Communication work for influencing destination resilience – DMOs experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

ABSTRACT

Previous research has identified good communication as one of several key factors essential for destination resilience. However, there has been a lack of research on how communication contributes to this development. To address this gap, this study explores the communication work done by Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) with stakeholders to influence destination resilience. The study examines the interrelationship between the DMO and the destination stakeholders on national, regional, and local levels. The study consists of 39 interviews with the largest DMOs in Sweden. The results suggest that DMOs employed various forms of communication work and roles. The work, such as working in networks and performing business intelligence, is connected to supporting environmental sensitivity and connectivity, which are crucial to destination resilience. The success of DMOs’ communication work in influencing destination resilience depends on their ability to be proactive, adapt to a constantly changing environment, and use established networks. The DMOs learned from and mitigated the consequences of the pandemic while building strength to withstand anticipated future stressors. Thus, the DMOs influenced both planned and adaptive resilience. The study's findings increase our understanding of the communication work and roles employed by DMOs to influence the resilience of a destination.

KEYWORDS:

• Destination resilience
• communication work
• stakeholders
• destination management organisations
• Sweden

Introduction

The tourism sector has been severely affected by a range of global disasters such as COVID-19, natural disasters, financial and political instability in the last couple of years. It is therefore no surprise that resilience has emerged as a key concept in the field of tourism (cf. Amore et al., 2018; Butler, 2017; Cheer & Lew, 2018; Hall et al., 2023). Resilience research developed by Holling (1973) who introduced resilience in ecological systems to explore the resistance of natural systems to disturbances of natural or anthropogenic causes (see review Eksell & Månsson, 2023; Hall et al., 2023). Since then, resilience thinking has expanded to a broad range of contexts and applications beyond the engineering approach to resilience. However, there is still no distinct definition of resilience as it depends on the approach and focus. This article departs from a social-ecological resilience approach where a common focus usually is on adaptive capacity, transformability, learning, and innovation (Folke, 2006).

Resilience can be addressed at many different levels. This article is particularly interested in what Amore et al. (2018) call the regime level, similar to what Prayag (2020) refers to as the mesolevel. At this level, the focus is on different tourism stakeholders. This article explores the role of destination management organisations (DMOs) whose work involves balancing the interest of stakeholders, the management and marketing of a destination, and the promotion of tourism and attracting visitors to a destination (cf. Kuščer et al., 2022; Rodríguez-Díaz & Espino-Rodríguez, 2008; Stienmetz & Fesenmaier, 2019). Furthermore, 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). Even though DMOs have a key role in building resilient destinations through their networks (cf. Kuščer et al., 2022; Sigala, 2020) there is a lack of knowledge about their work for destination resilience (Prayag, 2020). As Hall et al. (2023) argue that it is important to understand the interrelationship between different levels of resilience. This article addresses destination resilience by exploring the communication work and interrelationship between the destination, DMO and the stakeholders at national, regional, and local levels.

Networks are identified as key factors in current research about building destination resilience (cf. Hall et al., 2018; Hartman, 2018). However, there is a lack of research on how destination stakeholders develop resilience, especially regarding communication work. Research on resilience in communication sciences is an emerging field of research (cf. Houston & Buzzanell, 2020) that primarily focuses on the role of communication for resilience during disasters (Houston & Buzzanell, 2018; Rice & Jahn, 2020). Nevertheless, conclusions in relation to communication rarely go beyond statements such as resilience is closely linked to good communication (e.g. Nicholls, 2012). Thus, what is good communication and how it is conducted in relation to stakeholders at different levels is barely discussed.

Hence, the aim of this article is to explore DMOs’ communication work with stakeholders for influencing destination resilience. This article studies Swedish DMOs’ communicative work during COVID-19 as an extreme case. The questions answered in this study are: how has the Covid-19 pandemic transformed DMOs’ communicative work with stakeholders on national, regional, and local levels? And how have DMOs’ communication work and roles influenced destination resilience?

Literature review

Resilience research in a tourism context

Resilience research stems from Holling’s (1973) seminal work that took an engineering approach to resilience. Key aspects of this approach are a system’s return time, and efficiency and stability near an equilibrium state (Folke, 2006). It defines efficiency, constancy, and predictability of the system as central qualities (Holling, 1996). Ecological resilience on the other hand is an approach defined as the ability of a system to withstand shock, maintain critical relationships, persistence, change, and unpredictability (Holling, 1996). In this approach, resilience is not viewed as a single stable state that should be returned to. It is rather a process that focuses on the capacity of a system to resist and recover from change to a range of equilibriums (cf. Berbés-Blázquez & Scott, 2017; Folke, 2006; Hall et al., 2023). The departure point for this study is social-ecological resilience that focus on a system's resistance, recovery, adaptive capacity, and ability. Walker et al. (2004, p. 4) defined it as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and re-organize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks”. It focuses on the resistance, recovery, adaptive capacity, and ability of a system to transform (Hall et al., 2023). Similarly, to the ecological approach, resilience is seen as a process. However, this is a long-term approach that is centred around the transformation of the system. In the socio-ecological approach, humans and nature are linked systems that do not exist on their own (Cheer & Lew, 2018). Contrarily, Brown (2021, p. 777) argues that “[m]ost representations of a social-ecological system present two subsystems — the social and the ecological—interacting within a larger arena, the social-ecological system. Various linkages, interactions, and feedbacks between the two subsystems are posited”. Brown (2021) therefore emphasises that multisystemic resilience relates to interactions across the whole social-ecological system, rather than between specific ecological or social dimensions, and that resilience emerges from these processes. Therefore, this study explores interactions between specific ecological or social dimensions. More specifically, this study focuses on interactions, particularly communication across the social-ecological system, and how destination resilience is supported by these processes.

