This article was downloaded by: [University of New Orleans], [David M. Pearlman] On: 14 January 2013, At: 10:52 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20 Destination-Image Recovery Process and Visit Intentions: Lessons Learned from Hurricane Katrina Kisang Ryu a , Bridget M. Bordelon b & David M. Pearlman b a Department of Food Service Management, College of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea b Lester E. Kabacoff School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Administration, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA Accepted author version posted online: 26 Mar 2012.Version of record first published: 10 Jan 2013. To cite this article: Kisang Ryu , Bridget M. Bordelon & David M. Pearlman (2013): Destination-Image Recovery Process and Visit Intentions: Lessons Learned from Hurricane Katrina, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22:2, 183-203 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2011.647264 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [University of New Orleans], [David M. Pearlman]On: 14 January 2013, At: 10:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Hospitality Marketing &ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20
Destination-Image Recovery Process andVisit Intentions: Lessons Learned fromHurricane KatrinaKisang Ryu a , Bridget M. Bordelon b & David M. Pearlman ba Department of Food Service Management, College of Hospitalityand Tourism Management, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic ofKoreab Lester E. Kabacoff School of Hotel, Restaurant and TourismAdministration, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana,USAAccepted author version posted online: 26 Mar 2012.Version ofrecord first published: 10 Jan 2013.
To cite this article: Kisang Ryu , Bridget M. Bordelon & David M. Pearlman (2013): Destination-ImageRecovery Process and Visit Intentions: Lessons Learned from Hurricane Katrina, Journal of HospitalityMarketing & Management, 22:2, 183-203
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2011.647264
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
KISANG RYUDepartment of Food Service Management, College of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
BRIDGET M. BORDELON and DAVID M. PEARLMANLester E. Kabacoff School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Administration, University of New
Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Hurricane Katrina is considered the most costly and deadliest hur-ricane in the history of the United States. This study examined thedifferences in tourists’ destination image of New Orleans beforeand after Katrina. This study also aimed at identifying significantdestination attributes that affect travelers’ intention to visit after adisaster. Paired sample t tests found that travelers’ perceived imageof New Orleans post-Katrina was significantly more negative thanbefore Katrina. Independent t tests showed that the image of NewOrleans after Hurricane Katrina was significantly more favorableamong repeat visitors. Multiple regression analysis revealed desti-nation image attributes, (e.g., exciting nightlife, restaurant variety,friendly locals, good value, and safe to visit), gender, and past expe-rience were significant predictors of visit intentions. Findings mayassist practitioners in accelerating the destination-image recoveryprocesses following a disaster, as well as, stimulate the inclusionof tourism elements within crisis management plans. Destinationsthat have an accurate understanding of their image before a dis-aster will be more equipped to concentrate on the destination’s corestrengths.
KEYWORDS Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, destination image,visit intentions
Address correspondence to Kisang Ryu, PhD, Gwang Gae to Building #612, SejongUniversity, 98 Gunja-Dong, Gwangjin-Gu, Seoul, 143–747, Republic of Korea. E-mail:[email protected]
183
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
184 K. Ryu et al.
INTRODUCTION
Tourism is one of the world’s largest industries and one of the world’s mostsignificant income generators. In 2010, world travel and tourism wasexpected to generate US$5,751 billion (total demand), contributing 8% to thegross domestic product and representing 8% of global employment (235 mil-lion jobs), or 1 in every 12.5 jobs (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2010).In the United States, tourism is ranked as the third largest industry (Goeldner& Ritchie, 2009). In 2010, there were 24.6 million visitors to Louisiana with$9.3 billion in total spending by domestic and international visitors (LouisianaDepartment of Culture Recreation & Tourism, 2011). A University of NewOrleans Hospitality Research Center study showed that in 2009, New Orleansreceived 7.5 million visitor arrivals with $4.2 billion in visitor spending.Table 1 contains New Orleans visitor arrival numbers and visitor spend-ing from 2003–2009. Of the tourism-related expenditures for the state ofLouisiana, 58% were spent in New Orleans (Louisiana Department of Culture,Recreation, and Tourism, 2009). Table 1 also demonstrates the significantimpact of a disaster on travel volume. Following Hurricane Katrina, visita-tion to New Orleans was reduced in half and has not reached prehurricanevolumes after 5 years (New Orleans Convention Bureau, 2010).
The importance of a tourist destination’s image is universally acknowl-edged since it can affect an individual’s subjective perception and conse-quently behavior resulting in destination choice (Chi & Qu, 2008; Chon, 1991;Echtner & Ritchie, 1993; Molina, Mar, & Martín-Consuegra, 2010). Accordingto Crompton (1979, p. 18), destination image is “a sum of beliefs, ideas andimpressions that a person has of a destination.” Yet, as competition amongtourism destinations becomes more intense it has become increasinglymore important to understand the dynamic structure of image by study-ing forces contributing to destination image formation and their interactionwith each other, so that an effective destination image development strat-egy can occur. Gallarza, Saura, and Garcia (2002) quoted Guthrie and Gale
TABLE 1 New Orleans visitor arrival numbers and visitor spending for 2003–2009
Year Visitor arrivals (millions) Visitor spending (billions)
Note. Data acquired from the New Orleans Convention Bureau (Available at http://www.neworleanscvb.com/docs/12new_orleans_tourism_FIVE_years_after_katrina%20%20FINAL.pdf).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Destination-Image Recovery: Lessons Learned 185
who assert “images are more important than tangible resources . . . becauseperceptions, rather than reality are what motivate consumers to act or not”(2002, p. 57). This is precisely why the research focus on travel perceptions,destination image, and travel intentions are vital to the industry. Negativedestination image can have a profound impact on travelers’ perceptions ofplace.
