The Development of a Trans-National Tourism Risk, Crisis and Recovery Management Network

Case Study: Establishment of the Pacific Asia Travel Association’s Rapid Response Taskforce

By Dr David Beirman

Senior Lecturer: Tourism

Events, Leisure, Sport, Tourism and Arts Programs

Management Discipline Group

UTS Business School

University of Technology –Sydney

NSW, Australia

UTS Kuringai Campus PO Box 222 Lindfield NSW 2070, Australia

Tel Direct 61 2 9514 5159 Fax 61 2 9514 5195

E mail

Keywords

Tourism crisis response, Trans-national Management, Collaboration Theory

Introduction

Tourism crisis events, defined as events or circumstances which severely undermine the viability, reputation, marketability and perception of tourism destinations and associated enterprises, (Faulkner 2001, Beirman 2003 p 3, Ritchie 2009 pp 4-6) frequently extend and impact beyond the borders of a single country. The ash cloud from the Eyjafjallajokull volcanic eruption in Iceland in April 2010 caused extensive disruption to commercial air traffic and tourism within North West Europe (Dopagne 2011) but had a global ripple effect in which tourism movements and travel itineraries to and from Europe were disrupted, affecting over 10 million travellers. In May-June 2011 the eruption of the Puyehue volcano in Chile caused similar disruption to airline and tourism movements throughout the Southern Hemisphere which impacted on international and domestic tourism to, from and within Southern Australia, New Zealand, South America and South Africa. During 2010-13 the political uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen shaped a range of negative perceptions of destinations throughout much of the Arab world and the Middle East. Wars, acts of terrorism, natural disasters, economic slumps, and pandemics have negatively impacted on tourism trans-nationally and globally.

The concept of a trans-national crisis management response network in tourism is not new. The airline sector and specifically the International Air Transport Association established a crisis communications unit following the 9/11 attacks in the USA in 2001. However this was confined only to the airline sector of the tourism industry. The Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) established the basis for a risk and crisis response network within the Asia-Pacific region after the Bali bombing of October 2002. PATA’s head office, which was relocated from San Francisco to Bangkok in 1998 (Gee Lurie 2001) has closely monitored crisis events impacting on tourism in the Asia Pacific region as an ongoing priority since the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-8.

A confluence of three events within just over two years, namely the first Bali bombing of October 2002, the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) outbreak of Feb-June 2003 and the Indian Ocean Tsunami of December 2004 resulted in the Pacific Asia Travel Association, ASEAN (Association of SE Asian Nations) Tourism and the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) Tourism Working Group adopting a collaborative (Ritchie 2004, Selin, 2008) and proactive approach to tourism related risk and crisis management in the Asia Pacific region. Although the 2002 Bali bombing resulted in the deaths of 202 people (165 of whom were international tourists) the attack created a wave of concern about the potential threat to tourists from Islamist terrorists in Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines. SARS impacted on the tourism industries of 28 Asian countries and Canada (Henderson 2007 p 118). The December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami caused an estimated 280,000 deaths and extensive destruction in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), India, Sri Lanka and impacted on countries as distant from the epicentre in Aceh (Indonesia) as Somalia and Kenya(Robertson, Kean, Moore; 2006).

In response to the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) enhanced its role in the area of tourism crisis management. In January 2005 the author was one of 100 attendees at a UNWTO emergency meeting held in Phuket, Thailand which sought to develop a globally supported tourism recovery strategy to assist the tourism industry in those countries affected by the destruction wrought by the tsunami.

In 2006, the UNWTO established the Tourism Emergency Response Network (TERN), an initiative led by Geoffrey Lipman, UNWTO’s former deputy Secretary General (Glaesser 2011) The basic concept of TERN was to utilise and mobilise the resources of all major international tourism related organisations affiliated to TERN to monitor the extent and development of a crisis event, communicate to stakeholders and the media and establish policies to assist destination regions and authorities affected by crisis events in managing and recovering from the crisis. In 2009 the UNWTO established a web site www.sos.travel as an enhancement of the TERN concept. In recent years the UNWTO has sponsored the development of a crisis communications toolkit (UNWTO, 2011) and since 2011 has developed an agenda for the integration of emergency management and tourism.

