Tourism crisis management does not stop in a destination’s front yard. Why stakeholder collaboration needs to cross borders.

2.1 Crisis management in tourism destinations and its actors

Crises and disasters have been defined extensively but without consensus in academic literature. Faulkner (2001) distinguishes both terms by their origin stating that crises are inflicted internally while disasters are externally induced. For this study, one common definition is used encompassing both crises and disasters, considering the destination as a system: A crisis is a “disruption that physically affects a system as a whole and threatens its basic assumptions, its subjective sense of self, its existential core” (Pauchant and Mitroff 1992, 15). Crisis management encompasses the set of tasks that enable an organisation to effectively navigate a crisis, including mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Fink 1986). Research in tourism crisis management gained significant momentum following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in the United States in 2001 (e. g. Wut, Xu, and Wong 2021). Among the numerous crisis management models elaborated in tourism, crisis management of destinations is the number one contextual focus (Khardani and Schmude 2024).

Destinations have been defined, described and researched extensively in the tourism literature. As defined by Becken (2013), they are geographical areas where tourism significantly contributes to the economy. From an economic perspective, a tourism destination integrates essential elements for a tourist’s experience, including a diverse range of attractions – such as natural landscapes, climate, and cultural sites – along with necessary infrastructure like transport, accommodations, food and recreational facilities (Buhalis 2000). The product is either part of a package vacation sold by outbound tour operators and (online) travel agencies, or it is booked independently by the tourists.

Tourism destinations consist of a heterogeneous composition of public (e. g. governments), private (tourism industry, hospitality, retail, transportation) or hybrid (tourism associations) actors who are engaged in tourism either directly or indirectly (e. g. Hartman, Wielenga, and Heslinga 2020). These stakeholders differ from other networks due to their role as productive coalitions within a highly fragmented supply structure, necessitating collaboration (e. g. Pavlovich 2003) as they rely on mutual interdependence (e. g. Berbekova, Uysal, and Assaf 2021). According to Zemla (2016, 9) “this spatial embeddedness changes radically the rules of cooperation”, which applies particularly to crisis events. Adding to the complexity, tourists actively engage with their host destination during their visit, making them an additional stakeholder group within the destination (e. g. van der Zee and Vanneste 2015). It is therefore crucial to consider both the tourists' host destination and the source market, including tourism service providers and local authorities. Tour operators should be key partners, as they play a significant role in the destination’s economic development, before, during and after a crisis (e. g. Becken 2013). With their package holidays as a popular form of travel in Europe, they exert significant influence on destinations which grants them substantial bargaining power regarding rates and allotment contracts, especially in traditional sun-and-beach destinations such as Spain, Greece, Turkey, Egypt or the Dominican Republic (Picazo and Moreno-Gil 2018). Large, vertically integrated tour operators, controlling transport connections and their own tourism services, can shape and even close destinations to international tourists, creating a high dependency of destinations.

2.2 Stakeholder collaboration

Cooperation and collaboration are usually used interchangeably. While cooperation refers to “working together towards the same purpose” (Oxford English Dictionary 2023), collaboration, as defined by Jamal and Getz (1995) involves joint decision-making among stakeholders to address destination-related issues such as crises.

The role of stakeholders in strategic management was first discussed by Freeman (1984, 46), who defines stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives”. While traditionally linked to organisations, the concept also applies to destinations, which share similar characteristics but are often more complex, as described previously. Stakeholder collaboration has been widely studied across disciplines (e. g. Phillips, Freeman, and Wicks 2003), originating in business administration and later expanding to corporate social responsibility (e. g. Clarkson 1995) and marketing (e. g. Podnar and Jancic 2006). Scholars started to integrate stakeholder theory in tourism management in the early twentieth century (e. g. van der Zee and Vanneste 2015). There, it has been further applied to sustainable tourism (e. g. McComb, Boyd, and Boluk 2017), community-based tourism planning (e. g. Jamal and Getz 1995) and tourism crisis and disaster management (e. g. Jiang and Ritchie 2017).

