Destinations, disasters and public relations: Stakeholder engagement in multi-phase disaster management

Abstract

Research about disasters in tourism has emerged in earnest since the 1990s covering insights for preparedness and response. However, recently, authors have called for more systematic and holistic approaches to tourism disaster management research. To address this gap, this study adopted a public relations perspective to refocus attention to relationships and stakeholder expectations of destination communities across multiple phases of disaster management. The authors used a mixed method approach and developed a battery of disaster management attributes by conducting interviews and analysing industry documents and the extant literature. These attributes formed part of a survey of tourism businesses. Exploratory Factor Analysis resulted in a two factor solution: i) business disaster preparedness, and ii) destination disaster response and recovery. Findings also show that participants reported a gap between the importance and destination performance of these attributes. In particular, tourism businesses perceived destinations did not adequately engage in disaster preparedness activities, which had implications for disaster response and recovery.

1. Introduction

Disasters are unexpected natural or man-made events that injure people, damage property and infrastructure, and threaten the survival of organisations (Pearson & Clair, 1998). Past disasters include terrorist attacks, natural hazards, and organisational incidents such as technical errors or corporate malfeasance. The tourism industry is particularly susceptible to the short term and longer term effects of disasters due to: i) disruption of services at destinations and along the transit routes, and ii) the (mis)perceptions of consumers in distant markets. Recent examples of disasters to impact on tourism are highlighted in Table 1 .

Table 1.

Recent disasters impacting on tourism.

2015	Terrorist attacks, Paris Earthquake and landslides, Nepal Wildfires, Canada, USA Volcano eruption, Mount Raung, Bali Capsized cruise ship, China Cyclone Pam, Vanuatu Juno Blizzard, USA Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), South Korea and Middle East
2014	Typhoon Haiyan, Philippines Malaysian Airlines Flights MH370 and MH17 Polar Vortex, USA Mount Everest Avalanche, Nepal Ebola Virus Outbreak, Western Africa
2013	Hurricanes Manuel and Ingrid, Mexico Typhoon Phailin, India Earthquake and Tsunami, Solomon Islands Tornadoes, USA Bombing, Boston Marathon, USA
2012	Protests, Arab Spring, Egypt Hurricane Sandy, USA Shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School, USA Floods, Philippines
2011	Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan Christchurch earthquake, New Zealand Tropical cyclone Washi, Philippines Drought, East Africa Floods, Thailand

Disaster management comprises four phases: prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (PPRR). Prevention involves preventing or mitigating hazard impact such as disaster-proof infrastructure, preparedness ensures measures are in place before a disaster occurs, response comprises effective and efficient reaction to a disaster, and recovery includes the short and long-term efforts to restore communities following disasters (Cronstedt, 2002).

Despite the range of disasters and the existence of disaster management and engagement strategies, preparedness levels within the tourism sector remain historically low (Faulkner and Vikulov, 2001, Hystad and Keller, 2008, Paraskevas et al., 2013). Although past disaster experience can motivate action (Cioccio & Michael, 2007), the traditionally low levels of disaster preparedness amongst tourism businesses are attributed to beliefs that disasters are not likely (Faulkner and Vikulov, 2001, Hystad and Keller, 2008), and a lack of funds, staff, and time (Spillan & Hough, 2003). A lack of disaster preparedness in the tourism industry has the potential to impede disaster response and recovery for individual destination stakeholders and the economic health of the sector.

A key influencer in disaster management, from preparedness to recovery, is the destination marketing organisation (DMO). A DMO is formed as a result of a community seeking to become organised in the pursuit of destination competitiveness, and predominantly coordinates marketing communications (Pike & Page, 2014). Some DMOs have supported knowledge-building activities related to disasters (Blackman et al., 2010, Blackman and Ritchie, 2008), yet the field of DMO involvement in disaster management is relatively new (Paraskevas et al., 2013).