Trans-national collaboration in risk and crisis management has become a major theme in tourism management (Dwyer et al 2009). In addition to emphasising that risk management is a core management skill for tourism professionals and destination managers, Dwyer et al (2009) states that co-operation between governments and operators is integral to successful risk management. This chapter discusses a case study of the development of the PATA Rapid Response Taskforce PRRT and examines how collaboration theory is applied to trans-national risk, crisis and recovery on tourism.

Collaboration Theory and Trans-national Tourism Risk, Crisis and Recovery Management

The tourism industry is described as a highly fragmented industry by many scholars (Jamal and Getz 1995, Stokes 2008, Selin 2008, Dwyer, Edwards, Mistilis, Roman, Scott 2009). This fragmentation is partially due to the multi-sectoral nature of the industry with discrete sectors involving varying and often competing transport modes, accommodation, attractions, destination marketing organisations, distribution chains, tour wholesalers and tour operators. This fragmentation of tourism at both the government and private sector levels presents a major barrier to collaboration in the marketing, operation and strategic management of tourism at local, state/provincial, national and trans-national levels

Conversely, a significant level of collaboration is required between companies across the various sectors for the delivery of an integrated range of tourism services for a traveller. Thus, the tourism industry is subject to the interplay between centrifugal forces at an association level and centripetal forces at the service delivery level.

Until 2001, this interplay of opposing forces was also found in the tourism risk and crisis management domain. While the airline industry was proactive in addressing risk and crisis, other sectors of the tourism industry including tourism academia treated risk and crisis as peripheral issues. However, in recent years the global tourism industry has recognised that risk, crisis and recovery represent common strategic concerns for all travel industry sectors and affect all regions of the world. Consequently, collaboration is necessary to implement a whole of tourism approach to risk, crisis and recovery management at all spatial dimensions from localised tourism destinations to the trans-national and global level.

In their discussion of global drivers of tourism change Dwyer et al Dwyer et al (2009) focussed their research on a broad political, economic, environmental, social/demographic, technological trends analysis of the tourism industry. It is noticeable that these broad areas encompassed drivers for collaboration such as political facilitation of international travel, a stable and growing economy accompanied by growth in the number of people who could afford to travel. In the area of risk management, international political stability, inter sectoral and government-private sector collaboration of destination planning and management and, common definitions of destination risk collaboration is vital to the successful implementation of risk and crisis management policies.

Collaboration theory is equally applicable at the single destination and trans-national level. In their discussion of collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas, Jamal and Stronza (2009) include issues which can be applied to risk management. They point out that collaboration is integral to complex planning domains which involve multiple stakeholders. A problem domain refers to a situation where the problems are complex and require inter- or multi-organisational response involving a broad collection of stakeholders. The development of a shared set of policy directions within a problem domain requires collaboration amongst multiple stakeholders who may hold diverse views and have varying degrees of influence over decision making.

Although Jamal and Stronza (2009) write in the context of sustainable tourism, the concepts discussed are relevant to tourism risk management, especially at the destination level. Stakeholders in the destination context include hoteliers, tour operators, transport providers, emergency services agencies, destination marketers and tour operators (to name a few). Applying the ideas of Jamal and Stronza (2009) to risk management, requires collaboration over such issues as identification of risks, treatment of risks and timely and accurate communication of the status of access, evacuation and safe refuge procedures, registration and identification of affected visitors in a risk affected destination.

In his discussion of a framework for tourism disaster management, Faulkner (2001) described a six stage phase in the disaster management process beginning with the pre-event period in which risk assessment and contingencies could be developed. This would then move to the prodromal phase in which warnings and mobilisation of a management team could be enacted. The third stage would be the emergency phase when mitigation action is undertaken. The intermediate phase features the beginning of restoration followed by long term recovery and finally resolution which would focus on review and implementation of improvement. A critical element in Faulkner’s approach relevant to collaborative theory is the importance he places in a coordinated team approach between public and private sector organisations and planning agencies and in consultation with stakeholders and the community affected by the disaster.

