










































Georgian Geographical Journal 

 

Examining the Impact of Natural Disasters 
on Tourism in Highland Destinations: 
Insights from Shovi 
Tatiana Sitchinava1,* , Mariam Sharia2  
1 Assistant researcher at the Institute of Demography and Sociology, Ilia State 
University, Tbilisi, Georgia 
2 Tourism and Hospitality Management/ Faculty of Economics and Business, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 
Tbilisi, Georgia 
* Corresponding author: tatiana.sichinava@iliauni.edu.ge 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 
Tourism is widely recognised as 

one of the most dynamic sectors of 
the global economy. Yet it remains highly susceptible to various external factors, including 
pandemics, economic fluctuations, political instability, and natural disasters. Among these, natural 
disasters present a particularly formidable challenge, especially for highland destinations, where 
unique geographic and climatic conditions often amplify the risks. The increasing frequency and 
unpredictability of such hazards highlight the urgent need for a nuanced understanding of their 
impacts on tourism, particularly in regions that are both environmentally fragile and economically 
dependent on the sector (Becken, 2017). While much of the existing research on tourism and disaster 
management focuses on coastal or urban destinations, highland regions face distinctive challenges due 
to their topography, isolation, and dependence on tourism as a primary economic driver (Prideaux et 
al., 2003). The Shovi landslide of August 2023 in Georgia’s Racha region serves as a timely case 
study, illustrating the vulnerabilities of highland tourism to natural disasters. It underscores the 
necessity of developing comprehensive disaster management strategies that not only address 
immediate recovery but also build long-term resilience. 

Georgia, a country renowned for its dramatic mountainous landscapes, is increasingly becoming a 
popular destination for domestic and international tourists. Approximately 65% to 70% of the country 
is covered by mountains, offering exceptional opportunities for tourism—ranging from hiking and 

Abstract 
The tourism industry is profoundly influenced by various external 
factors, including pandemics, natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, 
economic crises, and climate change. Each of these factors presents 
unique challenges, necessitating tailored risk management strategies. 
This study investigates the impact of natural hazards on highland 
destinations, using the Shovi landslide that occurred in August 2023 in 
Georgia as a case study. Given the vulnerability of highland regions to 
natural disasters, a comprehensive analysis is essential. This research 
employs a triangulation methodology that combines a systematic 
literature review, statistical data analysis, and an online questionnaire to 
assess tourists' perceptions of safety and their behavioural responses 
following the landslide. Findings indicate that natural disasters have 
multidimensional impacts—financial, infrastructural, human, and 
environmental—significantly affecting the tourism industry. The study 
highlights the necessity of effective management and mitigation 
strategies to bolster tourism resilience in the region. By situating the 
Shovi landslide within the broader context of highland tourism, this 
research contributes to the academic discourse on disaster impacts and 
recovery. It identifies critical gaps in the literature and offers empirical 
evidence for developing crisis management frameworks tailored to 
highland destinations. This study aims to advance understanding of the 
interplay between natural disasters and tourism dynamics, providing a 
foundation for future scholarly inquiry in this field. 

Keywords: tourism, natural disasters, crisis management, highland 
destinations, Shovi landslide, Georgia, Racha. 

Citation: Sitchinava, T.; Sharia, M. 
Examining the Impact of Natural Disasters 
on Tourism in Highland Destinations: 
Insights from Shovi. Georgian 
Geographical Journal 2024, 5(1), 74-87. 
https://doi.org/10.52340/ggj.2025.05.01.08 

Georgian Geographical Journal, 2025, 5(1) 74-87 
© The Author(s) 2025 

 
This article is an open access article distributed under 
the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// 
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 
DOI: https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GGJ 

mailto:tatiana.sichinava@iliauni.edu.ge
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5021-6246
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5716-6149


Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

mountaineering to skiing and cultural exploration (Kalandadze, 2020). Destinations such as Kazbegi, 
Mestia, and Gudauri have seen significant growth in recent years, positioning Georgia as an emerging 
player in the global mountain tourism market. However, these regions are also highly vulnerable to a 
range of natural disasters, including avalanches, snowstorms, earthquakes, and landslides. The steep 
slopes, heavy rainfall, and seismic activity of Georgia’s highlands create an environment where 
landslides, in particular, pose a persistent threat to both infrastructure and human lives (Chelidze, 
2019). The Shovi landslide is a stark reminder of how such events can disrupt local economies, 
damage infrastructure, and, most critically, undermine the region’s tourism industry. 

Highland tourism destinations, such as Shovi, are particularly vulnerable to natural hazards due to 
their remote location and dependence on tourism for economic stability (McCool et al., 2015). The 
inherent risks of these regions—ranging from landslides to earthquakes—can have devastating 
consequences for the tourism infrastructure and the communities that rely on tourism for their 
livelihoods. A single disaster event can precipitate a rapid decline in tourist arrivals, financial 
instability for local businesses, and significant damage to essential infrastructure. The cyclical 
relationship between natural hazards and tourism dynamics underscores the need for destination 
managers to incorporate Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) strategies into their planning processes 
(Faulkner, 2001). Additionally, the economic and social consequences of such disasters extend far 
beyond physical damage. Psychological factors, including tourists' perceptions of safety, play a 
crucial role in shaping recovery efforts. Studies have shown that even after the infrastructure is 
rebuilt, tourists may continue to avoid destinations perceived as unsafe, leading to longer-term 
declines in visitation (Ritchie, 2008). These behavioural shifts highlight the complexity of post-
disaster recovery and the importance of not only rebuilding physical infrastructure but also restoring 
confidence in the destination. 

This research aims to explore the broader implications of natural disasters for highland tourism, with 
a focus on the Shovi landslide as a case study. By adopting a triangulation methodology that includes 
a systematic literature review, statistical data analysis, and an online survey of tourists’ perceptions, 
this study seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of the immediate and long-term effects of the 
disaster on tourism. This approach allows for an in-depth exploration of the economic, social, and 
psychological dimensions of disaster impacts on tourism, offering valuable insights into how 
destinations can better manage risks and recover from such events. The findings will contribute to a 
deeper understanding of the vulnerabilities of highland tourism and highlight the need for effective 
risk management strategies that can enhance resilience in these fragile regions. 

