You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Sustainability
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

19 June 2023

What Does the Concept of Resilience in Tourism Mean in the Time of COVID-19? Results of a Bibliometric Analysis

,
and
1
Laboratory of Applied Sciences for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Higher School of Technology Essaouira, Cadi Ayyad University, Km 9, Route d’Agadir, BP. 383, Essaouira 40000, Morocco
2
Business and Rural Development Research Institute, Faculty of Bioeconomic Development, Vytautas Magnus University, 53361 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability2023, 15(12), 9797;https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129797
This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Trends in Tourism under COVID-19 and Future Implications
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on tourism, giving significant importance to resilience strategies for this sector. Indeed, over the past three years, an increasing amount of research has been conducted on tourism resilience without any overall analysis of these publications. This study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis in order to identify research trends in the field as well as explore the various gaps in the literature on the subject studied during and after the pandemic. A selection of 114 Scopus-indexed articles published between 2020 and early 2023 on tourism resilience was analyzed by two bibliometric tools, VOS viewer and R bibliometrix. The results show that China, the United States, and Spain are the leading countries in this field of research. The articles’ authors, the affiliations, and the countries involved in research in this field were not able to compose a close, extensive, and collaborative network. The journal Sustainability (Switzerland), published by MDPI, is at the top of the list. This work identifies three dominant study themes: (1) tourism and sustainable resilience; (2) livelihood resilience; and (3) community resilience. This study provides a benchmark for future researchers with new study directions in the field of tourism resilience.

1. Introduction

COVID-19, a global pandemic of unprecedented impact, has caused great concern in recent years. This crisis had a devastating effect on the tourism industry, including travel limitations and cancellations, border closures, and widespread business downturns [1,2,3,4,5,6].
The tourism sector was the first to suffer the flagrant consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. According to data from the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), the contribution of the travel and tourism sector to global output has fallen precipitously, from around 10.5% in 2019 to 5.5% in 2020, which will result in the loss of 62 million jobs worldwide [2]. Tourism companies found themselves obliged to face different risk situations, which pushed them to develop their resilience and adapt quickly to the different underlying disruptions, whether they were economic, political, or social [7,8,9,10].
The concept of resilience, which initially originated in the physical sciences and was transposed into the social sciences [11,12], has attracted increasing interest from researchers in the tourism sector [8,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Understanding the notion of resilience is conceptually complex, as it is part of a transdisciplinary approach [19]. It can be defined as a capacity to counteract a risk or to return to a state of stability after having experienced it, or as a process of interaction between prevention elements and the different risks [3]. In other words, a resilient system is the result of a structure capable of distinguishing itself by its ability to absorb, recover from, and adapt to different known and unknown risks [20]. In the context of tourism, resilience is defined as the industry’s ability to diligently deal with disasters and self-inflicted crises in order to maintain stability while ensuring the flexibility and diversity necessary for innovation and further development [21,22].
Prior to COVID-19, Wut et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review of relevant research areas in the context of the tourism and hospitality industries regarding crisis management and the conceptualization of resilience [23]. Following this line and in order to complete the elucidation of the concept, this study explored a review of the literature on the concept of resilience in the tourism sector after the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, which began on 1 January 2020 and has spread around the world [24], especially since a significant amount of research has been conducted recently.
From this perspective, it is essential and significant to study how the concept of resilience in tourism was conceptualized after the emergence of the COVID-19 crisis. This study aims to review and investigate the literature dealing with the resilience of the tourism industry to external risks and shocks. Therefore, a descriptive and bibliometric analysis of the publications is conducted to characterize research trends.
Some researchers have already conducted and published bibliometric studies in various scientific fields, including tourism management sciences [25,26,27,28,29,30]. For example, Menons et al. have published a useful bibliometric study to help PhD students and tourism researchers identify emerging themes in tourism and hospitality after the COVID-19 pandemic and decide which journals to publish in and which issues to address in order to obtain a high-quality publication [31]. However, to our knowledge, no study has yet been published on the resilience of tourism after the spread of COVID-19. This study can also contribute to the decisions taken by practitioners to define a direction for the future of the tourism industry.
Bibliometric analysis uses mathematical methods to perform a quantitative analysis of research articles on a specific topic [9]. It can be used to assess the quality of studies, identify the most important areas of research, and anticipate future directions for studies [10]. By conducting a bibliometric analysis, it is possible to identify the characteristics and patterns of published articles in any scientific discipline. In addition, this popular approach can help identify schools of thought in a particular field of study [32], and it allows the researcher to summarize scientific production in terms of quantity and quality [33].
The objective of this work was not only to discover the different aspects of research and application of resilience in tourism in the face of different risks, but also to provide an opportunity to discuss what the authors have highlighted. Specifically, this review aimed to reveal the current state of research and identify emerging trends in this field in order to answer the following questions:
How was the growth of publications on the resilience of the tourism industry after the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic indexed in the Scopus database between 2020 and 25 April 2023?
What are the main journals, authors, and publications to consider for future studies on tourism resilience after the spread of COVID-19?
What are the main emerging topics in tourism research?
What research directions can be recommended?
To address this issue, a selection of 114 articles published between 2020 and 2023 was obtained from the Scopus database and analyzed using Bibliometrix R Studio and VOS viewer tools. The remainder of the article will be organized as follows: Section 2 describes the materials and methods that were applied to address the research topic. Section 3 illustrates the results of the bibliometric analysis, while Section 4 discusses the results. The most relevant research topics are detailed in Section 5. Section 6 presents a conclusion as well as proposals for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

The Scopus database was chosen to extract our selection of papers for bibliometric analysis. The papers in the study were collected from the Scopus database, a widely recognized and inclusive research database that is one of the largest bibliographic, abstract, and citation databases available today [31,34]. This database was also selected for its extensive coverage of tourism journals, which is superior to that of Web of Science [35,36,37]. To carry out this study, the guidelines of PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) were followed in order to filter the data with a guarantee of objectivity and clarity [38].
Hossain et al. [39] defined this method as a systematic implementation following a predefined process or path, as shown in the Prism diagram [40], with four overarching steps: identification, selection, eligibility, and inclusion. We conducted a literature search in the Scopus database with the following search formula: ‘resilience’ and ‘tourism’.
Only papers that are closely related to our topic were considered; in other words, only papers that had both concepts in the title, abstract, and keywords were considered.
As inclusion criteria, the type of papers (article, journal, and conference paper), the English language, the time frame (2020–2023), and the publication stage (final) were defined.
The specific choice of the period from January 2020 to 25 April 2023 (the period covered by the data extraction) is argued by our main objective of examining the literature addressing the topic of the resilience of the tourism sector after the emergence of COVID-19. The criterion of English as the language of publication is justified by our choice of keyword language standardization. English-language documents account for over 96% of online publications between 2020 and the date of data extraction. To refine our selection of articles, a manual filtration of the articles is required; in this framework, the articles that do not have a relationship with our subject have been removed from the sample. Finally, 114 publications that met the different inclusion criteria were retained (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Filtering flowchart using the PRISMA method.
To generate results, two bibliometric tools were adopted: the R bibliometrix tool and the VOS viewer program. Bibliometrix is a free scientific analysis and mapping tool that allows researchers to statistically measure productivity in a specific research area [41]. We used it to graphically present the number of publications per year, the most revealing journals and publications, the most cited authors with their affiliated institutions and countries, and the thematic map using an Excel file.
The VOS viewer program developed by van Eck and Waltman was used to analyze and visualize the relationships between the most significant co-words [42]. The program is freely available to the bibliometric research community. The VOS viewer can be used, for example, to make author or journal maps based on co-occurrence data or to build keyword maps based on co-occurrence data. Microsoft Office was also used to present the data in graph form (temporal distribution of articles and authors’ affiliations). In our study, we used the VOS view to extract a network of the most relevant themes.

