research questions guided this endeavor:
RQ1. What are the overarching areas of risk management concern, as perceived by
National Mall visitors?
RQ2. What are festival-speci?c areas of risk management concern, based on an analysis
of safety and security processes utilized at the National Independence Day
Celebration?
RQ3. What speci?c linkages can be made between risk management perceptions and
festival-based processes, as applied to the National Mall?
Risk management de?ned, perceptions and processes
Risk management de?ned
Tourism-based locales and events held therein are subject to a wide variety of risks that
planners must anticipate and subsequently mitigate to protect both people and assets. Risk
management is an umbrella term that includes elements such as emergency, crisis, danger,
health, safety, security, compliance, legalities, ethics, insurance and decision analysis (Carr,
2001; Silvers et al., 2006). Broadly conceptualized, risk management refers to planned
strategies that are put in place to prevent and cope with anticipated and urgent situations
(Glaesser, 2003; Leopkey and Parent, 2009). The ability to anticipate primary areas of risk,
then, is central to an effective risk management plan.
General event risks range from mundane to catastrophic, including everyday worries such
as petty theft, minor accidents and traf?c jams to signi?cant emergency situations such as
bomb threats, severe weather conditions, ?res and riots. Risks are also event-speci?c, for
example, outdoor and indoor events have different levels of risk associated with inclement
weather, while managers of cultural festivals and sporting events have different resource
issues to consider when designing a risk management plan (e.g. Anderton, 2009; Cieslak,
2009). Event risks, when realized, bring into sharp focus the management’s preparedness
as there is generally a ?nite amount of time to mitigate the risk and how the situation is
handled can have a lasting impact on the reputation of the event (Mules, 2004). Because
there is so much to lose when a crisis situation goes awry, event practitioners, destination
managers and government of?cials desire an increased understanding of risk management
(Getz, 2008).
Risk management perceptions and urban cores
The event locale greatly in?uences perceptions of and planning for risk. Travelers to urban
cores tend to be more sensitive to personal safety and security issues than travelers to rural
or suburban sites, with good reason, as urban locations historically have higher rates of
criminal activity (Mitchell, 2006). In exploring the concept of tourist worry, Larsen et al. (2009)
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 149
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
found that tourists worry predominantly about personal safety issues such as petty crime,
and are much less concerned about global issues such as terrorism or war. Criminal activity
and fears of being victimized both tend to increase at night (e.g. George, 2003) and urban
of?cials will often create policies or recommendations regarding evening outings.
Coordinating the efforts of government of?cials, tourism personnel and police services
can also decrease the vulnerability of tourists (Smith, 1999; Tarlow and Santana, 2002).
Tourists visiting metropolitan districts often stand out, as the ‘‘characteristics exhibited by
tourists and tourist districts can increase the visibility of visitors as outsiders and make them
less con?dent in an unfamiliar environment’’ (Barker et al., 2003, p. 356). Urban areas are,
fairly or not, associated with personal danger, and select tourist locations around the globe
have been socially constructed as risky destinations (Carter, 1998). This characterization is
particularly harmful if the destination is also perceived as politically volatile and subject to
unrest (Fuchs and Reichel, 2010). Reimaging a destination that is widely regarded as unsafe
is no easy task, requiring both an ideological shift as well as concerted marketing endeavors
over time (Santos et al., 2008). Capturing the attitudes and voice of visitors and residents is
an important step to identifying and (re)structuring perceptions of risk (George, 2009;
Santos et al., 2008).
Risk management processes, urban cores and outdoor festivals
Planners in urban cores are sensitive not only to the protection of visitors, but must also be
cognizant of the protection of the surrounding buildings that often house priceless cultural
resources. The devastation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks resulted in a marked increase in
security measures at public facilities that, while essential, simultaneously decreased access
and undermined visitor experiences (Taylor and Toohey, 2006). Because the processes
needed for effective risk management may not align with visitor perceptions of what is
necessary, ?nding an appropriate balance between visitor access and resource security has
presented global challenges for tourism managers.
For festivals held in an open space, unpredictable weather presents a particular challenge
(Jones et al., 2006). In a study of thirty attributes that lead to festival failure, weather was
perceived as the second most likely contributing factor, following lack of corporate
sponsorship (Getz, 2002). Decisions must be made rapidly when hazardous conditions are
imminent. As such, contingency planning is pivotal to outdoor event management
processes so that personnel will remain calm and quickly assist visitors during emergent
weather-related situations.
In addition to weather, crowd control is a signi?cant safety consideration at major, outdoor
events. At large festivals, organizing and controlling the movement of hundreds of
thousands of individuals during an emergency situation must be handled ef?ciently and
assertively to minimize threats to safety. While extreme cases of event crowd control
mismanagement, such as rampages that lead to trampling deaths, are rare, they would
preferably be nonexistent. Managers should be attuned to event moments most likely to be
associated with palpable anticipation and/or linked with anti-social behaviors (Deery and
Jago, 2010).