Although existing studies have examined strategies for disaster preparedness, response and recovery, comparatively few studies examine disaster management in holistic and systematic ways (Faulkner, 2001, Paraskevas et al., 2013, Ritchie, 2004). The lack of research covering multiple phases of disaster management and the relationships within the sector potentially limits how the tourism industry manages change, complexity and follow-on disruptions that are commonly associated with disasters. To address this lack of research, this study adopts a public relations perspective to examine the multiple phases of disaster management from the perspective of key stakeholders in destination communities.

Public relations emphasises the value of relationships between organisations and their environments. According to one of the most frequently cited definitions, public relations is “the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends” (Broom, 2009, p. 25). While public relations is commonly understood as a publicity and promotion function for organisations, its value in relationships and stakeholder engagement deliver sustained and mutually beneficial outcomes. This study focuses on public relations practices around stakeholder engagement that are designed to enhance and/or create capabilities in disaster management and preparedness.

Building on the opportunity to contribute to existing research and enhance engagement processes, the study investigates tourism destination stakeholders' perceptions of current disaster management preparedness initiatives at their destination. The study contributes to disaster management research in the tourism literature by giving attention to disaster preparedness, response and recovery phases to enhance engagement and build resilience in the sector. In addition, the study builds understanding of the expectations that drive the relationship and engagement between DMOs and tourism destination stakeholders in disaster management. The aims of the study were twofold: i) to identify destination management attributes deemed important to stakeholders and ii) to identify stakeholders' perceptions of their destination's disaster management performance.

2. Literature review

2.1. Stakeholder engagement and DMOs in disaster management

A destination community contains diverse stakeholders with varying levels of vested interests in the success of their destination community (Pike & Page, 2014). For DMOs, stakeholder engagement and relationship management are important because they build trust, resilience and performance (Sloan, 2009). As a key function of public relations, stakeholder engagement is conceptualized in this study as the relationship-building principles that can improve tourism destination stakeholders' business capabilities in disaster management (Taylor & Kent, 2014). There are multiple ways to engage and manage relationships with stakeholders from monitoring to involvement to deep collaboration or integration into decision-making (Basu et al., 2013, Burnside-Lawry and Carvalho, 2015). The relationships between DMOs and destination stakeholders create social capital, which is an important part of public relations practice as it enables the achievement of business and social outcomes (Taylor & Kent, 2014).

Engagement is also an important part of effective disaster management. The role of DMOs is most clearly defined in disaster response and recovery which brings a focus on marketing activities designed to restore the industry (Blackman and Ritchie, 2008, Wang and Pizam, 2011). Although researchers have identified DMOs as industry educators that can assist businesses to plan for and cope with the negative effects of crisis (Blackman et al., 2010), there is limited research that explores the critical relationship between these organisations.

Engagement around all areas of disaster management will be influenced by the pre-disaster relationships (Coombs & Holladay, 2001), in this case between DMOs and destination stakeholders including tourism operators. Tourism research shows divergence in these pre-disaster relationships. For example, less interest in destinations and their competitiveness is shown by small tourism businesses whose owner/operators are motivated by lifestyle (Thomas, Shaw, & Page, 2011), over business design. However, DMOs, their stakeholder engagement strategies and the competitiveness of the destination influences the success of individual tourism ventures and cooperatives (Pike, 2004).

For DMOs, the ultimate aim is to achieve alignment between their actions and tourism destination stakeholder expectations, an outcome also shared by public relations. The lack of alignment between organizational and stakeholder interests can reflect in social and economic performance (Sloan, 2009). In this regard, there has been a relatively small stream of research investigating tourism destination stakeholder perceptions of the effectiveness of the DMO's destination leadership (see for example Bornhorst, Ritchie, & Sheehan, 2010; Donnelly and Vaske, 1997, Dwyer et al., 2012, Evans and Chon, 1989, Selin and Myers, 1998, Wagner and Peters, 2009). Within these studies, a noticeable gap is the extent to which destination stakeholders are satisfied with their destination's disaster management. A DMO's disaster management activities are vital in ensuring resilience in the tourism industry. In the context of disaster management, the lack of alignment has the potential to affect how stakeholders, in this case tourism businesses prepare, respond to and recover from disasters.

