A resilience approach to DMO communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article addresses how urban Destination Management Organisations (DMOs) in Sweden, have understood their communicative role, developed communicative strategies and tactics in relation to stakeholders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this research is to explore communication strategies for urban destination resilience.

DMOs have a key role in balancing the interest of stakeholders, the management and branding of a destination, and attracting visitors (Rodríguez-Díaz & Espino-Rodríguez, 2008; Stienmetz & Fesenmaier, 2019). DMOs are expected to facilitate the conditions for other organisations within a defined administrative boundary to meet political ambitions concerning economic and sustainable
development (Elbe et al., 2017). Hence, urban DMOs have a particularly challenging communicative task given the number of stakeholders involved in a tourist destination. DMOs often have limited budgets (Pike, 2004), work in complex organizational settings, representing municipal, political, and
industry interests, and work with stakeholders of various fields of operation, size, interest, and budget. Several previous studies have pointed to the arduous task of DMOs to develop a strategy to mobilize resources controlled by others (Buhalis, 2000; Gretzel et al., 2006). While the DMO is a central actor in
the destination, the literature indicates that the task of the urban DMO is complex and challenging given the number of involved stakeholders and limited resources and decision-making power.

Resilience at a destination is based on the individual and the organisational level and how these levels are connected to different networks in the tourism system like businesses, government, NGO’s and the community (Hall et al., 2017). The different stakeholder networks within each destination and surrounding regions are also of importance. Research concludes that the more range of networks there is, the more resilient is the destination (Hall et al., 2017). However, resilience is not the same for all stakeholders. It is important to take into consideration: resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? (cf. Meerow et al, 2016). This needs to be carefully considered when developing the
communicative strategies.

This research is conducted in collaboration with the Swedish network of destination management organisations (SNDMO) in a research project financed by the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (2021-2022). During 2021, 40 semi-structured interviews with members of SNDMO were performed. Additionally, a couple of DMOs in different urban regions in Sweden have been
selected as partners to identify and discuss problems and best practises to develop communication strategies in collaboration.

To deal with the difficult situation, DMOs established many new stakeholder collaborations locally. A hurdle in these collaborations is the complexity that comes with stakeholder communication that includes local businesses, residents, public organisations and so forth. Additionally, the communicative
role of the DMOS has expanded during the pandemic and accentuated new actors and relationships. The communicative strategies and tactics that evolved during the crisis in relation to stakeholders are characterised by handling several contradictions and dilemmas. The results indicate the success of the
DMO is dependent on its ability to be proactive, adapt to a constantly changing environment, and use established networks for communication work.

To conclude, this ongoing project increases the understanding of communicative strategies employed for urban resilience that emerges in complex interactions between different stakeholders and the communicative role of DMOs in an extraordinary situation.

References
Buhalis, D. (2000) Marketing the competitive destination of the future, Tourism Management, 21, 97–116.
Elbe, J., Gebert Persson, S., Sjöstrand, F. & Ågren, K. (2018), Network approach to public-private organizing of destinations, IMP Journal, 12(2), 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMP-06-2017-0035
Gretzel U., Fesenmaier DR, Formica S. & O’Leary JT. (2006) Searching for the Future: Challenges Faced by Destination Marketing Organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 116-126. doi:10.1177/0047287506291598
Hall, C.M., Prayag, G. & Amore, A. (2017). Tourism and resilience: individual, organisational and destination perspectives. Channel View Publications.
Meerow, S. & Newell, J. P. (2019) Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why?, Urban Geography, 40:3, 309-329, DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2016.1206395
Pike, S. (2004). Destination Marketing Organisations. Elsevier
Rodríguez-Díaz M. & Espino-Rodríguez TF. (2008). A Model of Strategic Evaluation of a Tourism Destination Based on Internal and Relational Capabilities. Journal of Travel Research, 6(4), 368-380.
doi:10.1177/0047287507308324
Stienmetz JL & Fesenmaier DR. (2019). Destination Value Systems: Modeling Visitor Flow Structure and Economic Impact. Journal of Travel Research, 58(8), 1249-1261. doi:10.1177/0047287518815985