Certain risks can be linked to particular types of events. For Independence Day celebrations
in the United States, ?reworks are the anticipated ?nale of this day of revelry. Event
managers must be aware of safety code standards for the types and number of shells
permitted as well as the minimum distance mandated between spectators and the ignition
area in order to prevent injury and associated litigation (Jackman, 2010).
In summary, extant research suggests that visitors to urban sites tend to worry about
micro-level personal safety threats more so than macro-level terrorist activities, while site
managers must be amply prepared for the likelihood of both. Accordingly, risk management
processes should showcase public safety measures for individuals while including plans
pertaining to facility protection and contingency planning. The current study involves an
assessment of risk management perceptions and processes, as associated with the
National Mall, to enhance the understanding of aligning visitor needs with site preparedness.
PAGE 150
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Methods
Study 1: risk management perceptions
The NPS released a comprehensive, 50-year vision plan for the National Mall in 2010 (NPS,
2010b). The four-year endeavor of completing the National Mall Plan involved numerous
studies and a series of comment periods, where members of the public were asked to share
their thoughts and opinions, in general, about the National Mall as well as respond to speci?c
questions pertaining to and drafts of the ultimate plan. The NPS management team felt from
the onset that it was essential to receive substantive feedback from the public regarding
their perceptions of the site as well as information regarding what they want to see and
experience when they visit this center of heritage and national identity (NPS, 2010b).
The data utilized for Study 1 were compiled from the responses to eight, open-ended
‘‘scoping’’ questions posted on the National Mall Plan website. Scoping questions are not
meant to direct a respondent in any particular area; instead, they offer broad concepts that
allow the reader to interpret each item in a number of ways and respond accordingly. The
questions were developed by NPS managers and written to address the following: what is
most important to visitors, what improvements they would like to see, types of facilities
needed, suggestions regarding facility appearance, desiredactivity opportunities, information
needs, events/ recreation suggestions and general comments. Directed publicity was used to
garner local and national interest in responding through a variety of written channels
(i.e. website, e-mail, surface mail, facsimile) or at one of the many associated public meetings.
The public comment period extended from November 1, 2006 until March 16, 2007.
Four investigators analyzed the resulting data set using the constant comparison technique
(Henderson, 2006). For the ?rst stage of analysis, each researcher independently reviewed
and coded a sample of the data in order to identify predominant themes and sub-themes using
open coding (Maxwell, 1996). This was followed by a group comparison of the preliminary
results in which primary themes and secondary sub-themes were selected, integrated and
con?rmed within data subsets. Following the constant comparison analysis, three of the
researchers each independently coded one-third of the remaining data set using NVivo
(Version 7). Each piece of correspondence was assessed for distinct comments, thus portions
of respondent comments could be categorized into more than one theme. For the purposes of
this study, comments that were speci?c to risk management issues were of interest.
Study 2: risk management processes
One of the largest events organized by the NPS is the National Independence Day
Celebration, held annually on July 4. This National Mall event is held in conjunction with the
Smithsonian Folklife Festival and includes a variety of activities such as the National
Independence Day Parade, a Fourth of July Concert and a massive ?reworks display. While
federal government regulations prohibit event planners from taking headcounts on the
National Mall, ad-hoc evidence suggests that the National Independence Day Celebration
draws between 500,000 and 1 million revelers annually. This level of visitation places
extreme demands on the National Mall’s risk management services, further complicated by
the fact that historic monuments, memorials and federal administrative buildings are within
the immediate vicinity of the event.
On July 4, 2007, a study of the National Independence Day Celebration facilities and
services was completed to examine the effectiveness of festival implementation processes.
Data were collected using a participant observation approach aligned with a documentation
instrument developed by the researchers with considerable input fromNPS staff. No attempt
was made to interact with the festival visitors, as this was not permitted under the federal
restrictions placed upon this study. Relevant visitor comments that were overheard by data
collectors were noted, but no interaction took place and no requests for information were
made. The facilities and services reviewed for this study included:
B security checkpoints;
B public information and ?rst aid;
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 151
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
B law enforcement presence;
B restrooms;
B trash and recycling;
B food and beverage service; and
B drinking fountains.
For the purposes of this study, the ?rst three categories are of interest.
Security checkpoints involved inspections of any type of bag or pack for prohibited items. The
research team conducted ?ve-minute entry counts at designated times throughout the day to
determine the number of people waiting in line to enter and general mobility. Public information
and ?rst aid use were documented by counting the number of people visiting the permanent
and temporary information and ?rst aid areas within ?ve-minute periods at designated times
throughout the day. Law enforcement presence was assessed by taking ?ve-minute counts of
the number and type of public safety personnel at predetermined times and locations
throughout the day. While not in the original data collection plan, these areas converged when
a mandatory evacuation of the National Mall took place due to severe inclement weather.