The core of stakeholder theory tries to group the identified stakeholders into certain categories, so that the organisation can relate to and deal with them effectively (e. g. Freeman 1984). It can serve as an instrument to understanding the perceptions and roles of tourism stakeholders in destinations (e. g. Beritelli 2011). Stakeholder crisis management aims to elaborate instruments for management of the diverse groups in the destination by identifying the stakeholders, analysing their impact and developing an appropriate disaster mitigation plan (e. g. Morakabati, Page, and Fletcher 2017). Stakeholders who are aware of the destination’s needs and who collaborate before, during and after a crisis are key for successful crisis handling in the destination (e. g. Morakabati, Page, and Fletcher 2017).

2.3 Stakeholder theories

As discussed in the previous subsection, identifying and categorising stakeholders is a prerequisite to dealing successfully with them. In the following, the approaches applied to this study are briefly described. Stakeholders can be systematically classified, based on their level of influence, into primary and secondary stakeholders. For Clarkson (1995), an organisation’s survival depends on the participation of its primary stakeholders such as shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers or investors. Secondary stakeholders do not engage directly with the organisation but can influence or be affected by it. While not essential for its survival, they may still be damaging. Examples are the media or special interest groups causing a so-called ‘shitstorm’ which can harm the organisation’s reputation. A further distinction can be made according to the type of stakeholders, allocating them to institutions, businesses or individuals (Beritelli 2011). Podnar and Jancic (2006) introduce a three-level model of exchange and communication with stakeholders. In this model, an organisation maintains inevitable relationships with core stakeholders (shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, competitors), who hold the most power and are critical to its operations. Necessary relationships exist with entities such as trade organisations, unions, media, financial institutions, and the local community, which have moderate but notable influence. The largest group, including foundations, employees' families, political parties, pressure groups, and civil initiatives, holds a desirable but limited degree of power over the organisation. The most detailed stakeholder typology is conducted by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) and applied by several researchers (e. g. Mojtahedi and Oo 2017; Nogueira and Pinho 2015). Through an extensive literature review, Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) combine the central attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency with the stakeholders’ attitude towards the organisation (latent, expectant, definitive) and their salience (low, moderate, high). The result are seven types of stakeholders, namely dormant, discretionary, demanding, dominant, dangerous, and definitive. They are presented in Section 3, Table 1 and are discussed in the context of this research in Sections 4.4 and 5.3.

4.1 Who are the stakeholders influencing the outcome of a crisis in a destination and with which parties do they interact during a crisis?

The stakeholders mentioned by the interviewees were coded using MAXQDA 24 text search and auto code. All codes were manually verified to ensure stakeholders were referenced exclusively in crisis-related contexts. To prevent duplicate counts, stakeholders mentioned multiple times within a single phrase were coded only once. Additionally, stakeholders belonging to the same group as the interviewees were coded only when referring to competitors. With fourteen actors (plus ‘others’), Figure 5 confirms the complexity of the destination’s stakeholder structure as discussed in Section 2.1. Tourists constitute the largest stakeholder group, with a value nearly double that of public authorities, the second-largest group. They are followed by the organisations’ employees and the two tourism suppliers, hotels, and outbound tour operators. Although Figures 5 and 6 show that employees are of significant importance to all stakeholders, they are not further considered for the research questions RQ2 and RQ3, because there, the focus lies on the connections of external actors inside and outside of the destination during a crisis.

Figure 5:

Stakeholders in tourism destination crisis management: Subcode statistics of stakeholders in percent and absolute numbers (n=1578).

The Code Matrix Browser in Figure 6 shows with which actors (rows) the interviewed stakeholder groups (columns) interact during a crisis. The academic expert was excluded due to their advisory function in this case. The higher frequency of mentions from DMCs, hotels, and outbound tour operators reflects their larger representation in the interviews. However, the observed trend remains valid. A top five list of stakeholder groups gives a better overview of the matrix. It shows that tourists and public authorities appear among the top five of all groups. Public authorities in the destination play a vital role for the tourism businesses and association in the destination, while the public authorities in the source market are of foremost importance for the outbound tour operators. Together with tourists, public authorities rank first among public authorities in the destination, which is caused by the multiple local, regional, and national entities within the governmental agencies. Among the top five, employees appear in six out of seven stakeholder groups, which highlights their stake in tourism destination crisis management. With +/ – 100 counts, tourists are mentioned particularly frequently by hotels, DMCs and outbound tour operators. This hints at a strong connection between these four stakeholders.

Figure 6:

Interaction of stakeholders in tourism destination crisis management: Code matrix browser of coded stakeholders per interviewed stakeholder group in absolute numbers (n=1541).

