2. Literature Review
2.1. Emergency Planning
The last few decades have witnessed a considerable increment in the number, scope and complexity of disasters
and emergencies. Planning is a process; created plans should be tested and evaluated through practice. Helsloot and
Ruitenberg (2004) explain that the difference between planning and preparedness comes from the practice. Planning
should be the standard of preparedness. Alexander (2002) defined the emergency plan as “a co-ordinated set of
protocols for managing an adverse event, whether expected or untoward, in the future”. Every emergency is unique,
but with enough common ground between them it will be easier to make predictions, forecasting, warning, and
planning (Alexander, 2005). Therefore, it is very important to attract more attention to emergency preparedness, and
the planning process to manage, overcome and recover emergencies (Alexander, 2005). Emergency planning and
recovery can be a great challenge to any business, especially hospitality industry regarding to the worse situation
from experiencing an emergency event far from home. In a stricken destination, tourists are coming from anywhere
on earth and speak different languages (Stahura et al., 2012).
Scholars have argued that a lot of investigations should be done to determine the management model or
methodology to come out by the best impact when preparing for, reacting to, and recover from a disaster or an
emergency situation. These arguments started by Quarantelli (1970) and his continuous research during the last few
decades in disaster management. Further, he mentioned that planning is not managing disasters, and future disasters
are not a repeat of the past. Drabek (1995) determined the effect of planning on preparedness, forces, and lessons
could be learned. He examined the level of disaster preparedness and evacuation planning for tourist businesses, and
he found several lessons to be learned such as: action plans, who’s in charge, and communication.