The literature on natural disasters and tourism has grown extensively over the years, with much 
research focusing on disaster management and recovery frameworks (Becken & Hughey, 2013; Hall 
& Page, 2016). However, most of this work has focused on coastal and urban destinations, which 
present different challenges compared to highland regions (Prideaux et al., 2003). While disaster risk 
management (DRM) frameworks have been developed for more accessible areas, highland 
destinations require tailored approaches that address their unique geographic and logistical challenges. 
Recent studies have emphasized the role of resilience-building in tourism destinations, advocating for 
the development of disaster risk reduction strategies that integrate local communities and stakeholders 
into the recovery process (Pennington-Gray, 2018; Ritchie & Jiang, 2019). Yet, there remains a gap in 
the literature regarding the application of such frameworks to highland regions, where the risks are 
often compounded by their isolation and dependence on tourism. This study seeks to fill this gap by 
providing a focused analysis of disaster impacts on highland tourism, using the Shovi landslide as a 
case study, and offering practical recommendations for destination managers and policymakers. 

In the context of global environmental change and the increasing frequency of extreme weather 
events, this research is especially timely. As climate change exacerbates the occurrence and severity 
of natural disasters (Pforr, 2009), understanding the interplay between natural hazards and tourism 
dynamics becomes even more crucial. This study aims to offer empirical evidence from a highland 
region, contributing to the broader academic discourse on disaster risk management and tourism. 
Furthermore, by developing a framework for tourism resilience and recovery, this research will 
provide actionable insights for policymakers and destination managers, helping them create more 
effective disaster preparedness and recovery strategies. By improving our understanding of the 
vulnerabilities faced by highland tourism destinations like Shovi, this study not only fills a critical gap 
in the literature but also provides a foundation for future research on the sustainability of tourism in an 
increasingly uncertain world. 



Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

Methodological Approach 
The research design incorporates three interrelated components: a systematic literature review, 

structured interviews with experts (N=10), and an online survey of tourists (N=412). The systematic 
literature review provides the theoretical foundation for the study, situating it within existing scholarly 
debates on the interplay between natural disasters and highland tourism. It examines relevant 
theoretical and empirical studies, focusing on disaster risk reduction, crisis management, and 
resilience in tourism contexts, while also drawing on global tourism crisis management frameworks 
applicable to Georgia's highland destinations. 

The primary objective of the online survey with Georgian tourists was to gather insights into their 
perceptions of destination safety and their behavioural patterns. To ensure a comprehensive 
perspective, the survey employed both open and closed-ended questions. The questionnaire was 
administered via Google Forms. To prevent multiple submissions from a single individual and ensure 
the uniqueness of each response, the survey was linked to Gmail accounts and limited to one response 
per account. A total of 412 respondents completed the survey. 

To gather expert opinions on functional mitigation strategies for Georgia, we conducted structured 
interviews. These interviews included both open-ended questions and a 5-point Likert scale. Experts 
were selected through purposive sampling from both the tourism and natural science sectors. The 
questionnaire was sent to 35 experts, and 10 responded, completing and returning the survey. 

 Data analysis was conducted using Excel, MAXQDA, and SPSS. 
By integrating these methods, the study addresses the research problem from multiple angles, 

ensuring a comprehensive assessment of the landslide’s implications for the tourism sector in Shovi. 
This robust methodological approach aims to produce findings that are both academically rigorous 
and practically applicable, offering valuable insights for disaster management and sustainable tourism 
development in highland destinations. 

Disaster Risk Reduction and Crisis Management in Tourism 
The field of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in tourism has evolved significantly over the past two 

decades, largely driven by the increasing frequency and intensity of natural disasters, a trend 
exacerbated by climate change. DRR frameworks emphasise proactive risk assessments, infrastructure 
resilience, and effective emergency communication to mitigate the impacts of disasters on tourism 
(Becken & Hughey, 2013). These strategies must be integrated into long-term planning by tourism 
destinations to ensure both visitor safety and the continuity of tourism services post-disaster. 

The research agenda on disaster management (DM) in tourism began to take shape in the 1990s, 
addressing topics such as the role of tourism in disaster planning (Murphy & Bayley, 1989), the 
intersection of disaster recovery and media response (Milo & Yoder, 1991), and the development of 
tourism-specific disaster planning strategies (Drabek, 1995), alongside broader crisis management 
processes (Young & Montgomery, 1997). These pioneering studies provided the foundation for 
subsequent frameworks and practices in tourism disaster management. Faulkner’s (2001) 
comprehensive disaster management framework underscores the key phases of preparedness, 
response, recovery, and mitigation. Although initially developed for coastal destinations, this 
framework has been adapted for various disaster contexts, including those specific to highland 
regions. Faulkner stresses the importance of pre-disaster strategies that focus on reducing 
vulnerabilities, such as strengthening infrastructure and raising awareness within local communities. 
Furthermore, Ritchie (2004) highlights the significance of the recovery phase, which goes beyond 
physical rebuilding to also include the restoration of tourists' confidence through transparent 
communication and targeted marketing that focuses on the safety measures taken. 

In highland tourism, where infrastructure is often underdeveloped and access is more restricted 
compared to urban or coastal areas, DRR and crisis management frameworks must be tailored to local 
conditions (Hall & Page, 2016). Common threats such as landslides, avalanches, and seismic activity 
pose significant risks to both physical infrastructure and tourists' perceptions of safety. Given these 
unique challenges, adapting DRR and crisis management strategies to the specific vulnerabilities of 
highland regions is critical.  

Highland regions are increasingly vulnerable to natural disasters, particularly landslides, floods, and 
earthquakes, as a result of the intensifying effects of climate change. The unique geographical features 
of these areas—steep slopes, erosion-prone soils, and isolated communities—amplify the impacts of 
these hazards (Prideaux et al., 2003). Studies from various highland tourism destinations, including 



Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

Nepal, the Andes, and the Alps, have documented how natural disasters disrupt local economies, 
damage critical infrastructure, and alter tourist behaviour (McCool et al., 2015; Chelidze, 2019). 