4.2 What impact do the stakeholders have on the destination?

Summary grids were generated in MAXQDA 24 for the codes Collaboration, Cooperation, Network – Roles, Tasks, Crisis Management – Evacuation, and Crisis Management – Crisis Handling. The data were aggregated, condensed, and categorised by stakeholder group, with detailed results presented in the following subsections. Table 4 provides a quantitative overview, indicating the number of tasks mentioned for each stakeholder. Rows represent active stakeholders providing tasks or information to those listed in the columns. Areas with three or more tasks are highlighted in bold and grey to identify stakeholders most involved in task execution or information exchange. The pattern indicates that public authorities hold a dominant role within the destination, primarily distributing tasks and information. Tourism associations follow in frequency, demonstrating a strong connection with both public authorities and hotels. While hotels predominantly receive tasks or information, DMCs and outbound tour operators maintain a more balanced position, both actively providing and receiving information and tasks.

4.3 How can stakeholder theory improve the collaboration between designated stakeholders in tourism destination crisis management?

Figure 7 synthesises relevant academic literature (research step 2) and findings from the research questions RQ1 and RQ2 (Research Step 4), illustrating stakeholders involved in a crisis both within and outside the affected destination. Figures 5, 6, and Table 5 highlight the central concern: the well-being of tourists experiencing a crisis while on holiday. Accordingly, Figure 7 positions tourists as primary and definitive stakeholders. Definitive stakeholders – including DMCs, hotels, transport companies, and public authorities – are both inevitable and primary actors. Dormant stakeholders, such as other destinations and international tourism and disaster organisations, are desirable but secondary. Public authorities in the source market, while discretionary, are inevitable secondary stakeholders; though not active in the destination, their travel and security advisories directly influence outbound tour operators. The latter, despite their dependency, remain inevitable primary stakeholders. Emergency units are demanding, necessary, and primary stakeholders, while the DMO is discretionary yet desirable and secondary. Notably, tourism associations hold a dominant yet secondary role in both the destination and source market.

Effective stakeholder collaboration requires an understanding of both challenges and success factors. To analyse this, MAXQDA 24 summary grids were created for the codes Collaboration, Cooperation, Network – Challenges, Success Factors, and Relationship. The aggregated and condensed results are detailed in Table 5, which outlines current challenges, perceived success factors, and recommendations for improvement. Six key themes emerged: relationship, collaboration/cooperation, and professional handling are relatively balanced in terms of challenges and successes, while communication seems to face the most difficulties. Processes show slightly more challenges than success factors, whereas support is predominantly viewed positively. The findings highlight the complex interconnections between stakeholders in both the destination and source market, emphasising the crucial role of networks, cooperation, communication, and trust between tourism businesses, associations, emergency units, and public authorities.

Figure 7:

Applied stakeholder criteria mapped to stakeholders in tourism destination crisis management based on Clarkson 1985; Beritelli 2011; Podnar and Jancic 2006; Mitchell, Agle, and Wood 1997.

5.1 Stakeholders’ role in tourism destination crisis management

The results indicate that tourists play a vital role in destination crisis management, which is summarised by the following interviewee’s statement regarding successful crisis management.

“If you saved the tourists, put them in a safe place, gave them importance, communicated what happened, gave them follow-up if there was an affected person. It is how the crisis is handled that will tell you if it has really been successful or not” (21PA_DR, Pos. 133).

Interestingly, this stakeholder group has been widely ignored by crisis and disaster research in tourism (e. g. Pyke et al. 2018). It is therefore important to design a network around them which aims to offer the most suitable options for the tourists before, during or after a crisis which are, if necessary:

1. Appropriate medical treatment,

2. Evacuation to alternative hotels or public shelters,

3. Repatriation,

4. Continuation of the holiday either in the original or in an alternative hotel (see Table 5).

Hotels rank 4^th among the most mentioned stakeholders (Figure 5). This aligns with the findings of Sheehan and Ritchie (2005), who name public authorities, hotels and their associations as the most important stakeholders for DMOs. Hotels are the core of the tourism product and have therefore the closest contact with tourists, being experts in customer service. Their tasks before, during and after a crisis are numerous, as they must take care of the tourists directly and immediately (see Table 5). As reported by the hotels interviewed for this study, safety regulations are high, crisis plans are usually specified by the mother companies (8H_D, 10H_DR) and there is usually designated space for evacuation (12H_DR, 16H_DR). In the Dominican Republic, hotels are usually regarded as safe havens for tourists (12H_DR, 16H_DR). Findings from several scholars (e. g. Muskat, Nakanishi, and Blackman 2015; Nguyen, Imamura, and Iuchi 2017) and the UNESCO (2012) state that hotel buildings are usually high with a sturdy structure and room capacity as well as food provision and (often independent) energy and water supply. They therefore propose a closer collaboration between hotels and public authorities because hotels can also serve as evacuation shelters for the local community on a short-term basis, given the fact that hotels have an average occupancy rate of between 60 and 70 percent – the average occupancy rate in Caribbean hotels was 66.6 percent in 2024 (Britton 2025).

The findings indicate that tourism associations should assume a leading role in developing collaborative crisis management strategies. This aligns with research suggesting that such involvement supports small and micro enterprises in overcoming resource limitations (e. g. Jiang and Ritchie 2017). As industry representatives, tourism associations can enhance sector-wide engagement in crisis management (e. g. Jiang and Ritchie 2017).

While ignored in tourism crisis management models, the present results assign outbound tour operators a substantial role in the destination, which is reflected in the following statement:

“Well, as the tour operator, we are the most important authority for our guests, because they have a contract with us and we are the ones who speak the language. We have to remain approachable for the guest and also remain professional and calm and somehow put the guest and their needs at the centre (20TO_GE, Pos. 113–115)”.

For tour operators located in the European Union, this is legally prescribed by EU Package Travel Directive 2015/2302, which requires them to offer prompt and appropriate assistance to customers. This obligation includes arranging accommodation, alternative travel plans at the tour operator’s expense and providing essential information which is in line with the results. Morakabati, Page, and Fletcher (2017) argue that tourism actors in the destination are often well-prepared for crises, partly due to support from outbound tour operators. The results further confirm that tour operators depend heavily on external information because they usually do not have offices in the destination and consequently receive delayed or inaccurate information (e. g. Derham, Best, and Frost 2022).

Public authorities shape the operational framework for tourism organisations in the destination as well as in the source markets, as supported by the findings. Given this interdependence, aligning crisis management strategies between the public and private sectors is essential for fostering a more resilient tourism industry (e. g. Goktepe et al. 2024). Consequently, it is essential for the tourism sector to be recognised by the public authorities to effectively incorporate the industry’s specific needs into their crisis management plans (e. g. Filimonau and Coteau 2020). Interviewee 5DMC_DR, Pos. 75 emphasises:

“Because many times, yes, the private sector has its thing,

but you need the support of the government.”

A key challenge lies in the fragmented political landscape, characterised by multiple governance layers and competing interests, which leads to an overload of public authorities involved in crisis response (e. g. Pennington-Gray, Schroeder, and Gale 2014). In this study, attempts to integrate the needs of the tourism industry can be registered in the Dominican Republic. However, the previously addressed overload of responsible entities can also clearly be detected by reading through the sheer number of organisations involved (see Section 4.2). Generally, cooperation between public authorities and tourism actors is influenced by the political system, economic conditions, and country-specific factors (e. g. Jiang and Ritchie 2017). To enhance crisis response, public authorities should leverage their political power to foster collaboration among tourism organisations (e. g. Jiang and Ritchie 2017). Morakabati, Page, and Fletcher (2017) provide an interesting approach for tourism destination crisis management by distributing the responsibilities in a crisis between public and private sector entities. They assign crisis prediction, warning, and response to public authorities, while activities directly related to tourists (repatriation, alternative accommodation, taking care of tourists) seem to be clearly assigned to the tourist sector. These results can be confirmed by the present study.

Filimonau and Coteau (2020) argue that, especially for small island states in the Caribbean with limited resources, collaboration is essential during crisis, as one island currently not affected may support another island and vice versa. The importance of other destinations aligns with the findings of the present study as well as with Arslan et al. (2021), who assign global partnerships an important role, especially for emerging and developing markets.

