Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of
Risk and Financial
Management
Article
Security Measures as a Factor in the Competitiveness
of Accommodation Facilities
Rafał Nagaj 1,* and Brigita Žuromskait˙
e2
1Institute of Economics and Finance, University of Szczecin, 71-101 Szczecin, Poland
2Faculty of Public Governance, Mykolas Romeris University, 08303 Vilnius, Lithuania; brigitaz@mruni.eu
*Correspondence: rafal.nagaj@usz.edu.pl
Received: 21 March 2020; Accepted: 15 May 2020; Published: 19 May 2020
Abstract:
The main aim of this article was to assess whether the level of competitiveness of
accommodation facilities results from the level of safety and security provided to consumers of these
services, measured by the number of security measures applied in them. The authors’ task was to
examine the level of concentration of security measures in the accommodation facilities and to assess
whether the quality of services measured by the star-rating system provided a higher level of safety and
security for customers of the accommodation facilities, measured by the number of security measures
applied in them. It was decided to examine whether the level of concentration of security measures
at the accommodation facilities was treated by these entities as a factor of their competitiveness.
Two locations in Central and Eastern Europe, one in Poland and one in Lithuania, were analyzed.
The article calculated the frequency of these measures at the accommodation facilities by type of
facility (according to the star-rating system) and type of security measure (as a weighted average) and
their concentration using the Herfindahl–Hirscham Index. The results showed that the higher the
quality of services provided (more stars), the higher the level of safety and security is ensured. It was
also found that a higher level of security was not reflected in the prices of accommodation services.
Keywords: accommodation; security measures; level of competitiveness
1. Introduction
Tourism is among the fastest growing economic sectors in the world, recording long-term growth
in international tourist arrivals and receipts (World Tourism Organization 2019). However, as events in
recent years have shown, the tourist industry is increasingly exposed to various types of threats and
risks (e.g., political threats, natural disasters, diseases and many others) that can have a direct impact
on the life and health of the traveler (Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty 2012;Ghazi 2015;Žuromskait
˙
e
and Nagaj 2018;Chauhan and Negi 2018). Thus, the issue of security has become part of everyday life
and an issue closely related to tourism (Chan and Lam 2013). Every event in the world (e.g., terrorist
attacks, new viruses, natural disasters, economic crises) that directly affects tourists also has a negative
impact on the income and tourist attendance of particular tourist destinations (Kubickova et al. 2019;
OECD 2020), as well as financial markets (Lee et al. 2018), which indirectly increases the effect of this
impact. However, depending on the geographical location, state policy or economic situation in the
country, threats may affect the development of tourism in different ways. It should also be remembered
that the same threats do not occur everywhere, as they may vary from region to region.
In order to ensure that tourism continues to develop and generate income for tourist regions,
all participants in this sector should pay more attention to the safety and security of their customers.
This is due to the fact that when deciding on a tourist trip, tourists choose a tourist destination and a
hotel, or more broadly, an accommodation facility, guided not only by the criterion of price, but also by
the level of security in these facilities (Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty 2012;Garg and Kumar 2017).
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99; doi:10.3390/jrfm13050099 www.mdpi.com/journal/jrfm
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 2 of 16
This is because people usually have an aversion to risk. This is despite the fact that when the profit
increases, i.e., in the case of a tourist paying a lower price for the rental, the risk may be still limited
(Wilhelmsson and Zhao 2018). Therefore, there is a need to invest in the tourism sector to ensure the
security of tourists by installing security measures. Of course, they are not the same everywhere,
as there are different threats in a given region or tourist destination. As the literature points out
(Feickert et al. 2006;Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty 2012) these measures may be “hard” or “soft”.
However, not all tourists like “hard” security measures, as those that are too visible can frighten them
and adversely affect the quality of their holiday (Žuromskait
˙
e and Nagaj 2018;Kılıçlara et al. 2018).
The accommodation facilities want to remain open and hospitable (Feickert et al. 2006). Therefore,
so-called “soft” security measures are often used in tourist infrastructure. Modern technologies are
useful here, the use of which can effectively contribute to protecting tourists from potential threats
(Kılıçlara et al. 2018).
All these activities that are undertaken in the tourist infrastructure and especially in the
accommodation infrastructure, which is often “Home away from home” for travelers (Chauhan
and Negi 2018, p. 119), are to improve the quality of their services.
The competitive advantage of a company can be proven by many factors. These may be
economic, political, ecological, cultural or technical factors. The literature on tourism competitiveness
(Goffiet al. 2019;Croes et al. 2020) shows that there are two main areas where you can try to gain
a competitive advantage. The first one is about the well-being of clients, i.e., improving the quality
of services provided to tourists, and the second is about the market position of a given destination
compared to other competitive ones, i.e., promoting itself based on the popularity of a given region
or country.
One of the elements influencing the quality of services in tourism may be the level of safety that
tourist accommodation facilities provide for tourists through the level of security, and more specifically
the number of security measures installed. In the tourism sector the yardstick for assessing the level of
quality is the star rating of the accommodation facilities. It is therefore assumed that the number of
stars awarded to the establishments also indicates the level of security offered by these establishments
to their clients, measured by the number of security measures applied in them. So far, the information
security of four- and five-star hotels (Kim et al. 2013) has been studied. However, no analysis has been
made as to whether the star-rating system also reflects the level of security offered to customers by the
accommodation facilities.
The main aim of this article was to assess whether the level of competitiveness in the tourism sector,
more specifically of accommodation facilities, resulted from the level of security provided to consumers
of these services, measured by the number of security measures applied in them. The authors’ task
was to examine the level of concentration of security measures in the accommodation facilities, and to
assess whether the higher number of stars provided a higher level of security measured by the number
of security measures applied in them. Thus, it will be possible to assess the extent to which security
measures are used at accommodation facilities by the type of security measures and the type of
accommodation facility evaluated. This will make it possible to determine whether the level of security
is treated by the accommodation facilities as a criterion of the quality of the services they provide and
thus a factor of their competitiveness. In addition, the survey will enable us to check whether similar
security measures were applied in the studied cities from two different countries. A further task will
be to assess whether the number of security measures installed correlates with the prices offered by the
tested facilities.
The research object was an accommodation facility in two port and holiday resorts (cities) in
Central and Eastern European countries, and the method used to assess the concentration of security
measures at the accommodation facilities was the Herfindahl–Hirscham Index (HHI).
The research undertaken in this paper is a novelty in the literature, which is due to several reasons.