The tourism industry, which has always been a major economic gener-ator for the city of New Orleans, was devastated in the months immediatelyfollowing Hurricane Katrina. According to Wikipedia (Hurricane Katrina,2006) Hurricane Katrina was the costliest natural disaster in the history ofthe United States (e.g., at least 1,836 killed and $81.2 billion in damage).Levees separating Lake Pontchartrain and several canals from New Orleanswere breached by the surge, ultimately flooding 80% of the city. The mediacoverage has had a lasting undesirable effect on New Orleans’ tourist desti-nation image. A report by the Louisiana Recovery Authority (2006) noted thatroughly 81,000 businesses in 13 Louisiana parishes suffered business inter-ruptions or direct damages because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Morespecifically, 1,409 tourism and hospitality businesses shut down after thestorm affecting 33,000 hospitality-based employees.
Bringing the crowds back in greater numbers requires a shift in publicperception, according to a spokesperson for the New Orleans MetropolitanConvention and Visitors Bureau (NOMCVB; Oberman, 2006). Bonn, Joseph,and Dai (2005, pp. 294–295) underlined that understanding destinationimages that past visitors have about a certain destination “may provide usefulinsights into understanding existing images about that destination and canaid in the development of positioning strategies to alter or maintain theseimages.”
Tourism contributes to the economy of countries, states, and cities.However, it is important to understand that the industry is vulnerable to natu-ral disasters. Then, in particular, in the case of New Orleans are there imagedifferences between pre-Katrina and post-Katrina visitors to New Orleans?Are there image differences between visitors and nonvisitors regarding NewOrleans after Hurricane Katrina? What destination image attributes influencetourists’ visit intention to New Orleans? Despite the importance of under-standing these research questions, none of previous studies have clearlyaddressed them. In addition, an appropriate qualitative approach that identi-fies critical lessons after the natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina fromindustry perspectives was ignored in the previous studies. Therefore, the pur-pose of this study was to examine the destination-image recovery processusing New Orleans post disaster to identify implications and opportuni-ties for hospitality and tourism industry practitioners. Moreover, differencesin tourists’ destination images of New Orleans before and after HurricaneKatrina were investigated to identify significant image attributes that affecttravelers’ visit intentions. Additionally, insights from industry leaders on
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
186 K. Ryu et al.
tourism crises and recovery were presented as lessons learned to speed upthe recovery cycle.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to evaluate the destination-image recovery process following a dis-aster, it is essential to understand the relationship between destination image,perceptions, and crises management. The following literature review beginswith an overview of destination image, perception, and media related totourism development. Next, disasters are reviewed in the context of naturaland manmade with an emphasis on management and recovery at the hostdestination. Finally, image recovery, crises management, and lessons learnedare reviewed from previous research in the hospitality and tourism literature.
Destination Image
In a broad sense, images refer to the mental pictures people create to inter-pret their environment. According to Reitzes (1986, p. 168) images allowindividuals to evaluate destinations and to anticipate “characteristic physical,demographic, and social experiences which may aid in the selection of rolesor behaviors.” Image implies an impression rather than a judgment. Potentialtravelers are inundated with a variety of media and sources of visual com-munication to derive a strong mental picture of a destination. Destinationscan take on personalities and appear as positive, negative, or even neutral topotential travelers. Hosany, Ekinci, and Uysal (2007) examined the relation-ship between brand image and brand personality of tourism destinations toconclude that communicating unique features of place can influence touristbehavior. In the absence of prior first-hand experience with a destination(i.e., absence of actual visitation), Baloglu and McCleary (1999) revealedthree factors influencing destination image: tourism motivations, sociodemo-graphics, and various information sources. In the event of a disaster or crises,potential travelers are exposed to an array of visual cues ranging from tele-vision, Internet, and even motion pictures. What happens to the existingdestination image in the event of a natural disaster? For example, do mostpeople still think about the 2004 Tsunami when exploring Phuket, Thailandas a possible exotic beach escape?
The tourism industry and mass media have a dynamic, but often con-tested relationship. Showing repeated visual representations of devastationfor a tourism destination can lead to a tourism crisis and ultimately loss oftourism activities. As Poimiroo (2001) described, tourism crisis can be cate-gorized into two main events dealing with: mother nature (hurricane, flood,earthquake, tornado, avalanche, health, wildfire, and environmental) andhuman nature (crime, scandal, political, civil unrest, war, and terrorism).While the timing of recovery varies for each destination, the period of limbo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Destination-Image Recovery: Lessons Learned 187
when the attractions, services, and infrastructure are under recovery andscrutiny can put an enormous strain on the industry (Sonmez & Graefe,1998). Sonmez and Graefe (1998, p. 13) argued that natural disasters canreduce the flow of tourism, but terrorism risks have the potential to impacttravel more profoundly: “random acts of terrorism curtail activity until thepublic’s memories of the publicized incidents fade.” Martinez and Alvarez(2010) examined the difference between country and destination images ofTurkey and developed a scale to measure each. Further, this study providesevidence of differencs and suggests ways in which the destination’s imagemay contribute to the improvement of the country’s general perceptions.Stepchenkovaa and Mills (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of destination-image research from 2000–2007. Their findings indicated that no standardizedmethod for assessing destination image exists; therefore, a variety of tech-niques and strategies were used. As the literature reveals, destination imagehas a strong influence on visitor’s perceptions of place, and ultimately visitintentions.
Perception. Perceptions are not always based on firsthand experiences.Mass media play an important role in how people receive and interpretmeaning in their lives (Lowery & DeFleur, 1983). George (2003) exploredtourists’ perceptions of safety because Cape Town had a reputation for beingan unsafe place to visit. The study revealed that prior destination experienceand interactions with crime influenced survey respondents’ perception ofplace and feelings of safety. Prayag (2007) explored the relationship betweendestination image and brand personality focusing on Cape Town. Using aconvenience sample of 85 international tourists, the Cape Town brand wasperceived as young and more adventurous when compared to the SouthAfrican brand. For some time, there has been a debate over whether massmedia creates public opinion, attitudes, and perceptions, or reflect existingpublic opinion, attitudes, and perceptions. Newbold, Boyd-Barrett, and Vanden Bulck (2002) argued that most media researchers are in agreement thatmass media do both.
