Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Residents’ Environmentally Responsible Behavior and Tourists’ Sustainable Use of Cultural Heritage: Mediation of Destination Identification and Self-Congruity as a Moderator
Previous Article in Journal
Adrijo: A Digital Platform for Adriatic Port Heritage—Good Practices for Virtual Museums and Touristic Experiences
Previous Article in Special Issue
From Oblivion to Life: The Recovery of Intangible Cultural Heritage through the Anti-Aircraft Shelters of the Spanish Civil War
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 7
Issue 3
10.3390/heritage7030055
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Heritage Tourism Resilience and Sustainable Performance Post COVID-19: Evidence from Hotels Sector

by
Alaa M. S. Azzaz
1,2,* and
Ibrahim A. Elshaer
3,4
1
Social Study Department, College of Arts, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
2
Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
3
Management Department, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 380, Saudi Arabia
4
Hotel Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2024, 7(3), 1162-1173; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7030055
Submission received: 26 January 2024 / Revised: 17 February 2024 / Accepted: 19 February 2024 / Published: 22 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Tourism and Sustainable City Dynamics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Heritage tourism in Egypt, differentiated by its distinctive ancient wonders and cultural prosperity, has faced numerous challenges through its history, with political unrest, economic fluctuations, and, most recently, the global COVID-19 pandemic. This research paper investigates the dynamic interplay between planned and adopted resilience within the hotel sector in Egyptian heritage sites and their consequential effects on both social and economic sustainability. A quantitative research method was employed to empirically explore these dynamics. A structured questionnaire was distributed to 550 top and middle managers in hotels located in heritage sites, capturing insights into their perspectives on planned and adopted resilience. The collected data underwent rigorous analysis utilizing “partial least squares structural equation modeling” (PLS-SEM), providing a robust foundation for drawing meaningful conclusions. Findings from the research underscore the necessity of aligning planned and adopted resilience to generate sustainable social and economic performance. The synthesis of planned and adopted resilience was revealed to be pivotal in generating sustainable social and economic performance for hotels. This synthesis catalyzes the hotels’ ability to mitigate uncertainties, adjust to changing environment, and ensure long-term viability. This research might contribute to the current literature by suggesting industry-specific awareness for the reciprocal relationship between planned and adopted resilience in the hotel businesses and their combined influence on both sides of sustainability (social and economic). The findings provide actionable recommendations for hotel management, policymakers, and industry stakeholders to enhance resilience, foster social cohesion, and ensure the economic sustainability of heritage tourism in an everchanging environment.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic presented an exceptional challenge to worldwide tourism industry, including the Egyptian heritage tourism business. Egypt’s heritage tourism occupies an exceptional and matchless attraction, attracting global visitors to delve into the intricate weave of its cultural and historical architectural riches [1,2]. Egypt stands as an enduring testament to the wonders of ancient civilizations, providing an enthralling voyage spanning thousands of years of history [3]. Beyond its ancient landmarks, Egypt’s cultural heritage expands to include a diverse tapestry of traditions, arts, and crafts. Travelers have the opportunity to wander through lively marketplaces, witness traditional performances, and fully immerse themselves in the vibrant living heritage of the Egyptian people [1,2,4,5,6].
Human history has witnessed one of the most severe crises as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, leading to international turmoil and wreaking havoc on the global economy [7,8]. Due to its highly spreadable nature and associated related health risks, the virus has triggered widespread disruptions globally, including lockdowns, airport closures, stringent workforce regulations, limitations on exports and imports, and so forth [8,9,10,11]. The economic disruption has resulted in a decline in manufacturing, a surge in layoffs, increased unemployment rates, decreased consumer demand, and diminished business profits [8,9,12]. Numerous businesses, including air travel, tourism, and transportation, are grappling with severe challenges, with many organizations teetering on the brink of closure. Nevertheless, several organizations have demonstrated resilience, experiencing less impact from the pandemic, and some are recovering faster than their counterparts.
This study addresses several crucial research gaps, underscoring its significance. Firstly, there is a distinct necessity for studies that delve into organizational resilience as a multidimensional construct rather than adopting a holistic view. Secondly, the scarcity of research focusing on the two sides of sustainability (social and economic) in developing economies underscores the need to explore these areas. Thirdly, there is a notable absence of research that combines resilience and sustainability, emphasizing preserving sustainable consequences while navigating recovery from uncertainty. Building upon the identified gaps, this research outlines its key objectives as follows: firstly, to investigate how the resilient structure of hotels, located in heritage sites, influences the both sides of sustainability (social and economic) amid a global crisis such as the COVID-19 outbreak. Secondly, to assess the influence of the two factors of resilience (adopted and planned) on sustainability (social and economic factors).
Consequently, the research formulates the following questions: Research Question 1 (RQ1): What measures can be utilized to evaluate different aspects of resilience within the ongoing crisis? Research Question 2 (RQ2): Amidst the crisis, which dimensions of sustainability, both social and economic, witness notable impacts? Research Question 3 (RQ3): How can we operationalize the effect of tourism resilience on both social and/or economic sustainability of hotels located in heritage sites? To contextualize within a developing economy, the study was conducted in Egypt.