First of all, it has been assumed that the factor ensuring competitiveness in the sector may be the level
of security, measured by the number of security measures applied in the accommodation facilities.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 3 of 16
To date, the literature has studied the issue of the impact of safety and security on the development of
the tourism sector quite extensively. Moreover, it has studied how safety and security is assessed by
tourists. However, it was not examined whether the quality of the services used in accommodation
facilities, and thus their competitiveness, was related to the number of security measures applied in
them. The second argument for the added value of this work is to examine the level of security at the
accommodation facilities and assess whether this corresponds to the number of stars awarded to such
establishments. The third argument of novelty is the use of the Herfindahl–Hirscham (HHI) measure
to assess the security level of the accommodation facilities. This is a measure of diversity applied in
the literature of many fields of science, but has not yet been used to measure the level of concentration
and diversity of security measures in accommodation facilities.
The work structure is as follows. After the introduction presented above, a literature review
will be presented on the factors determining the choice of an accommodation facility by tourists, and
thus the elements that prove a competitive advantage in tourism and the security measures used
in accommodation facilities. The next part will be the methodology of research conducted by the
authors, after which attention will be focused on the results of these studies. The work will end with
the conclusions and discussion.
2. Literature Review
Every year many new accommodation facilities are built around the world. However, the answer
to the question of whether tourists will be willing to use them and to what extent is difficult to answer,
as demand depends on many factors. Among the main criteria for selecting accommodation facilities by
tourists, the literature distinguishes hotel location (Aksoy and Ozbuk 2017;Fang et al. 2019), the quality
of services offered by the accommodation facility (Baber et al. 2015) and the price and security level
(Chen and Gursoy 2001;Chan and Lam 2013). In addition, there are also more specific factors that
determine the choice of accommodation, among which are the star rating, years after opening, service
diversification, ownership, agglomeration effect, public service infrastructure, road accessibility and
subway accessibility (Yang et al. 2012), service quality, business facilities, value, room and front desk,
food and recreation and security (Chu and Choi 2000).
The aforementioned factors of choice of the accommodation by tourists are of interest to the
owners and to the tourism sector, as they provide information about the area in which the owners
should improve their business offer and improve their competitiveness in relation to the competition,
and which factors determine tourist destination competitiveness.
One of the factors determining the choice of an accommodation facility by tourists, and therefore
also an area where the owners of such facilities can gain a competitive advantage over others, is the
level of security, and therefore also the safety in these facilities (Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty 2012).
Especially in the twenty-first century, tourists want to feel relatively safe in tourist destinations and
accommodation facilities. Security and safety are not identical concepts, although they are connected.
The distinction between them was presented by K
ô
v
á
ri and Zim
á
nyi (2011, p. 60) who held the
view that “security and safety has become a complex multi-dimensional notion with a wide range
of components belonging to it: political security, public safety, health and sanitation, personal data
safety, legal protection of tourists, consumer protection, safety in communication, disaster protection,
environmental security, getting authentic information, quality assurance of services etc.”. Namely,
the owners of accommodation facilities should provide adequate “security”, i.e., by installing security
measures appropriate to the potential risks, so that the tourist feels safe and to provide them with an
appropriate level of safety. Sometimes visible but “soft” security measures can help a visitor feel more
secure and safe.
The problem of the safety and security of tourists is particularly important because if guests
encounter any security problems during their stay in the accommodation facility, it leads to
dissatisfaction and thus to higher discomfort. The consequence of such a situation is that tourists
resign from such facilities in favor of other hotels and their buying consumer behavior becomes
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 4 of 16
variety-seeking consumer behavior (Chauhan and Negi 2018). It is particularly important that young
people, who represent a large part of the tourism market, do not trust the state but their friends and
relatives (Nagaj and Szkudlarek 2019). Therefore, to a large extent they will be guided by the opinion of
other people about such facilities. On the other hand, if tourists do not have problems with safety and
security during their stay in an accommodation facility, it leads to the satisfaction of guests (Chauhan
and Negi 2018). As the literature indicates, nowadays, when deciding about a tourist trip, tourists
have started to evaluate tourism infrastructure not only with respect to the possibility of meeting other
people, resting and using various amenities, but also in terms of safety and security. As Hilliard and
Baloglu (2008) argue, people are willing to pay more for an accommodation facility with a safety and
security certificates.
However, it is also important to remember about the other side of the tourism sector, i.e.,
entrepreneurs. The owners of some tourist facilities often think that security measures may have a
negative impact on their business or that such investments are not needed because “it can’t happen
here” (Pizam 2010;Ghazi 2015). With regards to security measures at accommodation facilities, it is
essential that they are not visible and do not interfere with the comfort/peace of the guests. Facility
owners believe that the use of too many visible security measures may create an atmosphere of “alarm”
among tourists and discourage them from visiting such places. It should also be taken into account that
the problem of security and the type of security measures used at accommodation facilities depend
on the “age” of the facility. As noted by Ghazi (2015, p. 3), older accommodation facilities are often
not designed to ensure security (e.g., have no shatter-proof glass, bomb-proof Kevlar wallpaper or
tamper-resistant doors/windows) (Ghazi 2015, p. 3). As a result, the potential investment outlays at
such facilities, necessary to create an adequate level of security, may be much higher. For this reason,
older accommodation facilities have usually fewer security measures.
The literature generally distinguishes two types of security measures: “soft” and “hard”
(Survila et al. 2017). The former are considered less visible and less interfering with the comfort
and leisure of the guests. They are more likely to be accepted and do not cause a sense of fear
(Feickert et al. 2006;Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty 2012). The latter are more invasive, create a sense
of “alarm”, but are more effective in ensuring tourists’ safety and security. They are more accepted by
people under 40 years of age as well as women (Feickert et al. 2006). However, the main goal of both
types of security measures is to reduce the risk, ensure tourists’ safety and security and minimize the
potential economic losses that could arise from it (Henderson 2007).
The increasing level of risk worldwide has led accommodation facilities, especially hotels, to
invest in improved security (Howie 2005). Some of the security measures have become commonplace
and guests no longer even notice them during their stay (Feickert et al. 2006). Today, electronic locks,
fire protection systems, smoke detectors and closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) are already installed in a
large number of accommodation facilities (Okumus 2010). Chan and Lam (2013) indicated that tourists
distinguish five security measures as essential that ensure their security in hotels: a well equipped
fire prevention systems in accordance with local regulations, an emergency plan, an emergency
lighting system, a 24-h uniformed security guard and the regular testing of the hotel security systems.
DeFranco and Morosan (2017) added that currently connecting a traveler’s mobile device to a hotel’s
network was also often seen by tourists as an essential security measure in hotels. Meanwhile, hotel
managers consider the most important security measures to be closed-circuit television systems for
hotel public areas, emergency lighting systems and the application of a guest key to activate the
lifts to guest floors (Chan and Lam 2013). Henderson et al. (2010) added that more and more often,
the accommodation facilities also use detectors (e.g., metal detectors and motion detectors), while
Batterman and Fullerton (2002) and Feickert et al. (2006) additionally recommended technologies for
monitoring the area. However, among the “hard” security measures, the literature usually recommends
armed protection in or around the hotel (Chan and Lam 2013;Paraskevas 2013;Kılıçlara et al. 2018).