Research on resilience has emerged in many disciplines and has recently developed into an important theme in tourism studies (see for example Butler, 2017; Cheer & Lew, 2018; Hall et al., 2018; 2023; Lew, 2013; Luthe & Wyss, 2014; Strickland-Munro et al., 2010). Common themes within resilience and tourism research are, as identified by Hall et al. (2018), the following: firstly, how tourism effects the resilience of economies and places, and secondly research that addresses communities, policy and planning, and sustainable development. What is lacking, according to Hall et al. (2018) are resilience studies that address crises, disasters, and security in tourism. However, Berbés-Blázquez and Scott (2017, p. 19) on the other hand argue that resilience in tourism has been relatively limited with most studies focusing on “the recovery of destinations from natural hazards, health, and economic and security-related chocks”. Examples are studies that focuses on crisis preparation and recovery (Faulkner, 2001), the SARS epidemic in China in 2002–2003 (Zeng et al., 2005), and the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008).

Furthermore, it is possible to address resilience research on many different levels: individual, organisational or destination level (Hall et al., 2018). Prayag (2020) has a similar approach but labels it as microlevel resilience, mesolevel resilience, and macrolevel resilience. The focus of this study is the mesolevel with DMOs and the interplay with the destination (macrolevel). According to Hall et al. (2018) there is a lack of studies that explores the destination level which makes this a suitable approach for this study.

Destination resilience and destination management organisations

Before exploring destination resilience, it is important to first address DMOs as they have a key role at a destination as previously mentioned (cf. Rodríguez-Díaz & Espino-Rodríguez, 2008; Stienmetz & Fesenmaier, 2019). DMOs often have limited budgets (Pike, 2004), work in complex organisational settings, representing municipal, political, and industry interests, and work with stakeholders of various fields of operation, size, interest, and budget which complicates the work even further.

To be able to discuss destination resilience, it is necessary to also address organisational resilience as DMOs has a central role in a destination (cf. Hall et al., 2018). Organisational resilience usually refers to the “[…] capability to face disruptions and unexpected events in advance […]” (Annarelli & Nonino, 2016, p. 3). It is commonly described to have two dimensions: planned and adaptive (Lee et al., 2013). Planned resilience occurs in advance of an unexpected event, and adaptive resilience emerges post-disaster and requires leadership, internal collaboration, and an ability to learn from past experiences (e.g. Jiang et al., 2019). These aspects are therefore important to address to be able to understand DMOs communication work with stakeholders for supporting destination resilience.

Resilience at a destination is based on the individual and the organisational level and how these levels are connected to different networks of stakeholders in the tourism system like businesses, government, NGOs, and the community (Hall et al., 2018). Thus, there are many stakeholders involved in the resilience work at a destination. Moreover, resilience is not the same for all stakeholders. It is therefore important to take into consideration: resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? (cf. Meerow & Newell, 2019).

However, even if resilience is not the same for all stakeholders, there are a few factors that are considered to contribute to resilience building at a destination. Hartman (2018) listed the following conditions for working towards destination resilience based on seminal findings for example Biggs et al. (2015). The first condition is variety and redundancy meaning that a destination needs to be diverse to be flexible and robust in the long run. The second condition is connectivity which highlights the importance of including and working with many different stakeholders. The third condition is to promote polycentric governance systems. It entails that destinations need to be run together by different actors on different scales and not by a single entity. The fourth condition is environmental sensitivity. It is about the ability on a multi-stakeholder level to identify external variables (fast and slow) that have an impact on the destination whether it is for example financial, environmental, or technological factors. The fifth condition is learning and reflexivity which entails the ability to learn and reflect on previous incidents and develop based on this knowledge. And finally, the sixth condition is incorporate thinking in adaptive systems. All the conditions mentioned above require adaptive thinking that embraces complexity as well as an understanding of how the tourist destination is part of other systems on different scales and levels at the same time.

In a similar vein Hall et al. (2018) listed the following criteria for a resilient destination. It is when stakeholders: (a) are aware of the vulnerabilities and potential risks at the destination, (b) have the local community in focus, (c) participate in active networks and other kinds of collaborative work, (d) reframe the metagovernance of destinations, (e) are mainly active in local and regional scale and finally (f) continuously reflects and learn from previous experiences. The proposed conditions are, as seen, highly similar but there is still a scarcity of research-based knowledge how destination resilience work is performed (cf. Hartman, 2018). Schroeder and Pennington-Gray (2018) also argue that destination resilience research is highly theoretical, and a practical understanding is lacking. Similarly, Amore et al. (2018) argue that a social-ecological approach to resilience is often just a metaphor and there is a lack of studies on how to do the work. Hence, there is a need of an approach that allows an analysis of interactions across the social-ecological system that provide insights on how resilience is supported by communication processes at the destination, that will be addressed in the next section.