In their paper on collaborative destination marketing Wang and Fesenmaier (2007) discuss the coordinated marketing of a specific destination in Indiana. The core elements of their theoretical outlook are also relevant to trans-national risk and crisis management. They define collaboration as “a process of shared decision making among key stakeholders of a problem domain about the future of that domain” (Wang and Fesenmaier p 865). An example of this process in tourism risk and crisis management would involve joint decision making about the communication of information to stakeholders and prospective visitors relating to the status of a destination region affected by a hurricane. Within the scope of a broader risk management strategy this may involve a pre-agreed policy on what issues will be covered in such communiques and to whom they will be sent.

The model which forms the framework for Wang and Fesenmaier’s collaborative approach is linear.

It involves:

1.  Precondition

2.  Motivation

3.  Varying stages of implementation

4.  Outcomes

The precondition phase involves identification of key risks to the viability of tourism within a given spatial domain. Risks may include natural disasters, epidemics, political instability, or economic downturn

Among many objectives for collaborative action in treating risks would be the rapid restoration of the tourism industry and the reputation recovery of the affected destination region.

The stages involved in collaborative response would include assembling of key stakeholders to cooperate in an integrated response to a crisis, ordering a set of response priorities, implementation of a response process, evaluating the success of the response and utilising the lessons learned from the crisis to transform or enhance the destination (build back better).

In the post-crisis phase the model moves to outcomes which would include enhancing the risk and crisis management capabilities of the destination region and its various stakeholders.

The significance of a strategic and holistic approach to tourism crisis planning and management has been discussed by Ritchie (2004). In order for collaboration to work for effective preparation and response to crisis events there is a need to advance from ad hoc coordination. In the context of an increasingly trans-national and globalised tourism industry the momentum towards collaboration is increasingly driven by national governments and trans-national tourism associations. In 2012 the tourism division of the Australian government’s Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism released its critical incident response strategy(Emery 2012) which involved the collaboration between state government tourism bodies, key private sector industry associations (including the key travel industry sectors) and emergency management agencies. The Australian model was based on a broader global collaborative framework, called the Tourism Emergency Response Network developed by the UN World Tourism Organisation in 2006 and enhanced in 2012 through the incorporation of a UNWTO initiative in which there has been a move to integrate tourism and emergency management.

Ritchie’s model contains three key elements:

1.  Crisis/disaster prevention and planning – The proactive or contingency dimension.

2.  Strategic implementation – which includes strategic evaluation of as crisis event and control of operational response, resource management, stakeholder collaboration and crisis communications.

3.  Resolution, evaluation and feedback – which includes restoring the condition of the destination and associated enterprises back to pre-crisis conditions and when possible, better than pre-crisis conditions. It also includes applying lessons learned from the management or response errors to a given crisis event.

Ritchie’s model emphasises the importance of flexibility at all three stages, recognition that crisis events are necessarily fluid. He also adds a research dimension to more effectively analyse and, classify and understand crisis events.

Collaborative networks need to persist over time and manage stakeholder interactions in an increasingly systematic manner, (Selin 1994). “In this sense structuring refers to the institutionalising of shared meanings”. Selin (1994 p.224), discusses the development of an umbrella organisation of private and government sector associations to coordinate the community wide planning of Victoria (Canada). Collaborative trans-national tourism risk and crisis management also requires structure and continuity. In order for collaboration to work effectively in tourism destination crisis management there is a balance is required between representing the broadest cross-section of critical stakeholders in determining policies and actions while ensuring that the crisis management team mobilised is numerically manageable.

Although Carlsen and Liburd (2008) don’t specifically refer to collaboration in their discussion of a research agenda for tourism crisis management, they make a critical point about the strategy employed by the UNWTO to adopt a leadership and coordination role in developing crisis management and response strategy. These strategies can be taught to and applied by destination marketing organisations in less developed countries. The case study of the PATA Rapid Response Taskforce and other trans-national tourism crisis management initiatives have also been predicated on those associations with resources and expertise utilising them to either teach, share or facilitate tourism risk, crisis and recovery management skills to countries and destination regions which are under- resourced. This may be broadly defined as top-down collaboration.