As indicated by AlBattat and Som (2013), there are various types of danger that a tourist may
encounter at an accommodation facility. Thus, it is difficult to select the most appropriate security
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 5 of 16
measures. Ghazi (2015) created the most complete and comprehensive list of security measures,
formulating a set of 50 such measures. He divided them into the following types: detectors, emergency
preparedness, medical preparedness, staffsecurity, guestroom security, pool and beach, access control
and information and cyber security (Ghazi 2015). The literature review on the security measures used
at accommodation facilities is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Literature review of the range of security measures used at accommodation facilities.
Proposed Security Measures
Source
(Hilliard and
Baloglu
2008)
(Chan and
Lam 2013)
(Singh
2014)
(Monitoring &
Compliance Unit
Tourism Authority 2014)
(Chauhan
and Negi
2018)
Well lit and marked emergency exits + + +
Hotel located in a low-crime area +
24-h security staff + + + +
Smoke detectors + + +
Sprinkler system + + +
Audible and visual fire alarms on
guest floors + + + +
Electronic key cards for guest rooms + + +
Audible and visual fire alarms in
public areas + +
Guest rooms located along
interior corridors +
Controlled after-hours access to hotel + +
Stafftraining in cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR), first-aid +
Training program for staffaction
in crises +
Security cameras in public areas +
In-room safety materials for guests + +
Written policies for assisting the
people with disabilities guests
in emergencies
+
Written security plans + +
Automated external defibrillator
(AED) on-site + + + +
Back-up electrical generator + + + +
Parking facility connected to
hotel building +
Safety videos playing on in-room
guest televisions +
Employee photo ID + + +
Lifeguard + +
Safe deposit boxes + + +
Closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs) + + + +
Clearly marked fire exits and
extinguishers +
Deadbolt locks, primary locks and
one-way peepholes to guest
room doors
+
Private Automated Branch Exchange
(PABX) systems for voice recording +
X-ray machines for luggage scanning + +
Communication systems + +
Metal detector at entrance + +
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 6 of 16
Table 1. Cont.
Proposed Security Measures
Source
(Hilliard and
Baloglu
2008)
(Chan and
Lam 2013)
(Singh
2014)
(Monitoring &
Compliance Unit
Tourism Authority 2014)
(Chauhan
and Negi
2018)
Electronic card-locking systems +
Bulletproof or locked windows
overlooking sensitive areas +
Pressurized stairways +
Emergency master keys/cards for
manager on duty, engineering
and security
+
On-site uniform security personnel +
A public address system (PA system)
with emergency announcements in
several languages
+
A daily sign-in and sign-out
procedure for those employees
needing a key/card as part of their
normal duties
+ + +
Access control/electronic
locking system + +
Monitoring control room +
Emergency telephone numbers +
Burglar alarm system with
rapid response +
Guest elevators +
Source: based on (Hilliard and Baloglu 2008;Chan and Lam 2013;Singh 2014;Monitoring & Compliance Unit
Tourism Authority 2014;Ghazi 2015).
3. Materials and Methods
The aim of this article was to assess whether the type of accommodation facility, as measured by
the star-rating system, which theoretically demonstrates a standard of quality and amenities, provided
a higher level of security for the clients of accommodation facilities, measured by the number of security
measures applied in them. It was decided to examine whether the level of concentration of security
measures at the accommodation facilities was treated by the accommodation facilities as a factor of
their competitiveness. An additional task was to assess whether the number of installed security
measures correlated with the prices offered to tourists by the examined facilities. This additional
objective will allow to check whether the security measures and their number have an impact on the
prices of services, and thus additionally confirm or deny the importance of security in the strategy
of the owners of tourist facilities. In order to achieve this goal, the authors decided to examine
accommodation facilities in two well known tourist destinations in Central and Eastern Europe, located
at the seaside, which additionally provided harbor services, i.e., one in Poland and one in Lithuania.
These tourist destinations were two cities: ´
Swinouj´scie (Poland) and Klaip
˙
eda (Lithuania). ´
Swinouj´scie
and Klaip
˙
eda can be described as harbor and tourist towns. In both cities there are provisions for the
development of recreational, active, health, cultural and military tourism. Many tourists travel by ferry,
because there are excellent connections to many cities and tourists frequently visit these destinations.
Besides, in both countries these are very popular and well known tourist destinations. They are typical
cities located near the Baltic Sea. For this reason, the most important natural hazard that could affect
tourists were floods (storm, congestion), a low level of the Baltic Sea (threat to shipping), the icing
of the Baltic Sea and dangerous atmospheric phenomena (thunderstorms, hail, air trumpets, strong
winds and snowfall) (Ciupak 2010). It should also be noted that according to the World Risk Map
(Drum Cussac 2019), Poland and Lithuania were among the countries with low levels of the following
risks: security risks (including petty and violent crime, civil conflicts, protests, strikes and terrorism),
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 7 of 16
political risks (including government stability, levels of corruption, political interference and sanctions),
medical risks (including presence of diseases, standard of medical facilities, access to water and
availability of pharmaceuticals), environmental risks (including proximity to seismic activity, frequency
of storms, presence of manmade ordnance such as landmines and climatic hazards) and infrastructural
risks (including road safety and standards, provision of utilities such as electricity, cyber-crime and
aviation security and standards). Therefore, when selecting the security measures to be analyzed and
comparing the security measures in both countries, only those related to threats that were present in
both countries and those in the Baltic Sea region were taken into account.
All hotels and other accommodation facilities not subject to the star-rating system providing
accommodation services on the territories of these cities (guesthouses, villas, holiday resorts, B&Bs,
hostels, motels, holiday complexes) were analyzed. Facilities not having at least two separate rooms
available for rent by separate households, i.e., apartments and private accommodation, were excluded
from the analysis. The database of the accommodation facilities in these locations was online travel
and related services from Booking.com. It is worth noting that websites such as global travel website
Booking.com (Aksoy and Ozbuk 2017), hotel review website TripAdvisor (Banerjee and Chua 2016)
and online marketplace Airbnb (Blal et al. 2018) provided us with databases increasingly used in the
literature to analyze the situation in the tourism sector and tourist preferences. This indicated their
research credibility. As the number of visitors and bookings on these portals shows, people trust the
information provided on these sites, as well as offering customer reviews.
The number of accommodation facilities operating in the examined resorts was determined on
11 March 2020. The total number of accommodation facilities analyzed was 85 for ´
Swinouj´scie and 56
for Klaip
˙
eda. Table 2shows the structure of the accommodation facilities by type of establishment,
measured the star-rating system (number of stars).