Communication work and roles for resilience

To enhance the understanding of destinations resilience, this study explores DMOs communication work and roles at national, regional and local levels. A role refers to the recurring actions a person or organisation carries out in a specific context as well as specific features of practices (cf. Tsetsura, 2018). Tindall and Holtzhausen (2011) argue for four generic communication roles: strategist, media specialist, liaison, and cultural interpreter. The strategist role implies participation in strategic planning, being a communication expert, problem solver, and staying up to date with the environment (business intelligence), stakeholder groups, and societal trends. The media specialist role implies focusing on relationships with the media, dealing with feedback to the organisation on media coverage, covering aspects of design and media production, as well as communication campaign execution. The liaison role implies a focus on relationship building with stakeholders and creating opportunities for two-way communication. The cultural interpreter role implies to some extent networking with government officials, and to a larger extent a focus on cultural interpretation and translation. Interestingly, the roles and associated tasks are performed across different contexts and call for a continued holistic approach to communication roles in communication professions (cf. Tindall & Holtzhausen, 2011).

There is still limited research on communication work related to resilience. Although, within crisis communication, there exists a line of research that focuses on how organisations communicate in response to adverse events which has consequences for this study. For example, Coombs et al. (2010) have shown how communication roles and tasks connected to harmful events, emergencies, and crises tend to explore communication with external publics with a focus to protect organisational reputation through crisis response strategies. In crises communication, resilience is generally regarded as a task that takes place after a negative event to solve immediate crisis. Thus, a crisis in this field of research is often seen as a short-lived event compared to the prolonged processes addressed in resilience research.

Additionally, within internal crisis communication, employees’ work tasks and roles have relatively recently been acknowledged. This research has highlighted that communication professionals’ competence is generally asked for in times of crisis (Frandsen & Johansen, 2011; Heide & Simonsson, 2011). However, there is still limited knowledge on what communicators do in these situations (Heide & Simonsson, 2011) and more importantly how communication work support resilience. One of the few studies that address the role of employees for resilience is by Kim (2020) who showed how employees can support an organisation by adapting to and initiating changes during the recovery process following a crisis. He concluded that employees’ intentions for proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity contribute to organisational effectiveness after a crisis. Consequently, there is need for more research on how communication work and roles support resilience.

Concluding remarks

To explore DMOs’ communication work with stakeholders for supporting destination resilience, this article draws on three fields of research. Destination resilience, that is the overall focus of this study, offers an epistemological focus. The research posits that resilience at a destination is based on the individual and the organisational level and how these levels are connected to different networks of stakeholders in the tourism system like businesses, government, NGOs, and the community (Hall et al., 2018). Hence, this study focuses on DMOs communication work and roles with stakeholders at different levels in the tourism system. In regard to research on destination resilience and DMOs, this study draws particularly on studies that explore conditions and criteria for resilience (Hall et al., 2018; Hartman, 2018). Hence, concepts such as connectivity (networks and collaborations) and environmental sensitivity have been important in both preparing the interview guide and identifying themes in the data. Similarly, research on communication work and roles has been important in both planning the interviews and in the analytical stage. It should be noted that communication work and roles for resilience is under-research both generally in communication sciences and in the context of destination resilience in tourism studies. Hence, there is a need for more research-based work on how the work is performed. The ambition is therefore to combine research on resilience, DMOs and communication work to advance knowledge on how to build destination resilience. How these different lines of research have been conceptualised and applied in the study will be further explained in the method section.

Method

To explore DMO’s communication work and roles for supporting destination resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted with major Swedish DMOs. The experiences of Swedish DMOs are interesting as Sweden was never in lockdown as many other countries. Instead, the DMOs had to continue their work but now in relation to restrictions imposed by the Public Health Agency in Sweden. Studying DMOs in a difficult time, such as the global COVID-19 pandemic, is an extreme case. Extreme cases are often richer in information and provide an interesting opportunity to access information as incidents progress (cf. Flyvbjerg, 2006).

To gather the experiences of the personnel at the DMOs, how they made sense of the pandemic and adapted their work and tasks in relation to different stakeholders, the qualitative case study (cf. Merriam, 1988) was selected as a methodological approach. Hence, the research design was performed in line with a social constructive approach as it was primarily interested in holistic experiences, thoughts, and reflections in relation to context.

The research was conducted in collaboration with the Swedish Network of Destination Management Organisations (SNDMO). The network currently has 39 members representing primarily key urban destinations in Sweden. The network members’ geographical location is from Malmoe in the South to Kiruna in the North (www.sndmo.se).

The data consisted of 39 qualitative interviews conducted during 2021 (see Table 1 and online supplementary Figure). In total 44 interviewees participated, from 38 destinations within the SNDMO network. The interviews, that were semi-structured (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015), were done online by three researchers via Zoom or Teams. The COVID-19 pandemic was still ongoing, even though travel was allowed during parts of the data collection period. The interviews were semi-structured which allowed the interviewer to focus on previously identified themes, but also probe on issues evolving in the interview. A semi-structured interview guide was created by applying a priori codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) with concepts deducted from the theoretical framework. The three lines of research that this study draws on had different roles in the planning stage of the study. Firstly, research on resilience at a destination offered questions on DMOs actors and stakeholders at the destination and the broader tourism system. Secondly, research on destination resilience and DMOs, offered concepts connected to conditions and criteria for resilience, such as connectivity, networks and governance, which were integrated into the interview guide. Thirdly, research on communication work and roles offered themes for questions. For instance, the communication work during different stages of the pandemic was a dominant theme in the guide. The interviews were primarily conducted with CEOs, strategists, heads of tourism, destination developers, and marketing communicators at the DMOs. All were to various extent involved in strategic planning, prioritising, and execution of communication activities at their respective destination. The mode of interviewing had to our experience no negative impact on the interview qualities. Contrarily many interactions in the online interviews were experienced as personal and honest (cf. Hyde & Rouse, 2022). The latter can also be a result of a need from the interviewees to share their personal stories in difficult times.