3. Results

3.1. Summary Information

The number of publication results including the words ‘resilience’ and ‘tourism’ in the title, abstract, and keywords is 114 papers, published between 2020 and 2023 in 62 sources. The results also indicate that 319 authors contributed to research on the topic of resilience in the tourism sector after the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic (Table 1). Research in this area grew exponentially between 2020 and 2022. Indeed, there were 19 new online publications in 2020 and 16 new online publications in the first four months of 2023. Single-author papers contributed 14 publications (Figure 2).
Table 1. Summary information generated with the R bibliometrix tool.
Figure 2. The temporal evolution of the number of publications since the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Such a positive trend of continued growth is a dramatic indication that tourism resilience research between 2020 and April 2023 has great potential for the future.
Articles make up 93% of the published documents, while conference papers and reviews represent only 4% and 3%, respectively.

3.2. Analysis of Keyword Occurrences

The main objective of a bibliometric study is to explore the themes and research trends in a predefined field, thus determining the most popular terms and the relationships between them [43], and this cannot be achieved without conducting an analysis of the keyword occurrences. Co-word analysis is a content analysis method based on the co-occurrence patterns of keywords in a manuscript collection. Its aim is to recognize the links between the ideas present in the themes addressed in the textual corpus. This approach has enabled the creation of a strategic diagram highlighting the relative relevance of topics related to the resilience of the tourism sector after the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic. The VOS viewer allows us to map the network of the most frequent keywords in our article selection [44]. A total of 23 keywords with a frequency of ≥ 5 co-occurrences were selected from 724 keywords (Table 2). As shown in Figure 3, a network representation of these keywords is generated by the program. The most common keywords are represented by circles, as the size of the circle increases the more frequently the term appears, while the links indicate the associations with the words, and the nodes of the same color group form a cluster of keywords. The thickness of the links shows the strength of the links; the greater the thickness, the greater the strength of association between the words and the frequency of their existence in the same publication. The distance between the two nodes is a negative function of the number of occurrences between the keywords.
Table 2. Grouping of keywords (personal elaboration).
Figure 3. A map of the keyword network generated by the VOS viewer software.
Our network consists of three clusters with 154 links and 458 in link strength, namely cluster 1 (12 key terms), cluster 2 (6 keywords), and cluster 3 (5 keywords).
In previous studies, a visualization of the network through the VOS viewer allowed for the generation of 11 groups by Wang et al. [35], 6 groups by Paeffgen [36], and 4 groups by Della Corte et al. [37].
Cluster 1, in red, has the term “COVID-19” as a central node and includes other keywords such as “sustainability”, “sustainable development”, “ecotourism”, and “disaster management”. Therefore, this cluster concerns the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sustainable tourism development as well as the strengthening of sustainable resilience to different shocks and risks. It should be noted that this cluster consists of the first four publications in ranking by the number of citations (“Reviving the tourism industry post-COVID-19: to a resilience-based framework”, “Responses to COVID-19: the role of performance in the relationship between small hospitality enterprises’ resilience and sustainable tourism development”, “Psychological resilience, organizational resilience, and life satisfaction in tourism firms: insights from the Canterbury earthquakes”, and “Time for a reset? COVID-19 and tourism resilience”). This indicates the growing interest and importance of this research topic. Prayag is the dominant author in this cluster, with three publications. This author proposes a conceptual reflection based on the “new normal” of tourism resilience (engineering, ecology, and socio-ecology), which can be argued by the increased trend of topics dealing with the integration of sustainable practices in tourism resilience. This group is composed of more than half of the number of publications (52 articles).
The terms “resilience” and “tourism” are the largest nodes in Cluster 2 in green, followed by “China”, “pandemic” and “livelihood”. As a result, this cluster focuses on the perception of livelihood resilience, with most of the publications related to this cluster adopting China as the research terrain. In this framework, we can mention the publications of Chen, who works on the sustainability of livelihoods in the face of changes in China’s rural areas. He proposes that collaborative agency can be a pillar of successful transformation.
Cluster 3 in blue is the smallest group in the network, and the word “tourism development” with the highest number of occurrences is related to other keywords such as “community resilience”, “community-based tourism”, “tourist destination” and “tourism market”. This group of words represents the theme of the impact of the pandemic on community-based tourism and the building of community resilience as an effective remedy to unpredictable events. Kim is the leading author of this cluster, with five publications focusing on the importance of tourism in community resilience and its critical role in dealing with various risks.
To obtain themes, the thematic analysis uses groups of authors’ keywords and their interconnections. These themes are characterized by their properties (density and centrality). Density is represented by the vertical axis, while centrality is represented by the horizontal axis (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Thematic map generated by R bibliometrix.
Motor themes (upper-right quadrant): sustainability, sustainable development, ecotourism, China, COVID-19, tourism management, tourist destination, ecotourism; although these are developed and relevant themes, they are almost too general. Because of their high centrality and density, they are the main topics for structuring a research field. Niche themes (upper-left quadrant): rural population, rural development, psychology, and New Zealand; these have well-developed internal links but few external links. These themes therefore have a high centrality but a low density, and their contribution to the development of the tourism resilience field remains marginal. Emerging or declining themes (lower-left quadrant): governance and indigenous knowledge; these themes are still at an embryonic stage within the theme of tourism resilience in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The themes of community resource and ecosystem resilience seem to be emerging but cross-cutting with the basic themes, indicating that some of the topics within these themes are necessary to develop the field of tourism resilience. Basic themes (lower-right quadrant): rural area, economic activity, and culture; these are low-density, high-centrality themes that cut across this area of research.

3.3. Analysis of Contributing Journals

The 114 papers on tourism resilience whose year of publication is between 2020 and 2023 are published in a wide range of journals (62 journals). Topping the list is the journal Sustainability (Switzerland), with the largest number of publications (n = 20) edited by MDPI, while Tourism Geographies (n = 6) came in second, published by Taylor & Francis Group, and Current Issues in Tourism came in third (n = 5). Tourism Management Perspectives, Current Issues in Tourism, and Sustainability (Switzerland) are the most relevant journals in terms of total citations, with 351, 252, and 106 citations, respectively. Table 3 shows the top 10 journals with the percentage of contributions, h_index, m_index, citations, quartile, and publisher of each journal.
Table 3. The most active journals between 2020 and 2023, according to data provided by Bibliometric and Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR).

3.4. Analysis of the Most Cited Publications

Table 4 presents the most impactful articles in the field of tourism resilience based on the number of citations received by the authors. The results reveal that two articles were cited more than 100 times: “Reviving tourism industry post-COVID-19: A resilience-based framework” (n = 314) and “Responses to COVID-19: The role of performance in the relationship between small hospitality enterprises’ resilience and sustainable tourism development” (n = 122). These two contributions were written by Sharma et al. [45] and Sobaih et al. [46], respectively. The first publication is a study that proposes government response, technological innovation, local ownership, and consumer and employee confidence as key factors in tourism resilience and announces that it is time to transform the tourism industry with a new framework based on sustainable tourism. The second publication validates the direct and significant impact of resilience on sustainable tourism development through performance mediations.
Table 4. Top 10 scientific papers in the field of tourism resilience.
“Psychological resilience, organizational resilience, and life satisfaction in tourism firms: insights from the Canterbury earthquakes”, written by Prayag et al. [47], comes in third place (n = 89). This study explores the relationship between psychological and organizational resilience. Traskevich and Fontanari [49] had the lowest number of total citations (n = 25) in this top ten selection with the publication “Tourism Potentials in Post-COVID19: The Concept of Destination Resilience for Advanced Sustainable Management in Tourism”.