Table 2. Number of establishments by the type of accommodation facility.
City ´
Swinouj´scie Klaip˙
eda
Type of Accommodation
Facility
Other
Facilities Hotels Other
Facilities Hotels
Star-rating system * 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5
Number of objects 64 2
13
3 3 33 1
14
8 0
* The star-rating system applies only to hotels. Other accommodation facilities are not subject to this system.
The subject of this study was security measures installed in the accommodation facilities, and
the source of information about them was Booking.com. Before the selection of the security measures
was made, the types of threats, and thus risks, present in the regions and countries where the cities
are located were first identified (the analysis of these threats was already presented in this section of
the article. This was done using the European Risk Map (Drum Cussac 2019) and the information
provided on the websites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of both analyzed countries). In Lithuania
and Poland, the accommodation facilities we examined were subject to the legal regulations in force
in these countries, i.e., fire, sanitary and construction laws. In addition, there were supplementary
regulations to ensure the greater safety of these facilities. Moreover, depending on the type of facility
and services provided, the legal regulations specify the required security measures (e.g., when there is
a SPA center, activity space, swimming pool, baths or other additional services, additional ordinances
apply). In Poland, according to the announcement of the Minister of Sport and Tourism (Minister
of Sport and Tourism 2017) (including hotels and motels, boarding houses, camping sites, holiday
homes, youth hostels and hostels), the required equipment for hotels is determined by the number of
“stars” and other facilities of the establishment. In Lithuania, such a basic legal act is the regulation of
the Minister of Economy and Innovation (Minister of Economy and Innovation 2019) concerning the
approval of the relevant classification requirements for appropriate types of accommodation (including
hotels and motels, campsites, guest houses).
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 8 of 16
Then, based on the list of safety measures appropriate for these risks presented in the literature
(Ghazi 2015;Hilliard and Baloglu 2008;Chan and Lam 2013;Singh 2014;Monitoring & Compliance
Unit Tourism Authority 2014;Chauhan and Negi 2018), the safety measures analyzed in this article
were selected. Due to the large number of such measures, the following security measures were
identified, which were most often proposed by the literature (see Table 1). The principle was that
they should represent all eight dimensions of the security measures proposed by Ghazi (2015). As a
result, the authors selected 13 such security measures in the article. These were fire extinguishers,
CCTV outside property, CCTV in common areas, Security alarm, 24-h security, airport shuttle/airport
drop off, lift, private parking, allergy-free room, 24-h front desk, safe deposit box, concierge service and
smoke alarms. All of the security measures analyzed in this article were the so-called “soft measures”,
i.e., those that the literature recommends as preferred by the owners not to create a sense of fear
among tourists.
Each of the accommodation facilities was analyzed in terms of the number of security measures
installed out of the 13 listed above. For this purpose, the percentage of occurrence of these measures
at the establishments was calculated by the type of establishment and the type of security measure
(as a weighted average) and their degree of concentration. The criterion for classifying the type of
accommodation facilities was the star-rating system, whereas when assessing the scale of occurrence
of security measures by their type, the number of the given types of facilities was a weighting.
The Herfindahl–Hirscham Index (HHI) was used to calculate the concentration of security measures at
the establishments concerned according to the formula:
HHI =
n
X
i=1
(100 ·Ui)2
where Uiindicates the relative share of the i-th security measure in the establishments.
The application of this indicator was due to the fact that the aim of the article was to assess the
level of security in accommodation establishments, measured by the number of security measures
applied in them. The concentration index used and the results obtained will help to obtain information
in two areas. Firstly, knowledge will be obtained about the level of concentration of security measures,
i.e., whether one, two or more security measures predominate in the accommodation facilities. In this
way, in addition to the information on the number of security measures used at the accommodation
facilities, the results will show the scale of their use, i.e., the percentage of individual security measures
in the security systems. Secondly, this analysis will allow one to assess the level of concentration of
security measures both by the type of security measures and by the type of accommodation facility
(i.e., how the type of accommodation facility differentiates the scale of use of security measures).
In the literature, the Herfindahl–Hirscham Index has to date been used most often to assess
the impact of consolidation processes on the level of the competitiveness in a given market, and
until 1950 the HHI was mainly used by economists to measure income distribution and inequality.
Methodologically, this measure is essentially equivalent to the Simpson diversity index, which is
now widely used in many fields of science. In addition to economics, where this measure is widely
applied, it was also used in the literature, e.g., in the energy sector to assess the cost of energy security,
(Jun et al. 2009) in ecology (Fath 2018), in urbanism to assess the relationship between industrial diversity
and population growth (Wang et al. 2020), in physics when calculating the inverse participation ratio
(Yue et al. 2016), in molecular biology to access the results of human creative thinking (Sankaran
and Hankey 2017), when calculating the effective number of parties index (Boydstun et al. 2014),
in portfolio theory to assess portfolio diversification (Lovett 2009;Woerheide and Persson 1993) and to
measure the diversity of user behavior (Poulain and Tarissan 2020), or in informatics and management
through the use an artificial neural network and assessing the relevance of the relationship between
competition in the product market and the investment of the companies and monitoring market power
(Kordanuli et al. 2017).
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 9 of 16
The authors, on the other hand, decided to use this measure to determine whether the
accommodation facilities used multiple security measures, only a few, or just one. It was used to assess
the level of security at the accommodation facilities, measured by the number of security measures
installed in them. The low values of this indicator, i.e., below 1500, indicated a low concentration
of the security measures in accommodation facilities (of which less than 1000 were with very low
concentration), or the fact that many measures were applied with the lack of domination of one or
several specific such measures. High values of this indicator, i.e., above 2500, indicated a high or very
high degree of concentration. In this study, this would mean a situation where accommodation facilities
mainly use several security measures or that the same security measures would be everywhere.
Hypothetically, an increasingly higher rating (in the star-rating system) should mean an
increasingly higher quality of services and facilities and thus, by definition, a higher level of security.
According to the literature (Israeli 2002;Minazzi 2010), the star-rating system affects the price of
accommodation services. Therefore, it can be assumed that there is also a positive correlation between
the price of the accommodation facility and the level of security, measured by the number of security
measures applied by the accommodation facilities. Therefore, in order to confirm the relationship
between the star-rating system and the level of security, it was also examined whether there was a
statistical relationship between the price of the accommodation facilities in the examined resorts and
the number of security measures applied at the accommodation facilities. The correlation coefficient
was used for this purpose.
4. Results
First of all, it was examined which of the security measures were in the accommodation facilities
of the analyzed resorts and what was the frequency of their occurrence by the type of facility. The data
on the scale of the occurrence of security measures and for each type of security measure at the
accommodation facilities, divided by the age-rating system and the weighted average frequency of
these security measures at the accommodation facilities of the examined tourist destinations, are
presented in Table 3.
