Ken Hughey Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand

1. Catering for DRR with a multicultural, transient population: development and application of the Visitor Action Plan Ken HugheyLincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand (Invited paper, South Island Civil Defence Emergency Management Conference, Greymouth, 30-31 July 2014)

2. Who are these populations, where are they found, and what are they like?Some context

3. Who are these populations? • Tourists – domestic and international • Migrant workers – domestic and international • School pupils – domestic and international • University students – domestic and international • Others?

4. Where are they and how many? • Remember NZ has a popn of c.4.5m people; 1m in the SI and the rest in the North. • Others are virtually everywhere in the country, at any time, often in vast numbers, e.g.,: • Foreign school students: N=16,000 (in 2011), mainly in major towns & cities (CTV Building in CHCH EQ) • Foreign university students: N= 80,000 (2011) - cities • Migrant workers: N=120,000 (2011) – varies, but CHCH • International visitors: N=2,500,0009 (2013) – everywhere (with some overlap in numbers with above data)

5. Characteristics and issues: • English often the 2ndor 3rd language: • challenging to communicate with? • Highly mobile – in one place for less than a day or maybe up to 6-months: • of no fixed abode? • Multiple forms of communication – cell, email, etc: • how best to communicate? • Often use diverse and hard to track forms of transport/accommodation: camper vans, bikes, boarding, freedom camping: • how do you know where they are?

6. Developing an approach for dealing with these challenges within a tourism context: Application to Northland

7. Tourism in Northland • Very seasonal, peak in January • Core products: coastal tourism and cultural products • Winterless North, but … • Exposed to extreme climatic events (floods, storms) and tsunamis • Key players: Destination Northland and Tourism Development Group

8. Guest nights in Northland

9. Ex-Tropical Cyclone Wilma – 28-29 January 2011

10. A not a-typical Northland cyclonic scene (including July 2014!)

11. How tourism is affected Directly: safety, closures, cancellations Indirectly: damaged assets, disruptions, negative media coverage

12. Wilma and tourism • Many roads were cut • Many tourists were stranded • Much media interest • General view: ‘we were lucky’ • Both Civil Defence and Tourism interests wanted to know how well the event was ‘managed’ • Interviewed key stakeholders in both CDEM and the tourism industry …

13. Wilma-related findings • Tourism operators generally experienced with natural disasters • No formal warning system (or contact tree) for tourism businesses • Freedom campers are a concern • No plan for communication to tourism stakeholders (in NZ and overseas) during and after an event • Northland CDEM systems in place, but no formal integration of tourism (We reviewed all NZ CDEM plans and found little or no reference to tourism in almost all (Queenstown an exception) • Opportunity for greater integration of tourism aspects into disaster risk reduction (based on the Four Rs)

14. General Visitor Needs: Immediate • Visitor welfare • Food and potentially clothing • Shelter (welfare centre/other accommodation) • Socio-psychological support (e.g. through Victim Support or Salvation Army) • Information flows, different target groups - Important observations: • Visitors are generally able to obtain information (e.g. many have mobile phones): language challenges • Information centres are critical for information and assistance): language challenges • TNZ website and channels are important): language challenges • The role of social media needs to be examined and opportunities exploited): language challenges

15. General Visitor Needs: Flow-on • Passports and Visas • Diplomatic implications when passports/visas are lost • Partnership between tourism organisations, education organisations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Immigration NZ, embassies and others • Families of Victims • Assistance required (socio-psychological, travel arrangements, other logistics and formalities) • Specific information needs

16. Potential contribution of the Visitor Sector to CDEM Tourism can play an important role in the Response: • Assisting in dealing with displaced visitors • Gathering of information from the tourism and education sectors (how many and where?) • Connecting Civil Defence with accommodation and other hospitality (food/feeding/catering) services • Providing external communications and dealing with the media • Maintaining tourism activities (and economic flow on effects) elsewhere in New Zealand (e.g. rebooking of itineraries)

17. Summary of tourism issues • Rescue and Missing people • All people are treated the same • “Tracking down” of visitors is challenging • Coordination and Communication • Challenges and gaps in the first 24 hours very typical for any disaster situation • Lack of consideration of visitor industry resulted in oversights in the immediate response by Civil Defence • Different protocols for different organisations involved in offshore communication • Destination image • False reporting, some sensationalism • Relationship with media essential to avoid damaging reporting and to capitalise on media as communication channel • Overly negative travel advisories • Innovative campaigns important – see photo above

18. Taking a systematic approach to thinking about how tourism and CDEM can be integrated for better management of multi-cultural and highly transient visitors

19. Disaster frameworks

20. Developing a Visitor Action Plan (VAP) for Northland • Initial consultation • Two rounds of interviews • Business survey • In-depth meetings with CDEM and Destination Northland • Workshop with Tourism Development Group • Final workshop with tourism stakeholders - approval of VAP

21. Template for linking tourism into the existing Civil Defence structure (on the left hand side of the Figure) based on the Northland case study

22. Suggestions for what a Visitor Action Plan for tourism should contain (provided by respondents to the tourism operator survey)

23. Visitor Action Plan adopted by the Tourism Cluster in Northland – example components

25. Where to from here? • Project recently approved (for KH and Susanne Becken, Griffith University) with CDEM Resilience Collaborative Fund to: • Evaluate Northland experience – what is working, what isn’t, what can we do better? • Apply that experience to the West Coast of the South Island context • Consider how the VAP concept might be linked with an integrated certification programme, e.g., Qualmark in New Zealand • Tie to international initiatives in this space • Raise the question more generally – would your region benefit from closer links with Tourism and would this build resilience?

26. Summary • Tourism is probably more exposed to natural disasters than any other ‘group’ in the population • Often, emergency management systems do not explicitly consider tourism • Tourism’s concerns need to be addressed, and at the same time tourism is an important resource • Tourist destinations are a suitable partner for disaster management • A proactive approach is better than a reactive one

27. Contact: ken.hughey@lincoln.ac.nz