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