Table 3.
Accommodation facilities where the security measures are installed (as a percentage of the
total number of establishments of this type (in %).
Itemization ´
Swinouj´scie Klaip ˙
eda
Security Measures/Facility
Type (Star-Rating System) 0 2 3 4 5 Total 0 2 3 4 5 Total
Fire extinguishers (FE) 56 50 61 33 67 56 30 100 71 75 - 48
CCTV outside property (OP) 59 50 61 33 67 59 24 100 71 75 - 45
CCTV in common areas (CA)
47 50 46 33 67 47 18 100 71 75 - 41
Security alarm (SA) 28 50 54 33 67 34 15 0 64 25 - 29
24-h security (SE) 6 50 31 33 67 14 9 0 29 37 - 18
Airport shuttle/airport drop
off(AS) 31 100 46 67 100 39 30 0 79 100 - 52
Guest elevators (GE) 42 50 85 100 100 53 30 0 43 87 - 41
Private parking (PP) 64 50 77 33 100 66 82 100 86 75 - 82
Allergy-free room (AF) 8 50 8 0 0 8 0 0 21 12 - 7
24-h front desk (FD) 34 100 77 100 100 47 30 100 79 100 - 54
Safe deposit box (DB) 37 50 85 67 100 48 15 0 64 100 - 39
Concierge service (CS) 2 50 23 0 0 6 0 0 0 37 - 5
Smoke detectors (SD) 34 0 61 33 67 39 45 100 71 75 - 57
Weighted average
frequency of occurrence 35 54 55 44 70 25 46 58 67 -
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 10 of 16
The results of the analysis showed that all of the tested security measures were applied at the
establishments of the studied tourist destinations, however, only four out of the 13 security measures
were installed in at least half of the establishments located there. In ´
Swinouj´scie these were fire
extinguishers, CCTV outside property, guest elevators, private parking, and in Klaip
˙
eda these were
the transfer to/from the airport, private parking, 24-h front desk and smoke detectors. In both cities,
the most frequently installed security measure was the car parking facility connected to the hotel
building (65.9% of the analyzed facilities in ´
Swinouj´scie and 82.1% in Klaip
˙
eda), which was an element
of convenience for the customers. On the other hand, the security measures whose installation required
the employment of additional staffto operate them, i.e., concierge service (5.9% and 5.4% respectively)
and 24-h security (14.1% and 17.9%, respectively), or were related to health, e.g., allergy-free room
(8.2% and 7.1%, respectively), were the least frequent.
However, when analyzing in detail the types of security measures by the type of accommodation
facility, it should be noted that there were similar trends in both locations. In ´
Swinouj´scie, the following
safety measures were most frequently used in the other accommodation facilities, i.e., those not
assessed according to the star-rating system (more than half of the facilities installed them): private
parking (PP), CCTV outside property (OP) and fire extinguishers (FE). The least frequently found
ones were the concierge service (CS), 24-h security (SE) and the allergy-free room (AF) (i.e. less than
10% of accommodation facilities without “stars” installed them). The remaining security measures
were applied only by 28%–42% of the facilities. In Klaip
˙
eda, on the other hand, more than half of the
facilities had only one security measure installed, i.e., PP, while less than 10% of the entities applied
(as in ´
Swinouj´scie) the following security measures: CS, SE and AF. Meanwhile, in hotels with two
“stars” in ´
Swinouj´scie, most of the security measures were used, of which often airport shuttle/airport
drop off(AS) and a 24-h front desk (FD) (these are security measures that also affect the comfort of
customer services), and rarely smoke detectors (SD). However, in Klaip
˙
eda more than 50% of the
facilities had installed FE, OP, CCTV in common areas (CA), PP, FD, SD (i.e., security measures that
also affect the comfort of customer services and those related to monitoring), and less than 10% had
installed security alarms (SAs), SE, AS, guest elevators (GE), AF, safe deposit box (DB) and CS. In hotels
with three “stars” in ´
Swinouj´scie, eight security measures were often used (FE, OP, SA, GE, PP, FD,
DB, SD) and rarely AF. Similar security measures are often used in Klaip
˙
eda, i.e., FE, OP, CA, AS, FD,
DB, SD, but rarely CS. This means that so-called health security measures were rarely used, and often
it was those related to monitoring and detectors. On the other hand, in facilities with four and five
“stars”, the trends were similar to those in facilities with three “stars”, but the higher the number of
‘stars’, the more the operators applied these security measures.
These conclusions were also confirmed by the results of the concentration analysis (Table 4), which
showed that the HHI value in both localities was very high for AS and relatively high for FE, OP, CA,
GE, FD and DB, while low for SE, AF and CS. It was also found that in most hotels more security
measures were installed (the level of security was higher) than in other accommodation facilities (i.e.,
those that are not subject to the star-rating system).
Since the above results and their graphic illustration indicate a linear relationship between the
number of security measures and the type of accommodation facility, the relationship was additionally
analyzed using a correlation coefficient. The analysis of the correlation between the number of stars
owned by the accommodation facility and the level of security indicated that there was a positive
correlation for both locations (for ´
Swinouj´scie 0.7153 at p<0.1743, and for Klaip
˙
eda 0.9826 at p<
0.0174). It indicated that in ´
Swinouj´scie there was a strong positive correlation between these variables
with a probability of 82.5%, and in Klaip
˙
eda 0.9826 with a probability of 98.3% with a very strong
positive correlation.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 11 of 16
Table 4.
Level of concentration of the security measures at the accommodation facilities as measured
by the Herfindahl–Hirscham Index.
Security Measures ´
Swinouj´scie Klaip˙
eda
Fire extinguishers (FE) 3216.4 2798.8
CCTV outside property (OP) 3488.5 2604.0
CCTV in common areas (CA) 2235.1 2452.5
Security alarm (SA) 1293.9 1257.7
24-h security (SE) 429.1 453.7
Airport shuttle/airport drop off(AS) 1806.2 3513.1
Guest elevators (GE) 3199.8 2094.1
Private parking (PP) 4446.0 6763.7
Allergy-free room (AF) 113.8 137.1
24-h front desk (FD) 2735.9 3691.6
Safe deposit box (DB) 2722.5 2597.0
Concierge service (CS) 142.1 200.9
Smoke detectors (SD) 1665.0 3475.2
The studies also indicated that within the types of accommodation facilities concerned, it could
not be claimed that there was a high level of concentration of individual security measures and that
different security measures were applied. Table 5shows the level of concentration of the security
measures in the different types of establishments (level of concentration of the security measures by
the type of accommodation facility).