3.5. The Most Prolific Authors and Countries

Based on the bibliometric analysis, Table 5 describes the most active authors in the research area of tourism resilience during and after the pandemic, along with the rate of co-authored papers. At the beginning of the list, we find Kim, who is the most present author in this field with five publications [129,130,139,140,142]. Two of these articles were written in collaboration with Yang, who shares second place as the most active author. These authors propose community resilience as a primary tool to cope with environmental uncertainty and adverse events, especially COVID-19, and the role of tourism destination intelligence and tourism industry specialization in this resilience. Among the most important authors in terms of the number of publications, also in second place, we find Prayag with three publications. In this work, the author examines three types of resilience: psychological, employee, and organizational. This work [47] gives future researchers a clear understanding of current perspectives on the resilience of destinations, organizations, and tourists [145] and of emerging research directions for the resilience of tourism with its new normality in engineering, ecology, and socio-ecology. In the same rank, we find Zhang with three publications covering different research themes in tourism resilience: community tourism, sustainable resilience, and economic resilience.
Table 5. The most active authors on the theme of resilience in tourism.
It is revealed that China is the most contributing country (21 papers) to research on the resilience of the tourism industry after the spread of COVID-19, followed by the United States (17 papers) and Spain (13 papers). The UK shares fourth place with Australia with a contribution of nine papers (Table 6). To shed light on the social structure of the scientific community dealing with our topic, a map of the geographical collaboration of authors on the topic of resilience in the tourism sector has been presented. It can be noted that the United States (14 in total link strength), the United Kingdom, Australia, and China are the four most collaborative countries. The strongest collaborative links are between the United States and the United Kingdom, China and Australia, and China and Japan. Spain has not achieved a single collaboration with the United Kingdom despite its third-place ranking in terms of the number of publications. Despite these collaborative links between these countries, the network of co-country researchers in the field of tourism resilience remains rather distant and less cooperative internationally.
Table 6. The most contributing countries on the theme of resilience in tourism.
The Bibliometrix or Biblioshiny Program allows researchers to export from the Scopus database a three-field plot of their choice; we preferred to examine the relationship between authors, countries, and keywords to get a clear idea about the scientific community on this topic [44]. As shown in Figure 5, there is an interaction between authors (left), countries (middle), and keywords (right) in the field of tourism industry resilience. In summary, U.S. researchers are interested in issues related to the resilience of community-based tourism to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic; Chinese researchers are interested in the resilience of the livelihoods of households residing in tourism villages; and the Australian community is focusing on the resilience of tourism to the COVID-19 pandemic. This explains the increased interest of researchers in the topic under study (Figure 6).
Figure 5. Geographic map of international cooperation generated by Bibliometrix.
Figure 6. A three-field plot or Sankey diagram generated by R bibliometrix.

4. Discussion

The last pandemic revealed the sensitivity of the tourism sector to various external shocks, such as natural disasters, armed wars, pandemics, political events, economic situations, and security problems [146]. Hence, stakeholders are obliged to strengthen the resilience of this industry [147]. This study was based on a descriptive and bibliometric analysis of Scopus-indexed publication data to identify up-to-date research on the resilience of the tourism industry at the time of the crisis and particularly after the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, thus contributing to the debate on the resilience of the tourism sector in the face of various risks and disruptions and the prospects for a successful recovery [148]. Our objective is to map in terms of quantity and content. To do so, different types of analysis were performed on 114 selected publications based on the guidelines of the PRISMA diagram, namely: co-author analysis, contributing journal analysis, the spatial distribution of publications, collaboration analysis between countries, and co-word analysis through the VOS program visualization.
The significant and accelerated increase in the number of publications between 2020 and early 2023 indicates that research on tourism industry resilience remains rich in future potential. Additionally, the large share (60%) of articles that are open access may show that the scientific community is increasingly interested in the issue of tourism resilience, especially post-COVID-19, and is also seeking to encourage the reading of articles in this area. This may also be a sign of increased funding for this research. The networks of co-authors and co-countries remain rather distant and less collaborative since the nodes of authors and countries were created individually. This may indicate that most researchers completed their research independently, with little or no cooperation from other researchers. However, some researchers did cooperate and collaborate with two to eight other researchers to produce results in the area of tourism sector resilience. Notable collaborations are only between the United States and the United Kingdom, China and Australia, and China and Japan. The percentage of conference papers related to the topic does not exceed 4%, which effectively confirms the reduced level of international collaboration in our sample, hence the need to establish more collaboration between authors and countries in the field. According to Umar et al. [43], research cooperation plays a crucial role in enhancing the quality and relevance of research work and responding to different global issues and problems, especially in the field of tourism.
This study also revealed that Sustainability (Switzerland) is the highest-ranked journal by far in terms of the number of publications (20 articles) and the third highest in terms of the number of citations (106 citations), after the journal Tourism Management with 351 citations and Current Issues in Tourism with 252 citations. The number of citations is a primary parameter in the bibliometric analysis, giving a guideline to future researchers on which journals to choose to publish their results [149]. According to our results, the seven journals that top the list of ranking journals by citations are listed in the Q1 and Q2 quartiles. Kim J., affiliated with the University of Florida, Gainesville, USA, is the most active author with five publications. This affiliation holds the number one position with seven publications. In terms of citations, the institutions of the University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University in India, the Japan Institute of Management Studies in India, and the University of Puerto Rico in the United States collectively top the list with 314 citations.

5. Research Topics with the Highest Acuity

Research on the risks and external shocks that can affect the development of the tourism industry has largely confirmed the need for resilience in this context [39].
Resilience derives from the Latin word “resilio”, which means “to bounce back”. In the physical sciences, it can be evaluated as the ability of an object to return to its previous state following a shock or continuous pressure [20,57,60,74,127]. Recently, this concept has been applied in several domains, such as ecological and social systems and ecosystems. The concept of resilience in tourism is defined as the ability of the industry to recover from disruptions while minimizing potential negative consequences [150]. However, several studies have endorsed a multidimensional approach to this concept [103] based on learning, diversity, and the ability to adapt in various situations.
The two concepts of vulnerability and resilience are closely related in studies; in fact, Delaplace et al. [19], Ho et al. [72], and Prayag [10] confirmed that the two concepts are antipodes. What makes the vulnerability of tourism increase and its resilience decrease? Other researchers [28] have proposed that vulnerability and resilience are distinct but highly compatible concepts that can be used to analyze the resistance of the tourism sector in the face of different changes.
Our main objective is to identify popular research topics related to the conceptualization of the resilience of the tourism industry in the period after the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, since the keywords featured in the articles are linked to topics in these publications, an occurrence analysis of the keywords that appear in our article selection was conducted. By linking to previous reviews on either organizational resilience during the COVID-19 era [151] or destination resilience [152], as well as post-pandemic tourism recovery based on resilience [28], similar information on the increase in publications over time can be revealed, indicating a growing demand for academic research related to the conceptualization of tourism resilience.
The results outline three popular research themes, with future sections explaining these themes in detail (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Thematic framework.