2.2. Evaluating DMO performance using expectation confirmation theory

Expectation confirmation theory (ECT) was originally developed by Oliver (1980) who suggested expectations and perceived performance lead to satisfaction. This effect is mediated through a positive or negative confirmation or discrepancy between expectations and performance. For example, if a service exceeds the expectations of the consumer (positive confirmation), satisfaction will occur and if a service falls short of expectations (negative confirmation), dissatisfaction is likely to result (Chou, Lin, Woung, & Tsai, 2012; Oliver, 1980).

ECT has been widely used to study satisfaction amongst consumers in marketing environments, urban services and information technology (Bhattacherjee, 2001, Chou et al., 2012, Thong et al., 2006, Van Ryzin, 2004). Satisfaction levels are predicted through two constructs: expectation of the service and confirmation of that expectation following the experience (Bhattacherjee, 2001). The expectation provides the base line against which confirmation is assessed in order to determine overall satisfaction. This is due to the fact that high satisfaction implies a number of positive outcomes such as purchase, endorsement, profit or return on investment (Bowden, 2009). In tourism, ECT has been applied to examine individual tourist satisfaction with destinations (Hui et al., 2007, O'Rourke and O'Rourke, 1984, Pizam and Ellis, 1999, Pizam and Milman, 1993, Van Raaij and Francken, 1984, Weber, 1997) and with tourism trends such as medical tourism (Chou et al., 2012).

The application of ECT to a service-oriented sector and business-to-business relationship, the focus of this study, is a comparatively unique approach. In the past, researchers' critiques of ECT related to the low familiarity of customers with tourism-related services (Yüksel & Yüksel, 2001). Applying ECT to a pre-existing relationship between DMOs and tourism businesses, in part overcomes some of these concerns. This study responds to Yüksel and Yüksel (2001) call for further empirical research to test the validity of the ECT measure in tourism.

This study attempts to better understand the relationship between DMOs and the tourism organisations they represent within disaster management. This relationship will be examined through the application of ECT. Through this application, the research will explore current DMO engagement strategies with regard to disaster management within the tourism industry, and consequently the levels of satisfaction held by stakeholders in Australia. The research questions for this study are:

• RQ1: What functions of destination disaster management are important to tourism stakeholders?

• RQ2: To what extent do stakeholders' expectations for and the perceived performance of the destination's disaster management align?

3. Methodology

To identify the functions of disaster management in tourism and explore congruence between these expectations and performance of destination disaster management, a mixed-method design was adopted. Exploratory qualitative research was undertaken as the constructs that defined disaster management were not yet established in the literature. Three stages of data collection were used to address the first research question. First, key journal articles and books sourced from disaster management, crisis communication, and tourism literatures were analysed for checklists and lists of disaster preparedness, response, and recovery attributes. Second, an Internet search revealed five crisis management or disaster response plans from DMOs or tourism organisations. These plans represented guides for tourism operators or DMOs in the case of risk and disaster and were sourced from state, federal and international organisations.

Third, six semi-structured interviews were conducted with various individuals working for organisations within the tourism industry in Queensland. Participants included tourism operators, DMO executives, and members of local government who were involved in disaster management programs for their constituency. Participants consisted of two tourism operators, two employees of DMOs, and two individuals from local government. The semi-structured interviews consisted of four open-ended questions. These real-world insights consequently added a new dimension to the emerging list of attributes. Interviews were then transcribed and coded, in an attempt to derive disaster management attributes from the text. Manual coding was undertaken, whereby the raw data were first transformed into preliminary codes, then final codes (Saldaña, 2012). The three lists of attributes were triangulated by comparing and contrasting, and integrating the separate lists into a definitive battery of attributes (Berg & Lune, 2004). Similar attributes were combined, and attributes that were only mentioned in one of the lists were eliminated. From these tables, a final list of 14 attributes was developed, as shown in Table 2 .