Table 5.
Level of concentration of the security measures by the type of accommodation facility measured
by Herfindahl–Hirscham Index.
Itemization ´
Swinouj´scie Klaip˙
eda
Facility Type by
Star-Rating System 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5
HHI
1007.9
918.4 903.0
1141.9
946.5
1273.5 1666.7
915.2 906.1 -
The HHI values for each type of accommodation facility in the analyzed cities were quite low
(in ´
Swinouj´scie 903.0–1141.9, and in Klaip
˙
eda 906.1–1273.5). While in Poland the concentration was
low or very low everywhere, in Klaip
˙
eda there was a very low HHI in the facilities with more stars,
and in facilities with a lower service quality (0–2 “stars” in the star-rating system) there was a medium
level of concentration.
So far, the research results showed that there was a positive correlation between the number of
stars owned by the accommodation facility (in the star-rating system) and the safety and security
level measured by the number of security measures installed in the facility. These results mean that
hotels with more services also incur higher costs for installing security measures. Therefore, in order to
further interpret the results obtained to date, it was decided to check whether this had an impact on the
prices of the accommodation services. Therefore, at the end of the study, an analysis of the relationship
between the price of the accommodation in the facility and the number of security measures installed
in the facility was performed. The analysis showed that there was no statistically significant correlation
between the price of an accommodation in an accommodation facility and the number of security
measures installed there. The correlation coefficient for ´
Swinouj´scie was 0.2042 at p<0.0624; and for
Klaip˙
eda 0.0930 at p<0.5036.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 12 of 16
5. Discussion
In this article, the authors decided to examine whether the competitiveness of accommodation
facilities, i.e., the number of stars they have, which determines the standard of quality and facilities
they have, resulted from the level of safety and security provided to the consumers of these services,
measured by the number of security measures applied in them. The results of the research indicated
that the accommodation facilities rarely applied all 13 security measures analyzed, but usually had at
least a few security measures installed. This rule applied both to localities in Poland and Lithuania.
Moreover, it was found that regardless of the type of the accommodation facility, different security
measures were applied and were not concentrated only within a few selected measures, which was
confirmed by the low HHI values. This would confirm the results indicated in the literature (see
Table 1), where scientists in their research indicated a great number of security measures applied in the
accommodation facilities and nowhere were they fully the same security measures.
In this article, the authors also stated that there was a relationship between the number of stars
owned by an accommodation facility and the number of security measures applied. The more stars a
facility had, the more security measures were installed. As Tefera and Govender (2015) indicated, the
classification of hotels was needed to protect customers and help them choose the accommodation
facility that best suited their needs and expectations. The results of the research conducted by the
authors therefore indicated that the classification of hotels and other accommodation facilities can
also be used to assess in which accommodation facility there is more emphasis on security and more
security measures are installed. However, as indicated by Go and Pine (2005), hotel-rating systems
vary considerably from country to country, and the criteria used often reflect local cultural differences.
This means that the research carried out in this article must be done separately for each country or
geographical region, and in this particular case we can only talk about the dependencies that exist in
these specific locations in Central and Eastern Europe.
The literature indicates that the quality of the services and facilities provided, reflected by the
star-rating system, affects the price of accommodation services (Israeli 2002;Minazzi 2010). However,
the analysis carried out by the authors showed that there was no statistically significant correlation
between the price of accommodation in an accommodation facility and the number of security measures
installed there. This allowed us to put forward a thesis that the level of guaranteed security by the
accommodation facilities in the studied cities was not a criterion of what prices will be charged to the
clients of the accommodation facilities. Therefore, Minazzi (2010) thesis that the number of stars was
a price indicator rather than a quality indicator cannot be accepted. In the locations analyzed in the
article, the conclusion was different, namely that the number of stars was an indicator of quality and of
the level of safety and security provided to the customers rather than an indicator of the price to be
offered to tourists.
6. Conclusions
The article assesses whether security measures are or can be treated by accommodation facilities
as a factor of their competitiveness. A critical analysis of the literature indicated that safety and
security are among the factors that tourists take into account when deciding on the choice of an
accommodation facility and the tourist destination competitiveness. Moreover, people are willing
to pay more for an accommodation facility with safety and security certificates. Therefore, it was
decided to investigate whether the type of facility measured by the star-rating system was also a
measure of security of the accommodation facilities. The literature has shown that the owners of tourist
facilities prefer “soft” security measures to “hard” ones, as the latter are too expensive and can create
an atmosphere of anxiety among tourists. Therefore, the security measures analyzed in this article,
according to the recommendations of the literature, belonged to the group of so-called “soft” measures.
The Herfindahl–Hirscham Index was used for this analysis, which is a novelty in the literature, as this
measure has to date been used to assess consolidation processes to the level of competitiveness in a
given market.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 13 of 16
The results of the research carried out in this article indicated that the accommodation facilities
quite extensively had security measures installed. Similar security measures were applied at the
accommodation facilities of both cities, which was also due to the fact that they are located in countries
of similar risks and both are in the same region, i.e., the Baltic Sea region. In both of the studied
towns, the most frequently installed security measure was a car park facility connected directly to the
hotel building, while the rarest ones were those related to the need to employ additional staff, i.e.,
concierge service and 24-h security, or those related to health, i.e., allergy-free rooms. It was found that
the accommodation facilities in the analyzed localities applied various security measures and except
for fenced parking facilities, it was difficult to talk here about the security measures preferred by all
the accommodation facilities. Approximately half of the facilities were found to use such security
measures as detectors and technologies for monitoring the area, which was in line with the results of
the Henderson et al. (2010), Batterman and Fullerton (2002) and Feickert et al. (2006) studies, which
indicated that these security measures were increasingly being used in the accommodation facilities.
However, both localities here differed in the type of security measure, as in the tourist destination
in Poland usually used fire extinguishers, CCTV outside property and guest elevators, while in
destination in Lithuania it was mainly the transfer to/from the airport, 24-h front desk and smoke
detectors. The conclusion of the similarity of these cities was confirmed by the concentration rates
of the security measures, both of which were quite low (in ´
Swinouj´scie 903.0–1141.9 and in Klaip
˙
eda
906.1–1273.5). Some differences existed only in the case of Klaip˙
eda, where the level of concentration
was at an average level in facilities with lower service quality (0–2 “stars” in the star-rating system).
Moreover, it was also found that the higher the quality of service declared by an establishment,
as measured by the star-rating system, the lower the concentration of security measures, estimated as
low HHI values. These results mean that more security measures were installed in such establishments.