2. Egypt as a Context

Following the 2011 revolution, Egypt encountered a substantial surge in terrorism, marked by attacks predominantly directed at security forces and tourists. This had a detrimental effect on the image of Egypt as a secure tourist destination [13,14]. Between 2011 and 2016, the influx of worldwide tourists to Egypt experienced a noteworthy decline, dropping to approximately 65% below the levels reported in 2010, according to the “World Tourism Organization” (WTO) [15]. Faced with this unpredictable and turbulent situation, numerous hotels chose downsizing strategy or even complete closure [14]. However, by late 2017, a resurgence in tourist arrivals took place, prompting Egypt to be recognized by WTO [15] as the world’s fastest-growing destination, experiencing a notable percentage increase in international visitors (55.1%). This recovery highlights the resilience and continuous operations of numerous hotels establishments within the country.
Like numerous other countries, the emergence of COVID-19 has significantly influenced Egypt, particularly taking a toll on the crucial tourism sector, a vital component of the country’s economy. In 2019, Egyptian tourism generated USD 13 billion in revenue, signifying indicators of recovery after several years of political upheaval following the 2011 revolution [14]. Nevertheless, the current fiscal year (2019/2020) is anticipated to experience a decrease in industry revenues, estimated at approximately USD 11 billion instead of the initially projected USD 16 billion, due to the impact of the COVID-19 spread [14]. Additionally, Egypt’s travel and tourism sector stands as one of the nation’s foremost economic pillars, injecting approximately USD 32 billion into the GDP in 2022. Within the same timeframe, international tourist expenditure has exceeded domestic spending for the first time since 2020, largely attributable to travel restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the travel and tourism industry serves as a significant employer in the country, boasting a workforce of nearly 2.4 million in 2022 [16].
The Egyptian government has launched a program to combat the infection caused by COVID-19, dedicating USD 6.3 billion [17]. The government has implemented various initiatives to support the tourism sector during these challenging times, including tax decreases for tourism businesses, reduced prices for electricity and gas for tourism establishments, and safeguarding salaries for permanent tourism employees. In the expectancy of the reopening of tourism businesses for domestic Egyptian tourism in June, the “Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities” has circulated safety recommendations and regulations emphasizing a “safety first” approach for hotels. These guidelines encompass a determined rate of 50% occupancy for the reopening stage [18].

3. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

Resilience emerges as a pivotal factor in business survival, defined as the ability to foresee, withstand, and recuperate from a challenging environment, ultimately restoring to an initial or enhanced state [19,20,21,22]. Many scholars classify resilience into two primary categories: adaptive resilience and planned resilience [23,24,25,26]. Proactive (planned) resilience involves preparedness, while reactive (adopted) resilience pertains to recovering from turbulence [21,27]. Planned proactive resilience initiates before disasters, while adaptive reactive resilience obviously emerges after such events, requiring adept handling, strong networks, collaboration, and learning from failure and past experiences [17,28]. Research indicates that post-crisis recovery approaches significantly impact an organization’s performance [23,29]. However, lacking a recovery plan can impede an enterprise’s adaptive resilience [30]. Effective crisis planning facilitates the optimal utilization of resources and infrastructure, thereby contributing to resilience post crisis [31]. Lee et al. [24] introduced a tool for assessing business resilience, distinguishing between planned and adaptive resilience in organizations. Their findings highlighted the significance of planned resilience, encompassing recovery precedence and a proactive attitude, as a critical indicator of adaptive resilience. In the current study, we operationalize resilience as a multidimensional construct, consisting of two dimensions: adopted resilience and planned resilience.
The crisis has profoundly impacted the sustainability framework of corporations, particularly in developing nations such as Egypt, Brazil, and India [12,13]. Sustainability, focusing on preserving future resources, encompasses three key dimensions: “environment, society, and economy”, often referred to as the “triple bottom line” (TBL) approach. While extensive research has been conducted globally on “environmental sustainability”, “social sustainability” (commonly denoted as corporate social responsibility or CSR) and “economic sustainability” (concentrating on cost control through the acceptance of sustainable practices) have not received as much attention from scholars, particularly in developing economies [17,32,33]. Nevertheless, these two components have endured severe crises, with both society and the economy grappling with the aftermath and striving to recuperate. Research addressing these dimensions predominantly reflects the settings of developed countries. Even within these studies, the amalgamation of economic and social aspects typically occurs individually or within the “triple bottom line” (TBL) framework. For example, Barbosa-Póvoa et al. [34] noted a deficiency in holistic economic assessments within sustainability studies, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evaluations of environmental and social aspects. There is a gap in focusing on the operationalization of executing sustainable practices that contribute to either cost control or profit generation. As an illustration, Zhang et al. [35] concentrated on “green supply chain management” (GSCM) as an antecedent of environmental practices and CSR in their empirical model of “sustainable supply chain management” (SSCM). While advocating for the multidimensional nature of SSCM, their framework falls short in adequately explaining economic considerations. In contrast, Esfahbodi et al. [36] incorporated both environmental firm performance and cost control in their empirical framework, primarily focusing on environmental aspects but neglecting the social side. Meanwhile, King and Lenox [37] stressed the importance of environmental performance within the operations environment yet overlooked economic and social practices. In the present study, our emphasis lies on a two-dimensional approach encompassing social and economic sustainability, addressing crucial concerns through the COVID-19 pandemic.
The resilience and sustainable performance of heritage tourism are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Resilient destinations are better equipped to navigate challenges, thereby contributing to the sustainability of tourism operations. Conversely, sustainable practices enhance a destination’s ability to adapt and recover from disturbances, fostering a holistic and enduring tourism experience. The attainment of financial performance, sustainable organizational success, and a competitive advantage can be facilitated through organizational resilience [38,39,40,41,42,43]. De Carvalho et al. [44] observed that resilient enterprises, particularly those with innovative characteristics, are better positioned to maintain higher performance levels compared to their counterparts. Research, exemplified by studies such as Orchiston et al. [45], affirms the significance of problem solving, planning, and establishing external network in fostering resilience, thereby exerting a positive influence on performance [46]. Prayag et al. [47] discovered that the impact of adaptive resilience on firm performance is particularly evident in the context of small businesses. There is also an argument for a comprehensive understanding of the interrelationships between resilience and overall performance by considering both factors of resilience, namely, planned and adaptive [25,26,48,49].
Organizational resilience serves as a facilitative instrument for sustaining performance by offering fresh perspectives on social and environmental adaptability in the face of a perpetually changing community [50]. Souza et al. [51] asserted the necessity of enduring plans and benchmarking to cultivate corporate resilience for sustainability. Fatoki [43] also identified core and outer factors influencing the connection between corporate resilience and sustainable performance, encompassing both social and economic sustainability. Inner factors encompass planning, managerial competencies, innovation, and creativity, while outer factors incorporate government support and the nation’s overall financial performance. Resilience, defined as an the ability to recover from instability, is crucial in ensuring sustainable performance [52]. Consequently, as illustrated in Figure 1, the below hypotheses could be theorized:
H1. 
Planned resilience positively influences social sustainability.
H2. 
Planned resilience positively influences economic sustainability.
H3. 
Adopted resilience positively influences social sustainability.
H4. 
Adopted resilience positively influences economic sustainability.
The study aims to contribute to practitioners and academia in several ways. Initially, it furnishes an empirical evaluation of organizational resilience as a multidimensional construct, offering valuable insights for firms in enhancing their ability to survive and recover during times of crisis. Secondly, it presents a comprehensive evaluation of social and economic sustainability, two aspects particularly vulnerable during a crisis, often overlooked by organizations focused primarily on survival. Thirdly, the research establishes a cause-and-effect path between hotel resilience and sustainability, aiming to address the question of how organizations can simultaneously survive and act responsibly. Fourthly, it delves into how sustainability and resilience can prove advantageous for companies in the long term.

4. Methods

4.1. The Instrument

A questionnaire-based survey was created to evaluate the resilience of luxury 5-star hotels located in heritage sites, Egypt, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences on sustainable social and economic performance. The survey comprised three parts. The first gathered data about the profiles of top and middle managers. Section 2 focused on the companies’ status, such as the number and full-time/part-time employees, and years of operation. Section 3 used a five-point scale to examine organizational resilience (both adopted and planned) and sustainable performance (both social and economic).
To obtain suitable measures for this study, standard psychometric procedures were undertaken. All reflective measures were adapted from the existing literature following a thorough review of the current literature, employing five Likert scales. As in previous research [17,23,24,26], two factors of resiliencies (planned and adaptive) were utilized to assess hotel resilience. Each factor consists of five reflective items. The scales for sustainable performance were adapted from Rai et al. [53] and encompass two sub-dimensions. The initial dimension delineates the social facet of sustainable performance, comprising 9 reflective items. Sample items include statements like “We prioritize the health and safety of our employees, even during crises” and “We have maintained our employees’ salaries throughout the crisis”. Dimension Two concentrates on the economic aspect of sustainable performance, with sample items such as “We curtail resource consumption for sustainability” and “We make investments in quality to enhance the lifecycle of our products”.

4.2. Research Population, Sample and Procedures

The study employed a quantitative survey method to gather data from managerial positions, including front office managers, food and beverage managers, rooms division managers, sales managers, and marketing managers, working in 170 five-star hotels located in heritage sites, Egypt. Managerial positions were chosen as the survey targets, given sufficient information and authority to respond to the research questionnaire. Data were collected from a survey involving 700 employees in managerial positions. The participation from each hotel varied from 3 to 5 individuals to prevent the under/overrepresentation of specific hotels. A total of 560 responses were collected, with twenty incomplete questionnaires excluded, resulting in 540 usable responses and a response rate of approximately 77%.
The study involved gathering questions that represent the dependent and independent items from the same set of participants, raising concerns about “common method variance” (CMV). To address potential CMV, various measures were implemented following the recommendations of [54]. Initially, all participants were guaranteed that their replies would be kept confidential. Then, the sequence of the questionnaire placed the dependent questions before the independent questions, following the approach suggested by [55]. Additionally, the questionnaire items were translated from original English to participants’ Arabic language by bilingual specialists. Subsequently, it underwent pretesting with 35 experts from the hotel sector and 25 faculty members from institutions specializing in hotel business. Based on the feedback received, appropriate revisions were made to enhance clarity. Thirdly, a comparison was made between early and late responses, utilizing a t-test to assess the likelihood of late-reply bias. The analysis exposed no significance differences (p > 0.05), indicating that nonresponse bias is not a problem.