Table 1. Interview table with the Swedish DMOs

	Destination management organisation (DMO)	Interviewees	Interview date (all in 2021)
1	Vimmerby Turistbyrå	• Tourist information office manager • Marketing manager	May 27
2	Borås TME	• CEO	May 17
3	Destination Eskilstuna	• Destination strategist	May 31
4	Destination Falkenberg	• Destination developer	May 27
5	Destination Halmstad	• Destination developer	May 24
6	Destination Jönköping	• Head of tourism business • Head of meetings & events	June 8
7	Destination Kalmar	• Head of tourism	May 26
8	Destination Läckö Kinnekulle	• CEO	June 2
9	Destination Sigtuna	• CEO	June 3
10	Destination Södertälje	• Destination developer	June 7
11	Destination Uddevalla	• Head of operations	May 12
12	Destination Uppsala	• Marketing manager	June 30
13	Destination Östersund	• CEO	June 1
14	Gävle kommun	• Destination developer	June 1
15	Göteborg & Co	• Head of marketing & communication	May 6
16	Göteborg & Co	• Head of public relations	May 19
17	Helsingborgs stad	• Head of sales & marketing	June 10
18	Höga Kusten Turism	• CEO	June 1
19	Karlstads kommun	• Head of tourism• Tourism strategist	June 2
20	Kiruna Lappland Ekonomisk Förening	• CEO	May 31
21	Kristianstad kommun	• Planning strategist	April 22
22	Kungsbacka kommun	• Destination developer	April 28
23	Malmö Turism	• Head of marketing & destination development	April 20
24	Next Skövde Destinationsutveckling	• CEO	May 20
25	Norrköpings kommun	• Head of tourism business development	May 26
26	Nyköpings kommun	• Head of tourism	May 24
27	Södra Bohuslän Turism AB	• CEO	May 27
28	Visit Karlskrona	• Head of tourism	Dec 1
29	Visit Linköping o Co	• Head of tourism	July 2
30	Visit Lund AB	• Tourism developer	April 27
31	Visit Skellefteå	• CEO	June 3
32	Visit Stockholm	• Marketing manager, business intelligence	May 11
33	Visit Trollhättan-Vänersborg	• CEO	May 26
34	Visit Umeå	• CEO	June 1
35	Visit Varberg	• Destination developer • Head of business development	May 26
36	Visit Västerås	• Head of marketing & destination development• Destination developer	May 31
37	Västervik Framåt AB	• Head of marketing	June 3
38	Ölands Turismorganisation	• Head of tourism	June 4
39	Örebrokompaniet	• Head of destination development & hospitality	May 6

The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interviews were coded and analysed by applying both a priori and in-vivo codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In addition to the a priori codes that were deducted from the theoretical framework, the data were analysed with an inductive “in-vivo” technique to capture empirically identified themes. For instance, the analysis was open to themes that were not prominent in the reviewed studies. For instance, the communication work that entailed listening and comforting business owners that was prominent in the data, but not in earlier studies. Further, to arrive at a higher level in the analysis, the analytical process was guided by an abductive research strategy (cf. Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000) which allowed an alternation between the theory and data. In the empirical findings of this article, citations from interviews with different DMOs are used to illustrate points made.

Swedish DMOs communication work with stakeholders

We had Smålands Tourism [Regional tourism board]. It was Visita [Swedish hospitality sector and employer organisation]. It was The Public Health Agency in Sweden. It was the government. It was different networks. It was Swedish Meetings. There was an extreme number of stakeholders that the tourism industry had to relate to and interact with. It was also the municipality, the local Chamber of Commerce. So, in all that it was just a bit chaotic. (DMO, Jönköping)

The quote highlights the range of stakeholders that a DMO and its different actors had to deal with in the extreme situation they found themselves when the pandemic broke out. It was a difficult task to identify who and how to communicate for the best interest of the destination. Therefore, in the following sections, DMOs’ communication with stakeholders on different levels during the COVID-19 pandemic is analysed. Each section presents the character of the communication work with key stakeholders on national, regional, and local levels regarding destination resilience. The analysis ends with a section covering an aggregated analysis presenting communicative work in relation to generic roles on all levels.

National stakeholders

In relation to national stakeholders, the dominant form of communication work consisted of ongoing business intelligence that allowed the DMOs to adapt the work in relation to changes in Sweden. Three national stakeholders were the primary foci of DMOs during the pandemic: The Public Health Agency in Sweden (PHAS), Visit Sweden (VS) and The Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (SAERG).

Information from PHAS on the development of the pandemic, changes in restrictions, and recommendations were analysed continuously. The DMOs followed the press briefings in the daily TV broadcast that continued during an extended part of the pandemic. They gathered business intelligence that affected strategies, daily work, and plans and execution of communication. The significance of the collected intelligence was expressed in interview statements such as … “the strategies could change week from week. Depending on how you got information from the Public Health Agency … ” (DMO, Varberg), or . .. “everyone understood that it is the Public Health Agency that sets the requirements” (DMO, Falkenberg). From a resilience perspective, the business intelligence contributed to an environmental sensitivity that allowed the actors at the destination to act with respect to the evolution of the pandemic and take advantage of the room for action that present restrictions allowed.

SAERG managed and disbursed support to companies in the tourism sector. To analyse the information on different forms of support and the process of applying for it, the DMOs carried out business intelligence in relation to SAERG. From a resilience perspective, the information collected by DMOs was crucial for local businesses. They made the information more accessible by packaging and adapting it as per the needs of companies. Some DMOs even went a step further and directly connected business owners at their destination to officials at SAERG, as the support in many cases played a crucial role in their survival. The communication work aimed to facilitate local businesses understanding of complex information and establishing vital relationship. It was, therefore, essential also to reflect and learn from ongoing information from SAERG.