Table 2.

Triangulated list of destination disaster preparedness attributes.

Has a strategy to handle the disaster situation

Keeps up to date with developments in the media regarding the disaster situation

Co-ordinates and establishes relationships with important groups (Emergency Services, Governments, and Police) in order to be ready for a disaster

Establishes communication and command chains to be followed during a disaster

Communicates with me about the status of disaster situations including the response and recovery efforts

Promotes my destination to help bring visitors back to the area following a disaster

Organises or provides financial help for my business after a disaster through small grants or tax cuts

Creates an emergency preparedness checklist for me to use during a disaster

Provides me with access to free online and offline crisis management resources and tools to help my business be disaster ready

Provides me with crisis management training and advice in the event of a disaster

Holds drills, rehearsals, and simulations of potential disaster situations

Conducts a risk assessment of my business' ability to cope with potential disasters

Provides my business with a written crisis management plan

Holds pre-disaster workshops to teach me how to adequately plan for disaster situations

An online survey was then used to address the second research question. Participants were asked to rate the level of importance of for each of the 14 destination disaster management attributes using a seven point Likert type scale anchored at 1 (not important) and 7 (very important). A separate ‘0’ (Don't Know/No Opinion) non-response option was also provided alongside each scale item. Participants were then asked to rate their destination's performance for the same 14 attributes, using a seven point scale anchored at 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). Again, a separate ‘0’ (don't know/no opinion) non response item was used to minimise potential bias of uninformed responses. Participants were also asked if they had ever experienced a disaster and about the characteristics of the organisation that the respondent represented. These questions were asked to gain a better understanding of the differences in responses based on participant's disaster experience and an organisation's size, type, industry, age, and geographic location.

The target population for the online survey included any individual employed by an organisation operating within or affected by the tourism industry in Australia and New Zealand. Sectors considered as part of the tourism industry for the purpose of this research were: the accommodation industry, visitor attraction, cafes, restaurants, and takeaway food services, clubs, pubs taverns and bars, transport, casinos and gambling services, motor vehicle, travel agencies and tour operator services, sports and recreational services, automotive fuel retailing, retail trade and any trade association representing these sectors (Tourism Research Australia, 2012).

Participants were recruited from two sources. First, databases of destination marketing organisations and tourism trade organisations that agreed to assist with the dissemination of the survey. Organisations that agreed to disseminate the survey include destination management and regional development organisations in New Zealand, Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, and industry associations such in accommodation and aviation in Australia and New Zealand. This avenue yielded 25 responses. An external panel was sourced from Research Now, a multi-national market research organisation that complies with research standards through membership to the Research Association of New Zealand, The Australian Market and Social Research Society and the Travel and Tourism Research Association. This resulted in a further 264 participants.

4. Results

The results identified the key functions of disaster management that were considered important amongst tourism stakeholders. By mapping these rankings against stakeholder evaluations of perceived performance of the destination, the results indicate a gap, indicating misalignment in performance. These results are presented next.

4.1. Sample characteristics

A total of 289 useable responses were received. The characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 3 . One in five participants had experienced a disaster at their destination. Just over half of the participants were from small businesses with less than 20 staff (55%), followed by businesses with 20–200 staff (24%) with the remaining 21% from businesses with over 200 employees. The majority of participants (76%) worked in organisations that had been in operation for five years or more. Almost half of the participants (46%) were from businesses operating within the retail sector. Other sectors identified included tourism, hospitality, accommodation and consultants. One in five participants was an owner-operator, and a further 25% held management positions. Almost one-third of the participants were located in New South Wales (27%), followed by Queensland (18%), and Victoria (17%).