Natural disasters have significant and far-reaching implications for tourism. Firstly, they damage 
tourism infrastructure, making destinations temporarily inaccessible (Huang & Min, 2002). Secondly, 
disasters disrupt transportation networks and influence source markets by altering consumer 
perceptions of safety (Prideaux, Laws, & Faulkner, 2003). The media play a crucial role in amplifying 
these impacts, creating a "ripple effect" that spreads the negative consequences of disasters both 
geographically and across sectors (Handmer & Dovers, 2007). This ripple effect can delay recovery 
by fostering negative perceptions, which hinder the inflow of tourists and foreign exchange, thus 
prolonging the recovery process (Ritchie, 2004). As a result, the "response" and "recovery" stages of 
disaster management have been focal points in tourism research (Mair et al., 2016). 

Landslides, in particular, are a recurrent risk in mountainous regions and present both immediate 
and long-term challenges to tourism. Beyond the physical damage they cause, landslides significantly 
affect tourists' perceptions of safety and the destination’s overall appeal. McCool et al. (2015) argue 
that tourists’ risk perceptions are shaped not only by the immediate aftermath of a disaster but also by 
the effectiveness of the destination's response. In highland areas, where recovery is often slow due to 
difficult terrain and damaged infrastructure, restoring tourist confidence becomes particularly critical. 

Landslides, defined as the downslope movement of soil or rock due to instability, are common 
natural hazards in mountainous regions. Such events often result from a combination of steep slopes, 
semi-permeable glide layers beneath the soil, and significant water content, which increases the 
weight of the soil mass (Sunarta et al 2018). Landslides are most likely to occur in areas with slopes 
between 15° and 45° and high rainfall intensity. Beyond these natural factors, human activities such 
as deforestation, agricultural expansion, urbanization, mining, and road construction can exacerbate 
the risks of landslides, further disrupting the landscape and increasing vulnerability (FAO, 2013).   
Resilience in Tourism: Strategies for Disaster Management and Sustainable Recovery 

In the tourism industry, the environment—both natural and human-made—is foundational to the 
success of many destinations. Natural landscapes, such as mountains, forests, and coastlines, are 
central to tourism products, making their preservation crucial for sustaining tourism. The initial 
relationship between tourism and the environment can be characterised as one of "coexistence", where 
both systems support and benefit from each other. However, this delicate balance is often disrupted by 
natural disasters which pose significant threats to both tourism infrastructure and the local economy.  

The concept of resilience, which originated in the fields of ecology and engineering (Berbés-
Blázquez & Scott, 2017), refers to the ability of a system to return to its normal state following a 
disturbance. In the context of tourism, resilience can be understood as the capacity of destinations to 
recover from the impact of natural disasters and environmental changes. Research has shown that the 
resilience of tourism destinations depends on the resilience of all subsystems within the destination, 
including infrastructure, local communities, and economic structures (Hall et al., 2018). 

Community-based approaches are integral to effective disaster recovery, particularly in areas where 
tourism is a key economic driver. Empowering local communities not only accelerates recovery but 
also ensures that tourism can support livelihoods during the rebuilding phase (Faulkner, 2001; 
Prideaux et al., 2003). Engaging local communities in the recovery process ensures that their needs 
are addressed, and that tourism development is aligned with local priorities, enhancing the long-term 
sustainability of the sector. 

Government agencies and tourism boards play pivotal roles in disaster recovery. Effective 
coordination between local businesses, government entities, and international organizations is often 
crucial for a successful recovery process. Studies have demonstrated that post-disaster marketing 
emphasizing resilience and ongoing development efforts can effectively attract tourists back to 
affected regions (Ritchie, 2008). By focusing on restoring critical infrastructure and enhancing the 
destination's resilience, government entities, and tourism boards can mitigate the long-term negative 
impacts of disasters on the tourism industry. 

The World Bank’s guide on maintaining tourism resilience during disasters outlines five key aspects 
of disaster management in the tourism industry: (1) Risk Understanding, which involves identifying 
and assessing potential disaster risks that threaten tourism destinations; (2) Planning and 
Prioritization, which focuses on strategically planning and prioritizing sustainable tourism 
development to minimize negative impacts; (3) Mitigation and Preparedness, which includes both 
structural (infrastructure) and non-structural (communication systems, disaster risk financing) 



Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

measures to prepare for disasters; (4) Response and Recovery, which aims to minimize disruptions 
and maintain competitiveness post-disaster; and (5) Long-Term Resilience, which involves planning 
for the sustainability of tourism through climate change mitigation and other long-term strategies 
(World Bank, 2020). 

Crisis management in the tourism sector generally follows two primary approaches: reactive and 
proactive. The reactive approach to crisis management focuses on rehabilitating the consequences of a 
disaster that has already occurred, whereas the proactive approach envisages the implementation of 
activities that will contribute to mitigating the consequences of the disaster and facilitating 
rehabilitation (Nair & Dileep, 2020). According to Kyoo-Man Ha, disaster management in the tourism 
industry is analyzed from four different perspectives: tourists, the tourism industry, regional 
governments, and international organizations. The author believes that each party should reorganize 
its management strategies from a reactive response to a proactive approach (Ha, 2023). Other authors 
share this opinion, believing that proactively reducing disaster risks and minimizing negative effects 
is more effective than a passive response to disasters (Becken & Hughey, 2013; Todman-Lewis, 2017; 
Stoffelen & Loannides, 2022).  

Integrating resilience-building strategies into tourism development and disaster management 
planning is essential for destinations that are increasingly vulnerable to environmental threats. By 
adopting a proactive approach that includes improving infrastructure, empowering local communities, 
and developing comprehensive disaster recovery plans, destinations can better withstand the shocks of 
natural disasters. Ensuring the long-term sustainability of the tourism industry requires a coordinated 
effort that addresses both immediate and long-term challenges, from disaster preparedness to climate 
change adaptation. 
Shovi Landslide  

On August 3, 2023, a devastating landslide struck the Shovi mountain resort in Oni Municipality, 
located in the Racha region of Georgia. According to a report from the National Environmental 
Agency, the glacial landslide in the Buba River Valley destroyed large portions of the Shovi resort. 
The landslide, which involved approximately 4 million cubic meters of solid material—comprising 
glacier fragments, tree debris, and vegetation—resulted in the accumulation of around 1 million cubic 
meters within the resort area itself. An additional 0.8-1.0 million cubic meters of debris were spread 
across the floodplains of the Chanchakha and Rion rivers, while up to 0.5 million cubic meters were 
recorded in the Buba River transit zone. Moreover, around 1.5 million cubic meters of dynamic 
material have accumulated at the bottom of the landslide zone, increasing the ongoing risk (National 
Environmental Agency, 2024). 

