Spring/Summer 2008 Volume 4, Issue 2 - The SMART Journal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The SMART Journal Spring/Summer 2008 Page 18 DEFINING RISK To understand how to manage it, the concept of risk must first be addressed. Some have recognized risk as the potential harm of valuable items resulting from an individual’s actions (Kates & Kasperson, 1983). In fact, Klinke and Renn (2002) stated that risk is something that people fear and may be extended to an event that has not yet occurred. Risk can be separated into risk as feelings and risk as analysis (Slovic & Peters, 2006). According to Slovic and Peters (2006) whereas risk as feelings are associated with a person’s natural reaction to a harmful situation, risk as analysis applies the integration of items of logic, reason, and scientific forethought to determine how to handle a dangerous situation. Risk can also include such items as uncertainty, catastrophic potential, and controllability (Slovic, 2001). Certainly the catastrophic potential of a terrorist assault may be perceived as immeasurable in regards to loss of life and economic considerations. This immeasurability strongly relates to the concept of uncertainty (Nohria & Stewart, 2006). It is through uncertainty that fear arises (Lerner, Gonzalez, Small, & Fischhoff, 2003; Lerner, & Keltner, 2000). A terrorist strike at a mega-event may be analogous to the attack on the Twin Towers but with greater catastrophic potential in terms of the damage and/or destruction to human life. To the extent that an attack is thought to be unique or isolated, the immediate impact may be limited and fleeting (Liesch, Steen, Knight, & Czinkota, 2006). This may result in uncertainty and accompanying fear to be contained at a lesser level. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, while a tragic occurrence, affected a relatively small number of individuals. If on the other hand, attacks are perceived by fans to be directed at more vulnerable or ‘soft targets’ such as the sport stadium in which a mega-event takes place which may have upwards of 100,000 attendees, the more insidious the uncertainty would be thereby increasing the level of fear among the people (Ip, 2004). MANAGING THE RISK OF A TERRORIST ATTACK Despite only the Olympic Games having the unfortunate distinction of an actual strike having taken place, the possibility of an assault on a mega-event venue exists (Atkinson & Young, 2002). When the 2002 World Cup was hosted by South Korea, President Kim Dae Jung expressed apprehension that terrorists might target the mega-event by stating that: We can see now that there is no boundary, that no country in the world is safe from international terrorism and from these heinous terrorists. We are a very tempting target to these international terrorists, and we are very much aware of this fact (Wiseman, 2001). Thus, a potential terrorist attack may be considered a foreseeable risk at sporting mega-events. To prepare against an attack, risk management has been cited as the most effective approach (Decker, 2001). Risk management has been viewed as the process of decreasing a foreseeable risk to a point that is regarded by society as acceptable (Kolluru, 1995). The key issue in deciding the most effective course to follow in managing a risk is the contribution of the public in delineating appropriate levels of risk and safety (Lynn, 1990; Slovic & Peters, 2006). In theory, since it is the individuals who are most affected by a foreseeable harm, they should be allowed to participate with an organization in determining levels of acceptable safety (Webler, 1999). PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Due to the Super Bowl’s stature as one of the preeminent mega-events in sports, the safety and security of those attending the game itself, the festivities accompanying the event, or simply living in the immediate area may be compromised. Primarily this is a reflection of the difficulties inherent in securing the event venues due Volume 4, Issue 2
The SMART Journal Spring/Summer 2008 Page 19 to the large groups of people that gather around, enter and leave the premises. Specifically, a person with malevolent intentions could enter the venue, observe security patterns, and identify vulnerable areas without detection. Presently there is a void in research examining spectators’ perceptions of security at sporting events or if they are satisfied with security measures taken to keep them safe. This investigation theorizes that with the assistance of those attending the game, areas of vulnerability may be more readily identified. Prior reports concerning the management of risks have rejected the idea that risk is absolutely objective (Krimsky & Golding, 1992; Pidgeon, Hood, Jones, Turner, & Gibson, 1992; Slovic, 1992). As such, the identification of any vulnerabilities or threats should be measured solely by one person but include the perceptions of those attending the mega-event. Thus, the purpose of this study was to analyze the perception of sports fans attending the Super Bowl game regarding the management of risks associated in providing a reasonably safe environment. METHODOLOGY The researcher developed a 23-item questionnaire, consisting of five multiple choice and 18 Likert scale-type items. To ensure the reliability of the questionnaire, a test-retest protocol, which is an acceptable means of determining reliability (Patten, 2000), was given to seven football season ticket holders. A two-week period between the test and re-test was provided for the subjects. The scores from the first test and the following retest resulted in a Pearson’s product-correlation coefficient of .85. Thus, the questionnaire was determined to be reliable (Patten, 2000). To make certain that the questionnaire measured what it was supposed to measure, a face validity option was selected using spectators attending intercollegiate football games. The primary reason for this selection related to the homogeneity between the test group and the population to be studied. In other words if football fans in the test group reported that the questionnaire appeared to measure what it was supposed to measure, the researcher was confident that football fans attending the Super Bowl would also. DATA COLLECTION A convenience sampling technique was employed as spectators attending the 2006 Super Bowl were surveyed about their perceptions concerning security measures. The questionnaire consisted of sections relating to the following areas: demographic information, perceptions of security equipment at the game, perceptions of security policies and security issues at the Super Bowl game. In order to be eligible to partake in the survey each individual had to produce a ticket to the event. Written and verbal instructions were provided to all participants. Of the 250 surveys that were returned to the investigator, 138 (55%) were fully completed. Reasons for discarding a survey included incomplete answers, inappropriate responses, and indecipherable replies. RESULTS DEMOGRAPHICS The first section of the survey asked the respondents to indicate demographic information such as gender, age, income, and race. Additionally, subjects were asked the number of professional football game previously attended in the past three years. The results indicated that 78 (57%) were males and 60 (43%) were females. By age group 27 (20%) were between 18-34 years of age, 39 (28%) were between the ages of 35-44, and 72 (52%) were over 45 years old. With respect to income 12 (9%) of the respondents average an income of $25,000 to $50,000, 40 (29%) averaged $50,001 to $100,000, 51 (37%) averaged $100,001 to $200,000 and Volume 4, Issue 2
Page 1 and 2: Spring/Summer 2008 Volume 4, Issue
Page 3 and 4: The SMART Journal Spring/Summer 200
Page 17: The SMART Journal Spring/Summer 200
Page 69 and 70:
The SMART Journal Spring/Summer 200
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89:
show all

Spring/Summer 2008 Volume 4, Issue 2 - The SMART Journal

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?