5. Data Analysis and Study Results

The current study employed PLS-SEM, which is a variance-based algorithm that can be used for path analysis. This method is an adequate choice that can replace the traditional covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) [56] Admitted for its appropriateness in exploratory research, PLS-SEM has strong renown [57]. Unrestricted by the normality assumption in the distribution of the study sample, it demonstrates efficacy across both large and small sample sizes [58] . A systematic review of PLS-SEM papers published between 2000 and 2014 in hospitality discipline [59] indicated its underutilization in comparison to the traditional CB-SEM. The selection of this method for the study was driven by its orientation towards exploratory research and its adaptability to accommodate diverse sample sizes. The PLS analysis was executed using SmartPLS 4 [56]. The model estimation employed a bootstrapping process (n = 5000 resamples) utilizing a reflective variable approach [60]. In addition, to investigate and test CMV issue, as suggested by [54], scrutiny was carried out using “Harman’s one-factor” test. All 25 items underwent an “exploratory factor analysis” (EFA), disclosing that the initial factor accounted for just 38% of the total variance. This implies that CMV is not a predominant issue in this study. Additionally, all “variance inflation factor” (VIF) values registered below 0.5, signifying the absence of multicollinearity concerns (refer to Table 1).
The evaluation of the measurement model includes the examination of the scale psychometric characteristics, utilizing metrics such as “Cronbach’s α, composite reliabilities (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE)”. All items demonstrated loadings of 0.7 and above, signifying convergent validity at a satisfactory level. Both CR and Cronbach’s α findings outperformed the minimum standard of 0.7, indicating a good internal consistency (Table 1). Additionally, AVE findings for all dimensions exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.5, as proposed by [61]. Consequently, convergent validity was considered acceptable, taken into consideration that all AVEs values were 0.5 and above.
By following the methodology of [61], discriminant validity was validated by ensuring that the root square of the “average variance extracted” (AVE) for each factor surpassed the intercorrelations between that factor and all others in the model (Table 2). Additionally, validity was further calculated using the “heterotrait–monotrait” (HTMT) ratio of correlations, considered a more robust method than Fornell and Larcker’s [62]. Concerns about discriminant validity arise when HTMT values exceed 0.9. As indicated in Table 3, all ratios were below the standard value of 0.9, affirming discriminant validity.
The R2 bootstrapped values indicated that adopted and planned resilience collectively has 30.5% of effect size of variance in social sustainability and 43.8% in economic sustainability as shown in Figure 2. As seen in Table 3, it was observed that adopted resilience has a significant and positive impact on social sustainability (β = 0.561, t = 12.359, p < 0.001) and economic sustainability (β = 0.507, t = 11.427, p < 0.001), supporting H1 and H2. Additionally, adopted resilience has a positive and significant influence on social sustainability (β = 0.075, t = 1.975, p < 0.05), corroborating H3. Furthermore, planned resilience has a positive and significant impact on economic sustainability (β = 0.159, t = 3.259, p < 0.01), confirming the support for H4.