An evaluation by the Institute of Earth Sciences and the National Seismic Monitoring Center at Ilia 
State University revealed that if an early warning system had been in place, the landslide could have 
been detected up to two hours in advance, providing sufficient time to warn the population and 
facilitate evacuations (Civil Georgia, 2024). This tragic event, which claimed the lives of 33 people, 
has left a lasting impact on Shovi, once a thriving vacation destination nestled in the Greater Caucasus 
Mountains at an elevation of 1,600 meters above sea level. The resort, with a history spanning nearly 
a century, has now been overshadowed by the tragedy, and recovery efforts remain conspicuously 
absent (RFE/RL, 2023 August 3). 

Since the disaster, there has been little to no effort to revitalize the resort or restore tourism in the 
area. The region remains widely regarded as unsafe, with no significant initiatives to repair its 
infrastructure, clean up the site, or rebuild facilities. Tourism, which was never on a mass scale, has 
almost completely ceased. Online information still primarily reflects the tragic event, reinforcing the 
perception of Shovi as a disaster site rather than a potential destination. As a result, it is unlikely that 
Shovi will regain its former appeal in the near future. The absence of government or organizational 
initiatives to address safety concerns and invest in recovery efforts has left the region without the 
necessary momentum to re-establish itself as a viable tourism destination. 

This lack of proactive crisis management, combined with the failure to invest in rehabilitation and 
marketing, has effectively stalled the resort's recovery. Without efforts to rebuild infrastructure, 
improve safety, and engage in targeted promotion, Shovi’s future as a tourism hub remains uncertain. 
The ongoing focus on the disaster online has made it difficult to reframe the region’s image, leaving 
little hope for a swift or successful recovery. 
Results 



Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

Online Survey Results 
An online survey was conducted to investigate the attitudes and behaviours of Georgian tourists 

concerning the safety of their travel destinations. The survey consisted of both open-ended and 
closed-ended questions. The open-ended questions aimed to elicit detailed, descriptive answers, 
allowing respondents to express their views freely. In addition to the closed-ended questions, which 
were designed to measure respondents’ clear positions on specific issues, the open-ended questions 
served to clarify and expand upon the quantitative data, offering deeper insights into the respondents' 
perceptions. 

Data coding and classification techniques were employed to analyse the open-ended responses 
systematically. This allowed for the organization of the open-ended answers into meaningful 
categories. 

A total of 412 individuals participated in the survey. Of these, 32.8% were male, and 67.2% were 
female. The age distribution of the respondents was as follows: 37.6% were aged 18-28 years, 50.5% 
were aged 29-39 years, 8.5% were aged 40-50 years, and 3.2% were aged 51-61 years. 

From the answers to the open question about what factors were taken into account in the process of 
selecting a destination and why the respondents chose a particular destination, the following 
categories were identified: 1. affordability; 2. diversity and attractiveness of the destination; 3. 
convenient location; 4. security; 5. destination infrastructure and level of digital development; 6. 
popularity of the destination; 7. weather/climate; 8. impact of the visa regime; 9. consideration of 
reviews and recommendations; 10. other (see Figure 1).  
 

“First of all, I specify the purpose of the trip: attending a specific event, gaining new experiences, 
relaxing, having fun, etc. Accordingly, I choose the location considering the following factors: 1. 
Budget and affordability; 2. Security and health services; 3. Accessibility of transport; 4. Season and 
travel period; 5. Recommendations from experienced travellers; 6. Immigration procedures.” 
(Female, 29-30 years old) 

 
Figure 1. The Main Factors Considered in the Destination Selection Process 

The next question addressed the factors considered when selecting accommodations. This was a 
closed-ended question with multiple response options. The distribution of responses is presented in 
Figure 2. Price and location emerged as the most important factors for visitors, while services, 
security policies, and accommodation mechanisms were considered less significant. 

129

294

42
63 60

16 19 5 19 3
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

affordability diversity and attractivness of the destination

location security

infrustructure & digital development popularity of the destination

weather/climate visa regime

reviews & recommendations other



Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

 
Figure 2.  The Main Factors Considered in the Accommodation Selection Process 

The respondents were asked to identify the primary factor influencing their accommodation 
selection. The results indicate that location and price were the most important determinants, followed 
by convenience, the services provided by the accommodation, and its security policies and 
mechanisms. Notably, security considerations emerged as the least influential factor in the decision-
making process. 

In the subsequent open-ended question, respondents were asked to identify the circumstances that 
made them feel unsafe while travelling for tourism. Upon analyzing the responses, the following key 
categories were identified: 1. Local population; 2. Favourable location of the destination and 
accommodation; 3. Low crime levels; 4. Safe transportation and adequate infrastructure; 5. Access to 
reliable internet and information; 6. Protection against natural disasters; 7. Personal security 
measures; 8. Travel insurance; 9. Sufficient financial resources; 10. Accompaniment by trusted 
individuals; 11. Availability of appropriate equipment; 12. Safe accommodation. These responses 
suggest that travellers’ perceptions of safety are shaped by a combination of personal factors 
(trusted companions, financial resources), environmental factors (crime, infrastructure), and 
preparedness (security policies, travel insurance). This highlights the multifaceted nature of safety 
in tourism and suggests that effective destination management should address these various aspects to 
improve visitor confidence. 

The following open-ended question focused on factors contributing to safety during guests' stays at 
the accommodation. Through a systematic process of coding and classification, several key categories 
emerged, reflecting the diverse elements that influence perceived safety in these settings. These 
categories can be grouped into both tangible and intangible aspects of safety. 

Reputation and Rating of the Accommodation: Many respondents emphasized the importance of 
previous guest reviews and ratings as a measure of trustworthiness and safety, suggesting that 
reputation plays a key role in influencing decisions. 

Location: The proximity to potentially hazardous areas, such as disaster-prone zones, was 
highlighted as a critical factor in ensuring safety. Respondents noted that being situated in a safe, 
easily accessible location contributed significantly to their sense of security. 

Video Monitoring: The presence of video surveillance was frequently mentioned as a visible sign 
of security, indicating that respondents value measures that enhance physical safety and provide a 
sense of constant monitoring. 