Table 3.

Sample characteristics.

Disaster experience	Yes	60	20.8
	No	229	79.2
	Total	289	100
Business size	Less than 20 people	158	54.7
	20 or more people, but less than 200 people	70	24.2
	200 or more people	61	21.1
	Total	289	100
Business age	Less than 5 years	69	23.9
	5 years or more	220	76.1
	Total	289	100
Business type	Accommodation	19	6.6
	Visitor attraction	7	2.4
	Cafes, restaurants, and takeaway food services	19	6.6
	Clubs, pubs, and taverns	6	2.1
	Transport	9	3.1
	Casinos and other gambling services	3	1.0
	Motor vehicle	9	3.1
	Travel agency and tour operators	6	2.1
	Sports and recreation services	5	1.7
	Automotive fuel retailing	1	.3
	Retail trade	134	46.4
	DMO	4	1.4
	Trade association	11	3.8
	Other	56	19.4
	Total	289	100
Respondent's position within the business	Owner operator	56	19.4
	Management	73	25.3
	Employee	160	55.4
	Total	289	100
Location of organisation	QLD	53	18.3
	VIC	49	17
	TAS	12	4.2
	NSW	79	27.3
	NT	2	.7
	ACT	7	2.4
	WA	13	4.5
	SA	20	6.9
	NZ	2	.7
	Australia wide	5	1.7
	Worldwide	1	.3
	Other	46	15.9
	Total	289	100

4.2. Destination disaster management attributes

As shown in Table 4 , attribute importance means ranged from a high of 5.49 for ‘Has a strategy to handle the disaster situation’, to a low of 4.62 for ‘Holds pre-disaster workshops to teach me how to adequately plan for disaster situations’. All attributes had a mean above the scale mid-point with a grand mean of 5.05, indicating face validity. The Cronbach Alpha for was .965, which is well above the identified acceptable level (>.7) indicating strong internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951).

Table 4.

Attribute importance.

	n	Mean	S.D	Cronbach Alpha if item removed
Has a strategy to handle the disaster situation	278	5.49	1.47	.963
Keeps up to date with developments in the media regarding the disaster situation	279	5.39	1.54	.963
Co-ordinates and establishes relationships with important groups (Emergency Services, Governments, and Police) in order to be ready for a disaster	278	5.32	1.59	.962
Establishes communication and command chains to be followed during a disaster	277	5.27	1.60	.961
Communicates with me about the status of disaster situations including the response and recovery efforts	278	5.24	1.56	.962
Promotes my destination to help bring visitors back to the area following a disaster	279	5.22	1.64	.964
Organises or provides financial help for my business after a disaster through small grants or tax cuts	277	5.06	1.66	.961
Creates an emergency preparedness checklist for me to use during a disaster	277	5.04	1.74	.961
Provides me with access to free online and offline crisis management resources and tools to help my business be disaster ready	276	5.01	1.70	.962
Provides me with crisis management training and advice in the event of a disaster	274	4.84	1.72	.961
Holds drills, rehearsals, and simulations of potential disaster situations	275	4.80	1.65	.962
Conducts a risk assessment of my business' ability to cope with potential disasters	273	4.77	1.69	.962
Provides my business with a written crisis management plan	269	4.67	1.75	.964
Holds pre-disaster workshops to teach me how to adequately plan for disaster situations	276	4.62	1.73	.961
Grand mean		5.05

Independent-samples t-tests by participants' disaster experience indicated that only one item with a statistically different mean between these groups ‘Has a strategy to handle a disaster situation’ (t = 2.759, p = .006). Those who had experienced a disaster were more likely to believe it important for communities to have a strategy to handle a disaster situation. One-way ANOVA did not reveal any statistically significant differences between means by business type, location, or the participant's position within the business or business size.

