tourism crises and marketing recovery strategies
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 21 November 2014, At: 20:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Travel & Tourism MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20
Tourism Crises and Marketing Recovery StrategiesNoel Scott a , Eric Laws b & Bruce Prideaux ca School of Tourism and Leisure Management , University of Queensland , 11 Salisbury Road,Ipswich, 4305, Queensland, Australiab James Cook University , P.O. Box 6811, Cairns, QLD, Australiac Marketing and Tourism Management , James Cook University , P.O. Box 6811, Cairns, QLD,AustraliaPublished online: 25 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Noel Scott , Eric Laws & Bruce Prideaux (2008) Tourism Crises and Marketing Recovery Strategies, Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23:2-4, 1-13, DOI: 10.1300/J073v23n02_01
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v23n02_01
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Tourism Crises and Marketing Recovery Strategies
Noel ScottEric Laws
Bruce Prideaux
SUMMARY. The recent frequency and intensity of crises and disasters affecting the tourism in-dustry has resulted in a growing body of research into their causes, effects and management, as thebibliographies of the ensuing papers catalogue. To date, most papers and collections of researchhave taken a broad approach, describing the origins of a particular event which triggered a tourismcrises, followed by an examination of the differential effects of the crisis on local residents, staff,tourists and tourism organizations or the environment and infrastructure. They have also discussedrescue efforts and the complexity of management tasks in the immediate aftermath of an event, of-ten pointing to the need for preplanning to mitigate the consequences of any future disaster. Otherresearchers have contributed directly to the academic debate about how to theorise tourism crisismanagement, often by drawing on the wider crisis management literature.
The present collection of research differs in that it focuses on one phase of the tasks which man-agers face after the immediate consequences of a crisis have been dealt with. This phase addressesthe question of how to rebuild the market for a tourism service or a destination which has experi-enced a significant catastrophe, and how to learn from the experience in planning for future crisisresponse strategies. It is suggested in this paper that the challenges are actually more varied andcomplex than is implied by the suggestion, found in much of the literature, that the task is about‘restoring normality.’ The chaos and complexity experienced in the aftermath of a crisis raise gen-eral issues of how organizations learn and adapt to change.doi:10.1300/J073v23n02_01 [Article cop-ies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:<[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> � 2007 by The HaworthPress. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Crisis, complexity, networks, phases
INTRODUCTION
What does it actually mean for a tourism or-ganisation to suffer a crisis and to recover fromit? In the case of natural disasters such as earth-
quakes, hurricanes or tsunamis, the devastationto life and property is all too evident, both tothose in the locality and to global audienceswho may be described as remote witnessesthrough the medium of TV, press and internet
Noel Scott (E-mail: [email protected]) is a Lecturer in the School of Tourism and Leisure Management atThe University of Queensland (11 Salisbury Road, Ipswich, 4305, Queensland, Australia). Eric Laws (E-mail:[email protected]) is Adjunct Professor of Tourism Studies at James Cook University (P.O. Box 6811, Cairns,QLD Australia). Bruce Prideaux (E-mail: [email protected]) is the Chair of Marketing and Tourism Man-agement at James Cook University (P.O. Box 6811, Cairns, QLD Australia).
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Tourism Crises and Marketing Recovery Strategies.” Scott, Noel, Eric Laws, and Bruce Prideaux.Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing (The Haworth Press) Vol. 23, No. 2/3/4, 2007, pp. 1-13; and: Safety andSecurity in Tourism: Recovery Marketing After Crises (ed: Noel Scott, Eric Laws, and Bruce Prideaux) The Haworth Press, 2007, pp. 1-13. Singleor multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.(EST). E-mail address: [email protected]].
Available online at http://jttm.haworthpress.com� 2007 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J073v23n02_01 1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
coverage. Similarly, the suffering and ruincaused by acts of terrorism as well as disastersinvolving transport, communicationsand otherinfrastructure is immediately visible to theglobal community through the media. The me-dia also rapidly draws attention to the outbreakof a war or insurgency, and on epidemics,thereby turning tourists’ travel intentions to al-ternative destinations. In all these cases theneed for rescue, clear up operations and re-building is self-evident. It is also widely under-stood that a further set of management re-sponses are required at a later stage to informthe public and industry partners that tourismservices have resumed and that recovery istaking place.
In developing this volume, we have focusedon the specific skills and understandings thatcan assist in post crisis tourismrecovery.As thepapers in this collection demonstrate, there ismore to recovery than the restoration of normalservices. Although each crisis has its own dis-tinct causes, impacts and pattern of recovery, itis evident from the papers which follow andfrom the wider tourism crisis literature that cer-tain tourism organisations are more resilientthan others in terms of the speed of recoveryand/or their ability toadapt tochange in thepostcrisis period. An organizations’ vulnerabilityto crises and the effectiveness of their recoveryefforts vary in ways, and for reasons which arenot yet fully understood.