343 346

166

263

147

27

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

price

location

services offered by accommodations

comfort

security policy and mechanism of the accommodation

other



Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

Security Service: The availability of trained security personnel on-site was another priority, with 
respondents indicating that a visible and accessible security presence reassured them about their safety 
during their stay. 

Security Plans and Systems: Respondents highlighted the importance of clear, well-communicated 
emergency plans and security systems, such as fire alarms or evacuation routes, that demonstrate 
preparedness for unforeseen events. 

Hygiene: Cleanliness, while traditionally associated with comfort, was also cited as a crucial factor 
in safety, particularly with regard to preventing health hazards and ensuring that the accommodation 
meets sanitary standards. 

Safe Doors and Windows: The structural integrity of doors and windows, particularly in terms of 
secure locking mechanisms, was mentioned as an important safeguard for both physical security and 
peace of mind. 

Solid Building Structure and Quality Inventory: Respondents noted that a well-constructed 
building with durable materials, along with high-quality inventory, significantly contributed to the 
overall safety and security of the accommodation. 

Host/Staff of the Accommodation: The attitude and responsiveness of the host or staff were 
highlighted as key to ensuring safety. Attentive and proactive staff, especially in emergencies, was 
seen as an essential part of the safety infrastructure. 

Comfort: While comfort was often associated with the overall quality of the stay, many respondents 
linked it to safety, particularly in terms of providing a stress-free environment where guests felt at 
ease. 

Reliable Communication System: A dependable communication system, including access to local 
emergency services and a reliable Wi-Fi connection, was emphasized as crucial for both practical and 
emotional security. 

Security Guarantee for Personal Belongings: Many respondents expressed the importance of 
secure storage options for personal items, such as lockers or safes, to ensure the safety of valuables 
during their stay. 

Other Factors: Several additional considerations were identified, including the presence of a 24-
hour reception, the availability of first aid services, the location’s distance from disaster-prone areas, 
quality certifications, and the ability to make reliable bookings—all of which were seen as integral to 
enhancing the overall safety of the accommodation. 

In the eighth question, respondents were asked to rate their perceived safety while travelling to 
Georgia for tourism purposes using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represented "I don't feel safe at all" 
and 5 indicated "I feel very safe." In the ninth open-ended question, respondents were asked to 
elaborate on their answers from the eighth question, providing further insights into the factors 
influencing their sense of safety. 

The tenth question, also using a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 meaning "I am not prepared at all" and 5 
meaning "I am fully prepared"), evaluated respondents' self-assessed readiness to protect themselves 
in the event of a natural disaster during their trip to Georgia. This question aimed to measure 
individual preparedness in response to potential environmental hazards. 

Interestingly, while respondents generally expressed a sense of safety while travelling in Georgia, 
their responses to the tenth question indicated that they largely felt unprepared for natural disasters. 
This highlights a significant contrast between tourists' perceived safety in the country and their 
personal readiness to respond to emergencies, suggesting a gap in crisis preparedness and awareness 
among travellers. (See Table 1 for a detailed comparison of responses.) 

Table 1. Perceived Safety and Personal Preparedness for Natural Disasters While Traveling to Georgia for Tourism 

  
How safe do you feel when travelling 
to Georgia for tourist purposes? 

When travelling to Georgia for tourism 
purposes, assess your personal 
preparedness to protect yourself in 
case of natural disasters 

1 score 1.9% 32.3% 
2 score 4.1% 22.3% 
3 score 23.1% 30.3% 
4 score 40.8% 9.2% 
5 score 30.1% 5.8% 
According to the respondents, a sense of homeliness and familiarity with the local situation were 

identified as the key factors contributing to feelings of security in Georgia. However, those who 



Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

reported a lower sense of security primarily cited issues related to infrastructure, particularly in the 
mountainous regions, as well as concerns about transportation. Additionally, many respondents 
expressed worries about the country's lack of preparedness for natural disasters, which further 
contributed to their perception of insecurity. 

 “Throughout Georgia, I have visited all parts (Svaneti, Pshavi, Khevsureti, Tusheti, Ajara, 
Samtskhe-Javakheti, Pankisi Valley, etc.) with no problems. Locals everywhere were friendly and 
helpful when you had a problem.” (Male, 29-39 years old) 

One of the primary challenges in mitigating the long-term effects of natural disasters on the tourism 
industry is the restoration of the destination's "image" as a safe and desirable place to visit. In the 
context of this research, we sought to understand respondents' attitudes toward Shovi, a post-crisis 
destination, without directly referencing the 2023 tragedy. To gauge this, two questions were posed: 
"If you had the opportunity, would you visit Shovi for tourism purposes next season?" and "Please 
explain the reason for your answer." 

The responses revealed a mixed outlook on Shovi's tourism potential. 23.3% of respondents 
expressed a willingness to visit Shovi in the next season, indicating some level of confidence in the 
destination's appeal despite its challenges. However, 41% of respondents stated that they would not 
visit, reflecting concerns that may be related to safety, infrastructure, or lingering perceptions of the 
area. A significant portion, 35.7%, selected "don't know," suggesting uncertainty or lack of clear 
information regarding the current state of the destination (see Figure 3). 

 
Figure 3. Willingness to Visit Shovi Next Season 

The explanations provided by respondents who expressed a willingness to visit Shovi revealed that, 
for them, a single natural disaster was not seen as a deterrent to travel. On the contrary, they perceived 
visiting the destination as an opportunity to show solidarity with the local community and to 
demonstrate their interest in the region's recovery. These respondents emphasized that, in their view, 
tourism could play a role in the post-crisis revitalization of the area, highlighting a sense of 
responsibility and support for Shovi's future. 

 “I have a feeling of solidarity with the victim Racha. However, I think the probability of doing the 
same thing a second time is low.” (Male, 51-61 years old) 

The primary reasons for respondents choosing "no" or "I don't know" were negative associations 
tied to the 2023 tragedy in Shovi. The majority of respondents indicated that they were 
psychologically unprepared to visit a location that had recently been the site of such a traumatic event. 
A smaller portion of respondents cited concerns about the lack of physical security guarantees as a 
deterrent, rather than psychological readiness. Additionally, a few respondents clarified that their 
decision was not influenced by the tragedy itself, but rather by a general disinterest in mountainous 
and extreme destinations. 