Media. Besides controlled and directed messages, other sources ofmedia contribute to the popular perception and image of a tourism destina-tion. Especially in times of crises, the news media feature repetitive imagesof destruction, devastation, and mayhem. Sensationalized news reports andshocking visuals captivate audiences. In 1995, the majority of the UnitedStates population turned to the media for news: 70.3% were regular view-ers of local television news (Perse, 2001). Milo and Yoder (1991) foundthat extensive national and international news coverage following a disastercould affect the recovery as well as cause misinformation or an exaggeratedaccount of the crises. As part of the destination recovery cycle, the imme-diate news coverage following a natural disaster is hard news or factualand trails off into featured stories. Gartner and Shen (1992) examined theimpacts of the Tiananmen Square conflict on the tourism industry. Overall,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
188 K. Ryu et al.
the immediate impacts were tour cancellations and a reduction in visitationto China. The media coverage focused mainly on Beijing and as a result,there was a decline in relative attractiveness of the destination. Additionally,there were image changes related to safety and security, attitudes of servicepersonnel, and cleanliness of the destination. Tasci and Gartner (2007) illus-trated that autonomous agents such as news media have the power to alterimages quickly. Image change in a short period occurs when large audiencesworldwide watch repetitive scenes of an event. In this research, the disasterof Hurricane Katrina fits the description where in a matter of 24 hours, theworld saw the city of New Orleans transform from an iconic place reveredfor music, food, and festival to a deluge of despair, flooding, death, crime,violence, and destruction.
Disasters
Murphy and Bayley (1989) examined the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption andthe Kootenay 1985 forest fires and revealed how tourism factors fit into thegenerally accepted model used in natural disaster planning. Tourism is sus-ceptible to manmade disasters like terrorism as evidenced by the sharp dropin the Mediterranean cruise-ship industry after the hijacking and subsequenttragedy aboard the Achille Lauro. In addition, tourism is significantly suscep-tible to natural disasters because of its connection to exotic scenery (e.g.,mountain avalanches and tropical beaches in hurricane alley). For planningpurposes, disasters are classified using four main stages: (a) assessment, (b)warning, (c) impact, and (d) recovery (Murphy & Bayley, 1989). The impactand recovery stages are particularly relevant to tourism practitioners. Theysuggest that successful visits may reinforce the fact that tourism has survivedand recovery is under way. Sonmez, Apostolopoulos, and Tarlow (1999,p. 13) argued that natural disasters can reduce the flow of tourism, but ter-rorism risks have the potential to impact travel more profoundly: “randomacts of terrorism curtail activity until the public’s memories of the publicizedincidents fade.”
Chandler (2004) analyzed the economic impact of Hurricanes Dennis,Floyd, and Irene on North Carolina’s lodging industry. Findings indicatedthat the physical damage and lost room revenues were between $96 and$125 million for September and October 1999. Chandler (2004) also notedthe review of literature yielded many popular and trade press coverageof natural disasters, while, very few research based articles were specifi-cally related to the impact of natural disasters on the hospitality industry.Nothinger and Elsasser (2004) divided the negative effects of natural dis-asters into direct and indirect damages. Direct damage is closely linked tothe very moment the natural disaster occurs while indirect effects are feltover subsequent weeks and months. The indirect costs of a natural disastertypically are 10 times higher than the direct costs regarding tourism. Since
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Destination-Image Recovery: Lessons Learned 189
these conditions are unlikely to change in the future, the tourism industryshould focus on communication improvements to reduce the indirect costsof future disasters. Miller (2008) conducted an ethnography of post-KatrinaNew Orleans to explore cultural resilience to draw residents back to thedestination. Postdisaster, social theorists predict (a) natural disaster leads tocommunity bonding and (b) technological manmade disaster can lead to acorrosive community (p. 126). The perceived risk and perception of safetygreatly influences travel intentions. When risk makes a destination perceivedas less desirable, the potential traveler can (a) pursue with their travel plans,(b) change their destination choice, or (c) acquire additional information forfurther processing. The review of the disaster literature revealed both theneed for research regarding natural disasters and the tourism and hospitalityindustry, as well as the need to implement crisis management planning.
Image Recovery after DisastersCrises Management Planning. In the past 20 years, crisis manage-
ment has emerged as a substantive focus area and a number of strategicapproaches and models have appeared. Huanga and Min (2002) found thatalthough the number of natural disasters has increased in recent decadesand the number of people threatened by such incidents has grown, thedeath rate has almost been cut in half because of disaster and risk manage-ment practices. Huang, Tseng, and Petrick (2008) proposed an innovative,integrated approach that could be adopted as a crisis management planfor Taiwan to restore its tourism industry after a major earthquake. Theauthors provided a thorough review of the crisis management literatureand introduced an integrated crisis management framework. Furthermore,they stated that this framework could accelerate tourism image recovery byshowing secure images, thus demonstrating its competitiveness as a touristdestination through sound crisis management practices. Since misleadingreports affected the island by creating an unrealistic impression of Taiwan,its tourism recovery was hindered. “Secondary” impact refers to the conse-quences that “extend beyond the people directly affected by the originalhazard, event, or report” (Kasperson, 1992, p. 160). The accuracy of mediacoverage is essential for shaping potential visitors image towards the des-tination during the aftermath of a disaster since tourists do not thoroughlyevaluate the reality behind delivered images from the media (Lepp & Gibson,2008). Huang et al. (2008) stated that it was crucial for destination marketersto understand tourist perceptions in order to tailor promotional messagesaccordingly.