5.1. Integrating Sustainable Management into Tourism Resilience

Studies of tourism resilience are closely related to the concept of sustainability. For Sharma et al. [45], resilience to various risks, disasters, and pandemics directly and indirectly impacts the development of sustainable tourism. Now that Sobaih et al. [46] have confirmed that tourism in the pre-disaster stage must be transformed into sustainable tourism to build resilience, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, planning for sustainable tourism becomes a crucial act [53]. Yiu and Cheung [59] proposed that the development of sustainability is based on the dynamic capabilities of resilience. The results of this study reveal that these dynamic capabilities mediate and moderate the long-term relationship between resilience and sustainable tourism. However, the identified conceptual framework of mediation is related to only three resilience factors: the resilience network, organizational resilience factors, and individual resilience factors. When tourism destinations are faced with undesirable risks, resilience is presented as a mode of adaptation, which translates into innovative planning techniques that lead to more sustainable lifestyles for their inhabitants [15], such as creating alternative products, enriching local knowledge, and improving the destination’s image [65].
Conceptualizing the relationship between resilience and sustainability can open up new avenues of research, indicating how to create more sustainable and livable local environments around the world while examining other national and international contexts with the involvement of different stakeholders.

5.2. Livelihood Resilience

The concept of livelihoods consists of the abilities, knowledge, and actions of people to succeed in life, as well as their values, goals, and choices [62]. It includes the skills, assets, and activities that people need to succeed in life [90,124,153,154]. After the changes and mutations that the world has experienced in recent years, livelihood resilience is becoming a serious concern for researchers and even managers, especially in the tourism sector [90]. Livelihood resilience can be defined as the adaptability of actors and their abilities to take advantage of disturbances to improve their situation and preserve their way of life [9,48,58,90,92,101,124]. Requirements such as human agency, empowerment, independence, and access to resources are necessary for this resilience.
Shekari et al. [101] suggest that individual and collective agencies have a primary role in livelihood resilience. Chen et al. highlighted the role of vulnerable communities in enhancing resilience by using their existing potential to diversify their livelihood strategies [90].
One study revealed that the resilience of rural households’ livelihoods strengthens their willingness to participate. Based on survey data in 22 tourism poverty alleviation villages located in the poor regions of western China, among the livelihood coping strategy groups, namely agriculture-oriented households, migratory households, and tourism-participating households, this study also revealed that buffering capacity was a significant driver of this willingness [101].
Through the analysis, it can be seen that Chinese researchers are experts on this topic; indeed, Dang et al. [120] revealed that among the first trends in Southeast Asia after the COVID-19 pandemic was the development and diversification of livelihoods. The majority of this research identifies the impact of this crisis on livelihoods. This can serve to provide several starting points for researchers to validate these implications and propose livelihood resilience strategies in other contexts.

5.3. Community Resilience

The COVID-19 pandemic has been destructive to international tourism, negatively impacting destinations, organizations, and local communities [92]. Communal tourism, based on community involvement and participation, community control and empowerment, and conservation and its contribution to community welfare and development, has also been severely affected [127]. This has prompted local community stakeholders to reflect on strategies for building community resilience.
Because there is no single definition for the concept of resilience, there is only agreement among most authors that resilience is the ability to bend, rebound, and survive. The definition of the term “community resilience” is linked to events and contexts. Noorashid and Chin [128] defined community resilience as the mobilization of community resources to thrive in an environment marked by uncertainty, change, risk, and surprise. Social capital has an important role in building community resilience (governance, finance, and competence); indeed, it allows for the ability to promote resilience in the collaborative management of community natural resources necessary for community tourism development [125]. Musavengane and Kloppers [125] stated that a cohesive social structure with a strong cultural identity consisting of customs and traditions allows for adaptation to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

5.4. Model Framework That Connects the Themes That Can Be Tested in Further Research

From a research perspective, it is hypothesized that open avenues could be relevant for other local communities seeking to improve their resilience to COVID-19 and climate change based on social capital and the definition of community resilience.
According to the abstracts of the articles, the resilience of tourism following the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic was extensively investigated in case studies, particularly in China. China was one of the most investigated countries in this study, and it also had the highest number of articles published. However, it should be highlighted that this could be read differently due to the fact that the pandemic began in this country and that China has taken a different political approach to COVID-19 measures. Indeed, it is conceivable that most COVID-19 studies in China began earlier than in other parts of the world; therefore, this area of research necessitates academics focusing on conceptualizing tourism business resilience.
Based on the study of keyword occurrences, a conceptual framework is suggested that brings together the three themes of resilience in sustainable tourism, communities, and livelihoods that can be tested in further research (Figure 8).
Figure 8. A model framework that connects the themes that can be tested in further research.
The conceptual framework highlights the links and interactions between resilience, sustainable tourism, communities, and livelihoods. Resilience refers to the ability of a system to resist, adapt, and recover from disturbances and shocks. In the context of tourism, this implies the ability of a tourism sector to cope with crises, such as natural disasters, health crises, or climate change, while maintaining its activities and preserving its long-term environmental, social, and economic impacts. Sustainable tourism aims to promote tourism practices that minimize negative impacts on the environment, preserve local culture and resources, and contribute to the well-being of local communities. The aim is to develop tourism that is environmentally friendly, socially inclusive, and economically viable. Communities are key players in sustainable tourism and the sector’s resilience because they are directly impacted by tourism and can play an active role in planning, managing, and promoting sustainable tourism. Local communities can benefit economically from tourism, but it is also essential to ensure that they retain their cultural identity, heritage, and traditional livelihoods.
Livelihoods refer to the economic activities that enable individuals and communities to meet their basic needs. In the context of tourism, it is important to ensure that the livelihoods of local communities are not compromised but rather strengthened by sustainable tourism. This can involve the creation of local employment opportunities, the development of local entrepreneurship, and the promotion of traditional know-how. This conceptual framework highlights the importance of promoting a holistic approach to tourism that integrates resilience, sustainable tourism, local communities, and livelihoods. It underlines the need to develop strategies and policies that take these different aspects into account to ensure the long-term sustainability and resilience of the tourism sector.
In our paper, we have addressed emerging research themes and provided suggestions to help researchers and the stockholders of the tourism industry develop and improve their research programs and practices. We have also proposed a conceptual framework of tourism resilience based on the themes found in the keyword occurrence analysis, which presents a solid basis for future research to test, develop, and discuss.
The aim is to conduct original and transformative studies that will contribute to positive reconstruction, making tourism a more sustainable, responsible, and meaningful activity. Identifying authors in our study, their affiliations, and countries, as well as the journals that have made the greatest contribution in this field of research, helps future researchers identify the relevant literature and publish their work in high-quality journals with a direct correlation to their research topic.

