Tourism and natural disaster management: a systematic narrative review

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to track and integrate past research concerning how tourism might improve natural disaster management, detect thematic research areas and develop an agenda for future research. Design/methodology/approach Using a systematic literature review methodology, this research synthesises academic papers indexed in the Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCOhost (Hospitality & Tourism Complete) databases. A total of 34 articles published in peer-reviewed English journals were systematically selected for review and analysed using a thematic approach. Findings This review highlights a growing interest in the potential and value of tourism for disaster management. Eight key themes emerged in the review, including education and information communication about disasters; tourism facilities for disaster preparation; tourism resources in emergency conditions; livelihoods and economic recovery; disaster-related tourism attractions for recovery; destination re-branding and re-framing; community reinvigoration in tourism-driven disaster recovery; and special-interest tourism for recovery. A natural disaster management schematic empowered by tourism highlights tourism industry opportunities to positively impact the entire disaster management process. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this work offers the first systematic review of the research on how tourism might support multiple stages of natural disaster management. This study thus complements and enriches extant literature reviews on the nexus between tourism and disaster management. The framework presents timely guidelines for planners, developers and other key stakeholders to leverage tourism initiatives to improve disaster management outcomes.

Integrating smart cities and tourism systems: a critical review

“…In order to conduct this review transparently and accurately, a systematic review method is essential. Afterwards, a thematic analysis is applied to achieve a narrative comprehension of the topic under investigation (Ritchie and Jiang, 2021;Zhang et al, 2023).…”

“…We follow Zhang et al (2023) and Ritchie and Jiang (2021) to answer the research question and unveil those barriers hindering the integration of a TS in SC strategies, which will allow us to gather in-depth data on the phenomenon and develop a framework that can guide a new research agenda as well as public managers on the integration of TSs in SCs. This review method will allow for synthesizing the findings associated with a research question and is replicable, transparent and conducted systematically (Zhang et al, 2023).…”

“…The PRISMA protocol provides clear guidelines for the review process and consists of four stages: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion (Moher et al, 2015). It "provides complete, transparent and accurate reporting of the data selection process" (Zhang et al, 2023).…”

“…A total number of 11 barriers to integrating a TS in SC strategies were identified and underwent a detailed description. The relatively small number of articles allowed us to conduct the thematic analysis using MS Word (Zhang et al, 2023).…”

Rise of fsQCA in tourism and hospitality research: a systematic literature review

“…In academic research, systematic reviews and bibliometric analysis are two commonly used methods for identifying and analysing pertinent published material (Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016; Zhu and Liu, 2020). To begin, the main advantage of a systematic review is that it provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a specific research topic (Buhalis et al , 2023); however, it has limitations, such as the potential for bias in study selection and the inability to capture non-peer-reviewed literature (Zhang et al , 2023). Bibliometric analysis, on the other hand, has limitations, such as the inability to assess the quality or relevance of research literature, and its main benefit is that it offers a quantitative evaluation of the impact and influence of research literature (Donthu et al , 2021).…”