It can therefore be concluded that the level of security is considered by the establishments as a criterion
for the quality of the services they provide and therefore a factor for their competitiveness. It was
also found that the amount of security measures installed by the establishments did not affect the
price of their services. Therefore, the level of guaranteed security was not a criterion in the analyzed
locations as to what prices would be charged to customers of the accommodation facilities. This was
influenced by factors other than the level of security. It was also a suggestion for the owners of such
facilities not to treat the level of security offered as a pricing factor, but rather as an element of service
quality that could be used in advertising their business. The results and conclusions obtained in this
article should also help the owners of accommodation facilities to improve the quality of their services.
They are informed about how many safety measures and which of them they should install in their
accommodation facilities if they want to remain competitive in the market or what they should do to
improve their services to obtain more “stars”. On the other hand, the future facilities find out what
security investments they have to make in order to enter the market. There is therefore space for
further research in this topic. It can therefore be presumed, following DeFranco and Morosan (2017),
that some security measures are seen by tourists as a security requirement in accommodation facilities
and therefore the owners of such facilities do not regard the fact that they have installed these security
measures as a price factor.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, R.N. and B.Ž.; methodology, R.N.; software, R.N.; validation, R.N. and
B.Ž.; formal analysis, R.N. and B.Ž.; investigation, R.N. and B.Ž.; resources, B.Ž.; data curation, R.N. and B.Ž.;
writing—original draft preparation, R.N. and B.Ž.; writing—review and editing, R.N. and B.Ž.; visualization, R.N.
and B.Ž.; supervision, R.N. and B.Ž.; project administration, R.N. and B.Ž.; funding acquisition, R.N. and B.Ž.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
The project is co-financed within the framework of the program of the Minister of Science and Higher
Education under the name “Regional Excellence Initiative” in the years 2019–2022; project number 001/RID/2018/19;
the amount of financing PLN 10,684,000.00.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 14 of 16
References
Aksoy, Safak, and Meltem Yetkin Ozbuk. 2017. Multiple criteria decision making in hotel location: Does it relate
to postpurchase consumer evaluations? Tourism Management Perspectives 22: 73–81. [CrossRef]
AlBattat, Ahmad Rasmi, and Ahmad Puad Mat Som. 2013. Emergency Preparedness for Disasters and Crises in
the Hotel Industry. SAGE Open Journals 3: 10. [CrossRef]
Baber, Ruturaj, Rahul Kaurav, Pratap Singh, and Robert L. Williams, Jr. 2015. How travelers differ in their
preferences regarding hotel selection: Empirical evidence from travelers in India. Asian Journal of Tourism and
Hospitality Research 8–9: 15–26.
Banerjee, Snehasish, and Alton Y. K. Chua. 2016. In search of patterns among travellers’ hotel ratings in TripAdvisor.
Tourism Management 53: 125–31. [CrossRef]
Batterman, Robert L., and John F. Fullerton. 2002. Collective bargaining after September 11: What about job
security and workplace security? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 43: 93–108. [CrossRef]
Blal, In
è
s, Manisha Singal, and Jonathan Templin. 2018. Airbnb’s effect on hotel sales growth. International Journal
of Hospitality Management 73: 85–92. [CrossRef]
Boydstun, Amber E, Shaum Bevan, and Herschel F. Thomas. 2014. The Importance of Attention Diversity and
How to Measure It: Measuring Attention Diversity. Policy Studies Journal 42: 173–96. [CrossRef]
Chan, Eric S. W., and Doris Lam. 2013. Hotel safety and security systems: Bridging the gap between managers
and guests. International Journal of Hospitality Management 32: 202–16. [CrossRef]
Chauhan, Abhishek Shukla Ankit, and Pradeep Negi. 2018. Safety and security measures adopted by the hotels
and their impact on customer relationship management. International Journal of Research-Granthaalayah
6: 118–25.
Chen, Joseph S., and Dogan Gursoy. 2001. An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and preferences.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 13: 79–85. [CrossRef]
Chu, Raymond K. S., and Tat Choi. 2000. An importance-performance analysis of hotel selection factors in the
Hong Kong hotel industry: A comparison of business and leisure travellers. Tourism Management 21: 363–77.
[CrossRef]
Ciupak, Maurycy. 2010. Zagro ˙zenia naturalne dla polskich miast portowych w ´swietle informacyjnego
zabezpieczania procesu zarz ˛adzania kryzysowego [Natural hazards for the Polish port cities in the aspect of
information security process of the crisis management]. Rocznik Bezpiecze ´nstwa Morskiego 4: 157–72.
Croes, Robertico, Jorge Ridderstaat, and Valeriya Shapoval. 2020. Extending tourism competitiveness to human
development. Annals of Tourism Research 80: 102825. [CrossRef]
DeFranco, Agnes, and Cristian Morosan. 2017. Coping with the risk of internet connectivity in hotels: Perspectives
from American consumers traveling internationally. Tourism Management 61: 380–93. [CrossRef]
Drum Cussac. 2019. Most Dangerous Countries in the World 2019 (World Risk Map). Available online:
https://drum-cussac.com/blog/world-risk-map/(accessed on 4 April 2020).
Fang, Lei, Hengyun Li, and Mimi Li. 2019. Does hotel location tell a true story? Evidence from geographically
weighted regression analysis of hotels in Hong Kong. Tourism Management 72: 78–91. [CrossRef]
Fath, Brian D. 2018. Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Feickert, Julie, Rohit Verma, Gerhard Plaschka, and Chekitan S. Dev. 2006. Safeguarding your customers:
The guest’s view of hotel security [Electronic version]. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly
47: 224–44. [CrossRef]
Garg, Anshuland, and Jeetesh Kumar. 2017. The Impact of Risk Perception and Factors on Tourists’ Decision
Making for Choosing the Destination Uttarakhand/India. Journal of Tourism and Management Research 2: 144–60.
[CrossRef]
Ghazi, Karam Mansour. 2015. Safety and Security Measures in Egyptian Hotels. Hotel & Business Management
4: 1–11.
Go, Frank M., and Ray Pine. 2005. Globalization Strategy in the Hotel Industry. London: Routledge.
Goffi, Gianluca, Marco Cucculelli, and Lorenzo Masiero. 2019. Fostering tourism destination competitiveness in
developing countries: The role of sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 209: 101–15. [CrossRef]
Henderson, Joan C., Chew Shufen, Lee Huifen, and Lee Ling Xiang. 2010. Tourism and terrorism: A hotel industry
perspective. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality & Culinary Arts 2: 33–46.
Henderson, Joan C. 2007. Tourism Crises: Causes, Consequences and Management. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 15 of 16
Hilliard, Tyra W., and Seyhmus Baloglu. 2008. Safety and Security as Part of the Hotel Servicescape for Meeting
Planners. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 9: 15–34.