6. Discussion and Implications

The alignment of the study’s findings with the theoretical foundations of resilience, as emphasized by [13,17,23,26,48,52,63,64], underscores resilience’s pivotal role in confronting and surmounting organization challenges. Adopted resilience emerges as a crucial factor that allows hotels in heritage sites to weather adversities, and actively contributes to social and economic sustainability [64,65]. In the realm of social sustainability, the positive impact of adopted resilience is manifest in the cultivation of favorable employee relations. Hotels in heritage sites adopting resilient strategies prioritize employee wellbeing, fostering a work environment that promotes job satisfaction, professional growth, and overall employee contentment. This commitment to positive employee relations contributes to the organization’s social fabric and creates a ripple effect within the broader community, enhancing the industry’s social sustainability [66]. Furthermore, adopted resilience leads to the establishment of robust community partnerships. By prioritizing resilience, Egyptian hotels engage with local communities in meaningful ways, contributing to social development and mutual support. These partnerships extend beyond the business realm, integrating hotels into the social fabric of their surroundings. As hotels actively participate in community initiatives and collaborate with local stakeholders, they become integral contributors to the overall wellbeing of the communities they serve, thereby enhancing social sustainability.
Moving on to economic sustainability, the study results declared that the impact of adopted resilience is equally significant. The proactive nature of resilient strategies enables hotels in heritage sites to manage costs effectively [64]. This involves cost-cutting measures during challenging times and strategic financial planning that anticipates and prepares for potential economic downturns [53]. By adopting resilience, these hotels enhance their financial stability, ensuring their ability to weather economic uncertainties without compromising the quality of their services or the wellbeing of their employees. Moreover, adopted resilience facilitates revenue stability in the Egyptian hotel sector in heritage sites. The ability to adapt to dynamic market conditions, diversify revenue streams, and innovate in response to changing consumer demands positions resilient hotels to maintain a stable and consistent income. This stability is crucial for long-term economic sustainability, allowing hotels to withstand fluctuations in market trends and economic shocks.
Additionally, the alignment of the study’s results with existing resilience theories highlights the strategic importance of planned resilience in ensuring economic sustainability. Planned resilience involves proactive measures such as risk assessment, strategic financial planning, and the development of contingency plans to navigate potential challenges [52,67]. One significant impact of planned resilience in the Egyptian hotel industry is its role in revenue management. Strategic planning allows hotels to diversify revenue streams, identify potential market opportunities, and develop pricing strategies that maximize income. This proactive approach positions hotels to optimize revenue even in the face of economic uncertainties. Moreover, planned resilience contributes to cost-effective practices [56,68,69]. The strategic allocation of resources, efficient operational management, and implementing cost-saving measures during stable periods ensure that hotels are well prepared for economic fluctuations [57,58,65]. This foresight and strategic planning contribute to long-term cost stability, crucial for sustained economic viability.
Additionally, the study demonstrates that planned resilience supports strategic financial planning. Hotels that engage in thorough financial forecasting, risk analysis, and scenario planning are better equipped to navigate economic challenges. This approach ensures financial stability, enabling hotels to withstand economic shocks and sustain operations over the long term [64]. Furthermore, the study’s output highlights the intricate nature of the interrelationship between planned resilience and social sustainability. The positive impact indicates that strategic planning contributes to fostering social sustainability within the hotel industry in Egypt. However, the weak significance suggests that while planned resilience positively contributes to social sustainability, its impact may be influenced by various contextual factors. For instance, the cultural context of Egypt, the specific community dynamics surrounding each hotel, or the prevailing economic conditions may moderate the relationship between planned resilience and social sustainability.
This research has practical implications for hotel management, policymakers, and industry stakeholders. Hotel managers should prioritize the adoption of resilience strategies to enhance social and economic sustainability. Policymakers can support industry by creating an environment conducive to resilience-building initiatives. Additionally, industry stakeholders should collaborate to share best practices and foster a collective approach to resilience in the Egyptian hotel sector. The positive impact of planned resilience on economic sustainability has practical implications for hotel management and industry stakeholders. Hotel managers should prioritize developing and implementing planned resilience strategies to enhance economic sustainability. Policymakers can support industry by creating an environment conducive to strategic planning and risk management. Collaboration among industry stakeholders is essential to sharing best practices and building a resilient hotel sector in Egypt.

7. Limitations and Future Research Avenues

One limitation of this study is the contextual specificity inherent in the research. The findings are based on a particular industry (e.g., hotel industry) and a specific geographic location (e.g., Egypt). Generalizing the results to other industries or regions requires caution due to potential variations in organizational structures, cultural influences, and economic conditions. Moreover, the research adopted a cross-sectional design, capturing a snapshot of the relationships at a specific point in time. This limits the ability to establish causality and explore the dynamic nature of resilience and sustainability over time. Future research could employ longitudinal designs to understand the temporal aspects of these relationships better. Additionally, the study primarily focuses on economic and social sustainability, leaving out environmental sustainability. Future research should consider a more comprehensive approach by incorporating environmental dimensions to provide a holistic understanding of sustainability in organizations. Conducting longitudinal studies will provide a deeper understanding of how the impact of resilience strategies evolves over time. This could uncover patterns, trends, and long-term sustainability outcomes associated with different resilience planning and adoption approaches. Finally, investigating potential mediating and moderating factors in the relationship between resilience and sustainability could enhance the complexity of the model, for instance, the role of organizational culture, the ongoing war in the nearby Gaza Strip, leadership styles, or external environmental policies in influencing the effectiveness of resilience strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A.; methodology, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A.; software, I.A.E.; validation, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A.; formal analysis, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A.; investigation, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A.; resources, I.A.E.; data curation, I.A.E.; writing—original draft preparation, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A.; writing—review and editing, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A.; visualization, I.A.E.; supervision, I.A.E.; project administration, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A.; funding acquisition, I.A.E. and A.M.S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [Grant No. 5866].

