Tourism in a world with pandemics: local-global responsibility and action

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide a swift perspective to JTF readers on the novel coronavirus outbreak that commenced in Wuhan, China in December 2019 and is currently ongoing. The study situates the current outbreak within prior pandemics and offers some directions for research and practice. Swift attention is needed to this event and the future of travel and tourism in a world where disease outbreaks and pandemics will become increasingly frequent due to increased travel and ease of access to destinations worldwide.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper draws from published academic research studies, as well as current media sources emerging, as the novel coronavirus situation is unfolding. In addition, the authors draw on the multidisciplinary expertise of the two authors (one based in tourism studies and the other an epidemiologist and public health expert).

Findings

This paper captures events on the novel coronavirus, as they are unfolding now, situates this in relation to the research literature on past pandemics like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Ebola and draws some important directions to guide research and practice.

Research limitations/implications

This is a viewpoint paper and offers some emerging perspectives, issues and challenges arising in relation to the current novel coronavirus outbreak. This is situated more broadly in a large research literature that has been drawn on in a very succinct manner to ground this viewpoint. Future research will need to explore the larger literature.

Practical implications

This viewpoint offers the following valuable implications for practice at the local level and the regional/global level: countering misinformation and xenophobia through the communication of accurate facts related to the disease in question (the novel coronavirus in this case) is essential; close collaboration and cooperation between tourism stakeholders (including service providers and destination management organizations) and public health authorities; greater responsibility by residents and tourists to seek out correct scientific facts on the disease and take sensible precautions, as well as exercise care to those suffering the adverse impacts; and global coordination and attention to vulnerable destinations is needed more concretely (recommended in crisis management and recovery studies but not well implemented yet).

Social implications

As noted above under practical implications, this viewpoint identified important social implications in terms of inequities and injustices that arise during disease outbreaks like the novel coronavirus and prior outbreaks like SARS and Ebola. These range from discrimination and racism as well as inequities related to managing the impacts on vulnerable destinations whose health facilities may be far from adequate to handle such outbreaks and the challenges of misinformation among visitors and residents that indirectly or directly affect the destination.

Originality/value

This viewpoint is being submitted as the novel coronavirus epidemic is unfolding, and it is hoped that sharing it speedily via an open access journal will assist in better managing the research of what will continue to be an increasing future challenge for destinations and societies in a world of mobilities and increasing travel forecast.

Related collections

Most cited references 6

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

‘No Ebola…still doomed’ – The Ebola-induced tourism crisis

Marina Novelli, Liv Gussing Burgess, Adam Jones … (2018)

Highlights • Explores the indirect spill over effect of a health induced crisis for tourism. • Research beyond the immediate response phase into recovery and resolution phases. • Employs Rapid Situation Analysis, over a 21 months research timeline. • Assesses crisis’ planning, response, recovery challenges in a developing country.

0 comments Cited 164 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Over-Reaction to SARS and the Collapse of Asian Tourism

Bob McKercher, Kaye Chon (2004)