Ritche (2008) noted that in spite of the growing number of natural dis-asters little research has been conducted on tourism disaster managementand planning. It was also stated that even though there has been an increasein tourism disaster management, most have involved recovery efforts andresponse, while research on reduction and readiness strategies and initiatives
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
190 K. Ryu et al.
have been neglected. It also states that a “need for tourism disaster planningand management presents itself when a disaster occurs through some natu-ral phenomena or external human action (such as floods, fires, hurricanes,or biosecurity threats)” (p. 318). Despite the growing threat of natural dis-asters, few tourism businesses are prepared to handle the impacts. Pforrand Hosie (2007) also realized that prior to 9/11 and the Tsunami in 2004,crises management within the tourism and hospitality sector was mostly areactive response. In considering, lessons learned the authors illustrate thatan important strategy is to use human resource management practices asan effective tool to prepare destinations and businesses to plan for disaster.Most importantly, tourism destinations must develop a recovery plan prior tothe catastrophe.
Lessons Learned. Yavas, Karatepe, Babakus, and Avci (2004) docu-mented the role of service recovery and visit intentions for tourismdestinations. According to Gil, Hudson, and Quintana (2006), two key influ-ences of perceived service quality are service recovery and customer loyalty.Strong associations are made between visitors’ perceived image and loyaltyto a destination (Cai, Wu, & Bai, 2004). These findings could be extrapolatedto include visitors returning to destinations after a crises or disaster. Mostresearchers agree that destination choice and actual visitation are linked totourists who have previously visited the destination. As Tasci and Gartner(2007), emphasized that promotional materials can become even more sig-nificant in generating interest and stimulating demand. Destination marketerscan construct appropriate communication campaigns to attract tourists. Israeli(2007) examined crises management practices in the Israeli restaurant indus-try. Data were collected to enhance the understanding of restaurant crisispractices and their effectiveness. Practices of crises management for therestaurant industry were categorized according to: human resources, mar-keting, maintenance, and government assistance. Major findings indicatethat most crises management practices were reactive. Proactive crises man-agement is optimal but usually does not occur, which means that lessonslearned are not carried over from one event to the next, which is grosslyinefficient.
Chacko and Marcell (2007) explored the repositioning of New Orleansas a tourism destination post-Hurricane Katrina. The authors analyzedrecovery-marketing strategies used from two official tourism agencies: theNew Orleans Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau and the NewOrleans Tourism Marketing Corporation. The researchers documented threeimportant lessons learned: (a) creation of local members of the media toreceive updates; (b) identifying opinions leaders to focus on positive ele-ments of recovery while negative mass media continues to circulate; and(c) affective advertising, which connects to the emotions of repeat visitors.For example, the NOMCVB created the advertising campaign to reach theirloyalty travelers, “Fall in Love with New Orleans All Over Again.”
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Destination-Image Recovery: Lessons Learned 191
METHODOLOGY
Since a portion of this research was to identify implications and opportunitiesfor hospitality and tourism industry practitioners, both qualitative and quanti-tative data were required to meet the objectives of this research. Specifically,the methodology for this study included a review of literature, in-depth inter-views with crisis management/public relations experts along with hospitalityand tourism human resource and operations professionals, and an Internetadministered survey of New Orleans visitors.
In-Depth Interviews
Interviews were conducted with professionals from topical areas includingdestination marketing, mass communications, human resources, public rela-tions, hospitality management, and crisis management. The subjects wereselected based on expert judgment identified through the literature andindustry contacts. Threshold criteria included 10 years or more of directprofessional industry experience. Additionally selection parameters includedfirsthand experience managing during a disaster—either natural or manmade.Sample selection criteria were maintained to enhance the validity of thefindings. In order to increase the reliability of this qualitative element ofthis research, snowball techniques were utilized to identify as many addi-tional interview subjects that met the threshold criteria and would be able toprovide valid insight regarding destination crisis management and recoverypractices. Snowball sampling is appropriate when identifying “members ofa special population are difficult to locate” (Babbie, 1998, p. 195). In total,12 in-depth interviews were conducted to examine the destination-imagerecovery process to identify implications and opportunities for hospitalityand tourism industry practitioners. Additionally, the interview subjects wereasked for comments and feedback regarding the questionnaire’s contentvalidity and to assess the reliability of our questionnaire. Finally, the inter-views were also specifically intended to identify the core image attributesthat may affect travelers’ visit intentions to New Orleans.
Survey Respondents
The Louisiana Office of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism supplied a list-ing of e-mail addresses of those people that requested information via their800 number or through the Web site. Specifically, they provided a listingof 10,000 randomly selected e-mail addresses. This survey used a simplerandom sample to ensure representativeness of the data and to enhancethe generalizability of the results. The addresses were selected based onthe date that the information was requested: 40% before Hurricane Katrinain August 29, 2005 and 60% after Katrina. This approach was taken toensure sufficient post-hurricane visitation. A cover letter with an attachment
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
192 K. Ryu et al.
to a Web page based self-administered questionnaire was sent to the sam-ple. Of the total e-mailed, 465 were duplicates and 580 were undeliverablewhich reduced the sample to 8,955. After two invitations with no incentives,574 responses were received resulting in a response rate of 6.4%.
Survey Instrument
A questionnaire was developed for the data collection that containeddestination-image measurement, future visitation intention, and sociodemo-graphics. The survey also included several open-ended questions regardinggeneral images, perceptions, and future travel intentions related to NewOrleans. First, the pre- and post-Katrina image section consisted of eightquestions ranking image attributes (e.g., accessibility by personal or publictransportation, rich cultural heritage, places with exciting nightlife and enter-tainment, first-class accommodations, variety of restaurants, friendliness oflocals, value for a leisure trip, and safe place to visit). Respondents used a5-point Likert scale (e.g., 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) to ratetheir level of agreement regarding each of these destination image attributes.Considerable effort was expended to identify the relevant destination imageattributes for New Orleans. A comprehensive review of the relevant litera-ture yielded in a parsimonious yet robust listing of attributes that this researchused to measure destination image (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993; Gallarza et al.,2002; O’Leary & Deegan, 2005; Ryu, Han, & Kim, 2008).