The DMOs also monitored Visit Sweden's (VS) work in at least two ways. Firstly, many DMOs attended a webinar series that framed and discussed current issues relevant to the needs of the Swedish tourism industry. These webinars influenced DMOs local work. One Head of Tourism development exemplifies VS’s influence:

We have listened to Visit Sweden, for example, about communicating nature and coastal experiences. We have that in our city. Of course, we should make use of that more, than we would have done if it hadn’t been for the pandemic. (DMO, Norrköping)

Secondly, a dialogue between selected DMOs, regional tourism boards, and VS was established because of the Swedish government’s ambition to develop the domestic market for a Swedish target group during the pandemic. The DMOs provided input in dialogue meetings for a national VS campaign launched in April 2021. From a resilience perspective, by collecting business intelligence during webinars, the DMOs got a mutual understanding of the consequences of the pandemic, had access to guidelines on how to work during the crisis, and could participate in a forum of continuous learning. It is also clear from the interviews, that the communication with VS has contributed to developing cooperations in the form of mutual campaigns between DMOs in Sweden. Hence, the different forms of communication work performed both by DMOs, and Visit Sweden established a form of temporary national governance in the Swedish tourism system – a role that is not officially designated to any public agency in Sweden. Thus, the mega-governance in the tourism system is acknowledged to have impact on resilience work at the destination, and in this dire situation, the communication work of different actors mutually established that role.

Regional stakeholders

During the pandemic, DMOs mainly relied on communication work such as meetings and dialogues to address both immediate and long-term issues with regional stakeholders. However, due to the limited scope of this article, we will only discuss the work in relation to a few stakeholders.

The DMOs’ communication work with county administrative boards (CABs) is highlighted as central to handle new challenges that occurred due to the pandemic.

There was a huge amount of people that impacted the area [nature]. There were not enough of parking places, so we kept a dialogue with the county administrative board […] to handle the flow. (DMO, Halmstad)

The COVID-19 pandemic led to an increased interest in nature tourism, particularly hiking and cycling, which has made DMOs communication with CABs more important than ever. DMOs had to address several issues as a result, including creating better access to green areas, avoid overcrowding, handling complaints from landowners, and protecting the green values of these areas. The communication work done in relation to these issues has focused on incorporating adaptive thinking to build resilience. As a result, more parking places have been created, appropriate routes for hiking have been clarified, and bins have been placed in locations to allow appropriate disposal of rubbish. Additionally, services within green areas, such as parking places and public toilets, were re-organised to avoid crowding and consequently the spread of COVID-19.

The DMOs also performed more communication work with their regional tourist boards. In many parts of Sweden, DMOs describe increased cooperation and communication in dialogue meetings characterised by negotiation that resulted in a common approach to questions relevant to regional tourism and the possibility of communicating in one voice.

How should we act, how should we think together? How should we present this so that we are perceived as a unified entity? We cannot express ourselves in different ways. […] We must have a consensus on this issue because a visitor sees no [municipal] borders. They only see their visits as part of a greater place, and we must behave with the same tone and determination. There have been a lot of discussions about the form of co-operation with both the county administrative board and the region. (DMO, Öland)

The DMOs relationship and communication with the regional tourist board increased in importance during the pandemic. The DMOs’ communication consisted of meetings and dialogue that aimed to establish initiatives that strengthened and made the tourism businesses less vulnerable to the consequences of the pandemic. For example, when the Swedish government's support package to the industry was launched, several regional tourist boards in collaboration with DMOs supported and coordinated training initiatives for the tourism industry.

Besides the collaboration in regional tourism board meetings, several DMOs also developed cooperations with DMOs located in the same region. In interviews, several DMOs described that these forms of collaboration were difficult before the pandemic, as they previously regarded each other as competitors. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the conditions for collaboration changed. The DMOs had meetings and shared information. The collaborations consisted of meetings and dialogues characterised by reciprocity and closeness in a way that had not been experienced before. The significance of mutual support in private conversations between employees at different DMOs was highlighted as important during this difficult time. These collaborations sometimes created new opportunities for marketing the destinations. The neighbouring cities of Örebro, Västerås, Karlstad, Norrköping, and Linköping developed a campaign that ran in 2020 and 2021 where each city marketed the other destinations to their residents. The DMOs collaboration with neighbouring DMOs is important for destination resilience as it both strengthens the connectivity between destinations as well as develops the variability of tourism within a region.

Local stakeholders

At a local level a range of communication work was at play simultaneously for the DMO depending on the destination, the situation and who they communicated with. Due to the limits of scope, primarily communication with local businesses is addressed. Although, two tasks regarding media are also highlighted since they have an impact locally. The DMOs’ communication with local businesses consisted of many different tasks that was important for resilience at the destination. A first task was to establish contact and listen to the local businesses to understand the challenges posed by the pandemic. What the DMO could do for them and to obtain input for the DMOs work, in terms of prioritisation and communication. A Head of Tourism describes the task in the following way:

We called all companies in the hospitality industry. I think we made over 1,000 calls in the industry that were hardest hit, and talked to them, and listened to what their everyday life was like, and what support they needed to be able to guide them correctly. (DMO, Nyköping)

Thus, contact and listen was important communication work conducted by DMOs. Another task that emerged, closely related to listening, was comforting that was especially important in the beginning of the pandemic. Since many business owners were in severe crisis and risked losing everything, they needed a shoulder to cry on (sometimes literally). Several DMOs comforted and listened to stakeholders in personal meetings; a task that greatly affected their work. Many of them expressed concerns about having to deal with the challenges experienced in these conversations.

