Risk & Crisis Management in Tourism Sector:
Recovery from Crisis
in the OIC Member Countries
111
compared to what the levels would have been if peace had prevailed throughout that
period (Dorsett, 2013).
 An outbreak of ‘swine flu’ (H1N1 virus) in 2008-09, which is thought to have depressed
arrivals and added to the effect of the global financial crisis (Page et al, 2012).
 Widespread flooding affecting the south-west of England in 2014 and the north-west in
2015-16. Dramatic pictures showed large areas under water, and some key elements of
infrastructure were destroyed. In particular, the main railway line connecting Cornwall
(in the south-west) to the rest of the country was rendered unusable during a 2014
storm. It is thought that extreme weather events such as the heavy rain over long
periods which caused the floods are likely to become more common as global climate
change intensifies.
5.2.3. Recovery from Crises in UK Tourism
This section will focus on responses to the 2001 FMD outbreak since this has been most
thoroughly studied, with reflections on actions to address more localised crises also included.
Once the British government was aware of the scale of damage caused to rural tourism by FMD,
its policies fell into three categories: encouraging visitors to return to the countryside;
increasing accessibility to rural areas; and financial and other support for affected businesses.
Measures under the first type of policy included setting up a central telephone point to direct
callers to appropriate sources of information, including a dedicated website (bearing in mind
that social media did not exist at that point), and a public information campaign within the UK
and overseas to reassure potential tourists that Britain was ‘open to visitors’. However, a
criticismof the government’s actionwas that four times as muchmoney (£14.2million as against
£3.8 million) was devoted to overseas promotion rather than domestic promotion, whereas the
rural tourism industry was almost completely reliant on the domestic market (Leslie and Black,
2005). Meanwhile, actions under the second and third policies were also criticised as
inadequate. Businesses were offered a range of tax advantages and other financial help but these
were mainly deferrals or loans rather than outright support, and there was further criticism that
the measures were overly bureaucratic. Overall, “the support offered to rural tourism
businesses contrasted starkly with the assistance and compensation provided to the agricultural
sector which … contributes significantly less to the national economy than tourism” (Sharpley
and Craven, 2001, p. 534).
Key points thrown into relief by the FMD crisis were the disproportionately low profile of
tourism at government level, the vulnerability of the rural economy, and the lack of cohesion
amongst important tourism stakeholders. These issues led to institutional change. The existing
Countryside Agency and Regional Tourist Boards were dismantled, with the functions of the
latter centralized under the national tourist boards of VisitEngland, VisitScotland, VisitWales
and Discover Northern Ireland (which focus on policy and promotion for domestic tourism) and
VisitBritain, which promotes the whole of the UK in overseas markets.