6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Perspectives for Further Research

We have a favorable trend of continuous growth in this topic area, which is a strong indicator that tourism resilience research between 2020 and April 2023 has significant future potential.
This network of keywords is characterized by the dominance of the keywords tourism, resilience, and COVID-19 and the emergence of three popular topics: sustainable resilience, livelihood resilience, and community resilience. China, the United States, Spain, and Australia are the countries most involved in tourism resilience research. The collaborative network between these countries remains distant and less collaborative, which makes it necessary for the research community in this area to develop more collaborations to gain an international perspective on the research issues. The highest-ranked journal is Sustainability (Switzerland), with 20 publications, which is an open-access journal with a rapid review process and a peer review committee. This study shows the large number of publications edited by this journal. Kim, the most recent contributor to this topic with five articles, advocates for community resilience as a fundamental strategy for dealing with environmental uncertainty and catastrophic occurrences, particularly COVID-19, as well as the importance of tourism destination information and tourism industry specialization in this resilience. This means that he has carried out in-depth research and produced significant results that enrich the overall understanding of community resilience.
Our study will be a basis for researchers to choose the most relevant journals and to have a clear view of new research tracks, as well as to encourage the cooperation of authors and countries in untapped research fields.
In this field of study, which is rarely conducted on this scale, several articles on the resilience of the tourism industry have been published on a global scale.
Staying current and writing on issues with future potential can help researchers accomplish successful publications. The purpose of this bibliometric study is to provide an overview of the current literature on the resilience of the tourism sector following the spread of COVID-19, which is one of the most relevant subjects for future research, and to recommend a conceptual framework that brings together three themes of resilience in sustainable tourism, communities, and livelihoods that can be tested in future research.
Our study is limited by the choice of a single database, as only articles published between 2020 and 2023 in the Scopus database were selected as an infrastructure for the bibliometric study. It is recommended to combine future searches between several databases, namely Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed, to ensure deeper results.
In conclusion, this work presents a comprehensive review of research on tourism resilience after the emergence of COVID-19 that may be a relevant source for future research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.S., O.L. and D.P.; methodology, O.L., L.S. and D.P.; data curation, O.L., L.S. and D.P.; writing—original draft preparation, O.L., D.P. and L.S.; writing—review and editing, D.P. and L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pham, T.; Nugroho, A. Tourism-Induced Poverty Impacts of COVID-19 in Indonesia. Ann. Tour. Res. Empir. Insights 2022, 3, 100069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Okafor, L.; Khalid, U.; Gopalan, S. COVID-19 Economic Policy Response, Resilience and Tourism Recovery. Ann. Tour. Res. Empir. Insights 2022, 3, 100073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Osorio, P.; Cadarso, M.Á.; Tobarra, M.Á.; García-Alaminos, Á. Carbon Footprint of Tourism in Spain: COVID-19 Impact and a Look Forward to Recovery. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 2023, 65, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Liu, Y.; Cheng, X.; Liao, S.S.; Yang, F. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Tourism and Hospitality Industry: Evidence from International Stock Markets. N. Am. J. Econ. Financ. 2023, 64, 101875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wickramasinghe, K.; Naranpanawa, A. Tourism and COVID-19: An Economy-Wide Assessment. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2023, 55, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aguiar-Quintana, T.; Román, C.; Gubisch, P.M.M. The Post-COVID-19 Tourism Recovery Led by Crisis-Resistant Tourists: Surf Tourism Preferences in the Canary Islands. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 44, 101041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dias, Á.L.; Cunha, I.; Pereira, L.; Costa, R.L.; Gonçalves, R. Revisiting Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises’ Innovation and Resilience during COVID-19: The Tourism Sector. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tomej, K.; Bilynets, I.; Koval, O. Tourism Business Resilience in the Time of War. Ann. Tour. Res. 2023, 99, 103547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Soliku, O.; Kyiire, B.; Mahama, A.; Kubio, C. Tourism amid COVID-19 Pandemic: Impacts and Implications for Building Resilience in the Eco-Tourism Sector in Ghana’s Savannah Region. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Prayag, G. Tourism Resilience in the ‘New Normal’: Beyond Jingle and Jangle Fallacies? J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2023, 54, 513–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Proag, V. The Concept of Vulnerability and Resilience. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 18, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Doorn, N.; Gardoni, P.; Murphy, C. A Multidisciplinary Definition and Evaluation of Resilience: The Role of Social Justice in Defining Resilience. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 2019, 4, 112–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ntounis, N.; Parker, C.; Skinner, H.; Steadman, C.; Warnaby, G. Tourism and Hospitality Industry Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from England. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 25, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tasnim, Z.; Shareef, M.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Kumar, U.; Kumar, V.; Malik, F.T.; Raman, R. Tourism Sustainability during COVID-19: Developing Value Chain Resilience. Oper. Manag. Res. 2023, 16, 391–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wided, R. Achieving Sustainable Tourism with Dynamic Capabilities and Resilience Factors: A Post Disaster Perspective Case of the Tourism Industry in Saudi Arabia. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2022, 8, 2060539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pyke, J.; Lindsay-Smith, G.; Gamage, A.; Shaikh, S.; Nguyen, V.K.; de Lacy, T.; Porter, C. Building Destination Resilience to Multiple Crises to Secure Tourism’s Future. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 26, 1225–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gaki, E.; Koufodontis, N.I. Regional tourism resilience and recovery in times of crises. Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2022, 40, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Setthachotsombut, N.; Sua-iam, G. The Resilience Development for the Entrepreneurs Tourism Sector (RDETS) from the 2019 Coronavirus Crisis in Thailand. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2020, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  19. Delaplace, M.; Kadri, B.; Levet-Labry, E.; Safaa, L. Risques, Résilience et Pérennité Des Destinations Touristiques: Une Introduction. Études Caribéennes 2018, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wieczorek-Kosmala, M. A Study of the Tourism Industry’s Cash-Driven Resilience Capabilities for Responding to the COVID-19 Shock. Tour. Manag. 2022, 88, 104396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kaushal, V.; Srivastava, S. Hospitality and tourism industry amid COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives on challenges and learnings from India. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92, 102707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Buultjens, J.; Ratnayake, I.; Gnanapala, A.C. Sri Lankan Tourism Development and Implications for Resilience. In Tourism and Resilience; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wut, T.M.; Xu, J.; Wong, S.-m. Crisis Management Research (1985–2020) in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry: A Review and Research Agenda. Tour. Manag. 2021, 85, 104307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Li, L.; Yang, Z.; Dang, Z.; Meng, C.; Huang, J.; Meng, H.; Wang, D.; Chen, G.; Zhang, J.; Peng, H.; et al. Propagation Analysis and Prediction of the COVID-19. Infect. Dis. Model. 2020, 5, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Utkarsh; Sigala, M. A Bibliometric Review of Research on COVID-19 and Tourism: Reflections for Moving Forward. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 40, 100912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Binh Nguyen, P.M.; Pham, X.L.; To Truong, G.N. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Tourism Content Marketing: Background Knowledge and Thematic Evolution. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Palácios, H.; de Almeida, M.H.; Sousa, M.J. A Bibliometric Analysis of Trust in the Field of Hospitality and Tourism. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 95, 102944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, T.; Yang, Z.; Chen, X.; Han, F. Bibliometric Analysis and Literature Review of Tourism Destination Resilience Research. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sharma, G.D.; Thomas, A.; Paul, J. Reviving Tourism Industry Post-COVID-19: A Resilience-Based Framework. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 37, 100786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Casado-Aranda, L.A.; Sánchez-Fernández, J.; Bastidas-Manzano, A.B. Tourism Research after the COVID-19 Outbreak: Insights for More Sustainable, Local and Smart Cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 73, 103126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Menon, D.; Gunasekar, S.; Dixit, S.K.; Das, P.; Mandal, S. Present and Prospective Research Themes for Tourism and Hospitality Education Post-COVID19: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 2022, 30, 100360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Faruk, M.; Rahman, M.; Hasan, S. How Digital Marketing Evolved over Time: A Bibliometric Analysis on Scopus Database. Heliyon 2021, 7, e08603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ying, H.; Zhang, X.; He, T.; Feng, Q.; Wang, R.; Yang, L.; Duan, J. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Heart Failure Comorbid with Depression from 2002 to 2021. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Booth, P.; Chaperon, S.A.; Kennell, J.S.; Morrison, A.M. Entrepreneurship in Island Contexts: A Systematic Review of the Tourism and Hospitality Literature. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 85, 102438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Benckendorff, P.; Zehrer, A. A network analysis of tourism research. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 43, 121–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wijesinghe, S.N.R.; Mura, P.; Bouchon, F. Tourism Knowledge and Neocolonialism—A Systematic Critical Review of the Literature. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 22, 1263–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Agapito, D. The Senses in Tourism Design: A Bibliometric Review. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 83, 102934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hossain, S.; Batcha, M.S.; Atoum, I.; Ahmad, N.; Al-Shehri, A. Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Research on Sustainability in the Impact of Social Media on Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Setiawan, D. Sopiah system literature review occupational stress: An overview analysis bibliometrics. J. Manag. Account. Gen. Financ. Int. Econ. Issues 2022, 2, 343–356. [Google Scholar]
  41. Omotehinwa, T.O. Examining the Developments in Scheduling Algorithms Research: A Bibliometric Approach. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics 2009, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Umar, M.; Ahmad, R.; Radics, R. Tourism Supply Chains: Issues and Resilience Strategies during the Global Pandemic. Australas. J. Disaster Trauma Stud. 2022, 26, 167–178. [Google Scholar]
  44. Papademetriou, C.; Ragazou, K.; Garefalakis, A.; Passas, I. Green Human Resource Management: Mapping the Research Trends for Sustainable and Agile Human Resources in SMEs. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Koh, E. The end of over-tourism? Opportunities in a post-Covid-19 world. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2020, 6, 1015–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sobaih, A.E.E.; Elshaer, I.; Hasanein, A.M.; Abdelaziz, A.S. Responses to COVID-19: The Role of Performance in the Relationship between Small Hospitality Enterprises’ Resilience and Sustainable Tourism Development. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Prayag, G.; Spector, S.; Orchiston, C.; Chowdhury, M. Psychological Resilience, Organizational Resilience and Life Satisfaction in Tourism Firms: Insights from the Canterbury Earthquakes. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1216–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. King, C.; Iba, W.; Clifton, J. Reimagining Resilience: COVID-19 and Marine Tourism in Indonesia. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 2784–2800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Traskevich, A.; Fontanari, M. Tourism Potentials in Post-COVID19: The Concept of Destination Resilience for Advanced Sustainable Management in Tourism. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2023, 20, 12–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pham, L.D.Q.; Coles, T.; Ritchie, B.W.; Wang, J. Building Business Resilience to External Shocks: Conceptualising the Role of Social Networks to Small Tourism & Hospitality Businesses. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 48, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Okafor, L.E.; Khalid, U.; Burzynska, K. Does the Level of a Country’s Resilience Moderate the Link between the Tourism Industry and the Economic Policy Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic? Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 25, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ngin, C.; Chhom, C.; Neef, A. Climate Change Impacts and Disaster Resilience among Micro Businesses in the Tourism and Hospitality Sector: The Case of Kratie, Cambodia. Environ. Res. 2020, 186, 109557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chan, C.-S.; Nozu, K.; Zhou, Q. Tourism Stakeholder Perspective for Disaster-Management Process and Resilience: The Case of the 2018 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi Earthquake in Japan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Karunarathne, A.C.I.D.; Ranasinghe, J.P.R.C.; Sammani, U.G.O.; Perera, K.J.T. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Tourism Operations and Resilience: Stakeholders’ Perspective in Sri Lanka. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. 2021, 13, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Estiri, M.; Heidary Dahooie, J.; Skare, M. COVID-19 Crisis and Resilience of Tourism SME’s: A Focus on Policy Responses. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraz. 2022, 35, 5556–5580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jalil, M.F.; Ali, A.; Ahmed, Z.; Kamarulzaman, R. The Mediating Effect of Coping Strategies Between Psychological Capital and Small Tourism Organization Resilience: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic, Malaysia. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 766528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Duro, J.; Perez-Laborda, A.; Fernandez, M. Territorial Tourism Resilience in the COVID-19 Summer. Ann. Tour. Res. Empir. Insights 2022, 3, 100039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Holland, K.K.; Larson, L.R.; Powell, R.B.; Holland, W.H.; Allen, L.; Nabaala, M.; Tome, S.; Seno, S.; Nampushi, J. Impacts of Tourism on Support for Conservation, Local Livelihoods, and Community Resilience around Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 30, 2526–2548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yiu, C.-Y.; Cheung, K.-S. Urban Zoning for Sustainable Tourism: A Continuum of Accommodation to Enhance City Resilience. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Boto-García, D.; Mayor, M. Domestic Tourism and the Resilience of Hotel Demand. Ann. Tour. Res. 2022, 93, 103352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. McLeod, M.; Dodds, R.; Butler, R. Introduction to Special Issue on Island Tourism Resilience. Tour. Geogr. 2021, 23, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bai, H.; Ran, W. Analysis of the Vulnerability and Resilience of the Tourism Supply Chain under the Uncertain Environment of COVID-19: Case Study Based on Lijiang. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Altshuler, A.; Schmidt, J. Why Does Resilience Matter? Global Implications for the Tourism Industry in the Context of COVID-19. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. 2021, 13, 431–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cahyanto, I.P.; Liu-Lastres, B.; Edwards, C. Developing a Resilience-Based Adaptive Co-Management Framework: Public Sectors’ Insights on the Role of Tourism. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 2021, 13, 204–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jiménez-Medina, P.; Artal-Tur, A.; Sánchez-Casado, N. Tourism Business, Place Identity, Sustainable Development, and Urban Resilience: A Focus on the Sociocultural Dimension. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2021, 44, 170–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Della Corte, V.; Del Gaudio, G.; Sepe, F.; Luongo, S. Destination Resilience and Innovation for Advanced Sustainable Tourism Management: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lin, Q.; Wen, J.J. Family Business, Resilience, and Ethnic Tourism in Yunnan, China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bertella, G. Discussing Tourism during a Crisis: Resilient Reactions and Learning Paths towards Sustainable Futures. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2022, 22, 144–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lee, G.; Anat, T.; Shahar, S. Urban Resilience as a Mitigating Factor against Economically Driven Out-Migration during COVID-19: The Case of Eilat, a Tourism-Based City. Cities 2022, 125, 103636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chan, C.-S.; Nozu, K.; Zhou, Q. Building Destination Resilience in the Tourism Disaster Management Process from the Past Experiences: The Case of the 2018 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi Earthquake in Japan. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2022, 47, 527–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Martínez-Carazo, E.