Tourism and Earthquakes. Группа авторов

      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