Howie, Luke John. 2005. There is nothing to fear but fear itself (and terrorists): Public perception, terrorism
and the workplace. In 2005 Proceedings: Social Change in the 21st Century. Edited by Chanel Bailey and
Karen Barnett. Brisbane: Centre for Social Change Research, QUT, vol. 1, pp. 1–11.
Israeli, Aviad A. 2002. Star rating and corporate affiliation: Their influence on room price and performance of
hotels in Israel. Hospitality Management 21: 405–24. [CrossRef]
Jun, Eunju, Wonjoon Kim, and Soon Heung Chang. 2009. The analysis of security cost for different energy sources.
Applied Energy 86: 1894–901. [CrossRef]
Kılıçlara, Arzu, Ahmet U¸sakli, and Tayfun Ahmet. 2018. Terrorism prevention in tourism destinations: Security
forces vs. civil authority perspectives. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 8: 232–46.
Kim, Hong-Bumm, Dong-Soo Lee, and Sunny Ham. 2013. Impact of hotel information security on system
reliability. International Journal of Hospitality Management 35: 369–79. [CrossRef]
Kordanuli, Bojana, Lidija Barjaktarovi´c, Ljiljana Jeremi´c, and Meysam Alizamir. 2017. Appraisal of artificial neural
network for forecasting of economic parameters. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 465:
515–9. [CrossRef]
K
ô
v
á
ri, Istvan, and Krisztina Zim
á
nyi. 2011. Safety and Security in the Age of Global Tourism (The changing role
and conception of Safety and Security in Tourism). Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce 5: 59–61.
[CrossRef]
Kubickova, Marketa, Destan Kirimhan, and Hengyun Li. 2019. The impact of crises on hotel rooms’ demand in
developing economies: The case of terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the global financial crisis of 2008. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management 38: 27–38. [CrossRef]
Lee, Kuo-Jung, Su-Lien Lu, and You Shih. 2018. Contagion Effect of Natural Disaster and Financial Crisis Events
on International Stock Markets. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 11: 1–25.
Lovett, William Anthony. 2009. Banking and Financial Institutions Law in a Nutshell, 7th ed. Saint Paul: West
Academic Press.
Minazzi, Roberta. 2010. Hotel Classification Systems: A Comparison of International Case Studies. Acta Universitatis
Danubius: Oeconomica 6: 65–88.
Minister of Economy and Innovation. 2019. Regulation of the Minister of Economy and Innovation of the Republic
of Lithuania Dated 8 August 2019 Concerning the Approval of Classification Requirements for Relevant
Types of Accommodation Services. No. 4-462. Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/
TAD/bc916160ba1311e982dae1db4290b1a9?jfwid=-td2hez03t (accessed on 20 March 2020).
Minister of Sport and Tourism. 2017. Announcement of the Minister of Sport and Tourism Dated 26 October
2017 on the Publication of the Consolidated text of the Regulation of the Minister of Economy and Labour
on Hotel Facilities and Other Facilities Where Hotel Services Are Provided. Journal of Laws of 2017. Item
2166. Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20170002166/O/D20172166.pdf
(accessed on 20 March 2020).
Monitoring & Compliance Unit Tourism Authority. 2014. Safety and Security Measures—Tourist
Accommodation. Available online: http://www.tourismauthority.mu/userfiles/Annex%2013-SAFETY%
20AND%20SECURITY%20MEASURES%20FOR%20ACCOMODATION(1).pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020).
Nagaj, Rafał, and Piotr Szkudlarek. 2019. The change in the perception of the state by students in Poland and
Lithuania in the context of research on social capital. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 32: 1298–319.
[CrossRef]
OECD. 2020. OECD Interim Economic Assessment Coronavirus: The World Economy at Risk. Available online:
http://www.oecd.org/berlin/publikationen/Interim-Economic-Assessment-2-March-2020.pdf (accessed on
10 March 2020).
Okumus, Fevzi. 2010. Safety. In International Encyclopedia of Hospitality Management. Edited by Abraham Pizam.
Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 594.
Paraskevas, Alexandros. 2013. Aligning strategy to threat: A baseline anti-terrorism strategy for hotels.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25: 140–62. [CrossRef]
Pizam, Abraham. 2010. Hotels as tempting targets for terrorism attacks. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 29: 1. [CrossRef]
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 99 16 of 16
Poulain, R
é
my, and Fabien Tarissan. 2020. Investigating the lack of diversity in user behavior: The case of musical
content on online platforms. Information Processing & Management 57: 102169.
Rittichainuwat, Bongkosh N., and Goutam Chakraborty. 2012. Perceptions of importance and what safety is
enough. Journal of Business Research 65: 42–50. [CrossRef]
Sankaran, Krithiga, and Alex Hankey. 2017. Experience information as the basis of mind: Evidence from human
decision making. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 131: 369–76. [CrossRef]
Singh, Jaswinder. 2014. Safety & Security Concerns in Hospitality Industry. International Journal of Management and
Commerce Innovations 2: 1–5.
Survila, Arvydas, Edvinas Mik
˙
enas, and Brigita Žuromskait
˙
e. 2017. The Impact of Terrorism on the Tourism
Sector of Lithuania. Montenegrin Journal of Economics 13: 101–18. [CrossRef]
Tefera, Orthodox, and Krishna Govender. 2015. Hotel Grading, Service Quality, Satisfaction and Loyalty—Proposing
a Theoretical Model and Relationship. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure 4: 1–17.
Wang, Jian, Zhuqing Yang, and Xuepeng Qian. 2020. Driving factors of urban shrinkage: Examining the role of
local industrial diversity. Cities 99: 102646. [CrossRef]
Wilhelmsson, Mats, and Jianyu Zhao. 2018. Risk Assessment of Housing Market Segments: The Lender’s
Perspective. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 11: 1–22.
Woerheide, Walt, and Don Persson. 1993. An Index of Portfolio Diversification. Financial Services Review 2: 73–85.
[CrossRef]
World Tourism Organization. 2019. International Tourism Highlights, 2019 Edition. Madrid: UNWTO, Available
online: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284421152 (accessed on 10 March 2020). [CrossRef]
Yang, Yang, Kevin K. F. Wong, and Tongkun Wang. 2012. How do hotels choose their location? Evidence from
hotels in Beijing. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31: 675–85. [CrossRef]
Yue, Yang, Zhuang Yan, Anthony G. O. Yeh, Jin-Yun Xie, Cheng-Lin Ma, and Qing-Quan Li. 2016. Measurements
of POI-based mixed use and their relationships with neighbourhood vibrancy. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science 31: 658–75. [CrossRef]
Žuromskait
˙
e, Brigita, and Rafał Nagaj. 2018. Cultural Tourism Facilities in the Context of the Increased Risk of
Terrorism: Young Tourists from Lithuania and Security Measures. Turyzm 28: 85–91. [CrossRef]
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).