The present study reveals interesting findings about the role of DMCs and DMOs in tourism destination crisis management: As intermediators between the source market and the destination, the DMCs have numerous tasks during a crisis and are also represented in the governmental structures of the Dominican Republic with their tourism association. Interviewee 26DMC_DR, Pos. 20 puts their importance in a nutshell:

“We are the eyes here in the destination to report how serious the situation is and what is recommended. We are responsible. It means that if we do not

take the right measure, the problem is always ours.”

To the author’s knowledge, DMCs are not mentioned in the context of crisis management in academic literature. The opposite is true for DMOs: While the interviewees do not attach great importance to them, scholars (e. g. Basurto-Cedeño and Pennington-Gray 2016; Beirman 2018; Beritelli 2011) emphasise their potential strategic relevance in destination crisis management, highlighting their established networks and credibility as intermediator between public and private actors during a crisis.

5.2 Key factors for stakeholder collaboration in tourism destination management

Relationship is key for stakeholder collaboration, particularly during crises. As shown in Table 5, interviewees emphasise the need for consistent contact persons with whom they engage regularly, even before a crisis occurs – a recommendation also supported by Pennington-Gray, Schroeder, and Gale (2014) and Jiang and Ritchie (2017). However, research on tourism networks suggests that relational ties between stakeholders are limited, which limits resource availability and the flow of information within a destination (e. g. Pavlovich 2003). Pennington-Gray, Schroeder, and Gale (2014) highlight the importance of strengthening partnerships between public and private actors across various spatial levels, from local to international, to enhance crisis management in tourism destinations.

Table 5 highlights that collaboration is a primary concern for stakeholders, particularly between the public and private sectors. The already discussed fragmented and interwoven structures of tourism destinations are recognised as challenging (“It’s actually a spider’s web that’s spun out of it” (19TOGE, Pos. 51).), particularly complicating collaboration between the public and private sector. Academic research confirms the importance of inter-agency cooperation (e. g. Filimonau and Coteau 2020), pointing out that the different level of damaging impact which the stakeholders face may lead to different goals, which impedes collaboration (e. g. Jiang and Ritchie 2017). Filimonau and Coteau (2020) stress the need for the public sector to adopt best practices at a regional level, such as within the Caribbean, to enhance crisis resilience. The concept of cross-border cooperation, as suggested by this article’s title, is supported by both interviewees and scholars (e. g. Sheehan and Ritchie 2005). A relevant example is the assistance provided by the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA) to Dominica following Hurricane Maria in 2017 (2DMO_D).

Communication is fundamental in building crisis management networks and strengthening destination resilience (e. g. Pennington-Gray, Schroeder, and Gale 2014). Since collaboration relies on communication, it is unsurprising that stakeholders identify this as a major challenge, with only one successful communication flow reported between tour operators and service providers (see Table 5). During crises, timely and accurate information is crucial for decision-making. Pyke et al. (2018) see a weakness in the limited communication and the lack of tourism industry involvement in public authorities’ crisis planning, a concern also reflected in the interviewees' responses (Table 5). However, both case studies – Commonwealth of Dominica and the Dominican Republic – have taken initial steps by integrating public and private tourism entities into their crisis units. Nevertheless, findings indicate that further progress is needed.

Crisis planning, including processes and plans, is a substantial part of crisis management (e. g. Wut, Xu, and Wong 2021). This becomes even more apparent in tourism destination crisis management, where stakeholders are forced to interact (e. g. Mistilis and Sheldon 2006). Table 5 shows that the interviewees struggle most with a lack of transparency, roles, tasks, and processes which they expect from the public authorities. In contrast, the coordinating role of tourism associations both in the destination as well as in the source market is praised. Interestingly, suggestions from practice and theory align here: Both call for a central entity which takes the lead in coordinating crisis management between the different stakeholder groups in a destination (e. g. Hartman, Wielenga, and Heslinga 2020).