To measure past experience respondents responded to the followingquestion: “Have you ever taken a leisure trip to New Orleans before?”Participants were asked to pick one of the four responses (never, onlybefore Hurricane Katrina, only after Hurricane Katrina, both before and afterHurricane Katrina). Additionally, travelers’ visit intention was assessed byasking respondents to comment on one statement: “I am likely to chooseNew Orleans as my vacation destination in the near future” (Ryu & Han,2010; Ryu & Jang, 2006). Participants responded to this question on a 5-pointscale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Finally, sociodemographicquestions (e.g., gender, age, education, and visitation status) were measured.
Data Analysis
After all data were collected, SPSS 12.0 (Statistical Package for SocialSciences) was used for data analysis. Frequency analysis was first con-ducted to examine the characteristics of respondents. Moreover, the pairedsample t test was conducted to examine if there was differences in desti-nation image attributes between pre-Katrina and post-Katrina. Additionally,independent t tests were used to investigate the influence of experience (vis-itation after Hurricane Katrina versus nonvisitation after Hurricane Katrina)on tourists’ perceptions towards the destination image. Finally, multiple
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Destination-Image Recovery: Lessons Learned 193
regression analysis was conducted to examine the impact of destinationimage, gender, and past experience behavior on their intention to visit NewOrleans in the nearest future. Here, gender (0 = female, 1 = male) and pastexperience (0 = visitor after Katrina, 1 = nonvisitor after Katrina) wereused as dummy variables.
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics
Table 2 shows the characteristics of sample used in this study, 35.5% ofrespondents were male while 64.5% of participants were female. They variedin age (≤25 years age = 2.1%; 26–35 years of age = 13.3%; 36–45 years ofage = 23.7%; 46–55 years age = 33.1%; ≥56 years of age = 27.9%), education(some high school = 1.2%; graduate high school = 9.0%; some college =33.3%; college degree = 35.4%; postgraduate degree = 21.2%), majority ofCaucasian (87.8%), past experience regarding the visitation to New Orleans(never = 16.0%; only before Hurricane Katrina = 49.1%; only after HurricaneKatrina = 8.9%; both before and after Hurricane Katrina = 26.1%). While23.3% of respondents live in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, 76.7% ofparticipants live in other regions.
TABLE 2 Sample characteristics of respondents (n = 574)
EducationSome high school 6 1.2Graduated high school 47 9.0Some college (1–3 years) 173 33.3College degree (4 years) 184 35.4Postgraduate degree 110 21.2
Have you ever taken a leisure trip to New Orleans before?Never 90 16.0Only before Hurricane Katrina 277 49.1Only after Hurricane Katrina 50 8.9Both before and after Hurricane Katrina 147 26.1
State of ResidenceLA, MS, AL 134 23.3Others 440 76.7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
194 K. Ryu et al.
Image Difference Pre-Katrina and Post-Katrina
Paired sample t tests determined whether there were significant differencesin our respondents’ view of the image of pre-Katrina and post-Katrina.Table 3 presents the difference between the destination image of pre-Katrinaand post-Katrina. Finings clearly indicate significant differences betweenthe two measures for all image attributes. Interview findings support theseresults. In particular, as shown by the significance levels marked in bold andmean differences, the image of post-Katrina was significantly negative thanthe one of pre-Katrina.
Image Difference Between Pre-Katrina and Post-Katrina
Paired sample t tests determined whether there were significant differencesin our respondents’ view of the image of pre-Katrina and post-Katrina.Table 3 presents the difference between the Independent t tests determinedwhether there were significant differences in terms of the image of NewOrleans between tourists who visited Hurricane Katrina and tourist who
TABLE 3 Differences between before Hurricane Katrina and after Hurricane Katrina regardingNew Orleans image (n = 574)
Variables Hurricane Katrina M SD t p
New Orleans is easily accessible bypersonal or public transportation
Before 4.13 0.86 17.88 .000∗∗∗
After 3.26 1.07New Orleans has a rich cultural
heritageBefore 4.77 0.56 11.05 .000∗∗∗
After 4.31 0.95New Orleans has places with exciting
nightlife and entertainmentBefore 4.60 0.67 18.80 .000∗∗∗
New Orleans is a safe place to visit Visitor 3.68 1.04Nonvisitor 2.58 1.15 −3.26 .001∗∗
Visitor 2.94 1.20
Note. Independent t test was used for group differences.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.
never visited New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Table 4 presented thedifference between the image of nonvisitor and visitor. Finings clearly indi-cate significant differences among experiences regarding the visitation toNew Orleans after Hurricane Katrina for most of image attributes. In particu-lar, as shown by the significance levels marked in bold and mean differences,the image of post-Katrina was significantly favorable for tourists who visitedNew Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Influence of Destination Image Attributes on Visit Intention
Table 5 presents the results of multiple regression analysis to examine theimpact of destination image attributes on tourists’ visit intention towardsNew Orleans. As shown in Table 5, some destination image attributes posi-tively influenced tourists’ intention to visit New Orleans in the nearest future.In particular, the results showed that “exiting nightlife and entertainment”(p = .053), “wide variety of restaurants” (p = .009), “friendly and hospitablelocal residents” (p = .065), “good value for my leisure trip” (p = .000), and“safe place to visit” (p = .002) are significant predictors of their intention
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
196 K. Ryu et al.
TABLE 5 Results of regression analysis (n = 574)
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
Variables B Standard Error Beta t value p value
Easy accessibility bypersonal or publictransportation
.025 .050 .023 0.503 .615
A rich cultural heritage .032 .061 −.024 0.523 .601Exciting nightlife and
entertainment.127 .066 .107 1.942 .053∗
First classaccommodationfacilities
.102 .070 −.086 1.456 .146
A wide variety ofrestaurants
.183 .070 .155 2.630 .009∗∗∗
Friendly and hospitablelocal residents
.107 .058 .094 1.852 .065∗
New Orleans offers agood value for myleisure trip
.283 .063 .242 4.521 .000∗∗∗
New Orleans is a safeplace to visit
.152 .050 .151 3.053 .002∗∗∗
Gender −.223 .098 −.090 −2.276 .023∗∗
Past experience −.256 .102 −.104 −2.508 .013∗∗
Note. Dependent variable: I am likely to choose New Orleans as my vacation destination in the nearfuture. R2 = .316.∗p < .1. ∗∗p < .05. ∗∗∗p < .01.
to visit New Orleans in the future. Gender (p = .023) also found to affecttheir visit intention. Specifically, female tourists were more likely to visitNew Orleans than male tourists. Additionally, past experience (p = .013)was found to be significantly associated with tourists’ intentions to visitNew Orleans in the immediate future. The independent variables explainedapproximately 30.4% of variance in tourists’ intention to visit New Orleansin the nearest future. These variables suggest significant destination imageattributes affecting the decision-making process of traveling to New Orleansafter a disaster. More details on significant variables are included in theDiscussion and Conclusion sections of the article.
CONCLUSION
Hurricane Katrina is considered by many as the costliest and one of the dead-liest hurricanes in the history of the United States (Insurance InformationInstitute, 2010).The overall image of a tourism destination is a critical fac-tor used in the destination choice process. Since so many destinations’economies are influenced greatly by the success or failure of their tourismproduct, the study of destination-image recovery after a disaster is of great
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Destination-Image Recovery: Lessons Learned 197
importance to industry leaders and stakeholders. This study examined thedifferences in tourists’ destination images of New Orleans before and afterHurricane Katrina. This study also identified the significant image attributesthat affect travelers’ visit intentions to New Orleans.
This research examined the image of New Orleans in a post HurricaneKatrina environment, which yielded a great deal about the destination image-recovery process. Additionally, this study’s findings serve as baseline datafor comparisons to future New Orleans image studies as well as providevaluable input in the creation of a comprehensive crisis management planincluding tourism elements to speed up the destination-image recovery pro-cess. Marketing and public relations programs will be relied upon throughoutthis task and these research findings may provide insight into viable tar-get market selection and campaign strategy development. Image impressionmanagement will be instrumental to the success and to the rebuilding ofNew Orleans and the Gulf Coast tourism industry.
Of most importance, the findings may assist practitioners in acceleratingthe destination-image recovery processes following a disaster. Destinationimage and perception variables were measured and through this analysis,hospitality and tourism leaders are better informed to respond to an indus-try crises. For example: (a) respondents feel that the culture of the area isintact, (b) they feel that the restaurant supply is weak, (c) the ease of accessthroughout the city is poor, and (d) the area is still not seen as safe andare very specific, which should assist in problem resolution. Most visitorswould agree to some degree that these areas are in need of improvement.Conversely, one of the most frequent reasons listed among the open-itemsfor coming back to visit for a leisure vacation was that they “simply love NewOrleans.” The data indicated that over half of visitors were repeat visitors.This research documented some important findings that can be utilized intarget market identification for destination marketing efforts after a naturaldisaster. Specifically, study respondents that had visited the destination priorto the event would have more favorable images than those who have nevervisited destination in question. This may be explained by the strength oforganically formed impressions. This finding may indicate that post-Katrinamarketing efforts targeted to those visitors who have previously been to thedestination (repeat visitors) will be more effective and efficient. Also, theresults may inform other disaster-stricken destinations, which suggest that adestination’s core image strengths must be the focus for tourism recovery.In the case of New Orleans, the nightlife, restaurants, and friendly locals areintegral to the success of the tourism and hospitality industry. Destinationsthat have a clear understanding of their image before a disaster, will knowwhich attributes to focus on during the recovery phase. For example, asmentioned earlier, when thinking about Phuket, Thailand, the core strengthof this destination is the beach. For New Orleans, the strength lies in thecity’s unique spirit of hospitality that will support recovery.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
198 K. Ryu et al.
The results of paired sample t tests showed significant differencesbetween the two measures for all image attributes (e.g., easy accessibilitythrough personal or public transportation, rich cultural heritage, excitingnightlife and entertainment, first class accommodation facilities, variety ofrestaurants, friendly and hospitable local residents, good value for leisuretrip, and safe place to visit). Specifically, it was found that the leisure trav-elers’ perceived image of post-Katrina was significantly more negative thanthat of pre-Katrina. Further, Independent t tests showed that the image ofNew Orleans were significantly more favorable among tourists who visitedNew Orleans prior to Katrina compared to those who had not visited thisdestination until after this natural disaster. This implies one important pointfor practitioners. Once tourists visit New Orleans after Katrina, their visita-tion positively affects the image of New Orleans as a tourism destination.Therefore, it is recommended that CVBs should spend marketing dollarstargeting loyal travelers or repeat visitors.
Multiple regression analysis was used to examine which destinationimage attributes influenced tourists’ visit intention towards New Orleans.The results indicated that “exciting nightlife and entertainment,” “wide vari-ety of restaurants,” “friendly and hospitable local residents,” “good value formy leisure trip,” and “safe place to visit” were significant determinants oftheir intention to visit New Orleans in the future. Hospitality and tourismpractitioners can use these findings as a guide in managing the images ofthe city after Hurricane Katrina or any natural disaster. For instance, “NewOrleans offers a good value for my leisure trip” was considered the mostimportant predictor of their visit intention to New Orleans. New Orleans iswell known for a variety of free events such as Mardi Gras which is acknowl-edged as the greatest free show on earth. Besides Mardi Gras, New Orleansshould develop marketing strategies to advertise or communicate that NewOrleans offers a variety of free festivals such as French Quarter festival toincrease likelihood to visit. The multiple regression analysis also found thatgender influenced tourists’ visit intention. In particular, female tourists tendedto visit New Orleans more than male tourists. Furthermore, past experiencewas found to significantly affect tourists’ intentions to visit New Orleans.In particular, tourists who visited New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina weremore likely to visit the destination again in the near future than the oneswho did not visit New Orleans after Katrina.