-M.; Santamarina-Campos, V.; De-Miguel-Molina, M. Creative Mural Landscapes, Building Communities and Resilience in Uruguayan Tourism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ho, G.K.S.; Lam, C.; Law, R. Conceptual Framework of Strategic Leadership and Organizational Resilience for the Hospitality and Tourism Industry for Coping with Environmental Uncertainty. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2023, 6, 835–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ketter, E. Bouncing Back or Bouncing Forward? Tourism Destinations’ Crisis Resilience and Crisis Management Tactics. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2022, 31, 3103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lindsay-Smith, G.; Pyke, J.; Gamage, A.; Nguyen, V.; de Lacy, T. Tourism Operator Mental Health and Its Relationship with SME Organisational Resilience during Disasters. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 42, 100961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Koo, I.; Anjam, M.; Zaman, U. Hell Is Empty, and All the Devils Are Here: Nexus between Toxic Leadership, Crisis Communication, and Resilience in COVID-19 Tourism. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Álvarez, B.M.; Cortes-Vazquez, J.A. “May the Smoke Keep Coming out the Fireplace”: Moral Connections between Rural Tourism and Socio-Ecological Resilience in the EUME Region, Galicia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Partanen, M. Social Innovations for Resilience—Local Tourism Actor Perspectives in Kemi, Finland. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2022, 19, 143–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shi, W.; Gong, Y.; Wang, L.; Nikolova, N. Heterogeneity of Inbound Tourism Driven by Exchange Rate Fluctuations: Implications for Tourism Business Recovery and Resilience in Australia. Curr. Issues Tour. 2023, 26, 450–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhang, J. Spatial Effects of Tourism Development on Economic Resilience: An Empirical Study of Wenchuan Earthquake Based on Dynamic Spatial Durbin Model. Nat. Hazards 2023, 115, 309–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Añasco, C.P.; Monteclaro, H.M.; Catedrilla, L.C.; Lizada, J.C.; Baylon, C.C. Measuring Small Island Disaster Resilience Towards Sustainable Coastal and Fisheries Tourism: The Case of Guimaras, Philippines. Hum. Ecol. 2021, 49, 467–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Taylor, P.; Frost, W.; Frost, J. Building Resilient Local Tourism Systems: Insights from New Zealand’s Premier Cycling Attractions. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2022, 27, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cengiz, C.; Cengiz, B.; Smardon, R.C. A Bridge between Coastal Resilience and Tourism-Recreation: Multifunctional Benefit of Boardwalk Design for Sustainable Development in the Western Black Sea Region, Turkey. Water 2022, 14, 1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Giang, T.H.T.; Caldicott, R.W. Developing Resilience for Small Island Tourism Planning: A Qualitative Design Infusing the Sustainability Trilogy with Three Streams of Resilience Thinking. J. Mar. Isl. Cult. 2022, 11, 128–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mazilu, M.; Niță, A.; Drăguleasa, I.-A. Resilience of Romanian Tourism to Economic Crises and COVID-19 Pandemic. WSEAS Trans. Bus. Econ. 2023, 20, 328–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sholeha, A.W.; Sumarmi; Utaya, S.; Bachri, S. Making Cities Resilient 2030 Assessment for Tourism Cities: An Analytical Study of Local Government Capacity at Batu City, Indonesia. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2022, 78, 77–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wibowo, M. Modeling the Potential of Tsunami Hazard in Labuan Bajo Towards A Disaster-Resilient Tourism Area. Indones. J. Geogr. 2022, 54, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Widianingsih, I.; Abdillah, A.; Herawati, E.; Dewi, A.U.; Miftah, A.Z.; Adikancana, Q.M.; Pratama, M.N.; Sasmono, S. Sport Tourism, Regional Development, and Urban Resilience: A Focus on Regional Economic Development in Lake Toba District, North Sumatra, Indonesia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zakaria, R.; Zineb, T. Predicting the resilience of the tourism industry after the COVID-19 health epidemic. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2023, 101, 2271–2292. [Google Scholar]
  89. Bangwayo-Skeete, P.F.; Skeete, R.W. Modelling Tourism Resilience in Small Island States: A Tale of Two Countries. Tour. Geogr. 2021, 23, 436–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chen, F.; Xu, H.; Lew, A.A. Livelihood Resilience in Tourism Communities: The Role of Human Agency. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 606–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Heslinga, J.; Groote, P.; Vanclay, F. Towards Resilient Regions: Policy Recommendations for Stimulating Synergy between Tourism and Landscape. Land 2020, 9, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Adams, K.M.; Choe, J.; Mostafanezhad, M.; Phi, G.T. (Post-) Pandemic Tourism Resiliency: Southeast Asian Lives and Livelihoods in Limbo. Tour. Geogr. 2021, 23, 915–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Torres, P.; Augusto, M. Attention to Social Issues and CEO Duality as Enablers of Resilience to Exogenous Shocks in the Tourism Industry. Tour. Manag. 2021, 87, 104400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Watson, P.; Deller, S. Tourism and Economic Resilience. Tour. Econ. 2022, 28, 1193–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ibanescu, B.-C.; Eva, M.; Gheorghiu, A. Questioning the Role of Tourism as an Engine for Resilience: The Role of Accessibility and Economic Performance. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Pocinho, M.; Garcês, S.; de Jesus, S.N. Wellbeing and Resilience in Tourism: A Systematic Literature Review During COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 748947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Burnett, M.; Johnston, T. Brexit Anticipated Economic Shock on Ireland’s Planning for Hospitality and Tourism: Resilience, Volatility and Exposure. Tour. Rev. 2020, 75, 595–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bui, P.L.; Tzu-Ling Chen, C.; Wickens, E. Tourism Industry Resilience Issues in Urban Areas during COVID-19. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2021, 7, 861–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Usher, L.E.; Yusuf, J.-E.; Covi, M. Assessing Tourism Business Resilience in Virginia Beach. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2020, 6, 397–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Božović, T.; Blešić, I.; Knežević, M.N.; Đeri, L.; Pivac, T. Resilience of Tourism Employees to Changes Caused by COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijic SASA 2021, 71, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Shekari, F.; Ziaee, M.; Faghihi, A.; Jomehpour, M. Nomadic Livelihood Resilience through Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. Empir. Insights 2022, 3, 100034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yang, X.; Zhang, D.; Liu, L.; Niu, J.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X. Development Trajectory for the Temporal and Spatial Evolution of the Resilience of Regional Tourism Environmental Systems in 14 Cities of Gansu Province, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 65094–65115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Yang, E.; Smith, J.W. The Spatial and Temporal Resilience of the Tourism and Outdoor Recreation Industries in the United States throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic. Tour. Manag. 2023, 95, 104661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Cui, W.; Chen, J.; Xue, T.; Shen, H. The Economic Resilience Cycle Evolution and Spatial-Temporal Difference of Tourism Industry in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area from 2000 to 2019. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Amoamo, M. Brexit–Threat or Opportunity? Resilience and Tourism in Britain’s Island Territories. Tour. Geogr. 2021, 23, 501–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Blanco-Romero, A.; Blázquez-Salom, M. Inland Territorial and Tourism Resilience in a Polarized World. In Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; Volume 178, pp. 1886–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Feng, L.; Guo, J.; Liu, Y. Research Methodology for Tourism Destination Resilience and Analysis of Its Spatiotemporal Dynamics in the Post-Epidemic Period. J. Resour. Ecol. 2021, 12, 682–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Mondal, S.; Samaddar, K. Future of Sharing Economy and Its Resilience Post Pandemic: A Study on Indian Travel and Tourism Industry. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2022, 33, 1591–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chen, X.; Li, B. Rethinking Cultural Creativity and Tourism Resilience in the Post-Pandemic Era in Chinese Traditional Villages. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Huda, M. Digital Marketplace for Tourism Resilience in the Pandemic Age: Voices from Budget Hotel Customers. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2023, 31, 149–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mandal, S.; Vishnu, S.; Roshini, M. Do Alliance Capabilities Matter in Tourism Dynamic Capabilities Development? An Examination through Agility and Resilience Lens. Int. J. Bus. Excell. 2021, 25, 370–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Utami, W. Resilience of Cultural Landscape Heritage Study in Spatial Tourism Context. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Changchun, China, 21–23 August 2020; Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 402. [Google Scholar]