“I think that after the tragedy, proper actions were not taken to prevent a similar incident in the 
future. If a natural disaster occurs, Georgia does not have the appropriate system/management, 
transport and equipment for emergency response. I have no confidence in my country in this regard. 
Despite my great desire, I do not feel safe travelling to Georgia.” (Female, 18-28 years old) 

23,3

41

35,7

yes no I don't know



Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

“From a moral point of view, it is a bit strange for me to rest in a place where such a tragedy 
happened. Maybe it will take a little more time to heal this wound."(Male, 18-28 years old) 

The next question aimed to identify the stakeholders that respondents believed were responsible for 
ensuring tourist safety during natural disasters. Participants were allowed to select multiple options, 
including the government (state), the owner/manager of a tourist business, employees of a tourist 
business, tourists themselves, and others. The government (state) and the owner/manager of the tourist 
business were most frequently cited as key responsible parties. 

When asked to identify the single most responsible stakeholder for tourist safety during natural 
disasters, the government (state) emerged as the clear leader. A substantial majority of respondents 
viewed the government as having the greatest responsibility for ensuring safety in crises. The 
owner/manager of the tourist business was ranked second though the percentage of respondents 
selecting this option was significantly lower, indicating that while the owner/manager is seen as 
important, their role is considered secondary to that of the government. 
Structured Interview with Experts  

The purpose of the expert survey was to analyse strategic approaches to mitigating the impact of 
natural disasters on the tourism industry and to identify relevant strategies for Georgia. 

Experts identified several preventive strategic approaches to reduce the impact of natural processes 
on the tourism sector. These included: anti-avalanche systems, anti-landslide measures, continuous 
monitoring of forest fires, provision of appropriate technical equipment, international cooperation, 
staff training, the implementation of early warning systems, public awareness campaigns, 
involvement of geologists in the study of tourist destinations, analysis of long-term meteorological 
data for these destinations, investigation of anthropogenic impacts, and timely communication with 
the tourism industry. 

Regarding the response phase, the respondents highlighted the following strategies: operational 
actions by rescue services, prompt and efficient responses from relevant tourism industry agencies 
(e.g., information distribution), implementation of aerial firefighting measures in the case of forest 
fires, the use of artificial avalanches when necessary, collaboration with the National Environment 
Agency, increasing the involvement of local authorities and residents in planning tourist facilities, 
creating risk maps, identifying hazardous zones, and conducting relevant training programmes. 

For the recovery and rehabilitation phase, experts proposed the following strategies: implementing 
appropriate infrastructure measures, conducting targeted marketing campaigns by tourism industry 
agencies, reinforcing slopes in landslide-prone areas, performing hazard assessments with regular 
monitoring, and training qualified personnel. 

When asked about the activities tourism-related companies and organizations should undertake to 
address the risks of potential natural disasters, respondents emphasized the need for tourism industry 
representatives to stay in contact with agencies responsible for risk monitoring and management. 
They should be informed about potentially vulnerable destinations and likely natural events and 
undergo training on related topics. 
Discussion 

The tourism industry cannot directly control natural hazards, yet effective collaboration among 
stakeholders can significantly mitigate the impact of such events on the sector. Crisis management in 
tourism requires the involvement of various actors, including government agencies, tourism 
businesses, tourists, the local population, the financial sector, and non-governmental organizations. 
Each of these stakeholders plays a crucial role in reducing the negative effects of natural disasters and 
ensuring the resilience of the tourism industry. 

Research on post-crisis tourism rehabilitation consistently highlights the critical role of marketing in 
restoring the reputation of disaster-affected destinations. After a natural disaster, destinations are often 
perceived as unsafe, and their credibility suffers. This loss of trust leads to a decline in tourist 
demand, which can have long-lasting economic consequences. To restore the destination's image and 
reassure potential visitors, governments and tourism industry representatives must engage in targeted 
marketing campaigns that emphasize the safety and recovery efforts undertaken by the region (Aznar-
Crespo, Aledo, & Melgarejo-Moreno, 2020; Estevão & Costa, 2021; Ha, 2023; Machado & Almeida, 
2019; Todman-Lewis, 2017). In the context of Georgia, where the tourism sector is an essential 
component of the economy, these strategies become even more vital in rebuilding both the physical 
infrastructure and the emotional trust of tourists. 



Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

The survey conducted for this study offers valuable insights into Georgian tourists' attitudes toward 
safety and disaster preparedness. While many respondents indicated that safety was a consideration in 
destination and accommodation choices, it was not their primary criterion. Factors such as 
affordability, location, and the attractiveness of the destination outweighed security concerns. This 
finding aligns with broader trends in tourism where, despite the increasing prevalence of natural 
hazards, tourists tend to prioritize other factors, such as cost and convenience, over safety (Estevão & 
Costa, 2021). 

Interestingly, while respondents rated their trip as generally safe, their self-assessed preparedness for 
natural disasters was notably low. A significant proportion of respondents reported feeling unprepared 
to handle a natural disaster should one occur during their visit. For instance, one participant noted: 

"I don't feel safe at all because, unfortunately, I have to be an expert on everything myself to travel 
safely. Be it meteorological knowledge or other specific knowledge required for tourism facilities and 
entertainment activities. If you can't figure it all out yourself, you won't be able to rely on the hosts. 
Even if we look at Shovi, I'm sure that the people there, including the directors and owners of the 
facilities, did not even know that such a thing could theoretically happen. When you start a business, 
you need to know everything about your facility and the environmental conditions and be prepared." 
(Male, 18-28 years old) 

The importance of restoring the "image" of a destination post-crisis is confirmed by the survey 
results, particularly in the case of Shovi. Although the 2023 tragedy in Shovi was not explicitly 
mentioned in the survey, the event’s lingering psychological impact was evident. A large portion of 
respondents indicated they would be reluctant to visit Shovi in the next tourist season, citing concerns 
over safety and lingering trauma from the disaster. This is consistent with previous research which 
shows that tourists often associate post-crisis destinations with psychological discomfort, even when 
safety measures are in place (Machado & Almeida, 2019). However, a smaller group of respondents 
saw visiting Shovi as an opportunity to show solidarity and support for the local community in its 
recovery. This sentiment reflects a growing trend where tourists view their travel choices as a form of 
ethical support for regions recovering from crises. 