Researchers took detailed notes of the evacuation of and reintroduction to the event site in
order to determine the effectiveness of the risk management processes under stress.
The sampling area was identi?ed based on information and maps provided by the NPS.
Importantly, the vast majority of the 2-mile data collection area is typically free access open
space that was fenced off to create the security checkpoints for this event. Four data collection
zones were created, moving from east to west across the National Mall (Figure 1). Zone 1
comprised the east end of the National Mall from3rd Street to 7th Street. Zone 2 encompassed
the west end of the National Mall from 7th Street to 14th Street. Zones 1 and 2 also included
Folklife Festival activities. Zone 3 included the Washington Monument and the surrounding
vicinity. Zone 4 housed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, the
Lincoln Memorial and the surrounding vicinity. The area encompassing the World War II
Memorial, Constitution Gardens and Re?ecting Pool included the designated ignition area for
?reworks. Access to this area and the associated safety zone was prohibited.
Systematic data collection occurred for 12 hours, broken into four shifts. Six researchers were
present from10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., followedby a newteamof six researchers who were on
site from 4:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. In order to reduce data collection fatigue, researchers
switched places after their ?rst 3-hour shift and collected data in a different zone for their
second shift. All members of the research team wore NPS volunteer hats and badges.
Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel to illustrate patterns found over the course of the
twelve hours of data collection. Once all data were entered into Excel, a team of four
researchers reviewed and summarized the recorded observations. To maximize the utility of
the data, the analysis was segmented by time period and/or zone, so recurring regularities
could be pinpointed by area.
Results
Study 1: risk management perceptions
During the public comment period, 977 pieces of correspondence were identi?ed as unique
individual visitor contributions (rather than form letters). All respondents were self-selected
in that they heard about the public comment period through one of the publicity channels
and chose to offer feedback. Geographically, 44 percent of the respondents resided locally
or semi-locally, with zip codes corresponding to Washington DC, Maryland or Virginia. With
the exception of West Virginia, all states within the United States were represented. Beyond
zip code, no personal or demographic information was requested based on federal
regulations imposed upon the study. From the 977 pieces of correspondence, a total of
2,964 comments were extracted and coded. As anticipated, respondents did not provide
answers in any de?ned pattern. Some systematically addressed each of the open-ended
items, while most simply shared their perceptions about the National Mall and indicated
PAGE 152
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
Z
o
n
e
s
a
n
d
c
h
e
c
k
p
o
i
n
t
s
a
t
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
D
a
y
C
e
l
e
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 153
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
desired changes. For the purposes of this study, comments analyzed were limited to those
speci?c to risk management; speci?cally, 112 unique comments were identi?ed within this
area.
Public scoping comments speci?c to risk management fell into three categories:
1. facility barricades and closures;
2. police presence; and
3. lighting and other support.
Each of these areas will be addressed, with sample comments, to illustrate visitor
perceptions of safety and security on the National Mall.
Facility barricades and closures. The ?rst category, facility barricades and closures, was
infrastructure based and pertained to perceptions of how safety and security are handled at
and around monuments, memorials and other buildings. Public feedback towards observed
facility protective measures illustrated a range of emotions, primarily negative, and also
involved considerable commentary regarding a desire to improve the aesthetic appeal of
permanent and temporary barriers.
At one end of the emotional spectrum, respondents appeared disappointed yet resigned to
observed security measures. Many comments were re?ective in nature, where a previous
visit was mentioned and compared to the current state. The comments below illustrate not
only that changes are evident to repeat visitors but that acceptance of security measures is
tempered by a concern for the loss of aesthetic appeal:
I was upset by the mish-mash of ‘‘security’’ fences surrounding our public buildings. I do
sincerely understand the need for safety but – this looks tacky and make-do. I was visiting the
same area in 1986 and everything was lovely and accessible. It seems a shame that, in the
interest of security, we have a nation’s capitol that looks like a yard sale.
We took the boys for a walk around the White House. I had not been here with themsince 2000, so
I was surprised that the side gardens were closed. I understand the need for security, but this is
the people’s house. I’m sad that my children, and any others, will not get to experience that
beautiful pathway alongside the White House.
I was disappointed in the way that the new security measures around the monuments have
distracted from the overall look. I found myself buying photos from photographers that were able
to take pictures before all the barricades went up.
The desire for aesthetic sensibility was also noted in multiple requests for more attractive
and less intrusive protective measures. Responses implied that those commenting are not
opposed to the placement of temporary and permanent barriers, but feel the NPS should be
more attentive to design integration:
The National Park Service should look into developing more attractive protective barriers to
surround our national monuments and memorials on the Mall.
