Article Sidebar
Published:
Apr 12, 2026Keywords:
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
(i) AJER is an open-access journal. This means that all content is freely available to all. The author retains the copyrights associated with their work within AJER’s policy framework.
(ii) All articles can be accessed freely without any limitations of use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium so long as they are expressly cited.
(iii) The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, may not mean that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations in their respective countries.
(iv) The publisher believes that all information is true and accurate at the time of going to press. In this regard, the authors, editors, and publishers cannot accept any legal responsibility for any errors, typos or omissions that may be made. There is thus no warranty for the materials contained in the articles.
Main Article Content
Crisis awareness and the awareness–preparedness paradox in Zambia's tourism industry
Bruce Ernest
Norman Kachamba
Abstract
Tourism destinations in sub-Saharan Africa face intensifying multidimensional crises, including climate-induced natural disasters, energy insecurity, health pandemics, and macroeconomic volatility. Despite growing scholarly attention to crisis management, the literature reveals a persistent gap between what tourism stakeholders know about crises and what they actually do to prepare for them. This study investigates the awareness–preparedness paradox in Zambia's tourism industry, a structural condition in which near-universal crisis awareness coexists with critically inadequate operational preparedness. This study is anchored in three complementary theoretical frameworks that together provide the conceptual architecture for understanding the awareness–preparedness paradox. The first is crisis management theory as synthesised by Faulkner and extended by Ritchie and Jiang and Faulkner's tourism disaster management framework. Using a convergent parallel mixed-methods design, quantitative data were collected from 137 respondents through stratified purposive sampling across five stakeholder categories — government institutions, private sector tourism operators, community-based organisations, non-governmental organisations, and tourists — drawn from Livingstone, Lusaka, South Luangwa National Park, and Kafue National Park. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, one-sample t-tests, Pearson correlation, and Mann-Whitney U tests; qualitative data were generated through key informant interviews and thematic analysis. Findings reveal a composite crisis awareness mean of 4.58 out of 5.0 (t = 44.09, p < 0.001), significantly above neutral, contrasted with a preparedness capacity mean of 2.98 (t = −0.40, p = 0.689), statistically indistinguishable from doing nothing. This produces a composite awareness–preparedness gap of 1.60 points, most pronounced for natural disasters (Δ = −1.95) and pandemics (Δ = −1.95). The paradox reflects institutional fragmentation, inadequate resource allocation, and absent policy enforcement mechanisms rather than ignorance of risk, indicating that these systemic issues hinder effective crisis management in the tourism sector. The study concludes that Zambia's challenge in managing tourism crises is fundamentally institutional: governance reform, mandatory preparedness requirements, and dedicated resilience financing are the priority interventions for resolving the paradox and building sustainable sector resilience. This study recommended that the Ministry of Tourism and Arts should mandate formal crisis management planning for all registered tourism enterprises, with ZTA providing technical support and monitoring compliance.