5.3 Contribution of stakeholder theory to stakeholder collaboration in tourism destination crisis management

To successfully collaborate in a crisis, stakeholders need to accept their mutual interdependence (e. g. Jamal and Getz 1995), which is illustrated in Figure 7. The Figure applies different typologies to stakeholders in tourism destination crisis management. Firstly, to make them visible for scholars and practitioners and secondly, to improve crisis preparedness in destinations. Those steps for successful stakeholder collaboration are also suggested by scholars (e. g. Mojtahedi and Oo 2017). Figure 7 indicates that tourists, the tourism businesses, and the public authorities in the destination are key stakeholders identified as primary and inevitable. Being a definitive stakeholder assigns them the attributes power, legitimacy, and urgency. Mojtahedi et al. (2017) suggest that by systematically increasing those attributes among the specific stakeholders, proactive approaches and the influence on crisis management processes increase as well. Power enables stakeholders to exert social and political influence, legitimacy ensures adherence to norms and mandates, and urgency facilitates prompt coordination of response and recovery efforts (e. g. Mojtahedi and Oo 2017). Jamal and Getz (1995) argue that power and legitimacy are necessary to successfully implement joint decisions. Power, legitimacy and influence are fostered by a collaborative approach (e. g. Berlin and Carlström 2008) which relies on protecting proprietary knowledge, building trust-based relationships, integrating into established networks, and ensuring active stakeholder participation with a shared commitment to mutual benefit (e. g. Fyall, Garrod, and Wang 2012).

6.1 Limitations and future research

Finding participants from public authorities and DMOs who agreed to be interviewed proved challenging, which leads to their underrepresentation in this sample. The recruitment process was demanding and lengthy and relied on snowball sampling, where previous respondents recommended interview partners. This method assumes familiarity among stakeholders, potentially causing selection bias (e. g. Jiang and Ritchie 2017). However, this risk was mitigated by the small size of the tourism communities in Dominica and the Dominican Republic, as the same interviewee suggestions emerged repeatedly. The research was conducted by a single researcher, which might limit the perspective of the collected, coded and analysed data and the conclusions drawn.

Future research could build on this qualitative work by further exploring the connections and impacts of the stakeholders interviewed. With stakeholders identified, a quantitative approach, such as social network analysis, could empirically assess their connectivity. This method has been widely applied in tourism research (e. g. Hartman, Wielenga, and Heslinga 2020).

6.2 Theoretical implications to improve stakeholder collaboration

Constant and honest communication, trust and shared understanding are identified as key elements for successful stakeholder collaboration by Jiang and Ritchie (2017). This article’s claim that stakeholder collaboration should cross borders is demonstrated in the results which show the numerous tasks, connections, and impact of stakeholders from outside the destination. Be it the actors in the source market such as tour operators and public authorities, be it neighbouring destinations or international tourism and disaster bodies such as CDEMA in the Caribbean. The latter approach is already studied and confirmed by scholars (e. g. Filimonau and Coteau 2020). Despite their critical roles, the involvement of tour operators and public authorities in source markets, as well as DMCs at the destination level, remains underexplored within the context of tourism crisis management. This study addresses this research gap by offering nuanced insights into the functions and responsibilities of these stakeholders during crisis scenarios. Moreover, the integrative methodological approach – linking multiple stakeholder criteria to the identified actors – enables a more precise characterisation of stakeholder roles. Such clarity holds the potential to foster more effective stakeholder collaboration by aligning actions more closely with specific stakeholder needs, ultimately contributing to enhanced crisis management practices in tourism destinations.

6.3 Practical implications to improve stakeholder collaboration

The stakeholder mapping presented in Figure 7 provides practitioners with a structured framework for systematically identifying and evaluating the relevance of key actors in effective destination crisis management. The figure reveals the central position of tourists, tourism businesses and public authorities as definitive, primary and inevitable stakeholders. A central organisational unit possessing legitimacy, power, expertise and resources is necessary to coordinate the collaboration process among stakeholders in a crisis (Jamal and Getz 1995). The results of this study suggest that tourism associations are particularly well-suited to assume this coordinating role. Consequently, they should be formally recognised and adequately empowered by other actors within the destination governance framework. To serve as a central unit for crisis planning and response in the destination, public authorities need to provide tourism associations with the power and legitimacy. The results further indicate that inter-agency collaboration needs to be conducted in advance to function successfully in a crisis. This could be done by workshops and regular meetings to strengthen the network between all stakeholder groups (e. g. Filimonau and Coteau 2020), which is particularly necessary in view of the fact that the tourism industry consists mainly of small companies (e. g. Jiang and Ritchie 2017). As interviewee 21PA_DR, Pos. 129 points out: “A tourist destination can fail due to a poor handling of a crisis”. This should motivate practitioners to further engage in the topic of crisis management and stakeholder collaboration during crisis prioritising inclusive, trust-based collaboration among key stakeholders.