How about concrete planters ?lled with ?owers and plants to solve the security issue?
Security barricades must be discreet and porous to pedestrians, but capable of stopping
vehicles. Easier said than done.
At the other end of the emotional spectrum, overt expressions of annoyance and anger were
noted. For this cohort of respondents, the barriers were not only unattractive, but
unacceptable. The points made imply that visitors do not feel at risk for a major terrorist
attack and that, even if one should occur, the measures in place would do little to stop the
threat. The repeated message, as conveyed in the quotes below, was to remove the security
measures:
I think that the security bollards, etc at the Lincoln/Jefferson are absolutely ridiculous – what
terrorist is going to waste his life blowing up a monument? Get rid of all of them.
For crying out loud, get rid of the blasted storm fences around the Washington Monument. They
are insulting.
Get rid of the jersey barriers and drift fences. They won’t matter to a deranged person.
PAGE 154
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Police presence. While public sentiment suggested that, by and large, there is enough or too
much facility protection, views changed when personal safety was addressed. Comments
entailed the need for public safety, the desire for enhanced police / patrol presence and
speci?c types of police support that are (or are not) necessary and acceptable.
While succinct comments such as ‘‘Park police are not visible enough’’ abounded, some
respondents wrote extended narratives regarding their personal experiences to make their
points.
Detailed accounts regarding the size of this urban parkland, as well as the potential for
assault, suggest that visitors feel that personal safety should be a primary focus for National
Mall managers:
Currently, there is not enough police/security presence on the National Mall to ensure the
protection of the great number of visitors. It is possible to walk fromone end of the National Mall to
the other and back and not see one uniformed of?cer. There should be thought given to hiring
seasonal/part-time of?cers provide suf?cient training and have them augment and support the
Park Police.
I was violently beaten by four young men between the ages of 14 and 20 who stole my brief case
and broke the orbital socket of my eye in the Southwest quadrant of the District. Until you are a
victim of a violent crime, it is dif?cult to imagine what goes through your head when you are lying
on the ground gasping for air and wondering whether or not you’re going to make it. Architects,
landscape architects, engineers and urban planners must make public safety priority one and
everything else follows.
Respondents were also vocal regarding the nature of public safety. Having a greater police
presence was viewed as necessary but not suf?cient. Suggestions were given regarding the
patrol types needed and equipment that should be made available. Requests for active and
overt personnel on and surrounding the parklands were consistent:
Forget the ninja out?ts and assault ri?es. Visitors want to see Park Police in uniform, on foot and on
horseback.
A person should be able to go walking or running on the National Mall at any hour of the day or
night, and feel safe. This probably means mostly increased police presence...bike patrols, foot
patrols, dog patrols, horse patrols, undercover of?cers, etc. Police cars that patrol the National
Mall should be high-pro?le four-wheel-drives that can easily jump the curb and pursue overland.
Volunteer neighborhood watch patrols equipped with cell phones could increase the number of
eyes on the National Mall. And a couple of ultralight police aircraft that could patrol from the air
and swoop down on a trouble spot in seconds would be a nice touch.
There should be thought given to hiring seasonal/part-time of?cers provide suf?cient training and
have them augment and support the Park Police, etc.
Lighting and other support. Lighting and other support services were seen as a necessary
complement to other security measures. Darkness and danger were perceived to go hand in
hand, and light was noted to maximize security, with points such as ‘‘Improved lighting will
improve visitor access, safety and quality of experience’’ repeatedly made. While the
occasional respondent reminisced about visits long ago enshrouded in darkness, not a
single comment indicated the desire for less lighting for future planning initiatives. On the
contrary, improved lighting was seen as essential for security purposes:
While I was delighted in lack of lighting back in the day, it makes me a bit nervous these days. The
Mall seems to be a mostly safe environment, but new, more comprehensive lighting would make it
much more accessible for nighttime visits.
One of the biggest improvements that needs to be made is on lighting the Mall up at night. It’s so
dark at night that the space could be seen as dangerous.
In addition to lighting, other risk management areas of support that were brought up
pertained to information provision and service attendants. The impression given was that
visitors do not want to feel uninformed during crisis situations, nor do they want to feel
isolated when attending to basic needs. Respondents gave a clear sense that they feel
vulnerable when visiting the National Mall and expect NPS managers to take steps to
decrease feelings of threat:
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 155
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
As for safety issues, perhaps signage or a speaker system directing the public on the National
Mall into shelters in case of terrorism or hurricane emergencies.
Public lavatories should be attended full time, as they are in most of Europe, to assure cleanliness
and safety.
Study 2: risk management processes
During the National Mall Independence Day Celebration, the three areas of data collection
that pertained directly to risk management issues included:
1. security checkpoints;
2. public information and ?rst aid; and
3. law enforcement presence.