Earlier studies of crises (including previouswork by the present editors; Laws, Prideauxand Chon, 2007; Laws and Prideaux, 2005;Prideaux, Laws andFaulkner 2003;CampiranonandScott, 2007) have focussed on managementof the crisis itself and have highlighted how acrisis precipitatesa complex and changing situ-ation where the pre-existing rules of action forthe organisation are suspended and other taskstake priority. These other tasks lack the normalclarity of organisational procedures, and at firstglance many appear to be difficult to prioritiseon thebasisofpastexperience.Theremaybenoconsensus about what to do, how to do it andwho should be undertaking the work. In thesesituations, leadership becomes a critical issue,both within an organisation and in terms of co-ordinating and directing the multitude of stake-holders participating in recovery. In summarythen,crisesarechaotic,dynamicanddangerous
and are events where leadership becomes a keyfactor in prioritization, redirection and creationof new patterns of post event activity.
In this paper the editors of this volume arguethat tourism crisis recovery may mean a changeto the pre-existing ways of operating. Thestandard means of measuring recovery by thesuccess of an organisation in restoring busi-ness flows to an earlier trend line may not beadequate because this benchmark it does nottake into account the adaptation that may takeplace during the crisis and ensuing recoveryperiod processes. The consequences for an or-ganisation of a crisis (beyond its immediateimpacts in terms of suffering, damage, andloss of business) are often more fundamentaland may necessitate changes to the way the or-ganisation operates, forces it to create new net-works, and even stimulate the development ofnew business opportunities or social objec-tives.
The objectives of this paper are to: present asummary of theoretical understanding of tour-ismcrisismanagement fromtheperspectiveofcrisis recovery with a particular emphasis onthe systems approach and the role of networks;to introduce the other papers in this collection;and to contribute an adjustment to Faulkner’s(2001) model of disaster management to incor-porate that role of marketing in post crisis re-covery. This aspect of the paper is summarisedin Figure 4.
TOURISM CRISIS RECOVERY–AN OVERVIEW
From the practical perspective of managers,thegeneral challengeof the recoveryphase is torestore operations to normal, but increasinglythere is evidence of more radical, strategicthinking in reshaping the offer as social andtourism infrastructure, equipment and evenstaff may have to be replaced, new patterns ofoperation developed and new markets sought.It is in thiscontext thatviewing tourismasasys-temhasanumberofadvantages. It is interestingthat the Chinese word for crisis (shown in Fig-ure 1) is composed of two symbols meaning“danger” and “opportunity.” Some destina-tions, includinganumberofThai resortsdevas-tated by the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, have
2 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
used the event as an opportunity to restructureby identifying new market segments and insome cases discouraging some market sectorstheyfeelare lessdesirable.Thisusuallyequatesto‘movingupmarket.’Arelatedrecoverystrat-egy focuses on rebuilding high margin sectorssuch as MICE (Campiranon and Arcodia,below).
The focus of much of the existing researchhas been on the events leading up the crisiswhich then results in a perturbation of the nor-mal state, followed by the steps required to re-store the ‘normal’ situation. In their review ofdifferent perspectives on the study of crises andtheir development of propositions for furtherstudy, Pearson and Clair (1998:6) discuss theoutcomeof a crisis as a system being restored toits normal state. This approach views the crisisas distinct from the remainder of the environ-ment in which the organization functions, withthe consequences of the crisis affecting internaltechnical and social elements of the tourismsystem operating at the time of the onset of thedisaster or crisis event. Restoration in this viewis achieved through a series of steps or stages.An alternative view is to consider crisis eventsfrom a systems perspective where a changesuch as a crisis event causes changes to otherparts of the system. In many cases thesechanges have system wide implications thatprevent a return to the pre-crisis specificationsof the system.
The previous discussion has conceptualizedthe study of crises and disasters by using a viewof tourism systems in which there exist net-works of organizations. Three implications ofthis should be considered. First a systems viewquestions the boundaries that should be used tostudy crisis and disasters. Second, the idea of
complexity or chaos theory can add new in-sights to recovery. Third, a social network viewprovidesadifferentperspectivefocusingon theinteractions between organizations. Together,the implications point to the need to review ex-istingmodelsandincorporatenewperspectivesfrom the lessons learnt during recent disastersand crises.
The Role of Boundaries
A systems perspective is useful as it high-lights another range of effects or impacts of cri-ses that have not been sufficiently recognisedwithin the tourism literature. Scott and Laws(2006) discussed the idea of system resilience,of change in system statesand in improvementsordegeneration in theoverall systemof tourismasaresultofacrisis.Theseideaswerealso iden-tified and explored in a paper using floods inKatherine, Australia as a case study to examinehow adisastermay lead toapositivechange inadestination’s tourism (Faulkner & Vikulov,2001).
Within a system the impact of an event suchas a crisis is felt to either a greater or lesser scaleby all members of the system. The implicationof this is that theeffectsofacrisismaybe trans-ferred across system boundaries by organiza-tional relationships. As a simple example, abaggagehandlers’ strikeatoneairportmayde-lay passengers, impose costs on airlines in ac-commodating passengers, moving luggageand rescheduling flights, and result in extrastress for airport staff. However it may alsohave follow-on effects at distant airports andcause a loss of business to hotels in those desti-nations. Systems theory perspectives can there-fore assist to identify the range of stakeholders
Scott, Laws, and Prideaux 3
FIGURE 1. The Chinese Word for Crisis Is Composed of Characters Meaning Opportunity and Disaster
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
involved,andleadtoastudyoffactors influenc-ing speed of recovery, the intensity of effectsandthefactorscausingtheeffect (seeArmstrongand Ritchie; Carelsen and Hughes; and Viticand Ringer, below).
Complexity or Chaos Theory
Complexity or chaos theory provides an in-sightful paradigm for the investigation of rap-idly changing complex situations where multi-ple influences impact on non-equilibriumsystems. In these conditions of uncertainty,there is a need to incorporate contingencies forthe unexpected into policy framework that mayresult in adaptation of the system itself. Chaostheory demonstrates that there are elements ofsystem behaviour that are intrinsicallyunstableand not amenable to formal forecasting. If thisis the case, a new approach to forecasting is re-quired. Possible ways forward may include po-liticalauditsandriskanalysis todevelopasenseof the possible patterns of events that mayemerge. In this sense future tourism activitymay be forecast using a series of scenarios. Thelattermay involve theuse of a scenariobuildingapproach incorporating elements of van derHeijden’s (1997) strategic conversion model,elements of the learning organisation approachbased on a structured participatory dialogue(Senge, 1990) or elements of risk managementdescribed by Haimes et al. (2002). Which everdirection is taken, there are a number of factorsthatmustbe identifiedandfactored intoconsid-erations of the possible course of events in thefuture. A typical large scale disruption precipi-tatescomplexmovementsawayfromtheprevi-ous relationships which often trend towardsstability and partial equilibrium. Keown-McMullan (1997: 9) noted that organisationswill undergo significant change even whenthey are successful in managing a crisis situa-tion. It is apparent that traditional Newto-nian (linear) thinking with its presumptionof stability is not able to adequately explainthe impact of crises where the previous busi-ness trajectory is altered and a new stateemerges.
Richardson’s (1994) analysis of crisis man-agement in organisations provides another per-spectiveon communityadjustmentcapabilitiesby drawing on “single” and “double loop”
learning approaches (Argyris and Schon,1978). In the former, the response to disastersinvolves a linear reorientation ‘more’ or less inkeeping with traditional objectives and tradi-tional responses (Richardson, 1994, 5). Alter-natively, the double loop learning approachchallenges traditional beliefs about what so-ciety and management is and what it shoulddo. This approach recognises that manage-ment systems can themselves engender theingredients of chaos and catastrophe, and thatmanagers must also be more aware andproactively concerned about organisations asthe creators of crises. Pike (below) presents acautionary tale of a destination which suf-fered a crisis through its inability to recognisethat changing government policy could ad-versely affect it. As Blackman and Ritchie(below) point out, lessons can be learnedfrom the experience of a crisis, or from study-ing other destinations and organisationswhich have experienced serious disruption.For example, the absence of any post crisis re-covery planning and action following the1994 volcanic eruption in Rabaul, PapuaNew Guinea resulted in a slow decline of adestination that was internationally recognisedas a dive location. Today, formerly busy hotelslie abandoned and tourism investment hasmoved elsewhere. Morea (below) argues thatcrisis recovery requires different approachesdepending on whether the onset and impacts ofthe crisis are sudden or spread over a longer pe-riod. Only in this way can impacts of crisis bemitigated and prospects for long term recoverycan be more assured (Faulkner and Vikolov2001).
Social Networks
The third implication of viewing crisis re-covery from a systems perspective arises fromthe view that destinations are networks ofstakeholders which may be reconfigured intomore efficient structures following a crisis.This is slightly different to the view of Faulknerand Vikulov (2001), who suggested a disastermay have a positive outcome but this was pri-marily due to new infrastructure rather than re-alignment or creation of new social networks.Crises may also lead to a more cohesive indus-try-wide or community-wide response mecha-
4 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
nisms, better information flows and indeed thedevelopment of new organizational structures(Quarantelli, 1988). The emphasis on the flowof information as a critical issue in crisis man-agement leads to the idea of social networkanalysis as ameansof analysing thestructureofthis ‘flow’ of information through communica-tion channels. This is an important element ofcrisis recovery that needs to be further ana-lysed. For example, Pikkemaat and Peters(2005, 99) discussed the significant role ofnetworks in tourism innovation. ‘All expertsagree on the most promising vehicle for inno-vation which is cooperation, alliances and/ornetworks in various fields such as technology,marketing distribution, and human resourcessharing.’ In recovering from a crisis the need isoften for innovative solutions and clear leader-ship rather than merely focussing on rebuild-ing.
As will be demonstrates later in Figure 4 andSubphase 5C in particular, crises may lead toadaptation of the system and its related net-works. In this context, an organizational net-work can be described as a set of interacting or-ganizations that exchange information, sharecustomers, or exchange resources. In the tour-ism context this involves many companies in-volved in transport, accommodation, attrac-tions, etc., working together to produce aproduct. From this perspective, tourism recog-nises tourism destinations are interactive net-works of suppliers of services (Scott & Laws,2004) that change over time.
As Scott and Cooper (2005) point out, theconcept of organizational networks originatedin the early sociological writings of Simmel(1908) and the social anthropological workof Radcliffe Brown (1935). These writersdeveloped a structural view on social inter-action which highlighted the importance ofsocial organizations, relationships and inter-actions in influencing individual decisions.Structures are recurring patterns of social rela-tions (Thatcher, 1998). This view may be con-trasted with a rationalist perspective that fo-cuses on the attributes and actions of individualsor organizations (Brinton Milward & Provan,1998).
Social network analysis seeks to define andquantify these relationships. The work ofMoreno (1934) indicated that social configura-
tions had definite structures which could be de-scribed in ‘sociograms’ to visualise the flow ofinformation between organizations or thefriendships between individuals. This led to thedevelopment of graph theory where the rela-tionships between individuals in groups arerepresentedas points and linesand the resultingpatterns are described.
Later developments led to the identificationof groups of individualswith similarpatternsofrelationships (blockmodels) and to the use ofstatistical methods such as multidimensionalscaling to transform relationships into socialdistance and map them in social space. Socialnetwork analysis relates the relationshipsof theindividual to the pattern of the network, andprovides insight into the interactions betweenthe two (Stokman, 2002). Social network anal-ysis isphilosophicallyrelatedtosystemstheory(Boulding, 1956), where the properties of thesystemarederivedfromtheinteractionofmanycomponents.
Socialnetworkanalysisdeliversanumberofuseful outcomes. It provides a means of visual-izing complex sets of relationships and throughsimplifying them delivers a useful method forpromoting effective collaboration within agroup, supporting critical junctures in net-works that cross functional, hierarchical, orgeographic boundaries; and ensuring integra-tion within groups following strategic restruc-turing initiatives (Cross et al., 2002). The use ofstandard methods and questions enables net-works of relationships to be compared be-tween regions or over time facilitating thestudy of dynamic situations. A more ambi-tious aim is to offer a structural analysis andsuggestions for improving network character-isticssuchascommunicationflows.Asaresult,social network analysis overlaps and informsthe study of inter-organizational collaborationand cooperation, networks and strategic alli-ances. Ithasbeenused instudiesof interorgani-zational relationships and in the developmentof policy (Tyler & Dinan, 2001; Coleman,2002; Pforr, 2002). A social network has beendefined as a specific set of linkages among a de-fined set of persons, with the additional prop-erty that the characteristics of these linkages asa whole may be used to interpret the social be-haviour of the persons involved (Mitchell,1969).
Scott, Laws, and Prideaux 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
From a social network perspective, the tour-ism system is a network of organizations. Theeffect of a disaster or crisis is to place stress onthese relationships. This stress is also systemicto the extent that the impact of a disaster on oneorganizationor destination may in turn lead to aflow-on effect on others. One reason for this isthat competition between companies and desti-nations is intense and the effect of disaster inone destination will have an effect on related orneighbouring destinations (Lepp and Gibson,2003).Thus theeffectofSevereAcuteRespira-tory Syndrome on Australian tourism destina-tions was to reduce international visitor num-bers from Asia but boost domestic tourism topopular national destinations. A number of au-thors have examined the effect of a crisis on or-ganizations outside the initial crisis area. Litvinand Alderson (2003), for example, examinedthe effect of the 9/11 crisis on the CharlestonConvention and Visitors Bureau. In that caseeffective management was able to avert the fullextent of the impact by switching promotionexpenditure to different markets.
The effect of a crisis on the destination, con-ceptualized as a network of organizations, isshown in Figure 2. In this example a crisis hasthe effect of changing the network of relation-ships between organizations, potentially throughloss of some members or the introduction ofnew ones. In State A (left hand cluster) firmshave loose networks often operating independ-ently. In the post crisis situation the need towork together toovercometheeffectsof thecri-sis forges new networks creating the situationillustrated in State B (right hand cluster). As aconsequence,acrisismaycreatepotentiallyun-predictable consequences in destination mar-kets.
A related view is that the nature of other rela-tionship types such as cooperation and alli-ances between stakeholders is important inminimizing or averting the effects of a disasterthrough better crisis management (Pearson &Clair, 1998; Pforr and Hosie, below). This is re-lated to the established management approachofscanningforproblemsandavoidingormini-mizing their impacts. But it is also related to
6 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISES
Crisis
Destinationboundary
New Organization
Existing Organization
Relationship
FIGURE 2. Conceptualization of the Effect of a Crisis on a Destination System
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
the idea that a network of organizations thatcooperate together may be able to better man-age the effects of a crisis. This approach is sim-ilar to the socio-technical systems perspectiveand has been examined in a study of social net-works and a crisis in the construction sector(Loosemore, 1998).
PHASES OF CRISIS MANAGEMENT
From the preceding discussion, it is appar-ent that new perspectives on the operations ofthe post recovery phase have emerged andthese need to be incorporated into existingmodels where possible. Coles (2003) notesthatbothSonmez(1998) and Boyd (2000) offerconceptualisations of recovery in which, afterfalls in demand induced by terrorism, tourismproduction and consumption, levels come fullcircle back to those enjoyed before the event.Such expectations echo the advice offered bythe World Tourism Organisation (WTO, 1998:156) which can be described as the standardperspective on recovering from a crisis througha series of remedial steps. The WTO phasemodel summarised in Figure 3 advises usershow to deal with media and tourist responses tothe incident, how to mitigate negative impactsof loss of visitors to the area, and the use of me-dia techniques to restore ‘the normal pattern.’However, this model in its attempt to be acces-sible glosses over important complexities incrisis management. As Coles (2003, 177-178)noted “First . . . crises associated with terrorismare likely to be different to other forms of crisis.Second, the model’s inherent linearity and thereduction of recovery to a set of practically au-tomatic steps is stark. Finally, and most impor-tantly, it views the events as practicallyring-fenced temporally, so there is a “normalpattern” to which production and consumptioncan return.”
Other models show the sequence of rescue,restoration of infrastructure and then the re-building of markets. These phase modelsshare the premise that recovery equates to a re-turn to normal operations, with a resumptionof the actual or predicted trend of growth in theorganisation’s business activities. The crisis isitself regardedas theunitofanalysis in theseap-proaches.
In the fieldof tourismresearchrelativelyfewstudies have applied established crisis models.One of the most comprehensive tourism disas-termanagementframeworks in tourismwasde-veloped by Faulkner (2001) who synthesisedcrisis situations based on research by Fink(1986: 20), Keown-McMullan (1997: 9) andWeiner and Kahn (1972: 21) and identified anumber of phases in crisis situations asillustrated in Figure 4.
The alternative systems perspective is basedon the idea of a continuously evolving systemwhere (gradual) change is endemic but a crisismay suddenly result in a fundamentally differ-ent state. From this perspective a return to nor-mality is not necessarily the required (or evendesired) endpoint. A crisis is seen as the resultof one form of change and the effects of a crisisare not confined to its immediate temporal orgeographical vicinity. These changes may bepositive or negative but certainly the subse-quent state may be different from proceedingones, and importantly, the changes that occurwere unplanned from the perspective of the or-ganisations strategic management. In theseterms the effect of a disaster as a catastrophicchange event is much more likely to trigger achange of state than other ‘lesser’ events. Thisperspective is presented in the case study of aflooding disaster in Katherine (Faulkner &Vikulov, 2001) previously referred to. In thatcase the disaster was seen as leading to the op-portunity to change the quality ofaccommoda-tion and other infrastructure in the tourism sec-tor. However the opportunities for realignmentof the system through changes to or develop-ment of new networks were not considered.
A DISASTER MANAGEMENTFRAMEWORK
In this paper we elaborate on phase 5 ofFaulkner’smodelbyindicatingthat longer termrecovery consists of three sub-phases, 5A–recovery of damaged infrastructure; 5B–mar-keting responses; and 5C–adaptations to thesystem itself. In his original work Faulknerconsidered the long term recovery phase as im-portant but did not elaborate to any great extent.In terms of the research reported in this volumeit is necessary to examine this phase of the
Scott, Laws, and Prideaux 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
model inmoredetailwithaviewto identifyspe-cificsubphases in thelongtermrecoveryphase.
In many cases the three subphases identifiedabove have to occur simultaneously and are of-ten the responsibility of different groups of in-dividuals and authorities who may or may notbe acting in a coordinated manner. For exam-ple, in the case of Cyclone Larry hitting North-ern Queensland in 2006 (see Prideaux et al., be-low) Subphases 5A (Recovery of damagedinfrastructure)and5B(Marketing)were imple-mentedsimultaneouslybutbydifferentgroups.This may lead to confusion but in cases wherethere is the potential for further loss of life anddamage to property, Phase B can be expected toreceive relatively little attention by the authori-ties, forcing marketing authorities to initiatetheir own activities. Later and once the dangerto life and property has past more attention canbe focused on Subphase B which will thenevolve into Subphase C when the new realitiesbecome apparent. Subphase B is a critical ele-ment of Phase 5 for even if damaged infrastruc-ture is rebuilt the failure to convince travellersthat the destination is reopened for businesswill result inmarketfailureandeconomicloss.
It is entirely likely that during Phase 5 thefirms and organisations involved in re-estab-lishing the destination will develop new net-works as suggested in Figure 4. If this is thecase, the previous system will undergo changeand a new system will emerge that will, to agreater or lesser extent, differ from the shapeand composition that existed in the pre crisisperiod.
A fuller understanding of the range of recov-ery challenges may therefore be obtained frommore advanced theoretical perspectives whichsee theorganisationasamemberofoneormorefunctional networks which are usually charac-terised as dynamic and complex. This perspec-tive is evolutionary, and does not presume thatthere is a single solution to a crisis in which therecovered state is a resumption of normal pat-terns of operation. Instead, the analysis is con-cerned with the effects of a crisis on methods ofoperations, relationships with network part-ners, the ways in which these develop as re-sponses to the crisis, and the emergence of newstates of operation which may include someprevious partners as well as new partners. Inthis mode of analysis, interest focuses on anumber of issues including: the system and its
8 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISES
An incident occurs, which the media describesand often, but not always exaggerates
Tourists leave the area, bookings are cancelled
Destination suffers economically,poor press coverage may continue,
magnifying the effects of the incident
Destination commences its own media coverage
Based on WTO 1998, page 156.
FIGURE 3. Phase Model of a Tourism Crisis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
boundaries and their permeability; on the net-worked and social relationships on which theorganisation depends; a historical perspectivewhich can be used to understand the ways inwhich social relationships may amplify the
psychological support or vulnerability of theorganisation as it deals with a crisis; and fi-nally on the sources and forms of leadershipthat are used to deal with crisis situations. Thisalso raises the question of how organisations
Scott, Laws, and Prideaux 9
FIGURE 4. Faulkner’s Tourism Disaster Management Framework (Simplified)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
cooperate, and how they learn from and shareexperiences. Many of the papers which followpresent detailed analysis of these issues (seeparticularly Smith, Carmichael and Batovsky;Moreira; Pike; Blackman and Ritchie; Carlsenand Hughes; Carlsen and Liburd, below).
THE EFFECT OF CRISESON INTENTIONS TO TRAVEL
A major aspect of the special challenges ofpost crisis recovery can be understood by ex-amining the reasons why a tourist service ordestination suffers loss of business after a crisis(see Prideaux, Coglan and Falco-Mammone,below). In some situations, such as destructionin areas prone to wind storms (hurricanes, ty-phoons and cyclones) there is a need to analysethe significance of an organisation’s marketorientation to enhance the success of their re-covery efforts (Martin-Consuegra, Estebanand Molina, (below). Tourism is usually a dis-cretionary activity, and one which touristschoose over alternative ways of spending timeand money. Confidence needs to be restored toa levelwhere intendingvisitorsbelieve thatdis-ruption has been minimised and their holidayinvestmentof timeandmoney is safe. Ifvisitorsperceive that there is a risk they are more thanlikely to select an alternative destination ashighlighted by Hunter-Jones, Jeffs and Smith(below). There are also conditions which leadtourists to decide not to travel, or to avoid par-ticular destinations (Floyd et al., 2003). Thiswill be of particular concern in Subphase 5B ofFigure 4.
Chief amongst the avoidance factors arerisks to tourists themselves, and the likelihoodof being in regions where epidemicsor wars areraging, or which are in turmoil. In contempo-rary society, the 24 hour news services such asCNN feature and repeat scenes of devastationand disaster, so that potential travellers rap-idly become aware of incidents occurring lit-erally on the other side of the world. Thus thedestination suffering a crisis becomes in effect‘demarketed’ under a deluge of negative, if nothostile, publicity. In one example of this effectVitic and Ringer (below) discuss the need forMontenegro to overcome its ‘clouded image’after its recent period of conflict. Further, mis-
takes or delays in responding to the needs ofthoseenmeshed in thedramaofadisaster stim-ulate more adverse media interest, and in-creasingly, governments in countries whichgenerate tourist flows feel compelled to issueadvice to their own nationals against travel-ling to destinations under stress. This canhave significant impacts as highlighted bySmith, Carmicheal and Batovsky (below) intheir analysis of the impacts of the US Govern-ment’s new Western Hemisphere Travel Ini-tiative Passport requirements on Canada as atransborder weekend destination.
At the core of these recovery approaches isan acknowledgement of the need to changetravellers’ (mis) perceptions of the destinationororganisation.Volo(below)questionswhetheran individual destination can achieve thisthrough its website. A more comprehensivemarketing strategy, particularly at the destina-tion level, that also includes promotion, adver-tisingandpublicrelationsis required.Attentionto funding and long term monitoring of the ef-fectiveness of this strategy is also required.
Floyd et al. (2003, 32-34) note that fivegroups of risk factors are pertinent to travel de-cision: war and political instability, health con-cerns, crime, terrorism, and natural disasters.Theyfound that“Travelexperienceemergedasthe most significant predictor of travel inten-tions.” Critiquing the Travel Industry Associa-tion of America’s persuasive advertising cam-paign they point out that “intentions to travel inthe12months following9-11were to the riskoffamily, friends and associates disapproving ofvacation choices. Referring Pearce’s TravelCareer Ladder, they recommend that recoverymarketing should target experienced travellerswho “would require less attention to safety andsecurity issues.”
Thus, a communications-led approach in-tended to ameliorate travellers’ perceptions ofrisk in a specific area is often a key element intourism recovery strategies. See Ladkin, Fyall,Fletcher and Shipway; Niineinen and Gatsou;Chacko and Marcell; Carlsen and Hughes; andArmstrong and Ritchie for analyses of recentmarketing led recovery programmes (below).Lehto, Douglas and Park (below) analyse theadvantages of working with destination stake-holders to mediate natural disasters.
10 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
DISCUSSION
In this paper crisis is set within a wider sys-tems perspective. In its normal state a system isseen in dynamic balance, given that at any timethere will be a number of factors affecting itsuch as technological change and changes inconsumer preferences. Any change to one partof the system may have an effect on other partsof the system. Where these impacts are smalland recognised, as occurs when new technolo-gies are introduced, the system usually re-sponds in a predictable manner. When unpre-dictable events such as a crisis impacts on thesystem’s stability, balance and predictabilityare lost until a new level of balance is achieved.The foregoing discussion emphasises the edi-tors’ view that the outcome of a crisis may notbe a return to a normal situation, as parts of thesystem are likely to have changed. It is perti-nent to this discussion that Carlsen and Liburd(below) call for the re-analysis of previouslypublished case studies arguing that they are animportant source of knowledge which couldprovide better insights into crisis recoverymanagement when re-examined from this per-spective.
An issue highlighted in this collection ofstudies is the measurement of the success of atourism crisis recovery programme. The bluntinstruments of visitor arrivals and visitorspending do not: adequately differentiate be-tween recovery of different market segments;indicate the variable recovery rates of stake-holders; identify changes to the tourism sys-tem; or assist in understanding the resilience orotherwise of the system. Most crucially, thereappears to be no way of measuringa tourism or-ganisation’s ability to learn from past crises, ei-ther one it has experienced directly or thosewhich have afflicted partners or competitors.Yet improved responsiveness to future crisissituations, as well as the potential to recoverfrom them more rapidly, depends on a full un-derstanding of the complexity and dynamics ofcrisis situations and a willingness to take apositive approach to solving future problems.
This paper challenges the standard perspec-tive that recovering from a crisis requires only aseries of remedial steps to return to the previousnormality. The WTO phase model discussedearlier is typical of this approach, first dealing
with casualties of the incident, then restoringinfrastructure and later rebuilding markets. Asdemonstrated in this collection of papers this isoften not the case. Accordingly, a fuller under-standing of the range of challenges that may oc-cur requires more advanced theoretical per-spectives which see the organisation as amember of a wider system operating in the con-textofavarietyofpartnerorganisationsandasamember of one or more dynamic and complexfunctional networks. This perspective is evolu-tionary, and does not presume that there is aunique solution to a crisis. Instead, the analy-sis is concerned with the effects of a crisis onoperations, relationships with network part-ners, the ways in which these develop as re-sponses to the crisis, and the emergence ofnew states of operation, with some previouspartners disconnected and others joining thenew state. In this mode of analysis, interestfocuses on the following aspects of the sys-tem: its boundaries and their permeability; thenetworked and social relationships on whichthe organisation depends; the historical per-spectives give understanding to the ways inwhich social relationships may amplify thepsychological support or vulnerability of theorganisation as it deals with a crisis; and on thesources of and forms of leadership that are re-quired to deal with crisis situations. This alsoraises the questions of how organisations coop-erate, andhowthey learn fromandsharedexpe-rience.
CONCLUSION
The major objective of this collection of re-search, andof this editorialpaper, is to focus theattentionof researchersandmanagerson the re-covery phase following a tourism crisis. How-ever, as noted earlier, there is a burgeoning lit-erature on general tourism crisis management,and it is important to recognise that consider-able advances have been made in preplanningto avoid or to mitigate future disasters.
While some of the crises which trigger theneed for tourism recovery marketing originateas humanitarian crises and require urgent re-sponses to the immediate needs of residents aswell as tourists, others have their genesis in na-ture. Initially, the responsibility of managers is
Scott, Laws, and Prideaux 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
to deal with the humanitarian aspects of crisisto the best of their abilities. Attention mustthen be given to the infrastructure that sup-ports the tourism industry and importantly, itsmarketing to alter the perceptions of visitorsthat the destination is again open for business.Early recovery of the tourism sector is impor-tant particularly for countries and regions thatdepend on tourism.
The papers in this collection demonstratethatnewtheoretical insightcanbegainedbyex-amininghoworganisationsachieverecoveryasmembersofdynamicfunctionalnetworks.Thisevolutionary perspective is concerned with theway that organization and the system in whichthey operate adapts to the pressures and oppor-tunities presented by the crisis.
It is apparent that no ideal template exists orwill ever be devised to deal with crises becauseof their varied nature. It is also apparent that un-derstanding the impact of crisis on organisa-tions and destinations is the key to effectivepost event recovery. Unfortunately, the futurewill bring with it new crises and disasters andthese will in turn be reported in future academicdiscourses. It is the hope of the authors of thispaper and indeed of the papers that comprisethisvolume, that the learningrecordedherewillbe used as a base for future disaster and crisesresearch and will assist organisations and desti-nations to better plan and implement post crisisrecovery marketing.
REFERENCES
Anderson, B., Prideaux, B. and Brown, G. (2007) Re-sponding to the Crises of 2001: the Australian Expe-rience in Laws, E., Prideaux, B. and Chon, K. (eds.)Crisis Management in Tourism, CABI: Wallingford.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General Systems Theory; theskeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 56-68.
Brinton Milward, H., & Provan, K. G. (1998). Measur-ing network structure. Public Administration, 76,387-407.
Britton, S., & Clarke, W. (Eds.). (1987). Ambiguous al-ternative: Tourism in small developing countries.Suva, Fiji: University of the South Pacific.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destina-tion of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97-116.
Burstein, P. (1991). Policy domains: Organization, cul-ture and policy outcomes. Annual Review of Sociol-ogy, 17, 327-350.
Coleman, W. D. (2002). Policy Networks. In Interna-tional Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sci-ences.
Coles, T. A Local Reading of a Global Disaster: SomeLessons on Tourism Management from an AnnusHorribilis in South West England. Journal of Traveland Tourism Marketing, 15/2-3, 173-197, 2003.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002). Makinginvisible work visible: Using social network analysisto support strategic collaboration. California Man-agement Review, 44(2), 25-46.
Faulkner, B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourismdisaster management. Tourism Management, 22(2),135-147.