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request from researchers who meet the eligibility criteria. Kindly contact the first author privately through e-mail.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mohamed Atef, A. Sustainable Heritage Tourism in Egypt. Int. J. Multidiscip. Stud. Archit. Cult. Herit. 2021, 4, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mustafa, M.H. Cultural Heritage: A Tourism Product of Egypt under Risk. J. Environ. Manag. Tour. (JEMT) 2021, 12, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ghanem, M.M.; Saad, S.K. Enhancing Sustainable Heritage Tourism in Egypt: Challenges and Framework of Action. J. Herit. Tour. 2015, 10, 357–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hang, P.L.K.; Kong, C. Heritage Management and Control: The Case of Egypt. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2001, 2, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Elgammal, I.; Refaat, H. Heritage Tourism and COVID-19: Turning the Crisis into Opportunity within the Egyptian Context. In Tourism Destination Management in a Post-Pandemic Context; Gowreesunkar, V.G., Maingi, S.W., Roy, H., Micera, R., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bradford, UK, 2021; pp. 37–48. ISBN 978-1-80071-512-7. [Google Scholar]
  6. Eladway, S.M.; Azzam, Y.A.; Al-Hagla, K.S. Role of Public Participation in Heritage Tourism Development in Egypt: A Case Study of Fuwah City. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 241, 27–43. [Google Scholar]
  7. Arora, A.S.; Rajput, H.; Changotra, R. Current Perspective of COVID-19 Spread across South Korea: Exploratory Data Analysis and Containment of the Pandemic. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 6553–6563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Rajput, H.; Changotra, R.; Rajput, P.; Gautam, S.; Gollakota, A.R.K.; Arora, A.S. A Shock like No Other: Coronavirus Rattles Commodity Markets. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 6564–6575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sharma, A.; Gupta, P.; Jha, R. COVID-19: Impact on Health Supply Chain and Lessons to Be Learnt. J. Health Manag. 2020, 22, 248–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bherwani, H.; Nair, M.; Musugu, K.; Gautam, S.; Gupta, A.; Kapley, A.; Kumar, R. Valuation of Air Pollution Externalities: Comparative Assessment of Economic Damage and Emission Reduction under COVID-19 Lockdown. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2020, 13, 683–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gautam, S. The Influence of COVID-19 on Air Quality in India: A Boon or Inutile. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2020, 104, 724–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gautam, S.; Hens, L. COVID-19: Impact by and on the Environment, Health and Economy. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 4953–4954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Saad, S.K.; Elshaer, I.A. Justice and Trust’s Role in Employees’ Resilience and Business’ Continuity: Evidence from Egypt. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Elshaer, I.A.; Saad, S.K. Political Instability and Tourism in Egypt: Exploring Survivors’ Attitudes after Downsizing. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 2017, 9, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. WTO World Tourism Organization (WTO). UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2018th ed.; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2018; Available online: https://www.unwto.org/global/publication/unwto-tourism-highlights-2018 (accessed on 9 December 2023).
  16. Statista Topic: Tourism Industry in Egypt. Available online: https://www.statista.com/topics/5767/tourism-industry-of-the-egypt/ (accessed on 17 February 2024).
  17. Elshaer, I.A.; Saad, S.K. Entrepreneurial Resilience and Business Continuity in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry: The Role of Adaptive Performance and Institutional Orientation. Tour. Rev. 2021; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Egyptian Ministry of Tourism Home. Available online: http://etf.org.eg (accessed on 11 March 2023).
  19. Christopher, M.; Lee, H. Mitigating Supply Chain Risk through Improved Confidence. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2004, 34, 388–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brusset, X.; Teller, C. Supply Chain Capabilities, Risks, and Resilience. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 184, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chowdhury, M.M.H.; Quaddus, M. Supply Chain Resilience: Conceptualization and Scale Development Using Dynamic Capability Theory. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 188, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pettit, T.J.; Croxton, K.L.; Fiksel, J. Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience: Development and Implementation of an Assessment Tool. J. Bus. Logist. 2013, 34, 46–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. 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]
  24. Lee, A.V.; Vargo, J.; Seville, E. Developing a Tool to Measure and Compare Organizations’ Resilience. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2013, 14, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Elshaer, I.A. Dimensionality Analysis of Entrepreneurial Resilience amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparative Models with Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Mathematics 2022, 10, 2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. 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] [PubMed]