While initially considered separately, the three areas were viewed as a whole when the
National Mall was evacuated due to severe lightning and thunderstorms.
Security checkpoints. Researchers documented operations speci?c to accessing the
festival area through seven of the twenty designated security checkpoints, as speci?ed by
NPS for review. The seven checkpoints locations selected were those most likely to be of
concern based on the potential for overcrowding. Appraisal was speci?c to entry counts, line
length and mobility. Once an hour on the half hour (e.g. 10:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., etc)
?ve-minute counts were taken at each of the designated entry checkpoints to determine how
many visitors successfully got through the bag check to access the festival site (Table I).
Upon the completion of the entry counts, researchers estimated the number of people
waiting in line (Table II) and took note of mobility, as measured on a scale of 0 through 3,
where: 0 ¼ gridlock, 1 ¼ slow movement, 2 ¼ moderate movement, and 3 ¼ free ?owing
(Table III).
The checkpoint data illustrated a series of surges at different locations and at speci?c times
during the day. These heavy traf?c periods were typically associated with the major events of
the day, such as the conclusion of the National Independence Day Parade and the reentry
after the evacuation period in preparation for the ?reworks display. To speed up the
checkpoint process, visitors were separated into ‘‘inspect’’ and ‘‘don’t inspect’’ lines based
on whether or not an individual was carrying any type of handbag or backpack. However,
considerable annoyance regarding prohibited items was observed and documented. The
fact that no information regarding forbidden items was posted resulted in a last-minute
disposal of belongings that slowed the inspection process and irritated visitors. Further,
several of the entry points were abruptly closed at the onset of the ?reworks display, leaving
some groups of visitors temporarily separated and overtly distraught. The security checks
themselves varied from cursory to thorough, with the primary in?uence directly related to the
amount of gridlock.
Table I Five-minute entry counts by checkpoint and time
Checkpoint
Time 2 4 5 6 8 9 12
10:30 a.m. 45 89 37 56 5 62 60
11:30 a.m. 25 51 148 148 6 98 63
12.30 p.m. 19 95 279 85 105 59 53
1:30 p.m. 19 65 180 339 190 156 157
2:30 p.m. 24 115
a
269 170 172 47
4:30 p.m. 77 50 34 19 36 27 53
5:30 p.m. Evacuation
6:30 p.m. Evacuation
7:30 p.m. 178 115 64 63 38 67 85
8:30 p.m. 23 64 108 72 59 150 31
9:30 p.m. Exit
Note:
a
Count not taken during this hour
PAGE 156
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Public information and ?rst aid. Public information included permanent waysides as well as
temporary information tents, event signage and information stations. Designated ?rst aid
sites were located in three of the four zones. Counts were taken to determine the number of
people visiting each of these areas within a ?ve-minute period, by zone (Table IV). It was
commonly noted that there was no one working at the information tents, decreasing the
overall effectiveness of this service. Information provision was clearly desired and valuable.
For example, the information tent in Zone 2 had an average of 17 visitors per ?ve-minute
period, while the event signage in Zone 1 was read by an average of 30 visitors per
?ve-minute period. The ?rst aid station in Zone 2 was noted as dif?cult to locate due to limited
signage. Similarly, the ?rst aid station in Zone 3 was not evident at ?rst, but then ?ags and
lights were added to direct visitors to the location. First aid in Zone 4 was in a highly visible
area. All three ?rst aid stations had an average of two visits per ?ve-minute period.
Table III Mobility by checkpoint and time
Checkpoint
Time 2 4 5 6 8 9 12
10:30 a.m. 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
11:30 a.m. 2 2 3 2 3 3 3
12.30 p.m. 3 2 3 2 2 3 3
1:30 p.m. 3 2 3 1 1 3 3
2:30 p.m. 3 2
a
2 2 2 3
4:30 p.m. 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
5:30 p.m. Evacuation
6:30 p.m. Evacuation
7:30 p.m. 2 2 2 0 3 0 2
8:30 p.m. 1 2 2 0 3 2 3
9:30 p.m. Exit
Note:
a
Assessment not taken during this hour; 0¼gridlock, 1 ¼ slow movement, 2 ¼ moderate movement, 3 ¼ free ?owing
Table II Lines for entry by checkpoint and time
Checkpoint
Time 2 4 5 6 8 9 12
10:30 a.m. 0 5 0 0 0 1 22
11:30 a.m. 0 5 2 10 0 0 27
12.30 p.m. 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
1:30 p.m. 0 10 0 150 150 0 10
2:30 p.m. 0 10
a
75 7 5 0
4:30 p.m. 19 0 0 0 15 13 8
5:30 p.m. Evacuation
6:30 p.m. Evacuation
7:30 p.m. 60 10 10 250 13 53 25
8:30 p.m. 52 20 6 275 0 50 45
9:30 p.m. Exit
Note:
a
Count not taken during this hour
Table IV Average usage of public information and ?rst aid in ?ve-minute period
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
Wayside 2 4 n/a 7
Information tent 15 17 1 5
Event signage 30 7 n/a n/a
Information station 8 n/a n/a 9
First aid n/a 2 2 2
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 157
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Law enforcement presence. Law enforcement patrols were available on bicycle, on foot, at
incident command centers, on mounted horse and in vehicles. Counts were taken once an
hour, on the hour, to determine the number and type of law enforcement personnel observed
within a ?ve-minute period (Table V).