You almost had to start the first 5 minutes just listening to someone crying, to be honest. And then trying to understand and trying to keep a sense of humour by saying: “Yes, but we have to open up now”! Then maybe another 3–4 days passed, and they realised that: “No, it's not possible at all”! The spread of the infection had become much worse. (DMO, Öland)

To comfort and listen was an entirely new communication task that DMOs had not previously experienced, at least not in this scale. But it was a key part of the relationship-building process at the destination. The comforting and listening aspects in communication is not so commonly addressed, especially regarding resilience, but it was a vital part of the communication work that was conducted during the pandemic by DMOs in Sweden to influence resilient destinations.

A second task concerned collecting and packaging information to be able to inform local stakeholders. As stated above, the DMOs continuously performed business intelligence on stakeholders at different levels. The collected information was adapted to local needs.

Where can you find the right information, to try to sort out, and thin out, and clarify and package the information that came centrally, from national media, or not media, but from the government, from the Public Health Agency, from the Region, from the regional administrative board. […] The information flow has actually been beyond this world and for a local business owner it is difficult to assess it all. […] It was maybe one of the most important aspects of our work as a municipality, to help with communication and guide the local businesses. (DMO, Nyköping)

Thus, the packaging of information included different kinds of information such as the progression of the pandemic, the Swedish government's actions and planned support for the industry, changes in PHAS recommendations and restrictions, and SAERG information on how to apply for support. The communication work also covered collecting information from the county administrative board, the region, and the municipality.

DMOs would therefore regularly inform local companies about intelligence and issues. The adapted information was disseminated by different means, for example through network meetings, broadcasts, and newsletters.

We had meetings almost every week, we called them Corona update. Very special, there we could disseminate a lot of the information we had collected and at the same time get an update on how the businesses were doing. (DMO, Höga Kusten)

Besides collecting and packing information, in some destinations the DMOs also had to support local businesses to understand external information. An example is that businesses found SAERGs financial support application form too complicated which meant that some DMOs had to literally assist businesses in writing the application. This task was beyond a DMO’s normal work but was seen as needed to help local companies to stay in business. It was vital to support the local industry because a resilient destination in the long run needs a variety of businesses.

A third task was to establish communication platforms for meetings, sharing knowledge, and listening to business intelligence. In most cases, already existing networks, such as hotel networks, were utilised for this purpose. Many destinations had established these networks beforehand, but their relevance was transformed during the pandemic. As a result, new questions became central.

We helped each other, what should we do? That role became a joint force, and the networks changed in relevance. We have developed networks for five years. But now suddenly, these networks became the place where to work together. (DMO, Västervik)

Working in networks to support connectivity is a key aspect of developing destination resilience. DMOs that already had established local networks benefitted from this in their communication work to reach out to local businesses. Because DMOs without established networks had to start by developing these platforms before they were able to communicate.

A fourth task involved mapping needs, planning, and launching training initiatives adapted to local business requirements. When the SAERG launched support in the form of short-term layoffs, a need to send laid-off staff on training and development emerged. Many DMOs were engaged in the process of identifying needs and wishes suited for local businesses, so the new competence would help local businesses to thrive when the businesses could restart.

We created fast tracks. Last autumn, there were several different courses that we marketed specifically to the hospitality industry and retail sector. By then we had made questionnaires and sent them out. What do you need if you now have the opportunity to take short-term leave? (DMO, Eskilstuna)

The DMOs had to accommodate many wishes and needs for training and development programmes. Recurring themes for training included how to create Covid-19 safe facilities and services, product packaging and target group analysis, digital competencies, and sustainability issues. Thus, many DMOs were proactive in their approach and worked to prepare companies for future needs. In a way it could be seen as creating awareness of external variables and how to tackle them through training, like environmental sensitivity, that in the long run influence the resilience of the destination by strengthening local knowledge and competencies.

A fifth task concerned monitoring and managing media relations on the destination. DMOs were tasked with managing media coverage of both positive and negative news which was a challenge.

In the destination organisation, we also had to handle a lot of media, calls and emails. Some pretty unpleasant stuff at times. And then support from others, of course. You notice how the media and social media, above all, can create media hype. Well and then it blew over, and something else get attention. And then it comes back again. (DMO, Kiruna)

Furthermore, many DMOs were asked by media how companies in the destinations were coping with restrictions imposed by PHS. Some were also questioned about photos in the media showing crowded restaurants. Additionally, a few DMOs were asked to act as spokespersons for the tourism and hospitality industry, particularly in relation to negative events covered in the media when activities were cancelled in the last minute.

So, it is special to handle – a lot of communication, and so we were courted by local media. And they wanted to know: how is it going, what is happening, what do you think, what does the industry think, how is it affected and so on? So, we also had to take on a lot of that role and be a spokesperson for Västerås’ hospitality industry. (DMO, Västerås)

Managing media relations and contributing to environmental sensitivity, are essential in supporting destination resilience. During the pandemic, DMOs occasionally also become a spokesperson for the industry in new ways. The latter recognises the need to not only coordinate communication in one voice from the destination, but managing media relations can, in this case, entail representing the whole destination and its businesses.

The final and sixth task addressed is marketing. In a normal situation a DMO is communicating about the destinations offerings and promote the local businesses. With the outbreak of the pandemic all that work was put to a halt. The DMOs had to find a new approach to their communication.

