Survivors of the Mumbai terrorist attacks have been at pains to praise the bravery of hotel staff. Stories have emerged of staff leading petrified guests calmly away from dangerous areas of the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower hotel through service passages and emergency exits to places of relative safety.

Rajan Kamble was one such courageous staffer. "If he wasn't there, maybe one of us would have been hit," a guest who escaped told Reuters. Mr Kamble's bravery led him to pay the ultimate price: he was shot after coming up against gunmen, and died a week later.

Such heroism is of enormous emotional value to the hotel industry. It will be called on when the Taj and the Trident-Oberoi, the two hotels at the heart of the gunmen's three-day rampage through Mumbai last month, reopen for business. The Trident wing of the Oberoi Group's establishment is due to reopen on Sunday, along with parts of the Taj.

However, tales of heroism are unlikely to be enough to restore customers' confidence in an industry already suffering in a deepening recession. "After any incident, a certain number of people will cancel," says Nigel Turner of Carlson Wagonlit Travel, the travel management company.

Thomas Cook expects cancellations of 25 per cent of its bookings during the winter peak season. Other tour operators report that half their bookings are being cancelled as government advisories warn of the dangers of visiting India.

Executives embarking on a trip to a high-risk location are looking for guidance, not just about the destination itself but also about their choice of hotel.

In the days after Mumbai, says Control Risks, the security risk manager, clients had two specific questions: is it safe to travel to Mumbai and India? And which hotel chains should they use? "We see no reason why you shouldn't travel to Mumbai or India," says Jake Stratton of Control Risks. "There are certain parts of India that have a high-risk rating, but all main commercial centres we consider to be acceptably safe."

Dave Cameron of International SOS, the medical and security assistance company, raises several points that go some way to answering the second question.

The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.

First, a hotel's security is only as good as the intelligence support it gets from the government and national security bodies.

Second, hotel staff are as important as any security hardware a hotel provides. "Security requires a real mindset from hotel staff," Mr Cameron says.

Third, in some places the location is more relevant than security inside the hotel. The Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, for instance, was destroyed by a suicide truck bomber in September. "I would never have recommended people stay there because it didn't have adequate setback," Mr Cameron says.

Finally, one terrorist attack on a hotel does not make similar attacks more likely. "The attack on the Marriott in Jakarta [in 2003] is history. That was a significant event at the time, but it didn't necessarily change the threat to hotels around the world," Mr Cameron says. "I don't think hotels are any worse off than they were on November 25 [the day before the Mumbai attacks]."

While the Mumbai attacks might have heightened traveller anxiety about hotel security, security in itself is not a new concern for the hospitality industry: big hotels deal with heads of state and VIPs, plus their entourages, as well as high-profile events. Most already have in-house security and risk departments.

But security does pose a challenge for hotels - they must balance their guests' safety with ensuring visitors are not deterred by fortress-like measures.

"Hotels have to make their properties inviting to guests," Mr Cameron says. "Just the fact that you want to achieve the appropriate ambience and atmosphere makes it a challenge from a security perspective to maintain that [atmosphere] while still putting in place stringent security measures."

One consequence of heightened fearsis that some hotels will, albeit covertly, highlight their safety features. "What we are seeing lately is a trend [for hotels] to market security," says James Lewry of Control Risks. "Client demand is driving it. It is not overt as such, although that would be a next step. It involves hotel groups providing details of security arrangements, such as CCTV."

While hotels may respond to traveller nerves by emphasising safety as well as comfort, companies are also looking for more training for executives who travel At security risk advisers, the phones are ringing as companies show renewed interest in their services: kidnap management workshops, executive protection, hostile environment training programmes and executive tracking (enabling companies to monitor their employees' movements).

If an employee is caught in a dangerous situation, emergency response specialists at these companies can offer advice. In some circumstances, they will talk to the distressed employee down a phone line. All told, Control Risks handled 800 emergencies during the Mumbai attacks.

On top of training for employees, some groups may also rethink their travel and security policies. Corporate clients who shopped around for the best deals are returning to a single provider to reduce confusion and prioritise security, says CWT's Mr Turner. "Now, we see a lot of people wanting to have a one-stop shop again," he says.

There are clear lessons from the Mumbai attacks for hotels. One, says Control Risks' Mr Stratton, is that the attacks on two locally owned hotels dispels the assumption that western, particularly US-owned, hotels are the threat. That said, another lesson, says Mr Lewry, is that big US-owned hotel branded groupsstill need to demonstrate that they have robust security measures in place.

But when it comes to any form of security, the question is how much is desirable. "In the Philippines," says Katrina Craig, a hotel develop ment consultant, "you have mirrors shoved under your car, your boot opened, bomb-sniffing dogs checking each and every car. Is that going to be enough to convince people that they are safe? Or will it put people off?"

Additional reporting by James Lamont