In general, law enforcement personnel were readily visible during the National
Independence Day Celebration. A notable strength was the variety of active patrols seen
throughout the day. Foot patrols were most commonly observed, allowing visitors to quickly
seek assistance if needed. There were ?ve-minute periods, however, where absolutely no
lawenforcement of?cers were spotted within one zone while an overabundance of personnel
could be found in another, suggesting the need for more coordinated service delivery.
Groupings of of?cers were at times seen congregating in shaded areas, seeking respite
from the heat of the day. Tented public safety areas strategically placed throughout the
festival area would allowfoot patrols, in particular, to be more evenly distributed during break
periods.
Evacuation. The mandatory evacuation tested the combined capabilities of the checkpoint
system, public information system and law enforcement. At 5:10 p.m., safety and security
personnel coordinated efforts with the event management team to make public
announcements regarding an immediate evacuation of the National Mall based on the
National Weather Service advisory of imminent severe lightning and thunderstorms.
Simultaneously, a list of pre-designated safe haven locations was given. Where available,
public address systems were utilized; however, in many areas they had limited reach.
Accordingly, bicycle, foot and vehicle patrols worked together to direct visitors to the nearest
designated buildings. Many spectators were reluctant to evacuate, and multiple notices
from law enforcement and event of?cials were necessary. Complete evacuation of the
National Mall took 35 minutes. Additional staff members were located outside the security
perimeter to answer questions and guide visitors to safe haven locations.
The safe haven period lasted for close to two hours. While visitors could elect to leave the
sites of their own free will, they could not reenter the National Mall proper and all activities
were suspended during the evacuation. Where viable (e.g. museums), visitors were able to
view exhibits and displays in the safe have locales. However, public information once the
initial evacuation of the National Mall was complete was almost nonexistent. Visitors were not
given any weather or event updates during the safe haven period, and numerous complaints
indicating uncertainty regarding when and whether the festival activities would resume were
overheard.
When the National Mall checkpoints reopened at 7:00 p.m., a chaotic reentry occurred.
While a clear plan of action was in place for evacuation, no such plan was evidenced for the
mass festival reentry. Blockades used earlier in the day were removed to speed up access,
inviting a surge of anxious visitors. Checkpoint clearance was again mandated, but was very
Table V Observed law enforcement presence in ?ve-minute period
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
Time No. Type No. Type No. Type No. Type
11:00 a.m. 1 F 0 – 7 B,F,M,V 8 V
12:00 p.m. 2 V 14 F,V,I 7 B,F,M 10 F,V
1:00 p.m. 0 – 3 M 50 F 0 –
2:00 p.m. 3 F 0 – 5 F 10 F,V
3:00 p.m. 0 – 0 – 23 F,M,V 2 F,V
5:00 p.m. 6 M,V
a a
1 M 4 F,M,V
6:00 p.m. Evacuation
7:00 p.m. 2 F 3 B,F 7 F
a a
8:00 p.m. 3 B,F 2 M 16 F,V 6 F
9:00 p.m. 0 – 6 F 2 B 3 F
Notes: –No law enforcement presence observed during the ?ve-minute period associated with this hour;
a
no data collected during this
hour; B¼bicycle patrol; F ¼ foot patrol; I ¼ incident command center; M ¼ mounted horse; V ¼ vehicle
PAGE 158
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
inconsistent. Some staff members inspected bags in a perfunctory manner, while others
remained vigilant and their lines moved very slowly. Gridlock was particularly high at
checkpoint 6 (Table II; Table III).
Discussion
Research Question 1 pertained to perceptions of risk management concern, as indicated by
National Mall visitors. The public commentary of Study 1 illustrated blunt views and strong
emotions regarding safety and security on the National Mall. Visitors clearly want to feel
personally safe, but are offended by the presence and nature of facility barricades. Most
enlightening was the sensibility to the aesthetics of the permanent and temporary facility
barriers placed throughout the National Mall. The National Mall is often referred to as the
‘‘front yard’’ of the United States and residents and national visitors are very opinionated
regarding its purpose as well as the messages that are sent to the rest of the world based on
the upkeep and appearance of the parklands, monuments and memorials (Daniels et al.,
2009). While urban planners and tourism managers have heightened awareness regarding
the necessity of protecting cultural icons, this study suggests that more attentiveness should
be given to how the security measures blend into or detract from the overall appeal of the
sites where they are utilized. Temporary barricades that are utilized for events, such as those
installed for the National Independence Day celebration, would seemingly be less
problematic from an aesthetic sense; however, the sheer number of daily events that take
place in urban locales such as Washington DC make them a constant visual irritant.