For Shovi, the challenge lies in overcoming these psychological barriers through effective 
communication. With the right marketing campaigns—focused not only on physical rehabilitation but 
also on messaging that emphasizes solidarity and the destination's resilience—tourists may be more 
inclined to visit and contribute to the area’s economic recovery.  

The survey also sheds light on the broader issue of tourist safety and preparedness. The disconnect 
between tourists' perceptions of safety and their actual preparedness for natural disasters highlights a 
gap in both awareness and infrastructure. While many tourists felt generally secure in Georgia, the 
survey results indicated a lack of confidence in their ability to respond to potential crises. This 
discrepancy suggests that there is a need for greater emphasis on crisis education and preparedness for 
visitors. Tourists should be provided with clear, accessible information about what to do in case of 
natural disasters, as well as the safety measures in place at their accommodation and throughout the 
destination. 

In terms of stakeholder responsibilities, the survey results confirm that the government (state) is 
viewed as the most important actor in ensuring tourist safety during natural disasters, with the 
owner/manager of the tourist business considered second in importance. This finding supports the 
view that public authorities must take the lead in crisis preparedness, with tourism businesses playing 
a supporting role in implementing safety measures and providing guests with information. However, it 
is clear from the survey that tourists also need to take responsibility for their own safety, especially in 
terms of preparedness. This suggests that tourism policies should not only focus on improving safety 
infrastructure but also on educating tourists about how to prepare for natural disasters while travelling. 

Conclusion 
In conclusion, while natural disasters are beyond the control of the tourism industry, a proactive and 

collaborative approach can significantly mitigate their impact. The findings from this survey highlight 
the critical role of effective communication, safety measures, and marketing in the post-crisis 
rehabilitation of tourist destinations. In the case of Georgia, particularly in regions like Shovi, the 
restoration of the destination’s reputation will require a dual effort: physical infrastructure recovery 
combined with strategic messaging that emphasises solidarity, safety, and recovery. 

The survey also reveals a significant gap in tourists’ preparedness for natural disasters. While many 
respondents felt generally safe during their travels in Georgia, their perceived lack of personal 



Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

readiness to respond to emergencies points to the need for improved awareness and crisis 
management education. Efforts to enhance tourist preparedness should be a priority, alongside 
strengthening safety measures at destinations and accommodations. 

The rehabilitation of a destination's "image" after a crisis is critical, as the survey shows that the 
aftermath of the 2023 tragedy in Shovi has had a lasting impact on potential visitors' perceptions. 
Many respondents expressed reluctance to visit Shovi in the next tourist season, associating the area 
with psychological discomfort rather than an opportunity for solidarity. However, with the right 
marketing campaigns that focus on recovery, resilience, and the positive role of tourism in supporting 
post-crisis recovery, these perceptions can be shifted. 

Ultimately, a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approach that integrates risk reduction, crisis 
response, and post-crisis rehabilitation will be essential to ensuring Georgia’s tourism sector becomes 
more resilient to natural disasters. By addressing the gaps in tourist preparedness and rebuilding the 
image of post-crisis destinations, Georgia can foster long-term sustainability and safety within its 
tourism industry. 

In addition to the findings from the survey, it is essential to consider a comprehensive framework for 
managing the impact of natural disasters on tourism. These strategies can be categorised into three 
main approaches: preventive, response, and recovery-rehabilitation. Each of these approaches plays a 
critical role in enhancing the resilience of tourism destinations and ensuring the long-term 
sustainability of the sector. 

As part of the preventive strategic approach, it is essential to implement the following actions: 
Identification of dangers and risks of natural disasters 
Creation and distribution of a relevant database to interested parties 
Creation of maps depicting natural processes and risks 
Constant monitoring of vulnerable areas and updating of information 
Implementation of an early warning system 
Reasonable artificial intervention with respect to specific natural processes (for example, artificially 

triggering an avalanche during an avalanche hazard to prevent sudden damage in the future) 
Strengthening of areas vulnerable to specific natural processes (for example, strengthening of 

landslide-prone zones) 
Conducting educational and informational campaigns in order to raise awareness and qualification 
Provision of rescue services with appropriate equipment and qualified personnel 
Formation of insurance culture 
Developing a crisis management and mitigation plan 
Within the framework of the strategic response approach, it is essential to implement the following 

actions: 
• Effective distribution and management of resources 
• Coordinated cooperation between various rescue, administrative services, and stakeholders 
• Ensuring rapid exchange of reliable information 
• Formation and effective use of qualified volunteer groups 
Within the framework of the strategic approach to recovery and rehabilitation, it is essential to 

implement the following actions: 
• Provide support to affected communities 
• Restore damaged infrastructure 
• Take appropriate steps for the rehabilitation of tourism businesses through insurance and financial 

institutions. 
• Conduct active marketing campaigns to promote the safety of the destination  

Competing interests 
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 

Authors’ contribution 
The authors of the article jointly agreed on the topic and methodology of the article. As the systematic 
review methodology requires, both authors were actively involved in the research process. Abstract, 
introduction and discussion are provided by Tatiana Sitchinava, and results and conclusion are written 
by Mariam Sharia. 

ORCID iD 



Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

Tatiana Sitchinava https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5021-6246 
Mariam Sharia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5716-6149 

Reference 
Aznar-Crespo, P., Aledo, A., & Melgarejo-Moreno, J. (2020). Social vulnerability to natural hazards in tourist 

destinations of developed regions. Science of the Total Environment, 710, 135870. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135870 

Becken, S., & Khazai, B. (2017). Resilience, tourism and disaster. In R. W. Butler (Ed.), Tourism and resilience 
(pp. 96–104). CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780648330.0096 

Becken, S. (2017). Tourism and the environment: Resource efficiency, vulnerability and environmental 
management. Channel View Publications. 

Becken, S., & Hughey, K. F. D. (2013). Linking tourism into emergency management structures to enhance 
disaster risk reduction. Tourism Management, 36, 77-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.006 

Berbés-Blázquez, M., & Scott, D. (2017). The development of resilience thinking. In R. W. Butler (Ed.), 
Tourism and resilience (pp. 9–22). CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780648330.0009 

Brown, N. A., Rovins, J. E., Feldmann‐Jensen, S., Orchiston, C., & Johnston, D. (2017). Exploring disaster 
resilience within the hotel sector: A systematic review of literature. International Journal of Disaster Risk 
Reduction, 22, 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.005 

Chelidze, T. (2019). Natural hazards in Georgia: Seismic and gravitational processes. Bulletin of the Georgian 
National Academy of Sciences, 13(4), 84-90. 