An appropriate qualitative exploratory approach through the in-depthinterviews with professionals were incorporated in suggesting destinationrecovery and management lessons in this study. Here are several majorlessons learned from the professionals with regards to the destination-imagerecovery:
● Prior experience with the destination resulted in higher visitor imageassessment; therefore, it is recommended that CVBs should spendmarketing dollars targeting loyal travelers or repeat visitors.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Destination-Image Recovery: Lessons Learned 199
● A distance decay function was identified. Specifically, as the distancefrom the destination where the disaster occurred increases negativedestination images decrease; therefore, during the destination-imagerecovery process, tourism stakeholders should target tertiary markets.This finding reveals an opportunity to capture potential visitors fromfarther distances where the perceptions and impacts of the naturaldisaster are less of a concern.
● According to former California Director of Tourism, John Poimiroo,the destination image-recovery process and speed of recovery variesfrom place to place (J. Poimiroo, personal communication, April 7,2011). However, based on his experience with various forms of naturaldisaster ranging from earthquakes to forest fires, the image-recoveryprocess includes a grieving period for the destination to recognize thetragedy and the potential loss of human life. Local leaders will have togauge the duration of this timeframe depending on their understandingof the host community. Following a healing process, the next stepfor the hospitality and tourism industry is communicating a “businessas usual” model. Destination image-recovery means communicating,and to some extent, battling the negative images. It is essential forthe destination to let travelers know that the tourism and hospitalityindustry is capable and competent to receive visitors.
● For natural disasters, the destination image-recovery time is shorterthan that of man-made disasters. In an interview, Poimiroo (J. Poimiroo,personal communication, April 7, 2011) stated that there was no exacttimetable for the destination recovery process; nevertheless, consider-ing his work with approximately 30 disasters throughout the UnitesStates findings indicate that man-made disasters can take a minimumof 1 to 2 years for destination brand recovery whereas certain nat-ural disasters can take 2 to 3 months. Therefore, in the minds ofpotential travelers natural disasters such as hurricanes have a startingpoint as well as a finishing point. It is important to remember that thehost community will be struggling with rebuilding efforts, yet after abrief healing period; the destination must move forward and focus onpromoting the strengths of the destination.
● Another point that Poimiroo (2001) illustrates is that even after the dis-aster has passed, most major disasters are memorialized annually. Thismeans that the same negative image will potentially resurface amongmedia outlets, which needs to be mitigated with a predictable, solidresponse from destination leaders. In support of the quicker recoverytime for destinations affected by natural disasters compared to man-made disasters, Poimiroo (2001) aptly states, “people forgive mothernature more easily than they do human nature.”
● In an interview, Louque (M. Louque, personal communication, April 21,2011), who is the Director of Human Resources at a luxury FrenchQuarter hotel, stated that in mature destinations, service quality is moreimportant than presence of tourism attractions. Human Resources inhotels, restaurants, and related hospitality areas should immediatelyreach out to staff to ensure that qualified and trained workers are
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
200 K. Ryu et al.
in place to provide friendly and professional service. In a destinationsuch as New Orleans where the spirit of hospitality is synonymouswith the city, this is imperative. She expressed the value of a coregroup of reliable staff. Immediately following Hurricane Katrina, thestaff was asked to perform tasks outside of their usual job description.The longer the tenure of the associates, the more willing they were towork longer hours and perform as a team. Additionally, because effortsand energy were put into welcoming guests back, having trained staffwas essential for strong hospitality performance (M. Louque, personalcommunication, April 21, 2011).
This research did reveal significant findings, as well as, some inconclu-sive results pertaining to the image formation. The outcomes of this researchcan assist stakeholders by documenting salient tourist impressions concern-ing crime, personal safety, and limited operations. In addition to makinga contribution to the literature on destination image-recovery process, thisstudy supports the fact that the image of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrinawas significantly more favorable for repeat tourists. Further research shouldanalyze the effects of repeat tourists on destinations after various types ofdisasters to determine if accelerated recovery process was due to the des-tination loyalty or previous destination experience. Future research shouldfocus on comparisons of mature travel destination and newer tourist destina-tions to compare recovery time and important destination impacts. It mightbe also interesting to compare both domestic and international perceptionsand the impact of destination image.
REFERENCES
Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: WadsworthPublishing.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation.Annals of Tourism Research, 26 , 868–897.
Bonn, M. A., Joseph, S. M., & Dai, M. (2005). International versus domestic visitors:An examination of destination image perceptions. Journal of Travel Research,43, 294–301.
Cai, L., Wu, B., & Bai, B. (2004). Destination image and loyalty. Tourism ReviewInternational, 7(3/4), 153–162.
Chacko, H. E., & Marcell, M. H. (2007). Repositioning a tourism destination: Thecase of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Journal of Travel and TourismMarketing, 23, 223–235.
Chandler, J. A. (2004). An analysis of the economic impact of Hurricanes Dennis,Floyd, and Irene on North Caroina’s lodging industry. Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Research, 28, 312–326.
Chi, C. G. O., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationship of destina-tion image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach.Tourism Management, 29, 624–636.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation desti-nation and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal ofTravel Research, 17(4), 18–23.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: Anempirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 32(4), 3–13.
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image towards aconceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56–78.
Gartner, W., & Shen, J. (1992). The impact of Tiananmen Square. Journal of TravelResearch, 30, 47–52.
George, R. (2003). Tourist’s perceptions of safety and security while visiting CapeTown. Tourism Management, 24, 575–585.
Gil, S. M., Hudson, S., & Quintana, A. T. (2006). The influence of service recoveryand loyalty on perceived service quality: A study of hotel customers in Spain.Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 14(2), 47–68.
Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, B. J.R. (2009). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies(11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2007). Destination image and destination person-ality. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Journal, 1(1),62–81.