The anonymity and open-ended nature of the responses associated with Study 1 allowed for
a level of disclosure that may not have been realized using other data collection methods.
Respondents who submitted feedback were not required to share personal information.
Many took the opportunity to vent, and a high level of irritation was evident in the responses
speci?c to safety and security. This research endeavor illustrates how to involve the public in
overarching risk management planning processes in a way that encourages honest and
thorough feedback.
Research Question 2 focused on festival-speci?c areas of risk management concern,
highlighted through the analysis of safety and security processes implemented during the
National Independence Day Celebration. As Independence Day festivals are ubiquitous in
the United States and similar celebrations abound around the globe, these ?ndings are
applicable to most outdoor festivals of this type, and particularly those in urban locales.
Advanced preparation was obvious in the careful mapping of the site, the fencing of the
2-mile festival site for checkpoint purposes, the clear separation of visitors from the ?rework
ignition area, the variety of information channels, the availability of ?rst aid stations, the range
of security personnel and a predetermined plan of action for evacuating hundreds of
thousands of visitors. Conversely, pinpointing risk management concerns allows for
continuous improvement and operates as a learning environment that can assist with future
festival planning. Further, it is not often that large event areas have to be completely
evacuated. Managers of outdoor events of all sizes can bene?t from the knowledge gained
as a result of the National Mall evacuation. Ten suggested areas of ?ne tuning include
recommendations for:
1. adequate personnel to coordinate event entry when checkpoints are mandated;
2. training to ensure that checkpoint searches are conducted in a consistent manner;
3. signage to indicate prohibited items within a festival area;
4. clear markers for information and ?rst aid stations;
5. consistent staf?ng of information booths;
6. coordinated public safety equally spread throughout the festival site;
7. a sound system that reaches all festival areas;
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 159
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
8. predetermined messages that address potential crisis situations to decrease the
transmission of contradictory information;
9. ongoing communication when event crises occur; and
10. coordination with managers of nearby buildings regarding procedures to follow during
and after safe haven periods.
Research Question 3 was raised to consider the speci?c linkages that can be made between
risk management perceptions and processes, as applied to the National Mall. Taken
together, these studies showcase a risk management divide that destination and event
managers must bridge when trying to simultaneously protect individuals and icons. In
support of previous research, personal safety appears to be paramount, as no visitor wants
to be subject to injury or crime (e.g. George, 2009). Proactive policing techniques that
involve the input of visitors and tourism of?cials are essential to sustainable tourism
development, in particular in urban areas that are perceived to be unsafe (Tarlow and
Santana, 2002).
While visitors desire personal safety, they do not wish to be inconvenienced or aesthetically
offended by security measures that are intended to protect the built environment. The
?ndings of this research suggest a level of psychological disconnect in terms of acceptance
of safety measures that protect people versus those that protect facilities, even though they
are often synchronized. The aesthetics of risk management offers a particularly ripe area for
future research. The level of offense taken to the installment of a new safety barrier may be
in?uenced not only by design features, but may also be the result of levels of familiarity, place
attachment, the cultural signi?cance of the site, perceived increase of access constraints,
the surrounding landscape or invasion of privacy concerns (Kennicott, 2010).
In the case of urban cores, it is instructive to re?ect upon issues that apply to the locale as a
whole in light of those which affect a speci?c event, and vice-versa, as it is often dif?cult to
separate the two. This point is particularly relevant with open space events, where the
activities will be witnessed and experienced to an extent by all individuals within the
immediate vicinity, and not just those within the con?nes of the designated event space.
When event risks are realized, the management plan will also affect all within the surrounding
area. Most metropolitan tourism areas do not have a structured plan in place for emergency
ingress to local facilities. The evacuation procedures that were implemented during the
National Independence Day Celebration offer an example of tourist safe haven planning.
Simultaneously, for urban areas that host a multitude of tourists and events on a daily basis,
both visitor perceptions and event-speci?c processes can inform risk management
planning, with an ideal goal of branding the destination as safe, as evidenced through a
subtle protection of facilities and an overt display of personal safety features and services.
References
Anderton, C. (2009), ‘‘Commercializing the carnivalesque: the V Festival and image/risk management’’,
Event Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-51.
Barker, M., Page, S.J. and Meyer, D. (2003), ‘‘Urban visitor perceptions of safety during a special event’’,
Event Management, Vol. 41, pp. 355-361.
