دیدگاه تئوری آشوب در مدیریت بحران مقصد : مدارک و شواهد از مکزیک
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|1069||2012||11 صفحه PDF||26 صفحه WORD|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Volume 1, Issues 1–2, November 2012, Pages 67–77
It is recognised that tourism destinations are vulnerable to some form of crisis or disaster. Consequently, attention has long been paid to the nature and consequences of tourism crises and disasters, whilst, more recently, a number of tourism crisis management models have been proposed in the literature. Such models may, however, be criticised for their structured, linear and prescriptive approach to the management of crises, which tend to be unpredictable in their occurrence and evolution. Therefore, identifying the limitations of contemporary crisis management models, this paper proposes an alternative, chaos theory-based approach to crisis management. This is then considered within the context of the AH1N1 influenza crisis in Mexico. The research revealing not only that the unfolding of the crisis followed many of the tenets of chaos theory, but also that chaos theory provides a viable framework for the management of tourism crises.
For tourism destinations, a key success factor is the ability to provide a safe, predictable and secure environment for visitors (Volo, 2007). Tourists are typically risk averse and, thus, any actual or perceived threat to their health, safety or security is likely to influence their decision to visit a particular destination (Sönmez and Graefe, 1998 and Lepp and Gibson, 2003). Indeed, it has long been recognised that tourism is highly susceptible to political, environmental, economic and other influences. As Prideaux, Laws and Faulkner (2003, p. 475) note, tourism flows ‘are subject to disruption by a range of events that may occur in the destination itself, in competing destinations, origin markets, or they may be remote from either.’ Irrespective of the source of such events, however, the subsequent reduction in tourist arrivals may have significant economic and social consequences both for the destination and the wider economy (Santana, 2003 and Ritchie, 2008). Of course, the ‘tourism crisis’ is not a new phenomenon. The history of modern tourism is replete with well- (and lesser) known examples of natural disasters, economic downturns, political turmoil, health scares, terrorist activity and other events that have impacted negatively on the volume and direction of tourism flows. Moreover, as tourism has continued to grow in both scope and scale, such events appear, perhaps inevitably, to occur with increasing frequency, to the extent that ‘tourism destinations in every corner of the globe face the virtual certainty of experiencing a disaster of one form or another at some point in their history’ (Faulkner, 2001, p. 142). It is not surprising, therefore, that the susceptibility of tourism destinations to crises and disasters is widely addressed within the literature, albeit with a predominant focus on economic and financial crises (Hall, 2010). At the same time, and following the publication of Faulkner's (2001) seminal work on the subject, increasing academic attention has been paid in particular to the management of tourism crises and disasters (for example, Glaesser, 2006, Hystad and Keller, 2008, Ritchie, 2004 and Ritchie, 2009). Nevertheless, despite the growing body of research related to tourism crisis management it has been observed that many tourism destinations and organisations remain unprepared for a crisis situation (Beirman, 2003 and Ritchie, 2009). That is, there has been an apparent reluctance or failure on the part of the much of the tourism sector to adopt the crisis management models or strategies proposed in the literature. On the one hand, this may reflect a challenge facing the tourism academy more generally, namely, the need for a more effective articulation between tourism academic research and the needs of the tourism sector (Sharpley, 2011). On the other hand, and as this paper suggests, it may reflect the limitations of these proposed models and strategies as practical responses to potential or actual crises that tourism destinations may experience. In other words, the extent to which contemporary models of crisis management may deliver satisfactory solutions to the challenges presented by tourism crises or disasters remains questionable. Drawing as they do on theories of risk and crisis management within the business organisation, these models in general propose a linear, prescriptive framework from prediction through to post-event recovery as a universally applicable response to tourism crises and disasters. However, such is the variety of circumstances unique to each crisis or disaster that a ‘one size fits all’ model is unlikely to account for differences in the scale, intensity and impacts of crises, or in the availability skills and resources necessary to respond to them. More specifically, and of particular relevance to this paper, crisis management models typically follow a logical, step-by-step format that is unable to embrace the complex and frequently chaotic characteristics of tourism crises and disasters which, by their very nature, often do not proceed as might be expected. Tourism has more generally been described as ‘an inherently non-linear, complex and dynamic system that is well described within the chaos paradigm’ (FaulknerPlease provide the page range for the following Ref.: (Faulkner and Russell, 1997). and Russell, 1997, McKercher, 1999 and Zahra and Ryan, 2007). That is, in contrast to the widely-held perception that it is a linear, deterministic and predictable activity and, hence, amenable to planning and control, tourism is unpredictable, complex, difficult to manage effectively and, according to McKercher (1999), best considered from the perspective of chaos theory. Moreover, a crisis or disaster may be the trigger that tips the tourism system into chaos. Consequently, it has been suggested that ‘chaos theory may provide some insights into crisis and disaster management for organisations in the tourism industry’ (Ritchie, 2004, p. 672). However, its relevance to the effective management of tourism crises has yet to be fully explored. The purpose of this paper is to address this gap in the literature. In particular, it considers tourism crisis and disaster management within the framework of chaos theory, in so doing proposing an alternative perspective on destination crisis management. Based upon research in Mexico, it then explores the limitations of extant models and the applicability of a chaos theory approach to destination crisis management in the context of the impacts of and responses to the 2009 AH1N1 influenza (‘swine flu’) crisis within the Mexican tourism sector. For this purpose, ‘destination’ refers to Mexico as a whole, rather than specific resorts. The first task, however, is to identify the limitations of contemporary models and to review briefly chaos theory as an alternative perspective on destination crisis management.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The purpose of this paper was to consider the extent to which a chaos theory-based perspective on crisis management might represent a more viable framework for destinations to respond to crises. More specifically, drawing on research into the evolution of and responses to the impacts on the tourism sector of the 2009 Mexican AH1N1 influenza outbreak, it set out to identify whether the proposed limitations of contemporary tourism crisis management models are manifested in practice and whether an alternative approach, following the tenets of chaos theory, was reflected in or might have facilitated the response of the Mexican tourism authorities to the crisis. Although further research, exploring the relevance of chaos theory to other tourism crises, is required to validate the outcomes of this research, two broad conclusions can be drawn here. Firstly, the suggested limitations of contemporary models were clearly evident in the Mexican case, calling into question their potential effectiveness as a crisis management plan. In particular, their generic, linear and prescriptive approach was appropriate to neither the unpredictability of the crisis, its rapid evolution, scale and impact, nor the political/cultural context within which it occurred. Secondly, the research suggested that the unfolding and consequences of the AH1N1 outbreak reflected the tenets of chaos theory and, moreover, the responses of the Mexican tourism authorities largely mirrored the actions proposed in the alternative, chaos theory-based approach to crisis management. Indeed, only two divergences were identified. Primarily, the organisations comprising the Mexican tourism authorities could clearly not claim to have embraced a flexible, adaptive and learning culture; as organisations, they were culturally unprepared for the crisis. More positively, however, they did implement the ‘Vive México’ strategy at an earlier stage than the model proposes, perhaps stimulating as well as supporting the ‘self-organisation’ phase of the crisis. Of course, the marketing and communication strategies proposed in this alternative approach are by no means novel or innovative. They are suggested throughout the tourism crisis management literature and, thus, traditional models and a chaos theory perspective are not mutually exclusive. What is novel, however, is the locating of a tourism crisis within chaos theory, and the research suggests that recognising the tourism system as potentially chaotic – that prescriptive, rigid management plans attempt to manage the unmanageable – presents destination managers with a more valid framework for anticipating and responding appropriately to crises.