  27. Sheffi, Y. The Resilient Enterprise: Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive Advantage; Pearson Education India: Haldwani, India, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  28. Nilakant, V.; Walker, B.; van Heugen, K.; Baird, R.; De Vries, H. Research Note: Conceptualising Adaptive Resilience Using Grounded Theory. N. Z. J. Employ. Relat. 2014, 39, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  29. Corey, C.M.; Deitch, E.A. Factors Affecting Business Recovery Immediately after Hurricane Katrina: Factors Affecting Business Recovery. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2011, 19, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Alexander, D.E. Resilience and Disaster Risk Reduction: An Etymological Journey. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 13, 2707–2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Faulkner, B.; Vikulov, S. Katherine, Washed out One Day, Back on Track the next: A Post-Mortem of a Tourism Disaster. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Saad, M.H.; Hagelaar, G.; van der Velde, G.; Omta, S.W.F. Conceptualization of SMEs’ Business Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1938347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tang, C.S. Socially Responsible Supply Chains in Emerging Markets: Some Research Opportunities. J. Oper. Manag. 2018, 57, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P.; da Silva, C.; Carvalho, A. Opportunities and Challenges in Sustainable Supply Chain: An Operations Research Perspective. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2018, 268, 399–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, M.; Tse, Y.K.; Doherty, B.; Li, S.; Akhtar, P. Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Confirmation of a Higher-Order Model. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 128, 206–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Esfahbodi, A.; Zhang, Y.; Watson, G. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Emerging Economies: Trade-Offs between Environmental and Cost Performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 181, 350–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. King, A.A.; Lenox, M.J. Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship between lean production and environmental performance. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2001, 10, 244–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Akgün, A.E.; Keskin, H. Organisational Resilience Capacity and Firm Product Innovativeness and Performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014, 52, 6918–6937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cavaco, N.M.; Machado, V.C. Sustainable Competitiveness Based on Resilience and Innovation—An Alternative Approach. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2015, 10, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. de Oliveira Teixeira, E.; Werther, W.B., Jr. Resilience: Continuous Renewal of Competitive Advantages. Bus. Horiz. 2013, 56, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gunasekaran, A.; Rai, B.K.; Griffin, M. Resilience and Competitiveness of Small and Medium Size Enterprises: An Empirical Research. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2011, 49, 5489–5509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yi, X.; Lin, V.S.; Jin, W.; Luo, Q. The Authenticity of Heritage Sites, Tourists’ Quest for Existential Authenticity, and Destination Loyalty. J. Travel Res. 2017, 56, 1032–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. 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]
  44. De Carvalho, A.O.; Ribeiro, I.; Cirani, C.B.S.; Cintra, R.F. Organizational Resilience: A Comparative Study between Innovative and Non-Innovative Companies Based on the Financial Performance Analysis. Int. J. Innov. IJI J. 2016, 4, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Orchiston, C.; Higham, J.E.S. Knowledge Management and Tourism Recovery (de)Marketing: The Christchurch Earthquakes 2010–2011. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 64–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Avery, G.C.; Bergsteiner, H. Sustainable Leadership Practices for Enhancing Business Resilience and Performance. Strategy Leadersh. 2011, 39, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Prayag, G.; Orchiston, C.; Chowdhury, M. From Sustainability to Resilience: Understanding Different Facets of Organizational Resilience. In BEST EN Think Tank XVII Innovation and Progress in Sustainable; BEST Education Network: Douglas, Australia, 2017; p. 292. [Google Scholar]
  48. Azazz, A.M.S.; Elshaer, I.A. Amid COVID-19 Pandemic, Entrepreneurial Resilience and Creative Performance with the Mediating Role of Institutional Orientation: A Quantitative Investigation Using Structural Equation Modeling. Mathematics 2022, 10, 2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jiang, Y.; Ritchie, B.W.; Verreynne, M. Building Tourism Organizational Resilience to Crises and Disasters: A Dynamic Capabilities View. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 21, 882–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lew, A.A. Scale, Change and Resilience in Community Tourism Planning. Tour. Geogr. 2014, 16, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Souza, A.A.A.; Alves, M.F.R.; Macini, N.; Cezarino, L.O.; Liboni, L.B. Resilience for Sustainability as an Eco-Capability. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 9, 581–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Annarelli, A.; Nonino, F. Strategic and Operational Management of Organizational Resilience: Current State of Research and Future Directions. Omega 2016, 62, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rai, S.S.; Rai, S.; Singh, N.K. Organizational Resilience and Social-Economic Sustainability: COVID-19 Perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 12006–12023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Salancik, G.R.; Pfeffer, J. An Examination of Need-Satisfaction Models of Job Attitudes. Adm. Sci. Q. 1977, 22, 427–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated Guidelines on Which Method to Use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Do Valle, P.O.; Assaker, G. Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Tourism Research: A Review of Past Research and Recommendations for Future Applications. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 695–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Madi Odeh, R.B.; Obeidat, B.Y.; Jaradat, M.O.; Masa’deh, R.; Alshurideh, M.T. The Transformational Leadership Role in Achieving Organizational Resilience through Adaptive Cultures: The Case of Dubai Service Sector. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2023, 72, 440–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Melián-Alzola, L.; Fernández-Monroy, M.; Hidalgo-Peñate, M. Hotels in Contexts of Uncertainty: Measuring Organisational Resilience. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 36, 100747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Brown, N.A.; Orchiston, C.; Rovins, J.E.; Feldmann-Jensen, S.; Johnston, D. An Integrative Framework for Investigating Disaster Resilience within the Hotel Sector. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018, 36, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cheer, J.M.; Lew, A.A. Tourism, Resilience and Sustainability: Adapting to Social, Political and Economic Change; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mandal, S.; Saravanan, D. Exploring the Influence of Strategic Orientations on Tourism Supply Chain Agility and Resilience: An Empirical Investigation. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2019, 16, 612–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hao, F.; Xiao, Q.; Chon, K. COVID-19 and China’s Hotel Industry: Impacts, a Disaster Management Framework, and Post-Pandemic Agenda. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 90, 102636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Srijuntrapun, P.; Fisher, D.; Rennie, H.G. Assessing the Sustainability of Tourism-Related Livelihoods in an Urban World Heritage Site. J. Herit. Tour. 2018, 13, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhang, G.; Chen, X.; Law, R.; Zhang, M. Sustainability of Heritage Tourism: A Structural Perspective from Cultural Identity and Consumption Intention. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Giudici, E.; Melis, C.; Dessì, S.; Francine Pollnow Galvao Ramos, B. Is Intangible Cultural Heritage Able to Promote Sustainability in Tourism? Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2013, 5, 101–114. [Google Scholar]
  69. Du Cros, H. A New Model to Assist in Planning for Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism. J. Tour. Res. 2001, 3, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heritage 07 00055 g001
Figure 1. Research hypotheses.
Figure 1. Research hypotheses.
Heritage 07 00055 g001
Heritage 07 00055 g002
Figure 2. The examined research model.
Figure 2. The examined research model.
Heritage 07 00055 g002
Table 1. Factors and items’ psychometric properties.
Table 1. Factors and items’ psychometric properties.
Scale Loadings VIF
Adoptive Resilience (α = 0.961, CR = 0.962, AVE = 0.864)
Adpt_Res_1: “People in our organization are committed to working on a problem until it is resolved”. 0.9571.444
Adpt_Res_2: “Our organization maintains sufficient resources to absorb some unexpected change”. 0.9114.319
Adpt_Res_3: “If key people were unavailable, there are always others who could fill their role”.0.9474.103
Adpt_Res_4: “There would be good leadership from within our organization if we were struck by a crisis”.0.9153.356
Adpt_Res_5: “We are known for our ability to use knowledge in novel ways”. 0.9163.833
Planned Resilience (α = 0.917, CR = 0.913, AVE = 0.897)
Plnd_Res_1: “Given how others depend on us, the way we plan for the unexpected is appropriate”. 0.9582.489
Plnd_Res_2: “Our organization is committed to practicing and testing its emergency plans to ensure they are effective”. 0.9543.081
Plnd_Res_3: “We have a focus on being able to respond to the unexpected”. 0.9373.433
Plnd_Res_4: “We have clearly defined priorities for what is important during and after a crisis”. 0.9413.775
Plnd_Res_5: “People in our organization are committed to working on a problem until it is resolved”.0.9473.361
Economic sustainability (α = 0.929, CR = 0.933, AVE = 0.861)
Econ_S1: “We invest in CSR without hurting our profits”. 0.9301.460
Econ_S1: “We minimize waste to reduce our material cost”. 0.9273.587
Econ_S3: “We sustainably procure and preserve the materials to increase their lifecycle”. 0.9264.331
Econ_S4: “We reduce resource consumption for sustainability”. 0.9412.110
Econ_S5: “We reuse resources to reduce our costs”.0.9152.773
Econ_S6: “We invest in quality for the increased life cycle of products”.0.9313.846
Social sustainability (α = 0.934, CR = 0.949, AVE = 0.737)
Soc_S1: “We pay fair wages to our manpower”. 0.8902.320
Soc_S2: “We have not laid-off workers during the lockdown”. 0.9012.781
Soc_S3: “We invest in our workers’ health and safety even during the crisis”. 0.8761.023
Soc_S4: “We have not reduced the salaries of our employees during the crisis”. 0.8584.160
Soc_S5: “We ensure our employees for health issues”. 0.7762.185
Soc_S6: “We focus on protecting our workers’ rights”. 0.8634.643
Soc_S7: “We comply with hygiene and social distancing norms”. 0.8492.749
Soc_S8: “We educate and train our employees for new safety requirements”. 0.8354.377
Soc_S9: “We focus on job creation for local and economically, affected society”.0.8711.058
Table 2. Factors’ discriminating validity employing Fornell and Larcker and HTMT.
Table 2. Factors’ discriminating validity employing Fornell and Larcker and HTMT.
Adaptive ResilienceEconomic SustainabilityPlanned ResilienceSocial Sustainability
Adopted resilience0.929
Economic sustainability0.648 [0.670]0.928
Planned resilience0.548 [0.565]0.467 [0.477]0.947
Social sustainability0.548 [0.560]0.424 [0.435]0.353 [0.364]0.858
Bold figures show the square root of AVE; HTMT ratios are shown in brackets.
Table 3. Path coefficient with t and p values.
Table 3. Path coefficient with t and p values.
Paths(β)(T) (P)
Adopted resilience -> Social sustainability0.50712.3590.000
Adopted resilience -> Economic sustainability0.56111.4270.000
Planned resilience -> Social sustainability0.0751.9750.048
Planned resilience -> Economic sustainability0.1593.2950.001
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Azzaz, A.M.S.; Elshaer, I.A. Heritage Tourism Resilience and Sustainable Performance Post COVID-19: Evidence from Hotels Sector. Heritage 2024, 7, 1162-1173. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7030055

AMA Style

Azzaz AMS, Elshaer IA. Heritage Tourism Resilience and Sustainable Performance Post COVID-19: Evidence from Hotels Sector. Heritage. 2024; 7(3):1162-1173. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7030055

Chicago/Turabian Style

Azzaz, Alaa M. S., and Ibrahim A. Elshaer. 2024. "Heritage Tourism Resilience and Sustainable Performance Post COVID-19: Evidence from Hotels Sector" Heritage 7, no. 3: 1162-1173. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7030055

APA Style

Azzaz, A. M. S., & Elshaer, I. A. (2024). Heritage Tourism Resilience and Sustainable Performance Post COVID-19: Evidence from Hotels Sector. Heritage, 7(3), 1162-1173. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7030055

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop