Читать книгу Tourism and Earthquakes - Группа авторов - Страница 9
Оглавление1 Earthquakes and Tourism: Impacts, Responses and Resilience – An Introduction
C. Michael Hall and Girish Prayag
Introduction
Earthquakes are a form of natural disaster with substantial human, economic and environmental effects. As many as 500,000 earthquakes occur around the planet each year, of which only about 20% are strong enough to be felt, with approximately 100 causing significant amounts of damage (United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2019). Nevertheless, large earthquakes can cause substantial loss of human life, substantially affect housing and infrastructure, and have major economic impacts. Large, damaging earthquakes (magnitude 5.5 or greater) are relatively rare in developed countries, averaging fewer than seven events per year since 1985 (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 2016). Nevertheless, their impacts can be substantial and are a function of a variety of factors including magnitude, duration, depth, landscape and geology, population density, construction practices and location of the epicentre.
Of the 48 earthquakes in developed countries from 1985 to 2015 of magnitude 5.5 or greater for which there are damage estimates the amount of economic damage varied significantly, from about $2 million to more than $232 billion (in 2015 dollars) (Table 1.1). Nevertheless, the median economic damage of earthquakes of magnitudes greater than 6.5 since 1985 ($628 million) was about 3.5 times higher than the median for earthquakes of magnitude 5.5 to 6.5 ($178 million), while the median damage of large earthquakes in areas with populations greater than 250,000 (nearly $2 billion) was nearly 75 times greater than for those in areas with populations below 250,000 ($28 million) (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 2016). In the United States the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), USGS and the Pacific Disaster Center (PDC) (2017) estimated that, in the United State, the annualized earthquake loss (AEL) is $6.1 billion per year, a figure almost equal to the historic annual losses experienced from floods and hurricanes, while the potential exposure to earthquakes is of the order of approximately 59 trillion USD.
Table 1.1 Top 10 costliest world earthquakes and tsunamis by insured losses, 1980–2001
Source: After Insurance Information Institute, (2019)
However, while the greatest economic losses from earthquakes are attributed to those in developed countries it is arguably developing countries that are proportionately worse affected and which also face major problems in allocating scarce resources in mitigating earthquake risk (Steckler et al., 2018). For example, when the relative values between nations based on a division of economic losses incurred at the time of the earthquake disaster as compared to GDP are considered then Armenia, Turkmenistan, Haiti, Nicaragua, Wallis and Futuna, North Macedonia and Chile have the highest relative ratios (Daniell et al., 2011). With respect to fatalities as a result of earthquakes China, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Japan and Turkmenistan have had the highest death and injury counts since 1900 in terms of absolute numbers, while Turkmenistan and Armenia have the highest relative fatality rates globally (Daniell et al., 2011).
Although the impacts of earthquakes and associated secondary disasters, such as tsunami and landslides, on tourism are substantial, the effects are often missed in the official figures. This is because while the loss of tourism specific infrastructure, such as hotels, may be covered the economic value of the expenditures of a temporary population such as tourists can be lost from official figures. This is especially because, being mobile, tourists can switch from one destination to another within the same national or even regional economy. Nevertheless, given its substantial direct and indirect contribution to economies on both developed and developing countries, tourism does matter.
This chapter introduces the phenomenon of earthquakes and their impacts on destinations, communities, businesses and individuals within the tourism system. The chapter provides a review of some of the major themes in research on earthquakes and tourism and also positions earthquakes and their impacts within the context of contemporary interest on tourism and resilience. The chapter concludes with an outline of the book.
Earthquakes, Disasters and Impacts
An earthquake is any shaking of the Earth’s surface as a result of a sudden release of energy in the Earth’s lithosphere that creates seismic waves. In its most general usage, the word earthquake therefore refers to any seismic event, whether natural, i.e. the result of a faults at the boundary or interior of tectonic plates, volcanic events, tidal forces or, more rarely, asteroid or meteorite impact; or caused by humans, i.e. fracking, nuclear or other large explosions. Earthquakes are happening around the Earth all the time, many of these are never felt by people. However, there are probably few natural events that can cause as much fear than feeling an earthquake and, arguably, some of the most damaging disasters are those that arise as the result of large earthquake events and the subsequent sequence of aftershock and other events that they can trigger such as tsunami, landslides and even volcanic activity. Some earthquake events and sequences can even come part of popular culture or at least personal and collective psychology, e.g. Pompei, the 1755 Lisbon earthquakes and tsunami and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake in Japan, activated a tsunami with 30-foot waves and led to nearly 18,729 deaths and 2666 missing (Henderson, 2013; Fukui & Ohe, 2019), with footage of the tsunami being broadcast live around the world. Similarly, footage of the Indian Ocean Boxing Day (26 December) tsunami of 2004 that followed from the 9.1 (Mw) earthquake off the coast of the Indonesian Island of Sumatra that killed at least 225,000 people across several countries bordering the Indian Ocean including India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand reminds us of the destructive nature of earthquakes and their impacts on humans, society and countries (Moeller, 2006; Mäntyniemi, 2012; Bonati, 2015).
Earthquake events and their impacts are clearly often devasting for the communities and people that are affected. From a tourism perspective this means members of the host community, visiting tourists, tourism businesses, destination infrastructure as well as destination and business image. Although it may seem trite to be discussing tourism in the context of earthquakes and disasters it needs to be remembered that tourism is economically important for many earthquake affected locations. If they lose tourism, they lose jobs and the economic capacity to rebuild, including damaged infrastructure, heritage and facilities that are used by the local population as well as visitors (Huan et al., 2004; Mendoza et al., 2012; Tang, 2014). To understand how tourism and tourists are affected by earthquakes is then essential to being able to build more resilient places, economies, businesses and destinations, and to be proactive with respect to being able to better help people when disaster does come (Huang & Min, 2002; Orchiston, 2013; Ghmire, 2016; Hall et al., 2016).
The majority of earthquakes that people experience are fault earthquakes. Fault earthquakes happen when two earth blocks suddenly slip past one another, with the surface where the slip occurs known as the fault or fault plane (USGS, 2019). The main earthquake is called the mainshock and this is usually followed by a number of aftershocks, which may continue for weeks, months or even years after the main earthquake event or mainshock (USGS, 2019). Four different types of faults have been identified that explain the sudden ‘jerky’ feeling experienced during an earthquake. According to GNS Science, New Zealand (2019), the four types of faults are: normal (move up and down), reverse (thrust), strike slip (move left and right or vice versa) and oblique slip (various combinations of the previously described movements). Along with the different types of fault earthquakes, volcanic related earthquakes are also significant. These are caused by the movement of magma beneath the Earth’s surface which can lead to earthquake swarms as well as more violent earthquakes. Such earthquake activity is often an indicator of potential eruptions, as in the case of Mount St Helens (Foxworthy & Hill, 1982) or Mount Etna (Martini & Platania, this volume)
Unlike many other types of disasters, earthquakes have the capacity to generate other deadly disasters other than those arising from ground shaking, liquefaction, building collapse and falling masonry, including tsunamis and landslides, as well as those arising from their effects on chemical, oil and nuclear facilities, such as nuclear meltdown in Fukushima as a result of a tsunami (Hasegawa, 2012; Rangel & Lévêque, 2014). Very often there is no early warning which makes it impossible to precisely anticipate the location and intensity of the earthquake (Tsai & Chen, 2010). Typically earthquakes are treated as acute events with relatively short periods of impact and response that transform in the recovery phase (Becker et al., 2019). However, this is somewhat misleading as not only may an earthquake sequence last for a considerable length of time, even years, as was the case of the Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand. Similarly, the rebuild, insurance and psychological impacts of earthquakes can last for many years, as was also the case of the Christchurch earthquakes (Amore & Hall, 2016a, 2016b, 2017; Hall et al., 2016; Amore et al., 2017; Amore, this volume).
Disasters are human, environmental and economic tragedies (Rose, 2011). The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (2015: 25) defines ‘disaster recovery in terms of livelihoods, health, economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets, systems and activities’. Earthquakes impact communities in different ways. In terms of the physical environment, earthquakes can cause changes in landform, vegetation and soils, and alterations of hydrological conditions (Migon & Pijet-Migon, 2019). Although subsequent natural processes themselves act towards erasing traces of natural disasters, human interventions can also speed up this process. The physical impacts depend on the hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness practices of the community (Russell et al., 1995; Geschwind, 2001). Both of these, can reduce the physical impacts (Lindell & Prater, 2003). However, they can also induce a number of social impacts that can last for years and decades. The greatest physical impacts relate often to the number of casualties and extent of damage to property and lifeline infrastructures. The extent of the physical impacts is often difficult to assess as casualties may be an indirect consequence of the mainshock or aftershocks. Losses of structures, animals and crops are also important measures of physical impacts (Lindell & Prater, 2003). As argued by Whitman et al. (2013), earthquakes have different impacts on rural and urban areas and studies tend to suggest that the latter recovers faster (Frazier et al., 2013; Cui et al., 2018). Earthquake damage to the built environment can be classified broadly as affecting residential, commercial, industrial, infrastructure or community services sectors (Lindell & Prater, 2003). One way to reduce the physical impacts is to adopt hazard mitigation practices such as avoiding or changing construction in areas that are susceptible to hazard impact. Building construction practices can also make structures less vulnerable (Palm, 1998; Godshalk 2003; Lindell & Prater, 2003; Sengezer & Koç, 2005).
Earthquakes can severely impact organizations in the form of direct physical damage to structures and property, inventory, non-structural damage to premises, changes in cash flow, halted or slowed production, changes in suppliers and customers, staff attrition and psychosocial effects on staff and family (Corey & Deitch, 2011; Whitman et al., 2013). Following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, Brown et al. (2015) found that ‘customer issues’ impacts were the most disruptive for organizations. The disruption of critical services and organizational size work hand in hand with sector-specific organizational vulnerabilities to maximize negative impacts of disasters on organizations (Whitman et al., 2013). Thus, analysing the effects of earthquakes on organizations from a spatial, organizational characteristics and sectoral perspective is a necessary step in improving mitigation strategies that can better inform policy decisions, but also improve organization and community resilience (Whitman et al., 2014).
Earthquakes, Social Impacts and Well-being
The social impacts of disasters can take various forms and includes socio-demographic, socioeconomic, sociopolitical and psychosocial impacts (Lindell & Prater, 2003; Amini Hosseini et al., 2013; Potter et al., 2015; Van der Voort & Vanclay, 2015). One of the most significant socio-demographic impacts of an earthquake-related disaster on a community is the destruction of household dwellings (Mileti & Passerini, 1996). This causes direct economic losses that can be thought of as a loss in asset value but the emotional impacts of losing one’s dwelling can be even harder on individuals (Wu & Lindell, 2004; Yi & Yang, 2014; Tierney & Oliver-Smith, 2012). There is also evidence that disaster impacts can cause social activism resulting in political disruption, especially when disaster recovery seems to take longer than what the community anticipates and/or when some interests and groups are excluding from decision-making (Lindell & Prater, 2003; Hall et al., 2016; Amore et al., 2017), while earthquake recovery and rebuilding process can also be an opportunity for some interests to implement new political structures and advanced particular ideological agendas (Amore & Hall, 2016a, 2017).
Those affected by earthquake disasters often experience a significant decrease in quality of life. Psychosocial impacts are often manifested by psychophysiological effects such as fatigue and tics but also cognitive signs such as confusion, impaired concentration and attention deficits (Tierney & Oliver-Smith, 2012). Emotional signs such as anxiety, depression and grief, as well as behavioural effects such as sleep and appetite changes, ritualistic behaviour and substance abuse are also common (Lindell & Prater, 2003). The earthquake and subsequent nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan had not only physical and socioeconomic impacts such as income and job losses, but also psychological and physiological impacts in terms of health impairments such as fear and anxiety related to mental distress from fatalities, injuries or radioactive contamination (Rehdanz et al., 2015). There are also psychosocial impacts with long-term adaptive consequences such as changes in risk perceptions and increased hazard intrusiveness (Lindell & Prater, 2003). Often stories around the recovery of communities following an earthquake emphasize how they overcame physical impacts, paying less attention to psychosocial recovery. In fact, the disaster management literature often portrays well-being of communities as something secondary to the management of physical impacts of earthquakes (Tierney & Oliver-Smith, 2012). However, from a destination and place perspective, both are equally important and deeply intertwined.
The psychological impacts, including well-being, are often understated but require greater attention in disaster management models. Yet, there is no consistency in the literature neither on the extent to which community well-being can be affected nor on the length of time it takes for communities to recover (Prayag et al., 2019a). For example, a study on the psychological adaptation of those affected by the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake of 1995 in Japan, shows that 16 years later, residents with at least one immediate family member who died in the earthquake reported lower life satisfaction, more negative effects and more health problems (Oishi et al., 2015). While it is well established that victims tend to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depressive symptoms, there are also stories of personal growth over time (Lowe et al., 2013). Strong evidence exists to suggest that life satisfaction and well-being decreases substantially in places closer to the disaster (Rehdanz et al., 2015). However, culture has a significant role to play in both recovery of individuals and communities (Palm, 1998) as well as future risk perceptions. Rehdanz et al. (2015) found that residents’ evaluation of their overall quality of life after the Fukushima disaster was marginally lower and they attributed this to the Buddhism and Daoism philosophical traditions, emphasizing the dialectical nature of things. East Asians, for example, display a high degree of equanimity in the face of negative emotions and events (Rehdanz et al., 2015). However, in a contrary study on the well-being of elderly survivors from the same disaster, Sugano (2016) suggested that psychological well-being and health of survivors changed little compared to pre-disaster levels arguing that the state of the Japanese economy is potentially a reason to explain why life satisfaction was not significantly affected by the earthquake.
At the destination level psychosocial issues during the Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand have been well documented (Becker et al., 2019). In a review of 31 papers on the psychological impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes on mental health, Beaglehole et al. (2019) found that the mental health of people was affected and strategies needed to be implemented to enable communities to respond to psychological distress. The Canterbury well-being survey which has been ongoing since the initial earthquake, specifically indicated that aftershocks were a major source of anxiety in the greater Christchurch population, with the worst anxiety levels occurring approximately 18 months after the initial mainshock (Morgan et al., 2015). In helping to facilitate community recovery, strategies included community access to free counselling, extended general practice consultations and health promoting initiatives (Beaglehole et al., 2019). The authors argue that these facilities and initiatives had the possible effect of lowering the adverse consequences of the earthquakes on mental health. In addition, social relationships have been found to be the strongest predictor of subjective well-being following disasters (Diener & Seligman, 2002). This issue is discussed in more depth below in relation to earthquakes and resilience.
The existence of prolonged aftershocks that result in communities going through periods of impact, response and recovery several times has not received significant attention in the emergency and disaster management literature (Becker et al., 2019), nor in terms of the effects on tourism (Mazzocchi & Montini, 2001; Mazzoni et al., 2018). As a result, many disaster management models, including those in tourism, tend to be relatively static. Another significant omission in these models is that issues of self-efficacy, empowerment, optimism, innovative thinking, selfesteem, agency, decision making and perceptions are often considered in isolation from business and physical impacts in terms of understanding how people cope with shock, disturbances and stressors (Brown & Westaway, 2011). Increasingly, emphasis needs to be placed in these models on the adaptation of individuals, organizations and communities to changed circumstances, and therefore the idea of bouncing back to a pre-earthquake reality, which is contested in the resilience literature as will be discussed later, should be viewed through a resilience thinking lens (Hall et al., 2016; Hall et al., 2018). These models often also ignore that some individuals and communities can have a ‘fresh start mindset’, which is the belief that people can make a new start, get a new beginning, and chart a new course in life, regardless of past or present circumstances (Price et al., 2018). This mindset is related to the ability of individuals to choose to reinvent themselves by initiating new goals and adopting new lifestyles to create different futures.
To this end, disaster management and recovery models, and the role of tourism within them, should explicitly account for psychosocial recovery and building resilience. Psychosocial recovery has linkages to the psychological resilience of community members and emotional attachment to places that contribute to psychosocial recovery and which is also very significant in the tourism literature as well, both in terms of residents of a destination as well as visitors (Amsden et al., 2010; Kamani-Fard et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2019). The positive psychology literature abounds with studies arguing that psychological resilience allows individuals to cope with adversity and positively adapt to a changed reality (Kimhi, 2016; Hall et al., 2018). A high level of community resilience enhances individual’s coping during stressful situations and is therefore instrumental in faster post-stress recovery (Sherrieb et al., 2010; Chowdhury et al., 2019). Indeed, as Hall et al. (2018: 155) concluded
A resilient community, organisation or destination requires strong interconnectivity. This is similar to individual resilience which is much dependent on formal and informal relationships (Biggs et al., 2012). Nevertheless, social capital requires skilful investment and management for accumulation for use in times of need (Reich, 2006). Therefore, the development of trust between actors and actor engagement and learning are important for resilience (Adger, 2000), especially because when actors trust one another there is an increased likelihood of working towards common goals and outside everyday silos (Hall, 2008). From a tourism perspective, this should not be regarded as a surprising observation; rather it should be standard tourism planning and business practice. Perhaps, as in many things, the focus needs to be not so much on finding new ways to do things but on making sure that the strategies that we know work and helping to ensure that tourism businesses, employees and destinations survive and grow: collaboration; providing a decent standard of living and quality of life for employees and managers; developing trust and talking between actors; and caring about customers, staff and the community.
Earthquakes and Impacts on the Tourism System
Earthquakes have profound effects on all parts of the tourism system. However, the literature examining how tourist destinations, businesses and individuals prepare for, cope, and adjust to disasters is limited (Khazai et al., 2018) and, arguably, that on tourist generating regions, transit regions and competitor destinations and attractions, as well as the tourists themselves, even more so. The focus of earthquake and tourism research tends to be at the destination level. In one sense this is not surprising given that the vulnerability of the tourism industry, at the destination scale, is substantially related to perceptions of safety, functioning infrastructure and visitor accessibility and mobility (Laws & Prideaux, 2005; Hall et al., 2018), all of which can be severely impacted by earthquakes. This perhaps explains the recent effort of many destinations to develop a disaster management plan for the tourism industry, which is vital so that negative impacts can be reduced and recovery time for individuals, communities and destinations improved. Nevertheless, it does not provide a system wide understanding of the effects of a large earthquake related disaster. Furthermore, even at the destination level, often the reaction to a disaster is the development of a disaster management plan rather than proactive decision making by tourism businesses and relevant government departments that incorporate disaster readiness into their daily operations and strategies (Orchiston, 2013; Tsai & Chen, 2010). In many cases, the regions affected by earthquakes, for example, are characterized by high disaster risk but lack sufficient resources for comprehensive public disaster relief work (Tsai & Chen, 2010; see Das & Chakrabarty, this volume).
No destination is immune to natural hazards, thereby requiring destination marketing and management organisations (DMOs) and the tourism industry to work collaboratively with local and central government to develop disaster plans and management strategies (Nguyen et al., 2018). Disasters have an impact on all aspects of the tourism system, including the generating region, transit routes and the destination region (Figure 1.1). However, the full system-wide affects are often not sufficiently appreciated, for example there is very little research of the impact of a disaster at a destination on the transit regions and stops that are connected to it. Nevertheless, as shown in several studies disasters can affect tourism demand (Mazzocchi & Montini, 2001; Huang & Min, 2002; Wang, 2009; Mendoza et al., 2012; Wu & Hayashi, 2014; Cró & Martin, 2017) through tourists’ negative perceptions of safety and security, as well as access to accommodation and transport. Often, both air traffic and maritime traffic have to be diverted from the destination if critical infrastructures such as airports and ports have been damaged, requiring travellers to find alternative transit routes (see Morpeth, this volume, for a discussion of the controversies surrounding diversion and tourist access in emergency situations). The impacts of disasters on the destination region is well documented in the literature. It is, therefore, not surprising that several management frameworks focused on disaster response in the context of tourism have been proposed (see Faulkner, 2001; Hystad & Keller, 2008; Ritchie, 2008). Disturbances in one part of the tourism system, e.g. the destination region, also has positive and negative cascading effects on other linked parts of the system (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; Hall, 2008). One destinations disadvantage may be advantageous to another as tourists seek to provide substitute holiday experiences. However, several barriers such as adopting disaster preparedness initiatives, including evacuation training, maintaining emergency supplies and communicating hazard risks to tourists have been identified that impede the tourism industry’s ability to respond effectively to the negative impacts of disasters (Nguyen et al., 2018; see also Subadra, this volume, and Das & Chakrabarty, this volume). Much of the existing tourism literature focuses on disaster planning and management with greater attention needed to understand the actual recovery process of destinations (Amore & Hall, 2016a, 2016b, 2017; Orchiston & Higham, 2016; Hall & Amore, 2019; see also Amore, this volume).
Figure 1.1 System dimensions of tourism in earthquake affected destinations (after Hall, 2005)
Blackman et al. (2017) argue that there are several effective means for achieving disaster resilience but these often fail on the basis of the purpose of long-term disaster recovery and actual implementation of systems and plans. The most difficult aspects of recovery are to assess the direct impacts of the earthquake, psychosocial wellbeing and perceptions of the recovery as well as the performance of recovery agencies (Bidwell, 2011). Destinations can experience a significant drop in both domestic and international visitor numbers and can lose lifeline infrastructures that stall recovery and reduce accommodation capacity. This can present a challenge to DMOs at both national and regional levels (Orchiston & Higham, 2016). Yet, these challenges are often compounded by governance structures that impede DMOs collaboration with other agencies in the recovery process as well as the overall nature of governance (Amore & Hall, 2016a, 2017). Although rebuilding infrastructure is not necessarily part of their mandate, DMOs can play a significant role in minimizing negative impacts, assisting in defining the roles and responsibilities of tourism stakeholders, and disaster planning and response (Nguyen et al., 2018). Pike (2004) argued that DMOs can contribute to disaster management through their capacity to establish effective media relations, communicate with tourists and visitors, support local businesses, enhance disaster risk awareness among tourism operators and outsource roles when needed (see also Pottorff & Neal, 1994; Drabek, 1999, 2000; Ritchie, 2008; Mair et al., 2016). They may also coordinate specific aspects of disaster management planning from a destination perspective although it is important that such activities are undertaken in conjunction with the responsible government agencies for disaster response (Orchiston, 2013).
Tourism infrastructure does not exist in a vacuum, rebuilding these often require broader considerations of leisure and recreation facilities for residents and consultation with stakeholders that are not necessarily part of the tourism system (Amore & Hall, 2016b). Examples from the Canterbury earthquakes show that two years after the February 2011 earthquake event, residents felt that many factors were still having major negative impacts on their everyday lives. These incudes such things as the inability to make decisions about house damage, repairs and location; being in a damaged environment; loss of recreational, cultural and leisure facilities; additional financial burdens; distress and anxiety associated with aftershocks; loss of usual access to the natural environment and outdoor recreation venues; loss of meeting places for community events; and a lack of opportunities to engage with others in the community through arts, cultural, sport or other leisure pursuits (Morgan et al., 2015; Hall et al., 2016). These issues have significant implications not only for residents quality of life but also affects the tourism industry in terms of, for example, the events venues, art centres and recreation and sport venues that will be rebuilt and for which taxpayers often provide a substantial amount of financial support (Hall & Amore, 2019).
Destination recovery should therefore ideally take more than just an economic perspective that focuses on the restoration of visitor numbers and growth to pre-disaster levels (Hall et al., 2018). There is also a social dimension whereby locals may still experience mental distress even after the tourism destination’s economy has recovered (Ritchie, 2009) and which may provide a base for resentment towards tourists and/or the development of tourism infrastructure especially while ‘local’ infrastructure and needs remain unmet. The local community perceptions and acceptance of tourists, and of tourism as a pathway for recovery, may therefore be considerably different after a disaster than it was before and therefore, community recovery cannot be isolated from the recovery of the tourism industry (Hall et al., 2018). Despite these vulnerabilities, the tourism industry can be reluctant to adopt mitigation strategies of a structural (e.g. investing in reconstruction and maintenance) and non-structural nature (e.g. early warning signs, communication, education and evacuation drills) due to financial reasons (Nguyen et al., 2018) or even a concern with worrying tourists as to the degree of risk. The industry may also not work collaboratively with other sectors and stakeholders to facilitate recovery. In effect, the tourism industry can end up engaging in rather costly, non-financially beneficial, approaches to rebuilding elements of the destination which do not minimize exposure to hazards and actually weakens disaster resiliency over the long term.
Demand-Side Perspectives
The literature on the impacts of disasters on tourists is heavily biased towards estimating tourism demand post-disaster or comparing pre- and post-disaster demand levels. There is a general agreement in this literature that after a disaster, tourism numbers generally decline (Khazai et al., 2018), with the impacts of earthquakes on tourism numbers examined by several studies (Cró & Martins, 2017; Huang & Min, 2002; Mazzocchi & Montini, 2001). For example, Mazzocchi and Montini (2001) found that the average stay in Umbria, following the central Italy earthquake of September 1997, was increasing due to media reporters and technicians that were covering the disaster staying longer rather than tourists. Examining the impacts of the September 1999 earthquake in Taiwan on the tourism industry, Huang and Min (2002) found that the recovery period exceeded 11 months, with restricted growth in inbound tourist arrivals. In the case of Japan, the impact caused by earthquakes was found to be temporary in nature (Wu & Hayashi, 2014). In the weeks following the Nepal earthquake in April 2015, many tourists were evacuated or departed and forward bookings plummeted (Beirman et al., 2018). Cró and Martins (2017) found no structural breaks in international tourist arrivals for New Zealand. They conclude that this may be due to the earthquake damage being localized in Christchurch. The results of this study were based on national level aggregated data and therefore do not necessarily portray the impacts of the earthquake on the local economy. Prayag et al. (2019a) analysed the impact of the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes on domestic and international tourism expenditure for Christchurch. They found that the impacts on international tourism was absorbed quicker than that for domestic tourism. They also showed stability in both visitor expenditure and exchange rates post-quake for the international tourism market. This stability can be attributed partly to the response of the tourism industry. As Tucker et al. (2017) noted, the marketing and promotion activities of the city, for example, have had an emphasis on rebirth and renewal as opposed to devastation. Altogether, research shows that crises and disasters obviously have some effects on tourism demand but the magnitude of such effects is inconsistent across disasters, locations and time. However, of key importance in understanding the effects of earthquakes on tourist demand is to recognize that media coverage and the framing of earthquake impact at a destination is of much more direct importance to influencing demand than the actual physical impact. Therefore, the development of effective communication strategies by DMOs is of central importance to effectively managing visitor demand following an earthquake (Hall, 2014; Orchiston & Higham, 2016)
Some studies have examined the growth of so-called ‘dark tourism’ as a segment following a disaster (see Wright, this volume). Studying visitors’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviours at earthquake related sites has received some attention in the literature. For example, Yan et al. (2016) examine the motivation and emotional reactions of visitors to Sichuan, China, following the Weichuan earthquake. They found that curiosity, leisure related motivations and learning were strong drivers to visit the Weichuan earthquake relics. Hall (2012) criticized the use of the notion of dark tourism in the context of the Christchurch earthquakes as he found that the majority of the domestic tourists he interviewed after the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes were motivated by wanting to better understand the effect of the earthquakes on heritage and on the city as a whole, with the desire to visit substantially influenced by their sense of place and their connection as VFR travellers. An understanding of post-disaster tourist behaviour is increasingly important for future disaster response and planning as tourists are often a key stakeholder affected. Beyond understanding new segments such as dark tourism, an understanding of how specific segments react both psychologically and behaviourally would allow the development and design of strategic marketing communications to mitigate apprehension caused by misperceptions and confusion surrounding the extent of the disaster and its associated risks. This would also facilitate the development and design of strategic marketing communications (Wu & Walters, 2016).
Another emerging segment following a disaster is that of volunteer tourism. For example, in the case of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake in Japan, Fukui and Ohe (2019) reported a massive influx of volunteer tourists from other prefectures in Japan and internationally but this had fallen substantially six months after the disaster. There is increasing recognition that volunteer tourists can make meaningful contributions to the recovery of communities provided that their activities are appropriately managed. For example, volunteer tourists played a central role in Nepal’s tourism recovery following the April 2015 earthquake (Beirman et al., 2018; Wearing et al., 2020). However, the timing of such arrivals on the context of recovery is a significant issue. Another segment that has been highlighted of interest is that of accessible tourism following a disaster. The travel mobility of earthquake survivors as well as making a destination accessible to visitors with disability should be considered as part of the recovery. However, there are limited studies examining the needs of such segments. The study by Tao et al. (2019) on the Sichuan earthquake found that survivors would limit their involvement in travel opportunities to avoid public scrutiny. Negative experiences related to perceived unfriendly attitudes of facility staff and displeasure at being stared at by others are common barriers that impact earthquake survivors travel.
The experience of the 2004 earthquake and Indian Ocean tsunami highlights the gap in hazard risk perception between tourists and the local community. Interviews with British tourists visiting locations affected by the disaster revealed that many of them did not evacuate after the initial tremors (Kelman et al., 2008). More disturbing is the fact that nearly half of the fatalities in Khao Lak, Thailand consisted of tourists who had low awareness of local hazard risks and evacuation strategies. This situation highlights the role and responsibilities of tourism and government stakeholders in ensuring tourist safety and security as well as that of local people (Nguyen et al., 2018; see also Subadra, this volume). Many foreign victims of the Asian tsunami had come from low-seismicity countries, where hardly any earthquake induced damage had been documented throughout their written history (Thoresen et al., 2009). Tourist studies should, therefore, focus on understanding the general orientation of tourists toward disaster related risks, awareness of disaster risks and their perceptions of the effectiveness of different emergency response mechanisms, as well as the willingness of local tourism stakeholders to communicate risk and the manner in which hazard risks and evacuation strategies are best conveyed to visitors. Among such issues is the need to present disaster information for tourists in multiple languages (Nguyen et al., 2018).
Supply-Side Perspectives
Much of the research on the impact of disasters in the tourism industry is supply-side oriented (Ritchie, 2008; Wu & Walters, 2016). Many tourism operators are small and micro-enterprises that often lack the resources and capabilities to rebound quickly following a disaster (Mair et al., 2016). They rely on collaborative approaches between national and local government, DMOs and other stakeholders to manage recovery marketing. A key part of managing recovery of tourism destinations is restoring the image and reputation of the place (Khazai et al., 2018). Marketing and promotions are key to assisting a tourist destination to recover after a disaster (Hystad & Keller, 2008). Post-disaster marketing should be aimed at correcting misperceptions and providing information about the recovery phase as well as balancing demand with the capacity to host tourists during a rebuild (Hall, 2014). It is also an opportunity for the destination to correct negative media coverage, if any, about the scale of the disaster, the extent of the damage or the size of the area affected (Mair et al., 2016), as well as the nature of community responses (Carter & Kenney, 2018). The issue of inaccurate media coverage and its effects on destinations and businesses following a crisis has been highlighted in previous studies (Sonmez et al., 1999). For example, initial international reporting of the Kaikoura earthquake in 2016 suggested that the quake had hit north-east of Christchurch, which immediately resonated with the public as another earthquake in Christchurch, although it was Kaikoura that was substantially affected as a destination (Fountain & Cradock-Henry, 2019; see also Fang et al., this volume). The further the generating market is from the affected destination, the more vulnerable it seems to be to sensationalized and inaccurate media coverage, which is often the root cause of negative perceptions about a destination (Hall, 2010; Walters & Clulow, 2010).
The timing of recovery marketing efforts should be a collective one, across local, regional and national tourism stakeholders. More importantly questions about the appropriateness, ethics, timing and effectiveness of different recovery phase marketing strategies need to be addressed (Orchiston & Higham, 2016). As an example, Tourism New Zealand (TNZ), the central government agency for marketing New Zealand internationally as a tourist destination, removed images of Christchurch from all international marketing material after the 2011
February earthquake. In parallel, existing advertising from news websites were removed and key word searches associated with the Canterbury earthquakes were purchased to deflect web browsers from negative imagery and to promote positive searches for New Zealand. For many countries, media monitoring is an essential part of disaster management planning for tourism, allowing destinations to counteract any negative publicity, thereby limiting damage to destination image and reputation (Huang et al., 2008). In addition, all internet traffic to the nz.com website was directed to the corporate website so that all communication related to the earthquake could be separated from tourism promotion of New Zealand. Both TNZ and Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism (CCT) agreed that a period of demarketing was necessary (Orchiston & Higham, 2016). From September 2011 onwards, several campaigns such as the ‘South Island Road Trips’ and ‘Christchurch Reimagined’ followed as part of recovery marketing efforts (Orchiston & Higham, 2016). Disseminating positive new stories can also be very effective at offsetting negative destination publicity caused by mass media reporting (Chacko & Marcell, 2008), while select use of social media has also become increasingly important with respect to post-disaster destination image management.
The lack of research with respect to the communication strategies used by stakeholders in times of crisis and disasters has become increasingly recognized (Mair et al., 2016; Seyfi & Hall, 2020). Studies tend to examine the role of post-disaster recovery marketing messages in the form of information provision to tourists and recovery slogans.
‘Open for business’ is, for example, a common theme for post-disaster recovery marketing messages (Prideaux et al., 2008). ‘Nepal Back on the Top of the World’ was used as a recovery slogan to symbolize repositioning of Nepal from victimhood to restoration (Beirman et al., 2018). The DMO also employed celebrity visits to give prominence and visibility to the campaign. Accessible tourism enterprises were provided opportunities for them to create their own narratives and to include them in the broader media and marketing approach towards stimulating tourism recovery (Beirman et al., 2018). The role of Twitter and other social media in promoting resilience (Veer et al., 2016) and destination recovery has also been given increased attention (Fukui & Ohe, 2019), with evidence suggesting that social media can help with recovery but that it can also potentially fuel negative perceptions about the destination.
Risk communication is not only aimed at tourists but should also take into account the communication needs of residents. Strategies should be adapted to fit into the disaster recovery process to accommodate the changing and evolving challenges of residents (e.g. relocation and progressive damage) (Deng et al., 2017; Subedi et al., 2018; Becker et al., 2019). For example, anxiety caused by the aftershocks following the February 2011 Canterbury earthquakes had implications for people’s interpretation and sense-making of earthquake information. The ability of people to understand what was happening in the city diminished because of stress and anxiety (Veer et al., 2016; Becker et al., 2019), and therefore, the effectiveness of messaging from disaster management authorities began to be questioned. Becker et al. (2019) provide several recommendations about post-earthquake risk communication including the need to have a clear communication strategy prior to an earthquake, allowing for flexibility in communication and providing training and education about aftershocks to both tourists and residents. There is a therefore clear need for better matching of information needs to different audiences/market segments following a disaster, with Becker et al. (2019) highlighting the need to inject empathy in aftershock communication and to ensure inter-agency coordination around communication, among others.
While understanding the behaviour of new segments such as dark tourism is important, there are also issues surrounding whether such segments should be actively promoted (see Wright, this volume). Disaster tourism is a distinctive form of dark tourism in that the local community often becomes the focus of the disaster tourist gaze (Wright & Sharpley, 2018). Often disaster tourism sites develop without the destination deliberately embarking on the development of such sites. Unlike the (re)construction of commemorative sites that can become a new tourism resource that can generate revenue or improve the attractiveness of the destination, for example interpretation of post-earthquake heritage conservation, dark tourism is a double-edged sword for destinations. On the one hand, it can attract a significant number of tourists. On the other, it can become a source of conflict between the tourism industry and residents. The negative narratives of loss associated with dark tourism can cause residents to reject support for the development of such sites but may also prevent psychosocial recovery. It has been argued that the narratives around such sites must be transformed into positive accounts of communal renewal and hope. For example, Lin et al. (2018) coined the term ‘blue tourism’ as a community led approach to postdisaster tourism development. Blue tourism is described as a form of resilience which builds around local place-based practices and traditional community knowledge. This approach, rather than dark tourism, is supposedly capable of achieving sustainable disaster recovery and tourist satisfaction simultaneously and potentially offers a more nuanced understanding of the role of community-based tourism initiatives in enhancing resilience and pursuing a more sustainable form of tourism in post-disaster areas.
Post-disaster recovery very often is focused on removing the tangible evidence and rebuilding of damaged objects, which is understandable and expected from the perspective of affected communities (Migon & Pijet-Migon 2019). The end result can be the gradual disappearance of the event from human memory. Examining selected Italian disasters, Coratza and De Waele (2012) underlined the importance of such sites for earthquake and geological education. Leaving some of the evidence of disasters may have positive effects for learning, understanding, and adding to the recovery of affected communities and can also serve the geo-tourism segment (Migon & Pijet-Migon, 2019). However, Migon and Pijet-Migon (2019) argue that sites focused on the disrupted lives of communities while honouring victims contribute very little to improving understanding of vulnerability and risk. Instead, they propose that the development of thematic trails around the disaster location showcasing various aspects of the disaster linked with source/cause/effect and the topographic context can potentially be a better way to keep the event from disappearing from the collective human memory.
Earthquakes and Resilience
The growth in the human impact of disasters has strengthened a focus in research and policy in understanding preparedness and response to hazard events (Thompson et al., 2017). These are often framed in terms of such notions as a disaster response or planning cycle with each stage informing the next such as that of preparedness, response, recovery, planning post-event (Gurwitch et al., 2004) or rebuilding, redeveloping and renewal to support effective recovery (Blakely, 2012) or the adoption of the four stage approach of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery (Hernantes et al., 2013). There is often an implicit assumption in these frameworks that once the community goes back to their normal lives or plans have been put in place to mitigate the effects of future similar disasters, then the process ends (Muskat et al., 2015). It is also implied that a community or destination will move from one part of the cycle to the next in a linear fashion and is almost automatic (Muskat et al., 2015). Yet, as evidenced by disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, the Christchurch and Nepal earthquake and nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, systems, cycles, and plans can fail and there is a need to build adaptive capacity and resilience (Hall et al., 2018).
Resilience has been conceptualized as the capacity for communities and their members, including businesses and societal institutions to respond to crises and disasters (Paton, 2008). The resilience literature is grounded in an understanding of the dynamics of change, complexity, the potential role of transitions and the possibility of crises providing windows of opportunity (Brown & Westaway, 2011; Hall et al., 2018; Amore et al., 2018). These are some of the underlying premises of social-ecological systems. Adaptive capacity, resilience and vulnerability are related and entwined in different ways (Engle, 2011). Resilience is commonly explained through an adaptive cycle. This cycle does not converge to a state of equilibrium but rather moves through states of growth, conservation, collapse and re-organization (Holling & Gunderson, 2002). This enables a system to harness transformative or adaptive capabilities to address change and maintain a cyclical process (Bec et al., 2016).
Resilience frameworks in tourism have generally been adapted from those in other disciplines (Cochrane, 2010). Irrespective of the frameworks, it is clear that pro-active tourism policymaking, planning and implementation of disaster risk reduction are likely to enhance the sector’s ability to recover from crises and disasters (Khazai et al., 2018). Understanding the vulnerability of a destination is the starting point for resilience building activities. Examples of destination vulnerability include limited disaster preparedness, access to resources, being ecologically sensitive and hazard prone and suffering from institutional inflexibility, among others (Calgaro et al., 2014). Amore et al. (2018) use a multilevel perspective to argue that destination planning frameworks, and hence destination resilience building, should encompass ecological, socioecological, sociopolitical, socioeconomic and sociotechnological dimensions that reflect the embeddedness of resilience among heterogeneous and potentially complementary destination stakeholders. They highlight that a resilience approach to destination planning offers destinations not only the possibility of coping with sudden changes such as disasters but also incremental changes, which is part of a business as usual approach. For example, participatory approaches in crafting a disaster management plan where stakeholders beyond the tourism industry understand and are willing to share resources, knowledge and information, can lead to quicker response following a disaster. Also, efforts to build organizational and community resilience can contribute to destination resilience and vice versa (Hall et al., 2018). As Cutter et al. (2013) suggest, disaster resilience is very much linked to collaborative engagement across organizations. Recovery, in particular, requires multi-agency partnerships and collaboration. Therefore, participatory approaches improve the chance that a disaster management plan has stakeholder buy in, which improves the likelihood of the plan working following a disaster. Several studies have highlighted how organizations can become limited within their silos or lack networked communication practices for sharing best practice (Seville, 2018), which impede not only emergency services as first responders after a disaster but also the tourism industry to initiate, for example, the evacuation of tourists (see Subadra, this volume).
In a resilient socioecological system, disturbance has the potential to create new opportunity for innovation and development (Folke, 2006). Appreciating the dynamic and cross-scale interplay between abrupt change and sources of resilience makes it apparent that the resilience of complex adaptive systems is not simply about resistance to change and conservation of existing structures. It is also about the opportunities that disturbance opens up in terms of the recombination of evolved structures and processes, system renewal and the emergence of new trajectories (Folke, 2006). It is not about returning to normality but about positively adapting to a changed reality. For example, the local economy in Kaikoura, following the 2016 earthquake was revitalized and regional resilience enhanced through diversification, capitalizing on the region’s natural, social and cultural capital (Cradock-Henry et al., 2018). In the case of Kaikoura, food security emerged as an important concern for the community post-quake. This led to greater levels of self-organization, in which individuals, households, businesses and rural and urban communities, harnessed local opportunities and connectivity to become food self-reliant (Cradock-Henry et al., 2018). This is an example of building community resilience by capitalizing on the new opportunities presented by the disaster and this is why the concept of resilience incorporates the ideas of adaptation, learning and self-organization in addition to the general ability to persist post-disturbance (Folke, 2006).
Calgaro et al. (2014) claim that a lack of understanding of the factors that build and affect destination resilience and vulnerability lead to an inability to effectively build community resilience. Similarly, Pizzo (2015) warns that the notion of resilience is becoming a buzzword and argues that after an unexpected event, not all communities have to be resilient nor should they be resilient to every unexpected event, nor should they be resilient in the same way as a previous similar event. Therefore, communities are not always looking for a new equilibrium, nor are they looking simply to bounce back to their pre-disaster state, especially if the state was less than desirable to begin with (Cowell, 2013). Community – and, hence, destination – resilience is, thus, not the sum of individuals and organizations being resilient (Cutter et al., 2014; Pizzo, 2015). Although these can help to build community and destination resilience (Prayag, 2018), the role of place or neighbourhood in developing social networks for a community’s disaster preparedness, response and resilience appears critical (Cox & Perry, 2011; Biggs et al., 2012, 2015; Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Masterson et al., 2017). The sense of connectedness to the new changed reality is important not only for individuals but also for the community as a whole. Hence, the importance of place attachment for disaster recovery has become increasingly emphasized (Guo et al., 2018). As an example, owneroperators of lifestyle tourism enterprises can develop emotional attachment to their businesses and the associated sense of place, making them more reluctant to abandon the business and the location in difficult times, thus strengthening their resilience in the face of disasters (Biggs et al., 2015).
Related to the above, the literature clearly pinpoints to social capital as an enabler of organizational and community resilience (Biggs et al., 2012, 2015; Hall et al., 2018; Chowdhury et al., 2019). Aldrich (2012) after an extensive review of disaster recovery related to, for example, the Kobe 1995 earthquakes, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and 2005 Hurricane Katrina argued that social capital serves as a core engine of disaster recovery. Social capital is the goodwill engendered by the fabric of social relations that can be mobilized to facilitate action (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Different forms of social capital such as bonding, bridging and linking emerge in the different disaster relief, rehabilitation and recovery phases and play different roles towards overall long term recovery (Blackman et al., 2017). Kinship networks encourage cohesion, connectedness, reassurance and stability in times of need. They also facilitate access to financial capital and power networks (Calgaro et al., 2014). Social sources of resilience such as social capital, which is grounded in trust and social networks and social memory (the experience of dealing with change) are essential for the capacity of socioecological systems to adapt and shape change (Folke et al., 2005). Disaster relief work should, therefore, provide instrumental, informational and emotional support to community members through facilitating them to seek out others and establish bonds with people they know and even strangers. This is the fundamental premise of social relationships postdisaster (Reich, 2006), and, hence the building of social capital. A resilient community or destination is an inter-connected community (Allenby & Fink, 2005). Opportunities to build capacity and capability though the acquisition of new skills, and knowledge sharing would therefore enhance community resilience (Cradock-Henry et al., 2018).
A resilient tourism organization adjusts its operations, management and marketing strategies to sustain under dramatically changing conditions (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015). In the case of the Canterbury earthquakes, Chowdhury et al. (2019) showed that different forms of social capital such as structural, relational and cognitive capital are important but only relational capital had a significant influence on adaptive resilience of tourism organizations. The importance of social capital can also be seen in its direct impact on the financial performance of tourism organizations (Prayag et al., 2018). Both social capital and resilience require trust from actors. If actors trust each other they are more likely to collaborate beyond the restrictions of hierarchical organizations and daily routines (Rogers et al., 2016). The ‘silo effect’ of inter and intra-organizations often negatively impacts their ability to effectively respond to disasters. The ability to find alternative resources is critical to the resilience of tourism organizations (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015) and communities. Organizational resilience has been described as the inherent characteristics of organizations that are able to respond more quickly, recover faster or develop more unusual ways of doing business under duress compared to others (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Therefore, tourism organizations need resources to bounce back but often these reside outside the boundaries of the community and require actors’ trust of each other and the political processes to share such resources. For business recovery following the Canterbury earthquakes, several national government led initiatives were put in place to support all businesses, including tourism. For example, the earthquake subsidy scheme was introduced by the government, available immediately after the February 2011 earthquake, vouchers were provided to help build capability in earthquake affected businesses, business mentors were appointed to help them to bounce back, and Red Cross grants were available to help businesses to access legal, financial and engineering advice (EQ Recovery Learning, 2016).
Resilience takes place at multiple levels, individual, organizational and community, but few studies explore how the different levels interact (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003; Linnenluecke, 2017). In the context of the Canterbury earthquakes, Prayag et al. (2019b) showed that in small and medium tourism enterprises, the psychological resilience of owners and managers have an influence on employee resilience, which in turn positively impacts organizational resilience. They highlight that life satisfaction has a role to play post-disaster in building organizational resilience. This aligns with previous studies suggesting that a lack of resilience at one level can undermine resilience at other levels (Hall et al., 2018; Pizzo, 2015). Although research and policy highlight the need to understand human factors in determining adaptive capacity, these are seldom integrated in current disaster models and frameworks (Amore et al., 2018). Individual, family and community characteristics that build resilience, as part of the so-called healthy functioning adaptive systems that support them, are often reduced to minor factors affecting the recovery strategies of communities (Brown & Westaway, 2011). Nevertheless, a significant body of research exists around the resilience of individuals and the role of psychological capital in facilitating recovery from disasters but these have not been integrated adequately in current disaster management models. After disasters people need to believe that they have the personal resources to achieve goals such as rebuilding their homes and businesses, getting jobs and starting their lives again. The psychological key to rebounding is the effort to regain personal control. Disaster planning for tourism, should therefore provide pathways for allowing community members, including business owners or managers and employees to re-establish personal control (Reich, 2006) and facilitate the process of building psychological resilience. Luthans et al. (2006), for example, suggest that the resilience of employees can be developed through organizational interventions, for instance, by asking employees to identify personal setbacks within their work domain, to assess the realistic impact of their setback and to identify options for taking action. Resilience in this context is seen as a contributing factor towards employee psychological capital (Linnenluecke, 2017). However, there is an urgent need for studies examining psychological capital in tourism organizations and communities dependent on tourism (Hall et al., 2018; Prayag, 2018).
Resilience and sustainability
Resilience is usually used in the context of coping with change and responding to specific shocks and this relates to short-term survival and recovery (Rose, 2011). Sustainability revolves around long-term survival and improving the quality of life and the environment. In the tourism literature, there is considerable emphasis on resilience to immediate challenges but there is also merit in conceptualizing resilience as a dynamic long-term state, highlighting the obvious parallels with the concept of sustainability (Espiner et al., 2017). Both resilience and sustainability have been described as highly abstract and multifaceted concepts, each with a variety of definitions and interpretations (Derissen et al., 2011; Hall et al., 2018). Resilience is often viewed in normative terms as a need or commitment to become more resilient, similar to the concept of sustainability (Hall et al., 2018). Derissen et al. (2011) proposed four different potential relationships between the two concepts: resilience of a system is necessary but insufficient for sustainability, resilience of a system is sufficient but not necessary for sustainability, resilience of the system is neither necessary nor sufficient for sustainability and resilience of a system is both necessary and sufficient for sustainability. However, the capacity for organizations and destinations to be agile and adaptive in responding to rapid, unexpected change is one clear point of difference between the concepts of resilience and sustainability (Espiner et al., 2017).
Espiner et al. (2017) argue that systems can be resilient without being sustainable, while if a system is sustainable, it is implicitly assumed that it is resilient to change. Destinations cannot be sustainable if they are also not resilient (Espiner et al., 2017). This is particularly the case when destinations are hit by disasters. The initial focus is usually on rebuilding the ‘hard’ infrastructure such as roads, sewage and airports to enable locals to have access to amenities and social infrastructure. However, consideration must also be given to the long-term needs of the community and its ability to cope with other sudden as well as incremental change. Yet, consideration of social infrastructure related to health and wellbeing is often secondary, while the tourism industry often even fails to provide a living wage in many situations, with both of these factors (among others) having significant implications for both community and destination resilience and sustainability (Pizzo, 2015; Lew et al., 2016; Hall et al., 2018).
Different disasters require different spatial and time frames for policies and action (Pizzo, 2015). Though the two are not mutually exclusive, resilience studies in tourism seem to almost suggest that the same resilience building approach can be applied to every type of disaster. Also, resilience thinking often lacks depth in analysing the social dimension, including the political economy of resource and power distribution, and the consequences of uneven patterns of resource use over space and time (Miller et al., 2010). For example, although social capital is described as a positive resource that allows individuals and communities to cope and bounce back, social relationships and networks can also foster social exclusion in the rebuilding process, manifested through dominant power structures and historically embedded cultural norms. The dark side of social capital must be acknowledged. This was evident across the 2004 tsunami affected destinations in Thailand (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008). In addition, many adaptive management strategies fail to be successfully implemented or bring about transformative changes due to existing governance structures (Folke et al., 2010). What appears to be a resilient structure can hold power structures, inequities and exclusion in a place that can create rigidity traps (Folke et al., 2010) and lead to substantial questions about the validity of any earthquake disaster responses.
Framework for the Book
As noted in the above discussion, the understanding of disasters can be framed in terms of planning or policy cycles and the response to hazard events (Hall, 2002, 2010; Gurwitch et al., 2004; Blakely, 2012; Hernantes et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2017). This approach has been used to position the chapters in the present volume in terms of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, with the latter stage including aspects of rebuilding, redeveloping and renewal, as well as post-event planning which brings the process full circle but aiming to mitigate future events (Table 1.2). However, it should be noted that many aspects of these stages are not discrete and key concepts, such as social capital, communication and trust in institutions, run across all stages. Chapter 2 by Martini and Platania looks at how resilience and preparedness of tourism operators in Mount Etna is shaped by the experience of previous earthquake events, perception of risk and institutional trust and social capital. Some similar themes are picked up in Chapter 3 by Das and Chakrabarty in their discussion of communication systems and earthquake preparedness for the tourism sector in Nepal. Subadra (Chapter 4) examines the mitigation of earthquake and tsunami risk in coastal Bali and reinforces the importance of effective communication of risk and appropriate response to tourists.
Table 1.2 Major focus of chapters in relation to stages of disaster management cycle
Chapters 5 to 7 are primarily focused on the response to earthquakes. Chapter 5 by Amore examines the expectations and disillusionment of tourism-relevant stakeholders in Christchurch following the 2010–2011 earthquake sequence and how this affects the trajectory of postearthquake recovery. Chapter 6 by Morpeth discusses response in a more compressed time frame in discussing the implications of the role of tourism in the immediate aftermath of the 2010 Earthquake in Haiti. In Chapter 7 Hashimoto and Telfer provide a more extended coverage of tourism industry post-disaster response, in their overview of how tourism businesses assisted evacuees after the 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes in Japan. The three chapters taken together are also interesting because of the different perspectives they provide of the role that tourism can play in the aftermath of earthquake related disasters.
Chapters 8 to 10 move from the response stage to more of a focus on recovery. Chapter 8 by Mardiah et al. examines the contribution of handicraft shopping tourism to economic recovery after the 2006 Jogjakarta Earthquake, with particular focus on the nature of government and institutional interventions, the development of a recovery network, and ongoing issues of risk perceptions. Chapter 9 by Fang et al. looks at the interrelationships between recovery and resilience and their interplay at individual, organizational and destination scales with respect to tourism entrepreneurs in Kaikōura, New Zealand, following the November 2016 earthquakes. Finally, Chapter 10 by Wright looks at the controversial issue of post-earthquake ‘dark’ and ‘ghost’ in L’Aquila, Italy. The three chapters collectively highlight the complexity of the tourism system’s response to earthquake disasters and the difficult relationships that may develop between tourism and non-tourism recovery goals. The final chapter by Prayag and Hall (Chapter 11) reinforce the major themes of the book and highlight some of the significant research gaps that exist in research on tourism and earthquakes.
Earthquakes and tsunamis undoubtedly have a major impact on communities and destinations and those that experience them and perceptions of risk and place. One of the great weaknesses of much tourism research on the effects of earthquakes is that it only examines a particular moment of the earthquake disaster, response and recovery cycle. Comprehensive long-term overviews are limited or are still being put into place. However, the present assembly of chapters hopefully at least provide some indication of the ongoing response of tourism, tourists and communities to the challenges that earthquakes pose in at-risk destinations and the social, economic and environmental benefits that improved planning and preparedness may bring.
References
Adger, W.N. (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related?. Progress in Human Geography 24 (3), 347–364.
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.W. (2002) Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review 27 (1), 17–40.
Aldrich, D.P. (2012) Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post Disaster Recovery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Aldrich, D.P. and Meyer, M.A. (2015) Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist 59 (2), 254–269.
Allenby, B. and Fink, J. (2005) Toward inherently secure and resilient societies. Science 309 (5737), 1034–1036.
Amini Hosseini, K., Hosseinioon, S. and Pooyan, Z. (2013) An investigation into the socioeconomic aspects of two major earthquakes in Iran. Disasters 37 (3), 516–535.
Amore, A. and Hall, C.M. (2016a) From governance to meta-governance in tourism? Re-incorporating politics, interests and values in the analysis of tourism governance. Tourism Recreation Research 41 (2), 109–122.
Amore, A. and Hall, C.M. (2016b) ‘Regeneration is the focus now’: Anchor projects and delivering a new CBD for Christchurch. In C.M. Hall, S. Malinen, R. Vosslamber and R. Wordsworth (eds) Business and Post-disaster Management: Business, Organisational and Consumer Resilience and the Christchurch Earthquakes (pp. 181–199). Abingdon: Routledge.
Amore, A. and Hall, C.M. (2017) National and urban public policy in tourism. Towards the emergence of a hyperneoliberal script? International Journal of Tourism Policy 7 (1), 4–22.
Amore, A., Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. (2017) They never said ‘Come here and let’s talk about it’: Exclusion and non-decision-making in the rebuild of Christchurch, New Zealand. Local Economy 32 (7), 617–639.
Amore, A., Prayag, G. and Hall, C.M. (2018) Conceptualizing destination resilience from a multilevel perspective. Tourism Review International 22 (3–4), 235–250.
Amsden, B.L., Stedman, R.C. and Kruger, L.E. (2010) The creation and maintenance of sense of place in a tourism-dependent community. Leisure Sciences 33 (1), 32–51.
Beaglehole, B., Mulder, R.T., Boden, J.M. and Bell, C.J. (2019) A systematic review of the psychological impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes on mental health. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 43 (3), 274–280.
Bec, A., McLennan, C.L. and Moyle, B.D. (2016) Community resilience to long-term tourism decline and rejuvenation: A literature review and conceptual model. Current Issues in Tourism 19 (5), 431–457.
Becker, J.S., Potter, S.H., McBride, S.K., Wein, A., Doyle, E.E.H. and Paton, D. (2019) When the earth doesn’t stop shaking: How experiences over time influenced information needs, communication, and interpretation of aftershock information during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, New Zealand. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 34, 397–411.
Beirman, D., Upadhayaya, P.K., Pradhananga, P. and Darcy, S. (2018) Nepal tourism in the aftermath of the April/May 2015 earthquake and aftershocks: Repercussions, recovery and the rise of new tourism sectors. Tourism Recreation Research 43 (4), 544–554.
Bidwell, S. (2011) Designing Indicators for Measuring Recovery From Disasters. Christchurch, New Zealand: Canterbury District Health Board.
Biggs, D., Hall, C.M. and Stoeckl, N. (2012) The resilience of formal and informal tourism enterprises to disasters: Reef tourism in Phuket, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20 (5), 645–665.
Biggs, D., Hicks, C.C., Cinner, J.E. and Hall, C.M. (2015) Marine tourism in the face of global change: The resilience of enterprises to crises in Thailand and Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management 105, 65–74.
Blackman, D., Nakanishi, H. and Benson, A.M. (2017) Disaster resilience as a complex problem: Why linearity is not applicable for long-term recovery. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 121, 89–98.
Blakely, E.J. (2012) My Storm: Managing the Recovery of New Orleans in the Wake of Katrina. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bonati, S. (2015) Multiscalar narratives of a disaster: From media amplification to Western participation in Asian tsunamis. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research 7 (3), 496–511.
Brown, C., Stevenson, J., Giovinazzi, S., Seville, E. and Vargo, J. (2015) Factors influencing impacts on and recovery trends of organisations: Evidence from the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14, 56–72. Brown, K. and Westaway, E. (2011) Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental change: Lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 36, 321–342.
Calgaro, E. and Lloyd, K. (2008) Sun, sea, sand and tsunami: Examining disaster vulnerability in the tourism community of Khao Lak, Thailand. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 29 (3), 288–306.
Calgaro, E., Lloyd, K. and Dominey-Howes, D. (2014) From vulnerability to transformation: A framework for assessing the vulnerability and resilience of tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22 (3), 341–360.
Carter, L.H. and Kenney, C.M. (2018) A tale of two communities: B-race-ing disaster responses in the media following the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 28, 731–738.
Chacko, H.E. and Marcell, M.H. (2008) Repositioning a tourism destination: The case of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 23 (2–4), 223–235.
Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G., Orchiston, C. and Spector, S. (2019) Post-disaster social capital, adaptive resilience and business performance of tourism organizations in Christchurch, New Zealand. Journal of Travel Research 58 (7), 1209–1226.
Cochrane, J. (2010) The sphere of tourism resilience. Tourism Recreation Research 35 (2), 173–185.
Coratza, P. and De Waele, J. (2012) Geomorphosites and natural hazards: Teaching the importance of geomorphology in society. Geoheritage 4 (3), 195–203.
Corey, C.M. and Deitch, E.A. (2011) Factors affecting business recovery immediately after Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 19 (3), 169–181.
Cowell, M.M. (2013) Bounce back or move on: Regional resilience and economic development planning. Cities 30, 212–222.
Cox, R.S. and Perry, K.M.E. (2011) Like a fish out of water: Reconsidering disaster recovery and the role of place and social capital in community disaster resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology 48 (3–4), 395–411.
Cradock-Henry, N., Fountain, J. and Buelow, F. (2018) Transformations for resilient rural futures: The case of Kaikōura, Aotearoa-New Zealand. Sustainability 10 (6), 1952.
Cró, S. and Martins, A.M. (2017) Structural breaks in international tourism demand: Are they caused by crises or disasters? Tourism Management 63, 3–9.
Cui, K., Han, Z. and Wang, D. (2018) Resilience of an earthquake-stricken rural community in southwest China: Correlation with disaster risk reduction efforts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15 (3), 407.
Cutter, S.L., Ash, K.D. and Emrich, C.T. (2014) The geographies of community disaster resilience. Global Environmental Change 29, 65–77.
Cutter, S.L., Ahearn, J.A., Amadei, B., Crawford, P., Eide, E.A., Galloway, G.E. and Scrimshaw, S.C. (2013) Disaster resilience: A national imperative. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 55 (2), 25–29.
Dahles, H. and Susilowati, T.P. (2015) Business resilience in times of growth and crisis. Annals of Tourism Research 51, 34–50.
Daniell, J.E., Khazai, B., Wenzel, F. and Vervaeck, A. (2011) The CATDAT damaging earthquakes database. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 11, 2235–2251.
Deng, Y., Su, G., Gao, N. and Sun, L. (2017) Investigation and analysis of the importance awareness of the factors affecting the earthquake emergency and rescue in different areas: A case study of Yunnan and Jiangsu Provinces. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25, 163–172.
Derissen, S., Quaas, M.F. and Baumgärtner, S. (2011) The relationship between resilience and sustainability of ecological-economic systems. Ecological Economics 70 (6), 1121–1128. Diener, E. and Seligman, M.E. (2002) Very happy people. Psychological Science 13 (1), 81–84.
Drabek, T.E. (1999) Disaster evacuation responses by tourists and other types of transients. International Journal of Public Administration 22 (5), 655–677.
Drabek, T.E. (2000) Disaster evacuations: tourist-business managers rarely act as customers expect. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 41 (4), 48–57.
Engle, N.L. (2011) Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change 21 (2), 647–656.
EQ Recovery Learning (2016) Earthquake Recovery in Canterbury [online]. See https://www.eqrecoverylearning.org/about/earthquake-recovery-in-canterbury/ (accessed June 2019). Espiner, S., Orchiston, C. and Higham, J. (2017) Resilience and sustainability: A complementary relationship? Towards a practical conceptual model for the sustainability–resilience nexu in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 25 (10), 1385–1400.
Farrell, B.H. and Twining-Ward, L. (2004) Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (2), 274–295.
Faulkner, B. (2001) Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management 22 (2), 135–147.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the Pacific Disaster Center (PDC) (2017) Hazus® Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States, FEMA P-366. Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (2016) How much economic damage do large earthquakes cause? [online]. See https://www.kansascityfed.org/publications/research/oke/articles/2016/economic-damage-large-earthquakes (accessed December 2019).
Folke, C. (2006) Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16 (3), 253–267.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. and Rockström, J. (2010) Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15 (4), 20.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. (2005) Adaptive governance of socialecological systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 30, 441–473.
Fountain, J. and Cradock-Henry, N. (2019) The road to recovery: Reimagining Kaikoura after a natural disaster. In G. Walters and J. Mair (eds) Reputation and Image Recovery for the Tourism Industry. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.
Foxworthy, B.L. and Hill, M. (1982) Volcanic eruptions of 1980 at Mount St. Helens: The first 100 days, USGS Professional Paper 1249. Washington DC: US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.
Frazier, T.G., Walker, M.H., Kumari, A. and Thompson, C.M. (2013) Opportunities and constraints to hazard mitigation planning. Applied Geography 40, 52–60.
Fukui, M. and Ohe, Y. (2019) Assessing the role of social media in tourism recovery in tsunami-hit coastal areas in Tohoku, Japan. Tourism Economics in press. doi/full/10.1177/1354816618825014.
Geschwind, C.H. (2001) California Earthquakes: Science, Risk, and the Politics of Hazard Mitigation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Ghimire, H.L. (2016) Tourism in Gorkha: A proposition to revive tourism after devastating earthquakes. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Education 6, 67–94.
GNS Science, New Zealand (2019) Earthquakes: Understanding and monitoring seismic activity. [online]. See https://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Our-Science/Natural-Hazards- and-Risks/Earthquakes (accessed December 2019).
Godschalk, D.R. (2003) Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review 4 (3), 136–143.
Guo, Y., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y. and Zheng, C. (2018) Catalyst or barrier? The influence of place attachment on perceived community resilience in tourism destinations. Sustainability 10 (7), 2347.
Gurwitch, R.H., Kees, M., Becker, S.M., Schreiber, M., Pfefferbaum, B. and Diamond, D. (2004) When disaster strikes: Responding to the needs of children. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 19 (1), 21–28.
Hall, C.M. (2002) Travel safety, terrorism and the media: The significance of the issueattention cycle. Current Issues in Tourism 5 (5), 458–466.
Hall, C.M. (2005) Tourism: Rethinking the Social Science of Mobility. Harlow: Pearson. Hall, C.M. (2008) Tourism Planning (2nd edn). Harlow: Pearson.
Hall, C.M. (2010) Crisis events in tourism: Subjects of crisis in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism 13 (5), 401–417.
Hall, C.M. (2012) New Zealand tourism recovering from earthquake: Local, national and international perspectives. Keynote address at the 2012 International Conference of Sport, Leisure and Hospitality Management Conference, 11th May 2012–13th May 2012, Taipei.
Hall, C.M. (2014) Tourism and Social Marketing. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hall, C.M. and Amore, A. (2019) The 2015 Cricket World Cup in Christchurch. Journal of Place Management and Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-04-2019-0029
Hall, C.M., Prayag, G. and Amore, A. (2018) Tourism and Resilience: Individual, Organisational and Destination Perspectives. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Hall, C.M., Malinen, S., Vosslamber, R. and Wordsworth, R. (eds) (2016) Business and Post-disaster Management: Business, Organisational and Consumer Resilience and the Christchurch Earthquakes. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hasegawa, K. (2012) Facing nuclear risks: Lessons from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. International Journal of Japanese Sociology 21 (1), 84–91.
Henderson, J.C. (2013) The Great East Japan earthquake and tourism: A preliminary case study. Tourism Recreation Research 38 (1), 93–98.
Hernantes, J., Rich, E., Laugé, A., Labaka, L. and Sarriegi, J.M. (2013) Learning before the storm: Modeling multiple stakeholder activities in support of crisis management, a practical case. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (9), 1742–1755.
Holling, C.S. and Gunderson, L.H. (2002) Resilienc and adaptive cycles. In L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling (eds) Panarchy, Understanding the Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (pp. 25–62). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Huan, T.C., Beaman, J. and Shelby, L. (2004) No-escape natural disaster: Mitigating impacts on tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (2), 255–273.
Huang, J.H. and Min, J.C. (2002) Earthquake devastation and recovery in tourism: The Taiwan case. Tourism Management 23 (2), 145–154.
Huang, Y.C., Tseng, Y.P. and Petrick, J.F. (2008) Crisis management planning to restore tourism after disasters: A case study from Taiwan. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 23 (2–4), 203–221.
Hystad, P.W. and Keller, P.C. (2008) Towards a destination tourism disaster management framework: Long-term lessons from a forest fire disaster. Tourism Management 29 (1), 151–162.
Insurance Information Institute (2019) Facts + Statistics: Earthquakes and tsunamis. New York: Insurance Information Institute. See https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/factsstatistics-earthquakes-and-tsunamis#Earthquake%20Insurance,%202009-2018 (accessed December 2019).
Kamani-Fard, A., Hamdan Ahmad, M. and Remaz Ossen, D. (2012) The sense of place in the new homes of post-Bam earthquake reconstruction. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 3 (3), 220–236.
Kelman, I., Spence, R., Palmer, J., Petal, M. and Saito, K. (2008) Tourists and disasters: Lessons from the 26 December 2004 tsunamis. Journal of Coastal Conservation 12 (3), 105–113.
Khazai, B., Mahdavian, F. and Platt, S. (2018) Tourism Recovery Scorecard (TOURS)– Benchmarking and monitoring progress on disaster recovery in tourism destinations. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27, 75–84.
Kimhi, S. (2016) Levels of resilience: Associations among individual, community, and national resilience. Journal of Health Psychology 21 (2), 164–170.
Laws, E. and Prideaux, B. (eds) (2005) Tourism Crises: Management Responses and Theoretical Insight. New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
Lew, A.A., Ng, P.T., Ni, C.C. and Wu, T.C. (2016) Community sustainability and resilience: Similarities, differences and indicators. Tourism Geographies 18 (1), 18–27.
Lin, Y., Kelemen, M. and Tresidder, R. (2018) Post-disaster tourism: Building resilience through community-led approaches in the aftermath of the 2011 disasters in Japan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 26 (10), 1766–1783.
Lindell, M.K. and Prater, C.S. (2003) Assessing community impacts of natural disasters. Natural Hazards Review 4 (4), 176–185.
Linnenluecke, M.K. (2017) Resilience in business and management research: A review of influential publications and a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 19 (1), 4–30.
Lowe, S.R., Manove, E.E. and Rhodes, J.E. (2013) Posttraumatic stress and posttraumatic growth among low-income mothers who survived Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 81 (5), 877–889.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M. and Combs, G.M. (2006) Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27 (3), 387–393.
Mair, J., Ritchie, B.W. and Walters, G. (2016) Towards a research agenda for post-disaster and post-crisis recovery strategies for tourist destinations: A narrative review. Current Issues in Tourism 19 (1), 1–26.
Masterson, V.A., Stedman, R.C., Enqvist, J., Tengö, M., Giusti, M., Wahl, D. and Svedin, U. (2017) The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: A review and research agenda. Ecology and Society 22 (1). DOI: 10.5751/ES-08872-220149.
Mazzocchi, M. and Montini, A. (2001) Earthquake effects on tourism in central Italy. Annals of Tourism Research 28 (4), 1031–1046.
Mazzoni, S., Castori, G., Galasso, C., Calvi, P., Dreyer, R., Fischer, E., Fulco, A., Sorrentino, L., Wilson, J., Penna, A. and Magenes, G. (2018) 2016–2017 Central Italy Earthquake Sequence: Seismic retrofit policy and effectiveness. Earthquake Spectra 34 (4), 1671–1691.
Mendoza, C.A., Brida, J.G. and Garrido, N. (2012) The impact of earthquakes on Chile’s international tourism demand. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 4 (1), 48–60.
Mileti, D.S. and Passerini, E. (1996) A social explanation of urban relocation after earthquakes. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 14 (1), 97–110.
Migoń, P. and Pijet-Migoń, E. (2019) Natural disasters, geotourism, and geo interpretation. Geoheritage 11 (2), 629–640.
Miller, F., Osbahr, H., Boyd, E., Thamalla, F., Bharwani, S., Ziervogel, G. and Nelson, D. (2010) Resilience and vulnerability: Complementary or conflicting concepts? Ecology and Society 15 (3), 11.
Morgan, J., Begg, A., Beaven, S., Schluter, P., Jamieson, K., Johal, S., Johnston, D. and Sparrow, M. (2015) Monitoring wellbeing during recovery from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes: The CERA Wellbeing Survey. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14, 96–103.
Moeller, S.D. (2006) ‘Regarding the pain of others’: Media, bias and the coverage of international disasters. Journal of International Affairs 59 (2), 173–196.
Muskat, B., Nakanishi, H. and Blackman, D. (2015) Integrating tourism into disaster recovery management: The case of the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami 2011. In B. Ritchie and K. Campiranon (eds) Tourism Crisis and Disaster Management in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 97–115). Wallingford: CABI.
Mäntyniemi, P. (2012) An analysis of seismic risk from a tourism point of view. Disasters 36 (3), 465–476.
Nguyen, D.N., Imamura, F. and Iuchi, K. (2018) Barriers towards hotel disaster preparedness: Case studies of post 2011 Tsunami, Japan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 28, 585–594.
Oishi, S., Kimura, R., Hayashi, H., Tatsuki, S., Tamura, K., Ishii, K. and Tucker, J. (2015) Psychological adaptation to the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake of 1995: 16 years later victims still report lower levels of subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality 55, 84–90.
Orchiston, C. (2013) Tourism business preparedness, resilience and disaster planning in a region of high seismic risk: The case of the Southern Alps, New Zealand. Current Issues in Tourism 16 (5), 477–494.
Orchiston, C. and Higham, J.E.S. (2016) Knowledge management and tourism recovery (de) marketing: The Christchurch earthquakes 2010–2011. Current Issues in Tourism 19 (1), 64–84.
Palm, R. (1998) Urban earthquake hazards: the impacts of culture on perceived risk and response in the USA and Japan’ Applied Geography 18 (1), 35–46.
Paton, D. (2008) Modelling Societal Resilience to Pandemic Hazards in Auckland. GNS Science Report2008/13. Wellington: GNS Science.
Pike, S. (2004) Destination Marketing Organisations. Abingdon: Routledge.
Pottorff, S.M. and Neal, D.D.M. (1994) Marketing implications for post-disaster tourism destinations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 3 (1), 115–122.
Potter, S.H., Becker, J.S., Johnston, D.M. and Rossiter, K.P. (2015) An overview of the impacts of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14, 6–14.
Pizzo, B. (2015) Problematizing resilience: Implications for planning theory and practice. Cities 43, 133–140.
Prayag, G. (2018) Symbiotic relationship or not? Understanding resilience and crisis management in tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives 25, 133–135.
Prayag, G., Chowdhury, M., Spector, S. and Orchiston, C. (2018) Organizational resilience and financial performance. Annals of Tourism Research 73 (C), 193–196.
Prayag, G., Fieger, P. and Rice, J. (2019a) Tourism expenditure in post-earthquake Christchurch, New Zealand. Anatolia 30 (1), 47–60.
Prayag, G., Spector, S., Orchiston, C. and Chowdhury, M. (2019b) Psychological resilience, organizational resilience and life satisfaction in tourism firms: Insights from the Canterbury earthquakes. Current Issues in Tourism [online]. DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2019.1607832.
Price, L.L., Coulter, R.A., Strizhakova, Y. and Schultz, A.E. (2018) The fresh start mindset: Transforming consumers’ lives. Journal of Consumer Research 45 (1), 21–48.
Prideaux, B., Coghlan, A. and Falco-Mammone, F. (2008) Post crisis recovery: The case of after cyclone Larry. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 23 (2–4), 163–174.
Rangel, L.E. and Lévêque, F. (2014) How Fukushima Dai-ichi core meltdown changed the probability of nuclear accidents?. Safety Science 64, 90–98.
Rehdanz, K., Welsch, H., Narita, D. and Okubo, T. (2015) Well-being effects of a major natural disaster: The case of Fukushima. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 116, 500–517.
Reich, J.W. (2006) Three psychological principles of resilience in natural disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management 15 (5), 793–798.
Ritchie, B. (2008) Tourism disaster planning and management: From response and recovery to reduction and readiness. Current Issues in Tourism 11 (4), 315–348.
Ritchie, B.W. (2009) Crisis and Disaster Management for Tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Rogers, P., Burnside-Lawry, J., Dragisic, J. and Mills, C. (2016) Collaboration and communication: Building a research agenda and way of working towards community disaster resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management 25 (1), 75–90.
Rose, A. (2011) Resilience and sustainability in the face of disasters. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1 (1), 96–100.
Russell, L.A., Goltz, J.D. and Bourque, L.B. (1995) Preparedness and hazard mitigation actions before and after two earthquakes. Environment and Behavior 27 (6), 744–770.
Sengezer, B. and Koç, E. (2005) A critical analysis of earthquakes and urban planning in Turkey. Disasters 29 (2), 171–194.
Seville, E. (2018) Building resilience: How to have a positive impact at the organizational and individual employee level. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal 32 (3), 15–18.
Seyfi, S. and Hall, C.M. (2020) Tourism, Sanctions and Boycotts. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sherrieb, K., Norris, F.H. and Galea, S. (2010) Measuring capacities for community resilience. Social Indicators Research 99 (2), 227–247.
Sönmez, S.F., Apostolopoulos, Y. and Tarlow, P. (1999) Tourism in crisis: Managing the effects of terrorism. Journal of Travel Research 38 (1), 13–18.
Steckler, M.S., Stein, S., Akhter, S.H. and Seeber, L. (2018) The wicked problem of earthquake hazard in developing countries. Eos 99. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EO093625.
Subedi, S., Sharma, G.N., Dahal, S., Banjara, M.R. and Pandey, B.D. (2018) The health sector response to the 2015 earthquake in Nepal. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 12 (4), 543–547.
Sugano, S. (2016) The well-being of elderly survivors after natural disasters: Measuring the impact of the Great East Japan Earthquake. The Japanese Economic Review 67 (2), 211–229.
Sutcliffe, K.M. and Vogus, T. (2003) Organizing for resilience. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton and R.E. Quinn (eds) Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline (pp. 94–110). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Tang, Y. (2014) Travel motivation, destination image and visitor satisfaction of international tourists after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake: A structural modelling approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 19 (11), 1260–1277.
Tao, B.C., Goh, E., Huang, S. and Moyle, B. (2019) Travel constraint perceptions of people with mobility disability: A study of Sichuan earthquake survivors. Tourism Recreation Research 44 (2), 203–216.
Thompson, M.A., Owen, S., Lindsay, J.M., Leonard, G.S. and Cronin, S.J. (2017) Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions. Environmental Science & Policy 74, 30–39.
Thoresen, S., Tønnessen, A., Lindgaard, C.V., Andreassen, A.L. and Weisæth, L. (2009) Stressful but rewarding: Norwegian personnel mobilised for the 2004 tsunami disaster. Disasters 33 (3), 353–368.
Tierney, K. and Oliver-Smith, A. (2012) Social dimensions of disaster recovery. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters 30 (2), 123–146.
Tsai, C.H. and Chen, C.W. (2010) An earthquake disaster management mechanism based on risk assessment information for the tourism industry-a case study from the island of Taiwan. Tourism Management 31 (4), 470–481.
Tucker, H., Shelton, E.J. and Bae, H. (2017) Post-disaster tourism: Towards a tourism of transition. Tourist Studies 17 (3), 306–327.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) (2015) Proposed updated terminology on disaster risk reduction: A technical review background paper. See http://www.preventionweb.net/files/45462_backgoundpaperonterminologyaugust20.pdf (accessed September 2016).
United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2019) The Science of Earthquakes. [online]. See https:// www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/science/science-earthquakes?qtscience_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects (accessed December 2019).
Van der Voort, N. and Vanclay, F. (2015) Social impacts of earthquakes caused by gas extraction in the Province of Groningen, The Netherlands. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50, 1–15.
Veer, E., Ozanne, L. and Hall, C.M. (2016) Sharing cathartic stories online: The internet as a means of expression following a crisis event. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 15 (4), 314–324
Walters, G. and Clulow, V. (2010) The tourism market’s response to the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires: The case of Gippsland. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 27 (8), 844–857.
Wang, S., Chen, S. and Xu, H. (2019) Resident attitudes towards dark tourism, a perspective of place-based identity motives. Current Issues in Tourism 22 (13), 1601–1616.
Wang, Y.S. (2009) The impact of crisis events and macroeconomic activity on Taiwan’s international inbound tourism demand. Tourism Management 30 (1), 75–82.
Wearing, S., Beirman, D. and Grabowski, S. (2020) Engaging volunteer tourism in postdisaster recovery in Nepal. Annals of Tourism Research 80, 102802.
Whitman, Z., Stevenson, J., Kachali, H., Seville, E., Vargo, J. and Wilson, T. (2014) Organisational resilience following the Darfield earthquake of 2010. Disasters 38 (1), 148–177.
Whitman, Z.R., Wilson, T.M., Seville, E., Vargo, J., Stevenson, J.R., Kachali, H. and Cole, J. (2013) Rural organizational impacts, mitigation strategies, and resilience to the 2010 Darfield earthquake, New Zealand. Natural Hazards 69 (3), 1849–1875.
Wright, D. and Sharpley, R. (2018) Local community perceptions of disaster tourism: The case of L’Aquila, Italy. Current Issues in Tourism 21 (14), 1569–1585.
Wu, J.Y. and Lindell, M.K. (2004) Housing reconstruction after two major earthquakes: The 1994 Northridge earthquake in the United States and the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan. Disasters 28 (1), 63–81.
Wu, L. and Hayashi, H. (2014) The impact of disasters on Japan’s inbound tourism demand. Journal of Disaster Research 9, 699–708.
Wu, L. and Walters, G. (2016) Chinese travel behavior in response to disastrous events: The case of the Japan earthquake. Journal of China Tourism Research 12 (2), 216–231.
Yan, B.J., Zhang, J., Zhang, H.L., Lu, S.J. and Guo, Y.R. (2016) Investigating the motivation–experience relationship in a dark tourism space: A case study of the Beichuan earthquake relics, China. Tourism Management 53, 108–121.
Yi, H. and Yang, J. (2014) Research trends of post disaster reconstruction: The past and the future. Habitat International 42, 21–29.