  113. Munasinghe, S.; Powell, L.; Herath, H.M.; Frey, R.A. Lessons for Resilience Building in Tourism and Hospitality: The Case of New Zealand. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. 2022, 14, 604–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Setiadi, A.; Rudwiarti, L.A.; Priscilia, F.; Wardhani, M.K. City Tourism Branding Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Spatium 2021, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Silva, F.; Lopes, T.; Silva, M. The Resilience of Tourism Recreation Companies in a Pandemic Context: The Case of Canyoning in the Azores. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yang, S.; Guo, W. Research on China’s Tourism Public Services Development from the Perspective of Spatial–Temporal Interactions and Based on Resilience Theory. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Yu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, Y. Spatial and Temporal Changes and Influencing Factors of Tourism Resilience in China’s Provinces under the Impact of COVID-19. J. Resour. Ecol. 2023, 14, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Damanik, F.K.; Ulinnuha, H.; Sonia, C.R. Nurhalisa Digitalization for Tourism Resiliency (Case Study: Labuan Bajo). In Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; Volume 621, pp. 756–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Zhang, P.; Huang, Y.; Pan, S.; Chen, W.; Zhong, H.; Xu, N.; Zhong, M. Does Resilience Exist in China’s Tourism Economy? From the Perspectives of Resistance and Recoverability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Dang, P.; Ren, L.; Li, J. Livelihood Resilience or Policy Attraction? Factors Determining Households’ Willingness to Participate in Rural Tourism in Western China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Hu, H.; Xu, K. Visualizing the Development of Research on Tourism Resilience with Mixed Methods. SAGE Open 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Rauzi, E.N.; Aulia, F. Designing resilient coastal tourism facilities based on landscape characteristics and local wisdom. Plan. Malays. 2022, 20, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Shi, Y.; Zhang, J.; Cui, X.; Zhang, G. Evaluating Sustainability of Tourism Projects in Rural Land Development Base on a Resilience Model. Land 2022, 11, 2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Xiao, Y.; Liu, S.; Zuo, J.; Yin, N.; Wu, J.; Xie, W. Farmer Households’ Livelihood Resilience in Ethnic Tourism Villages: A Case Study of the Wuling Mountain Area, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Musavengane, R.; Kloppers, R. Social Capital: An Investment towards Community Resilience in the Collaborative Natural Resources Management of Community-Based Tourism Schemes. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 34, 100654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Bui, H.T.; Jones, T.E.; Weaver, D.B.; Le, A. The Adaptive Resilience of Living Cultural Heritage in a Tourism Destination. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1022–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Gabriel-Campos, E.; Werner-Masters, K.; Cordova-Buiza, F.; Paucar-Caceres, A. Community Eco-Tourism in Rural Peru: Resilience and Adaptive Capacities to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Climate Change. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 48, 416–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Noorashid, N.; Chin, W.L. Coping with COVID-19: The Resilience and Transformation of Community-Based Tourism in Brunei Darussalam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Jang, S.; Kim, J. Remedying Airbnb COVID-19 Disruption through Tourism Clusters and Community Resilience. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 139, 529–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Yang, E.; Kim, J.; Pennington-Gray, L.; Ash, K. Does Tourism Matter in Measuring Community Resilience? Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 89, 103222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Pilquimán-Vera, M.; Cabrera-Campos, G.; Tenorio-Pangui, P. Experiences of Resilience and Mapuche Community Based Tourism in the Pre-Cordilleran Territories of Panguipulli, Southern Chile. Sustainability 2020, 12, 817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Espeso-Molinero, P.; Pastor-Alfonso, M.J. Governance, Community Resilience, and Indigenous Tourism in Nahá, Mexico. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Ruiz-Ballesteros, E.; del Campo Tejedor, A. Community-Based Tourism as a Factor in Socio-Ecological Resilience. Economic Diversification and Community Participation in Floreana (Galapagos). Sustainability 2020, 12, 4724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Cirer-Costa, J.C. Economic and Social Resilience Accounts for the Recovery of Ibiza’s Tourism Sector. Tour. Geogr. 2021, 23, 479–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Cáceres-Feria, R.; Hernández-Ramírez, M.; Ruiz-Ballesteros, E. Depopulation, Community-Based Tourism, and Community Resilience in Southwest Spain. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 88, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Wakil, M.A.; Sun, Y.; Chan, E.H.W. Co-Flourishing: Intertwining Community Resilience and Tourism Development in Destination Communities. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 38, 100803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Gascón, J.; Mamani, K.S. Community-Based Tourism, Peasant Agriculture and Resilience in the Face of COVID-19 in Peru. J. Agrar. Change 2022, 22, 362–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Weis, K.; Chambers, C.; Holladay, P.J. Social-Ecological Resilience and Community-Based Tourism in the Commonwealth of Dominica. Tour. Geogr. 2021, 23, 458–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Jang, S.; Kim, J.; Lee, Y.-J.A. Intertemporal Tourism Clusters and Community Resilience. Prof. Geogr. 2021, 73, 567–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Yang, E.; Kim, J.; Hwang, C.S. The Spatial Moderating Effect of Environmental Pollution on the Relationship between Tourism and Community Resilience. Tour. Manag. 2022, 93, 104554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Díaz-Aguilar, A.L.; Escalera-Reyes, J. Family Relations and Socio-Ecological Resilience within Locally-Based Tourism: The Case of El Castillo (Nicaragua). Sustainability 2020, 12, 5886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Kim, C.; Kim, J. Spatial Spillovers of Sport Industry Clusters and Community Resilience: Bridging a Spatial Lens to Building a Smart Tourism City. Inf. Process. Manag. 2023, 60, 103266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Martínez Yáñez, C. The ICOMOS Draft International Charter for Cultural Heritage Tourism (2021): Reinforcing Cultural Heritage Protection and Community Resilience Through Responsible and Sustainable Tourism Management. New Approaches to Global Policies, Challenges and Issues. In Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; Volume 482, pp. 2361–2370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Zhang, J.; Shen, L.; Liu, L.; Qi, X.; Liang, C. Tackling Comprehensive Evaluation of Tourism Community Resilience: A Probabilistic Hesitant Linguistic Group Decision Making Approach. Land 2022, 11, 1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Prayag, G. Time for Reset? COVID-19 and Tourism Resilience. Tour. Rev. Int. 2020, 24, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Navarro-Drazich, D.; Lorenzo, C. Sensitivity and Vulnerability of International Tourism by Covid Crisis: South America in Context. Res. Glob. 2021, 3, 100042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Barbhuiya, M.R.; Chatterjee, D. Vulnerability and Resilience of the Tourism Sector in India: Effects of Natural Disasters and Internal Conflict. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 33, 100616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Xu, Z.; Wang, X.; Wang, X.; Skare, M. A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Entrepreneurship and Crisis Literature Published from 1984 to 2020. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 135, 304–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Fox, M.F.; Faver, C.A. Independence and Cooperation in Research. J. High. Educ. 2016, 55, 347–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Dauphiné, A.; Provitolo, D. Resilience: A Concept for Risk Management. Ann. Geogr. 2007, 116, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Qamar, A.H. Conceptualizing Social Resilience in the Context of Migrants’ Lived Experiences. Geoforum 2023, 139, 103680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Paeffgen, T. Organisational Resilience during COVID-19 Times: A Bibliometric Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Chambers, R.; Conway, G.R. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century; IDS Discussion Paper; Institute of Development Studies: Falmer, UK, 1992; p. 296. [Google Scholar]
  154. Wu, M.Y.; Pearce, P.L. Host Tourism Aspirations as a Point of Departure for the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 440–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Influence of Green Investment on China’s Sustainable Development
Previous
Influence of Borehole Casing on Received Signals in Downhole Method
Next