4.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was undertaken to examine the underlying structure among the variables in the analysis (Joseph, Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The correlation matrix showed each attribute correlated with every other attribute (Pallant, 2010). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) was .949, while Bartlett's test of Sphericity was significant at the .001 level. The EFA was conducted using principal components analysis with a varimax rotation. The two factor solution explained 74.32% of variance, as shown in Table 5 . Attributes that loaded onto Factor 1 had an individual focus, whereby items were presented in personalized activities designed to enhance disaster preparedness within individual businesses. Attributes which loaded onto Factor 2, were deemed to have a disaster response and recovery function that operated at a destination level. This second factor of attributes reflected a strategic focus rather than a tactical approach geared at individual businesses as in Factor one.

Table 5.

Two factor solution.

Attribute	Factor
	1	2
Conducts a risk assessment of my business' ability to cope with potential disasters	.854	.309
Holds pre-disaster workshops to teach me how to adequately plan for disaster situations	.840	.374
Holds drills, rehearsals, and simulations of potential disaster situations	.836	.319
Provides me with crisis management training and advice in the event of a disaster	.761	.454
Creates an emergency preparedness checklist for me to use during a disaster	.740	.481
Provides my business with a written crisis management plan	.713	.363
Provides me with access to free online and offline crisis management resources and tools to help my business be disaster ready	.711	.476
Keeps up to date with developments in the media regarding the disaster situation	.248	.856
Communicates with me about the status of disaster situations including the response and recovery efforts	.415	.780
Has a strategy to handle the disaster situation	.350	.754
Promotes my destination to help bring visitors back to the area following a disaster	.330	.737
Establishes communication and command chains to be followed during a disaster	.495	.726
Co-ordinates and establishes relationships with important groups (Emergency Services, Governments, and Police) in order to be ready for a disaster	.467	.682
Organises or provides financial help for my business after a disaster through small grants or tax cuts	.443	.656

Factor membership is denoted in bold.

4.4. Perceptions of destination performance

Pooled perceived destination performance results are listed in Table 6 where it can be seen the means ranged from a high of 4.35 for ‘Keeps up to date with developments in the media regarding the disaster situation’ to a low of 3.66 for ‘Holds pre-disaster workshops to teach me how to adequately plan for disaster situations’. In contrast to the importance ratings, seven of the means for the perceived performance ratings along with the grand mean were below the scale mid-point. Of these seven attributes, six were items from factor one, which focused on the disaster preparedness activities for individual businesses.

Table 6.

Perceived destination performance.

Attribute	n	Mean	S.D	Cronbach Alpha if item removed
Keeps up to date with developments in the media regarding the disaster situation	269	4.35	1.58	.978
Co-ordinates and establishes relationships with important groups (Emergency Services, Governments, and Police) in order to be ready for a disaster	259	4.34	1.65	.978
Has a strategy to handle the disaster situation	268	4.23	1.68	.978
Establishes communication and command chains to be followed during a disaster	253	4.09	1.71	.977
Promotes my destination to help bring visitors back to the area following a disaster	254	4.07	1.67	.978
Communicates with me about the status of disaster situations including the response and recovery efforts	255	4.02	1.67	.977
Provides me with access to free online and offline crisis management resources and tools to help my business be disaster ready	243	4.00	1.76	.977
Creates an emergency preparedness checklist for me to use during a disaster	249	3.92	1.75	.977
Provides my business with a written crisis management plan	243	3.89	1.78	.978
Provides me with crisis management training and advice in the event of a disaster	241	3.78	1.70	.977
Organises or provides financial help for my business after a disaster through small grants or tax cuts	242	3.76	1.67	.977
Holds drills, rehearsals, and simulations of potential disaster situations	248	3.74	1.68	.978
Conducts a risk assessment of my business' ability to cope with potential disasters	243	3.67	1.68	.978
Holds pre-disaster workshops to teach me how to adequately plan for disaster situations	241	3.66	1.78	.978
Grand mean		3.96

Gap analysis is a helpful visual aid to highlight the practical implications of the research for stakeholder engagement and relationship building in destination communities. As shown in Fig. 1 , there is a gap or misalignment between the importance ratings of and stakeholder perceptions of destination performance for every disaster management attribute.