We have worked a lot to talk more to the dreaming phase, to dream about coming to the Swedish Lapland in the future. That we are there for you and we are waiting for you (DMO, Skellefteå)

The DMOs had to find a tone and a message that was appropriate for the current situation. The communication relied on business intelligence from the national level adapted to local conditions. So even if people were allowed to travel shorter distances it was difficult to encourage people to travel. Instead, the communication focused on showing the destination as a place to visit after the pandemic. This was important for the local businesses since they wanted to know that visitors would come back. Thus, DMOs work required an environmental sensitivity based on continuous learning and reflection of current situations.

DMOs communication work and roles

The analysis has so far identified a range of communication tasks that DMOs simultaneously managed during the pandemic to support destination resilience. It is fair to say that DMOs’ communication competencies were acknowledged and sought after on all levels. This finding is similar to what Frandsen and Johansen (2011) and Heide and Simonsson (2011) discovered regarding communication professionals’ competencies in times of crisis. By relating the communication work to research on generic communication roles (cf. Tindall & Holtzhausen, 2011) it is possible to point out what communication roles were employed by the DMOs during the pandemic. In the role of the strategist, DMOs performed multi-faceted business intelligence to engage with national, regional, and local stakeholders. They gathered, analysed, and shared complex information through various communication platforms. It was also important for DMOs to be proactive in foreseeing the future needs of local businesses. The liaison role was also used constantly since the DMOs had to establish and develop, if they did not already exist, communication platforms in the form of networks with stakeholders at all levels. Another task in this role entailed contacting local businesses and listening to their needs. Listening as a communication task is vital in this context although not so commonly addressed in relation to destination resilience. Closely related to listening is comforting that emerged as a new task for DMOs. The key task in the cultural interpreter role was the packaging and adaption of business intelligence to different target group’s needs. During the pandemic there was an abundance of information to handle for tourism businesses and DMOs took a lead role in sorting, packaging, and sharing this intelligence to be locally relevant. Another role that DMOs had to handle was the media specialist role. In this capacity, DMOs became the spokesperson for the destination and its businesses. Communication work of DMOs is often associated with the marketing of the destination However, due to the pandemic, communication work to attract visitors in the immediate future was not possible. To stay relevant as a destination, the communication changed to focus on dreams and future needs (See Table 2 for an overview of communication roles and tasks).

Table 2. DMOs communication roles and work.

Strategist role	Media specialist role
strategic planning communication expert problem solver gathering and sharing business intelligence proactive created courses for future needs developed and executed marketing campaigns initiated communication collaborations	• handling news media • spokesperson • developing and execution of appropriate communication, both tone and message
Liaison role	Cultural interpreter role
established, developed and/or participated in networks on all levels developed platforms for meeting, listening and sharing connecting stakeholders contact, listening and comforting	• packaging and sharing of business intelligence • adaptation of the business intelligence to local needs

In Table 2 different tasks and roles are separated. The presentation presents generic communication roles and associated tasks that were performed by the DMOs during the pandemic. However, the presentation of communication tasks and roles is in one sense, simplified. The present study shows that tasks that traditionally have been associated with distinct communication roles are blurred in day-to-day work. All roles were relevant in tackling the emerging challenges at the destinations. All communication roles and work tasks were performed complementary depending on what needed to be accomplished in the current situation and important for influencing destination resilience as will be discussed in the following section.

Discussion

Previous studies have identified several critical factors that contribute to developing resilience in tourist destinations, as pointed out by Hall et al. (2018) and Hartman (2018). However, there has been criticism that there is a lack of understanding regarding the actual processes involved in achieving destination resilience (Schroeder & Pennington-Gray, 2018). Furthermore, effective communication has been recognised as crucial for resilience work (Nicholls, 2012); however, it remains unclear what this entails. The analysis has identified how communication with stakeholders is implemented at various levels within the tourism system, and the different roles played by DMOs. However, the question remains as to how this work affects destination resilience. The discussion emphasises two aspects that are vital in influencing the resilience of a destination.

The first aspect to be addressed is connectivity. The significance of being connected through networks has been highlighted from a resilience perspective, as seen in previous studies such as Kuščer et al. (2022) who identified the importance of stakeholder networks for DMOs in handling the COVID-19 crisis. Likewise, Hall et al. (2018) and Hartman (2018) recognised networks and stakeholder collaborations as essential in supporting the development of resilient destinations. Although the importance of connectivity is not new, this study advances knowledge on destination resilience as it shows how communication work is embodied to develop or transform networks and stakeholder collaborations to address specific conditions and questions. Further, it also sheds light on the various forms of communication taking place in these networks to influence destination resilience. The communication in these networks facilitated for example possibilities to learn from each other, by listening and sharing, essential in influencing resilience. Moreover, the new networks and collaborations that were established were characterised by reciprocity and closeness that supported cooperation and connectivity on the different levels. Hence, by being connected in different networks and collaborations the adaptive capacity of destinations extended through establishing a shared approach to mutual challenges. Lastly, the study contributes to understand how national and regional networks and collaborations affect local networks and communication.

