Tourism and Earthquakes. Группа авторов

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