Huang, Y. C., Tseng, Y. P., & Petrick, J. F. (2008). Crisis management planningto restore tourism after disasters. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23,203–221.
Huanga, J., & Min, J. C. (2002). Earthquake devastation and recovery in tourism: TheTaiwan case. Tourism Management, 23(2), 145–154.
Hurricane Katrina. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
Insurance Information Institute (2010, August 5) Lessons learned from HurricaneKatrina can help insure against future disasters as fifth anniversary approaches.Retrieved from http://www.iii.org/press-releases/lessons-learned-from-hurricane-katrina-can-help-insure-against-future-disasters-as-fifth-anniversary-approach.html
Israeli, A. A. (2007). Crisis-management practices in the restaurant industry.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26 , 807–823.
Kasperson, R. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Progress in developing anintegrative framework. In S. Krimsky & D. Goldring (Eds.), Social theories ofrisk (pp. 153–178). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2008). Sensation seeking and tourism: Tourist role,perception of risk and destination choice. Tourism Management, 29, 740–750.
Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. (2009). Louisianatourism forecast: 2009–2013. New Orleans, LA: University of New Orleans,Hospitality Research Center, and Louisiana State University Division ofEconomic Development.
Louisiana Department of Culture Recreation and Tourism. (2011). Louisianatourism facts sheet. Retrieved from http://www.crt.state.la.us/tourism/research/Documents/2010–11/LouisianaTourismFactsUpdatedfullsheet.pdf
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
202 K. Ryu et al.
Louisiana Recovery Authority. (2006). Proposed Action Plan AmendmentNumber 2 for Disaster Recovery Funds Disaster Recovery Initiative, 2006.Retrieved from http://www.lra.louisiana.gov/assets/other/by-month/July06/
ActionPlanAmendment2_070606.pdfLowery, S., & DeFleur, M. L. (1983). Milestone in mass communications. New York,
NY: Longman.Martinez, S. C., & Alvarez, M. D. (2010). Country versus destination image in a
developing country. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27 , 748–754.Miller, D. (2008). Disaster tourism and disaster landscape attractions after Hurricane
Katrina: An auto-ethnographic journey. International Journal of Culture,Tourism, and Hospitality Research, 2(2), 115–131.
Milo, K. J., & Yoder, S. L. (1991). Recovery from natural disaster: Travel writers andtourist destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 30, 36–39.
Molina, A., Mar, G., & Martín-Consuegra, D. (2010). Tourism marketing informationand destination image management. African Journal of Business Management,4, 722–728.
Murphy, P. E., & Bayley, R. (1989, January). Tourism and disaster planning.Geographical Review, 79(1), 36–46.
Newbold, C., Boyd-Barrett, O., & Van den Bulck, H. (Eds.). (2002). The media book.New York: Bloomsbury, USA.
New Orleans Convention Bureau (2010). New Orleans tourism five yearsafter Katrina. Retrieved from http://www.neworleanscvb.com/docs/12new_orleans_tourism_FIVE_years_after_katrina%20%20FINAL.pdf
Nothinger, C., & Elsasser, H. (2004, February). Natural hazards and tourism: Newfindings on the European Alps. Mountain Research and Development, 24(1),24–27.
Oberman, M. (2006). New Orleans tourism lags a year after Katrina. Retrievedfrom http://www.terradaily.com/reports/New_Orleans_Tourism_Lags_A_Year_After_Katrina999.html
O’Leary, S., & Deegan, J. (2005). Ireland’s image as a tourism destination in France:Attribute importance and performance. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 247–256.
Perse, E. M. (2001). Media effects and society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Pforr, C., & Hosie, P. J. (2007). Crisis management in tourism: Preparing for recovery.Journal of Travel & Tourism marketing, 23, 249–264.
Poimiroo, J. (2001). Crisis management: Governor’s tourism conference. New York,NY: Poimiroo & Partners.
Prayag, G. (2007). Exploring the relationship between destination image & brandpersonality of a tourist destination—an application of projective techniques.Journal of Travel and Toursim Research, 7(2), 111–130.
Reitzes, D. C. (1986). Urban identification and downtown activities: A socialpsychological approach. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49(2), 167–179.
Ritche, B. (2008). Tourism disaster planning and management: From response andrecovery to reduction and readiness. Current Issues in Tourism, 11, 315–348.
Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2010). Predicting tourists’ intention to try local cuisine using amodified theory of reasoned action: The case of New Orleans. Journal of Traveland Tourism Marketing, 27 , 491–506.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ew O
rlea
ns],
[D
avid
M. P
earl
man
] at
10:
52 1
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Destination-Image Recovery: Lessons Learned 203
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Kim, T. H. (2008). The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioralintentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27 , 459–469.
Ryu, K., & Jang, S. (2006). Intention to experience local cuisine in a travel destina-tion: The modified theory of reasoned action. Journal of Hospitality & TourismResearch, 30, 507–516.
Sonmez, S., Apostolopoulos, Y., & Tarlow, P. (1999). Tourism in crisis: Managing theeffects of terrorism. Journal of Travel Research, 38(1), 13–18.
Sonmez, S., & Graefe, A. (1998). Determining future travel behavior from past travelexperience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research, 37(4),171–177.
Stepchenkovaa, S., & Mills, J. E. (2010). Destination image: A meta-analysis of2000–2007 research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19,575–609.
Tasci, A. D., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Destination image and its functionalrelationships. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 413–425.
Tasci, A. D., Gartner, W. C., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Conceptualization and oper-ationalization of destination image. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,31, 194–223.
World Travel and Tourism Council. (2010). Progress and priorities 2009–10.Retrieved from http://www.wttc.org/bin/pdf/original_pdf_file/pandp_final2_low_res.pdf
Yavas, U., Karatepe, O., Babakus, E., & Avci, T. (2004). Customer complaints andorganizational responses: A study of hotel guests in Northern Cyprus. Journalof Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 11(2/3), 31–46.