Research on destination resilience has acknowledged the importance of environmental sensitivity, as noted by Hartman in 2018. This study contributes to the understanding of the role of DMOs in promoting environmental sensitivity by performing business intelligence at local, regional, and national levels. The findings indicate that the business intelligence processed by DMOs had a significant impact on local communication practices, leading to increased environmental sensitivity and awareness of vulnerabilities and risks. By sharing decisive information, the DMOs improved mutual understanding among different actors in the tourism system. Further, the study highlights DMOs’ application of collected intelligence and their vital role in influencing destinations’ resilience by being proactive and adaptive (cf. Kim, 2020) to changing circumstances. It enabled DMOs to adapt to continuous changes in the tourism system routines, such as the routines of public agencies. It also allowed the DMOs, in collaboration with their region, to develop training initiatives that strengthened the competence of the industry. The newly acquired skills would contribute to reigniting local business, when possible, but also to create resistance to future adverse events. Understanding vulnerabilities and risks and how to respond to them are essential in building the resilience of the destination. Hence, the DMOs played an essential role in developing environmental sensitivity at destinations by performing business intelligence in the tourism system. They applied the intelligence by making informed decisions and forming strategies that supported both adaptive and planned destination resilience in the short and long run.

It is recognised that DMOs play a key role in building resilient destinations through their networks (cf. Kuščer et al., 2022; Sigala, 2020). However, the present study suggests that DMOs can support the development of adaptive and planned destination resilience by performing several kinds of communication work. What entails good or effective communication work for supporting resilience, has, up until now, been unclear. During the pandemic, DMOs employed several communication roles concurrently, adapting their work to the challenges they faced. The communication work was, however, not restricted by a specific communication role and the work was adapted to the challenges they faced. It may be argued, however, that the dominating communication role assumed by the DMOs is that of the strategist and liaison role. The main argument for this suggestion is that the employed communication by DMOs contributes, among other things, to influencing factors such as connectivity and environmental sensitivity. These factors are decisive in building destination resilience and are strongly related to communication work associated with these roles. However, the roles are indistinct in daily work, and all are important.

The findings of the study place the communication work of the DMOs in a broader social-ecological resilience approach that has traditionally focused on adaptive capacity, transformability, learning, and innovation (Folke, 2006). The present study shows how communication work can play an important part in processes that build these factors. Thus, it can be argued that communication work functions as both a glue between stakeholders and energy in the transformative processes to build destination resilience.

Conclusions

This research contributes to the evolving literature on resilience in tourism and more specifically to research that addresses destination resilience. The questions answered in this study are: how has the Covid-19 pandemic transformed DMOs’ communicative work with stakeholders on national, regional and local levels? And how have DMOs’ communication work and roles influenced destination resilience?

From previous research by, for example, Hartman (2018) and Hall et al. (2018), several factors that are essential in developing destination resilience are already identified, such as connectivity (networks) and environmental sensitivity. But at the same time, there has been a critique that there is a lack of knowledge of how the work is actually performed to manage those criteria. This article has chosen to focus on the communication aspect in this work since “good communication” is also identified as important for resilience. A contribution of this article is, therefore, the enhanced understanding of DMOs’ communication work for influencing destination resilience on different levels. DMOs’ communication with stakeholders increased on national, regional, and local levels during the pandemic to facilitate and strengthen the local destination. A large part of this communication was activated in different networks and collaborations immediately after the outset of the pandemic. A key aspect of the resilience work in these networks was business intelligence that created opportunities for a proactive approach and adaptation to emerging challenges. The business intelligence had an intensifying function as it fed into other forms of communication work. Thus, how networks were used, topics discussed, and significance changed over time, but they were essential during this dire time.

Earlier studies on resilience usually emphasise the importance of work performed on the local and regional levels. This study also adds to this corpus of studies, but the present study advances the knowledge of how these are connected through communication. And also, how communication work with national stakeholders affects the other levels of the tourism system. The present study suggests that DMOs’ communication work with stakeholders at different levels is interdependent. It illustrates how communication tasks performed on national and regional levels frame communication with stakeholders at the local level. The resilience of a destination is therefore not only dependent on the horizontal network on local and regional levels. It is also dependent on integration on a vertical level. It, therefore, suggests that destination resilience is dependent on both horizontal and vertical communication in networks.

Furthermore, this study also contributes to an enhanced understanding of the role of DMOs’ in destination resilience. Their role expanded during the pandemic and accentuated not only new stakeholders and relationships but also new forms of communication. The DMOs’ communication roles and work were in constant negotiation and remodelling. The pandemic, therefore, required an agile way of working. It is an approach to communication that affected everything from overall strategic decisions to the choice of target groups and the design of communication. Hence, the DMOS adapted both their strategy and communication work to what was possible at a given time.

The study, therefore, suggests that the communication work of the DMOs contributes to both planned and adaptive resilience. At the outbreak of the pandemic, the DMOs were primarily involved in post-disaster work to build resilience that aimed to learn from experiences and mitigate the consequences of the pandemic. As the pandemic had a prolonged course of events, the DMOs also became engaged in planned approaches to resilience to prepare for new waves of infections of the pandemic and how to address them. The DMOs, therefore, faced the usual situation where they both aimed to learn and mitigate the consequences but also build strength to withstand anticipated future stressors.

From a practical point of view, this study contributes knowledge regarding vital communication work and roles that DMOs need to apply in order to be able to withstand the next crisis in the tourism system. This article has focused on the communication work of the DMOs, but further research could explore the role of communication in influencing destination resilience from a business resilience perspective.

To conclude, the results suggest that the communicative work and roles of DMOs to influence destination resilience is dependent on their ability to be proactive, adapt to a constantly changing environment, and use of established networks for communication work.

Acknowledgements

Freja Kalderen worked as a research assistant and collected parts of the interview data.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas [grant number 2018-02238]; Tillväxtverket [grant number 20298098].