Carr, N. (2001), ‘‘An exploratory study of gendered differences in young tourists perception of danger
within London’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 565-570.
Carter, S. (1998), ‘‘Tourists’ and travellers’ social construction of Africa and Asia as risky locations’’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 349-358.
Cieslak, T.J. (2009), ‘‘Match day security at Australian sport stadia: a case of eight venues’’, Event
Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 43-52.
Daniels, M.J., Harmon, L.K., Park, M. and Brayley, R.E. (2009), ‘‘National Mall & Memorial Parks: past,
present, future’’, in Frost, W. and Hall, C.M. (Eds), Tourismand National Parks: International Perspectives
on Development, Histories and Change, Routledge, Oxford, pp. 282-297.
PAGE 160
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Deery, M. and Jago, L. (2010), ‘‘Social impacts of events and the role of anti-social behavior’’,
International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 8-28.
Fuchs, G. and Reichel, A. (2010), ‘‘An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptions and risk
reduction strategies of ?rst time vs repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 266-276.
George, R. (2003), ‘‘Tourists’ perceptions of safety and security while visiting Cape Town’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 575-585.
George, R. (2009), ‘‘Visitor perceptions of crime-safety and attitudes towards risk: the case of
Table Mountain National Park, Cape Town’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 805-815.
Getz, D. (2002), ‘‘Why festivals fail’’, Event Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 209-219.
Getz, D. (2008), ‘‘Event tourism: de?nition, evolution, and research’’, TourismManagement, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 403-428.
Glaesser, D. (2003), Crisis Management in the Tourism Industry, Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington,
MA.
Henderson, K. (2006), Dimensions of Choice: Qualitative Approaches to Parks, Recreation, Tourism,
Sport, and Leisure Research, Venture Publishing, State College, PA.
Jackman, T. (2010), ‘‘Fireworks company to pay $4.75 million to explosion victim’’, The Washington Post,
November 13, pp. B1, B3.
Jones, B., Scott, D. and Khaled, H.A. (2006), ‘‘Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning:
a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital Region’’, Event Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Kennicott, P. (2010), ‘‘Atruly monumental security issue’’, The Washington Post, November 8, pp. A1, A13.
Larsen, S., Brun, W. and Øgaard, T. (2009), ‘‘What tourists worry about – construction of a scale
measuring tourists worries’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 260-265.
Leopkey, B. and Parent, M.M. (2009), ‘‘Risk management strategies by stakeholders in Canadian major
sporting events’’, Event Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 153-170.
Maxwell, J.A. (1996), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mitchell, J.T. (2006), ‘‘Con?icting threat perceptions at a rural agricultural fair’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1298-1307.
Mules, T. (2004), ‘‘Evolution in event management: the Gold Coast’s Wintersun Festival’’, Event
Management, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, pp. 95-101.
National Park Service (NPS) (2007), ‘‘A history of the National Mall and Pennsylvania Avenue National
Historic Park’’, available at: www.nps.gov/nationalmallplan/Documents/mallpaavhistory.pdf (accessed
3 May 2010).
National Park Service (NPS) (2010a), ‘‘The National Mall & Memorial Parks’’, available at: www.nps.gov/
nama/index.htm (accessed 18 May 2010).
National Park Service (NPS) (2010b), ‘‘Final National Mall Plan/Environmental Impact Statement’’,
available at: www.nps.gov/nationalmallplan/FEISdocs.html (accessed 15 November 2010).
Santos, C.A., Belhassen, Y. and Canton, K. (2008), ‘‘Reimaging Chinatown: an analysis of tourism
discourse’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1002-1012.
Silvers, J.R., Bowdin, G.A.J., O’Toole, W.J. and Nelson, K.B. (2006), ‘‘Towards an international event
management body of knowledge (EMBOK)’’, Event Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 185-198.
Smith, G. (1999), ‘‘Toward a United States policy on traveler safety and security’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 62-65.
Tarlow, P.E. and Santana, G. (2002), ‘‘Providing safety for tourists: a study of a selected sample of tourist
destinations in the United States and Brazil’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 424-431.
Taylor, T. and Toohey, K. (2006), ‘‘Impacts of terrorism-related safety and security measures at a major
sport event’’, Event Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 199-209.
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 161
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
About the authors
Margaret J. Daniels is an Associate Professor in the School of Recreation, Health and
Tourism, George Mason University, USA. Margaret J. Daniels is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Minkyung Park is an Assistant Professor in the School of Recreation, Health and Tourism,
George Mason University, USA.
Laurlyn K. Harmon is an Assistant Professor in the School of Recreation, Health and Tourism,
George Mason University, USA.
Russell E. Brayley is a Professor in the School of Recreation, Health and Tourism, George
Mason University, USA.
PAGE 162
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 2 2013
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_454967371.pdf