Chen, M.-H. (2011). The response of hotel performance to international tourism development and crisis events. 
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 200-212. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.06.005 

Civil Georgia. (2024, August 5). Institute of Earth Sciences: Early warning system could have averted Shovi 
landslide disaster. Civil.ge. Retrieved from https://civil.ge/archives/618915 

Coppola, D. P. (2015). Introduction to international disaster management (3rd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth‐
Heinemann. 

Drabek, T. (1995). Disaster planning and response by tourist business executives. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant 
Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/001088049503600325 

Estevão, C., & Costa, C. (2020). Natural disaster management in tourist destinations: A systematic literature 
review. European Journal of Tourism Research. 

FAO. (2013). Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook: Volume 2 - Module 2: Climate-smart agriculture and food 
security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 
https://www.fao.org/4/i3245e/i3245e02.pdf 

Faulkner, B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management, 22(2), 135-
147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00048-0 

Ha, K. M. (2023). Improving disaster management in international tourism. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. 

Hall, C. M., Prayag, G., & Amore, A. (2018). Tourism and resilience: Individual, organisational and 
destination perspectives. Channel View Publications. 

Hall, C. M., & Page, S. J. (2016). The geography of tourism and recreation: Environment, place and space (4th 
ed.). Routledge. 

Handmer, J., & Dovers, S. (2007). Handbook of disaster and emergency policies and institutions. Earthscan. 

Huang, J.-H., & Min, J. C.-H. (2002). Earthquake devastation and recovery in tourism: The Taiwan case. 
Tourism Management, 23(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00051-6 

Kalandadze, K. (2020). Mountain tourism in Georgia: Challenges and development trends. Journal of Mountain 
Tourism Research, 8(1), 29-43. 

Machado, L. P., & Almeida, A. (2019, May). Tourism, natural disasters and destination image. In Contributions 
to Economics (pp. 1-18). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02662-2_14 

McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., & Breen, C. M. (2015). Tourism in highland regions: Climate change and 
sustainable responses. Mountain Research and Development, 35(4), 391-397. 
https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00057.1 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5021-6246
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5716-6149
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135870
https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780648330.0096
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.006
https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780648330.0009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.06.005
https://civil.ge/archives/618915
https://doi.org/10.1177/001088049503600325
https://www.fao.org/4/i3245e/i3245e02.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00057.1
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5021-6246
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5716-6149


Sitchinava & Sharia. 2025 5(1) 

 
 

Mair, J., Ritchie, B. W., & Walters, G. (2016). Towards a research agenda for post-disaster and post-crisis 
recovery strategies for tourist destinations: A narrative review. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(1), 1–26. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.932758 

Milo, K. J., & Yoder, S. L. (1991). Recovery from natural disaster: Travel writers and tourist destinations. 
Journal of Travel Research, 30(1), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759103000107 

Murphy, P. E., & Bayley, R. (1989). Tourism and disaster planning. Geographical Review, 79(1), 36–46. 

Nair, B. B., & Dileep, M. R. (2020). A study on the role of tourism in destination's disaster and resilience 
management. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 11(6), 1496-1507. 
https://doi.org/10.14505/jemt.11.6(46).20 

National Environmental Agency. (2024). Evaluation report on the natural phenomenon developed in the Buba 
River Valley, on August 3, 2023. 

Pescaroli, G., & Alexander, D. (2015). A definition of cascading disasters and cascading effects: Going beyond 
the “toppling dominos” metaphor. Planet @ Risk Global Forum Davos, 3(1), 58–67. 

Pennington-Gray, L. (2018). Reflections to move forward: Where destination crisis management research needs 
to go. Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 136-139. 

Prideaux, B., Laws, E., & Faulkner, B. (2003). Events in Indonesia: Exploring the limits to formal tourism 
trends forecasting methods in complex crisis situations. Tourism Management, 24(5), 475–487. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00115-2 

Prideaux, B., Coghlan, A., & Falco-Mammone, F. (2003). Responding to natural disasters: The case of the 
tropical rainforest tourism industry of North Queensland following Cyclone Larry. Journal of Travel & 
Tourism Marketing, 20(1), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v20n01_02 

Pforr, C. (2009). Crisis management in tourism: A review of the emergent literature. In Crisis Management in 
the Tourism Industry: Beating the Odds (pp. 37-52). 

RFE/RL. (2023, August 3). Shovi landslide disaster in Georgia kills at least 33. Radio Free Europe/Radio 
Liberty. Retrieved from https://www.rferl.org/a/shovi-landslide-disaster-georgia/33065959.html 

Ritchie, B. W., & Jiang, Y. (2019). A review of research on tourism risk, crisis, and disaster management: 
Launching the Annals of Tourism Research curated collection on tourism risk, crisis and disaster 
management. Annals of Tourism Research, 79, Article 102812. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102812 

Ritchie, B. W. (2008). Tourism disaster planning and management: From response and recovery to reduction 
and readiness. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(4), 315-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802140372 

Ritchie, B. W. (2004). Chaos, crises and disasters: A strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism 
industry. Tourism Management, 25, 669–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.004 

Sunarta, I. N., Susila, K. D., & Kariasa, I. N. (2018). Landslide hazard analysis and damage assessment for 
tourism destination at Candikuning Village, Tabanan Regency, Bali, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: 
Earth and Environmental Science, 123, 012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/123/1/012006 

Todman-Lewis, C. (2017). Strategies for crisis preparedness of tourist destinations (Doctoral dissertation, 
Walden University). 

Young, W. B., & Montgomery, R. J. (1997). Crisis management and its impact on destination marketing. 
Journal of Convention & Exhibition Management, 1(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J143v01n01_02 

World Bank. (2020). Resilient tourism: Competitiveness in the face of disasters. Washington, DC: World Bank. 

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.932758
https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759103000107
https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v20n01_02
https://www.rferl.org/a/shovi-landslide-disaster-georgia/33065959.html
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102812
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802140372
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.004
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/123/1/012006
https://doi.org/10.1300/J143v01n01_02

	Conclusion