Fig. 1.

Gap analysis between importance and perceived performance in disaster management.

5. Discussion

This study shed light on elements relating to public relations and stakeholder engagement in the tourism disaster management in several ways. First, this study identified multi-phase disaster management attributes that were important to tourism businesses, contributing to existing research that is phase-specific. A number of these attributes were rated as very important to tourism businesses, signalling priority areas for tourism destination stakeholders. From a public relations perspective, this information identified the criteria to judge the performance of DMOs and created a platform to guide stakeholder engagement activities before, during and after disasters.

Second, these attributes identified as two factors. Factor one, business disaster preparedness, comprised the activities that tourism business expect to be provided by destinations in the pre-disaster context. The framing of these attributes showed a dependence on the destination to provide support for risk assessment and crisis training among others. Taken another way, tourism businesses externalized the responsibility of pre-disaster preparedness to destinations. Factor two, destination disaster response and recovery, focused mostly on the latter phases of disaster management with activities that operated at the industry level such as grant assistance and post-disaster recovery communication or promotions. This factor comprised the engagement activities that DMOs undertake with emergency services organisations and governments.

These factors provided a concise and reliable way to measure disaster management attributes across multiple phases. Although these factors were developed and tested in a predominantly Australian context, further research could examine how the factors operate in other developed and emerging economies to better understand tourism disaster management practices.

Third, the study identified a consistent gap between tourism businesses' evaluation of the importance of and destination performance against disaster management attributes. In particular, seven attributes fell below the scale mid-point with six of these attributes belonging to factor one, business disaster preparedness. This finding suggested that tourism businesses perceived that destinations were not performing well in activities that directly engaged them around disaster preparedness. When effectively applied, stakeholder engagement has the potential to enhance tourism business' capabilities in disaster management (Taylor & Kent, 2014). The attributes identified above included a number of areas that have the ability to improve owner/operator and business capability for disaster preparedness, response and recovery. At the same time, seven attributes sat above the scale mid-point with the majority belonging to factor two, destination disaster response and recovery. This finding suggested that destinations were perceived to do a better/adequate job at destination level than at the individual business level. Overall, this analysis focused on stakeholder perceptions of performance rather than actual performance. This finding might suggest that destinations need to better engage their stakeholders and communities to enhance visibility about existing work in disaster management.

5.1. Research limitations

Various limitations to this study have been identified. First, despite the relatively large overall sample size within this study, participant numbers for some Australian States have been under–represented, which restricts the ability to generalise findings. Difficultly gaining business participants as opposed to individual consumers is an issue faced frequently by researchers, as acknowledged by Pike, Murdy, and Lings (2011). As such, the use of an external panel organisation was vital in ensuring an adequately sized sample, yet use of such a panel poses limitations for the current study. The utilisation of judgement sampling, specifically the panel organisation's offer of a small incentive to complete the survey may have resulted in cases of self-selection bias. Self-selection bias occurs when participants decide entirely for themselves whether or not to participate in the survey. This occurs to the extent that the participants' propensity for participating is correlated with the phenomenon the researcher is attempting to investigate (Hall, 2008). While acknowledging these shortcomings, results of this research reveal useful insights into the relationship between communities and the tourism operators they represent, and contributes to current understanding of disaster management in Australia.

6. Conclusion

This study identified attributes that were important to tourism destination stakeholders across multiple phases of disaster management. The authors also showed the misalignment between stakeholder importance and perceived destination performance against these attributes. In doing so, the work provides a first step for improving stakeholder engagement in ways that can enhance tourism destination stakeholder capability, build resilience in tourism, and encourage further research in this area.