The 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak devastated Asian tourism. The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC 2003) estimated that up to three million people in the industry lost their jobs in the most severely affected jurisdictions of China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Vietnam and that the outbreak cost these four economies over $20 billion in lost GDP. Tourism arrivals also fell by 70% or more across the rest of Asia, even in countries that were largely or totally disease-free. The cause of this regionwide tourism collapse can be attributed more to how governments reacted to the perceived threat of the disease rather than to the real public health danger posed. This research note presents a cautionary tale about transnational crises and how over-reaction, lack of coordination and well-meaning (but ultimately misguided) actions can affect tourism flows. The analysis of the events is suggested to form the justification for new research into national recovery strategies. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or atypical pneumonia is a new disease that was identified first in southern China. The world became aware of it in March 2003 when a tourist in Hong Kong infected a number of people staying at the same hotel. Seven of the infected guests returned to their homes in Canada, Vietnam, and Singapore, introducing the disease there. Globally, media soon after reported that a new, virulent epidemic was being disseminated by returning tourists. While tourism is well known in the medical community to be a vector for disease dissemination (Rodriguez-Garcia 2001), SARS represented a stark example of an explicit link between travel and the global spread of an illness. A hotel was identified as “ground zero” with the hotel’s name publicized widely (CNN 2003, Fox 2003). Media coverage of airline passengers falling ill (Frith 2003) further established a link with tourism, as did a variety of subsequent print and electronic media reports, too numerous to summarize here. While one Harvard academic suggested that 75% of the world’s population would have been infected had nothing been done to halt the disease (Benitez 2003), prompt action from the World Health Organization ensured that SARS did not become the plague that many predicted. In the end, about 8100 people worldwide were infected, with 97.7% of all cases occurring in Hong Kong, China, Taiwan Province, Singapore, and Canada. Fewer than 750 died, again with 98.3% of fatalities confined to these five jurisdictions (WHO 2003a). The mode of transmission was identified quickly and within a short period of time, the medical profession realized that the risk to the general population was minimal. In fact, measles is considered to be five times more infectious than SARS (Benitez 2003). This insight suggests that SARS should have had no more impact on global tourism than any other seasonal influenza outbreak. Instead, the issuance of a WHO “general travel advisory” on March 15, 2003, triggered a chain reaction of responses. A series of specific travel advisories against Hong Kong, China, Toronto, and Taiwan effectively closed many borders. The WHO announcements were unprecedented in its almost 45-year history, for this was the first time that the organization had issued advisories for specific geographical areas because of an outbreak of an infectious disease (WTTC 2003). The Thai government ordered tourists from affected areas to wear facemasks for the entire duration of their visit or face up to six months imprisonment. It also warned that if one arriving passenger showed SARS-like symptoms, all passengers would be quarantined for two weeks (Shamdasani 2003). Malaysia issued a travel ban on all tourists from SARS-infected countries. A number of cities in China issued similar travel bans that were subsequently lifted. Singapore imposed an automatic 14-day quarantine period on returning residents who visited infected countries. Taiwan imposed a 14-day quarantine period on incoming passengers. Media reports suggested that Asian tourists were denied entry to trade shows, hotels, and cruiseships and that some countries stopped issuing visas. At the peak of the outbreak, more than 110 countries placed some type of travel restrictions on Mainland Chinese tourists (Doran, Cheng and AFP 2003). The reasons for these measures were that SARS was a new disease of unknown cause, origin, transmission, and treatment. As it turned out, simple and minor invasive strategies were found to be effective in stopping the spread of the virus; yet, what must be termed a panic spread faster than the disease itself (Lakshmanan 2003). Today, the World Health Organization recommends that SARS can be controlled by having departing tourists “answer two or three questions and [have] a temperature check” (WHO 2003b). Those with symptoms should be assessed by a health care worker, but others who have had no contact with probable cases require no special measures. The experience highlights the need for stronger international collaboration and coordination among tourism departments to develop effective responses to cross-border crises. While most are limited in location, scale and duration, SARS was different in that it affected multiple countries and entire global regions simultaneously. The lack of central coordination among governments was highlighted by the sequential, country-by-country unveiling of reactive responses. It fueled fears that an out-of-control epidemic was spreading through Asia when, in fact, this was not the case. Indeed, SARS highlights the need to develop integrated national and international tourism crisis recovery strategies. The need for such strategies is urgent as even WHO did not appear to appreciate fully the consequences of issuing advisories on tourism. While it must be praised for its actions in controlling the spread of SARS, for a period of time it was instrumental in triggering the almost complete eradication of tourism in Asia. Its executive director was forced to go on public record in May to acknowledge that the perception of the threat posed by SARS and its consequences were based on an inaccurate interpretation of information that had been provided by WHO to governments and the public. He stated further that travel was not a contributor to the spread of SARS and that there was no reason why people should not travel (PATA 2003). Further, the actions taken by central governments not experiencing large-scale outbreaks also appear to have been taken without consideration of the impacts on tourism flows. The scale of SARS and the level of community-wide panic it induced set it apart from other crises, but it is not a unique event. Asian tourism has faced a number of major urgencies in the past 10 years, such as the feared “Y2K” computer collapse at the end of 1999 and it will, no doubt, face many more in the years to come. The effects of SARS, however, highlight the need for research into the bases and motivations as well as the mechanics and preparation for optimal national recovery strategies and greater international cooperation. ■A