Faulkner, B., & Russell, R. (2001). Turbulence, chaosand complexity in tourism systems: A research direc-tion for the new millennium. In B. Faulkner, G.Moscardo & E. Laws (Eds.), Tourism in the 21stCentury: Lessons from Experience (pp. 328-349).London: Continuum.
Faulkner, B., & Vikulov, L. (2001). Katherine, washedout one day, back on track the next: A post-mortemof a tourism disaster. Tourism Management, 22(4),331-344.
Fink, S. (1986). Crisis Management. New York: Ameri-can Association of Management.
Floyd, M. Gibson, H. Pennington-Grey, L. and Thapa,B. The Effect of Risk Perceptions on Intentions toTravel in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Jour-nal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15/2-3, 19-38,2003.
Huang, J. H., & Min, J. C. H. (2002). Earthquake devas-tation and recovery in tourism: the Taiwan case.Tourism Management, 23(2), 145-154.
Keown-McMullan, C. (1997). Crisis: When does a mole-hill become a mountain? Disaster Prevention andManagement, 6(1), 4-10.
Laws, E., & Cooper, C. (1998). Inclusive tours and com-modification: the marketing constraints for mass-market resorts. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 4(4),337-352.
Laws, E. Prideaux, B. and Chon, K. (2007). Crisis Man-agement in Tourism: Challenges for Managers andResearchers in Laws, E., Prideaux, B. and Chon, K.(eds.) Crisis Management in Tourism, CABI:Wallingford.
Litvin, S. W., & Alderson, L. L. (2003). How Charlestongot her groove back: A Convention and Visitors Bu-reau’s response to 9/11. Journal of Vacation Market-ing, 9(2), 188-197.
McKercher, B., & Chon, K. (2004). The Over-Reactionto SARS and the Collapse of Asian Tourism. Annalsof Tourism Research, 31(3), 716-719.
Mansfield, Y. and Pizam, A. Editors. Tourism, Securityand Safety: From Theory to Practice. ButterworthHeineman, Burlington, MA, 2006.
Mitchell, J. C. (1969). The concept and use of social net-works. In J. C. Mitchell (Ed.), Social networks in ur-
12 SAFETY AND SECURITY IN TOURISM: RECOVERY MARKETING AFTER CRISES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
ban situations. Manchester: University of ManchesterPress.
Moreno, J. (1934). Who Shall Survive? New York: Bea-con Press.
Murphy, P. E., & Bayley, R. (1989). Tourism and disas-ter planning. Geographical Review, 79(1), 36-46.
Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998). Reframing crisismanagement. Academy of Management Review, 23(1),59-76.
Pikkemaat, B. and Peters, M. (2005) Towards the mea-surement of innovation–A pilot study in the smalland medium sized hotel industry. Journal of QualityAssurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 6(3-4), 89-112.
Pforr, C. (2002). The ‘makers and shapers’ of tourismpolicy in the Northern Territory of Australia: A pol-icy network analysis of actors and their relationalconstellations. Journal of Hospitality and TourismResearch, 9(2), 134-151.
Prideaux, B. and Laws, E. (2007), Reflections and Fur-ther Research Priorities, in Laws, E., Prideaux, B.and Chon, K. (eds.) Crisis Management in Tourism,CABI: Wallingford.
Prideaux, B., Laws, E., & Faulkner, B. (2003). Events inIndonesia: exploring the limits to formal tourismtrends forecasting methods in complex crisis situa-tions. Tourism Management, 24(4), 475-487.
Quarantelli, E. L. (1988). Disaster crisis management–asummary of research findings. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 25(4), 373-385.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1935). ON the concept of func-tion in social science. American Anthropologist, 37(3),394-402.
Russell, R., & Faulkner, B. (1999). Movers and shakers:Chaos makers in tourism development. Tourism Man-agement, 20(4), 411-423.
Scott, N., & Cooper, C. (2005). The network structure ofa regional tourism organization: Application of thesocial network theory in one region of Queensland.Paper presented at the Sharing Tourism Knowledge:15th International Research Conference of the Coun-cil for Australian University Tourism and Hospital-ity Education, Alice Springs.
Scott, N., & Laws, E. (2004). Stimulants and inhibitorsin the development of niche markets–The whale’stale. Paper presented at the CAUTHE 2004, Bris-bane.
Scott, N., & Laws, E. (2004). Whale watching–the rolesof small firms in the evolution of a new Australianniche market. In R. Thomas (Ed.), Small Firms inTourism: International Perspectives (pp. 153-166).London: Elsevier.
Simmel, G. (1908). Soziologie (1968 edition). Berlin:Dunker and Humblot.
Stokman, F. N. (2002). Networks: Social. In Interna-tional Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sci-ences.
Thatcher, M. (1998). The development of policy net-work analyses from modest origins to overarchingframeworks. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(4),389-416.
Turner, B. A. (1976). The organizational and inter-orga-nizational development of disasters. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 21, 378-397.
Tyler, D., & Dinan, C. (2001). The role of interestedgroups in England’s emerging tourism policy net-work. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(2-4), 210-252.
Weiner, A., & Kahn, H. (1972). Crisis and arms control.In C. F. Hermann (Ed.), International crises: In-sights from behaviour research (pp. 21). New York:The Free Press.
doi:10.1300/J073v23n02_01
Scott, Laws, and Prideaux 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 20:
29 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014