Understanding the IPCC Climate Risk-Centered Framework and Its Applications to Assessing Tourism Resilience

Abstract

Climate change affects all human and ecological systems. The rapid climate impacts are increasingly evident on all economic activities, including tourism. Regarding the fact that “the window is closing”, climate resilience is urgently needed to protect tourism resources and maintain the quality of tourism offerings. Since the recent climate and tourism scientific literature emphasizes the necessity to mobilize existing knowledge, standardize practices, and explore appropriate tools related to tourism adaptation, we provided desk research and discussed the latest achievements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) and related knowledge platforms. According to the results of this review, it seems that the vast majority of the authors use vulnerability assessment (VA) to provide a solid basis for climate change adaptation (CCA) options applicable to tourism. Also, there is a lack of application of the latest IPCC recommendations founded in climate risk assessment (CRA). In the context of CRA, vulnerability was often assessed in a static way, with limited consideration of future hazards, probabilistic estimates, and the interactions between climatic and non-climatic drivers. Moreover, the methodologies applied to assess climate-related issues in tourism have been highly heterogeneous, hindering comparability and aggregation of results. Since risk is a useful conceptual framework for understanding tourism’s climate issues and modalities to reach its climate resilience, we discussed the significance of shifting the vulnerability concept towards a risk-centered framework. This review paper also provides a basis for a common understanding of CRA, a step-by-step approach to its assessment, and the explanation of CCA options to strengthen the tourism community, since a decisive decade of climate action is upon us.

1. Introduction

Climate change is a megatrend that unfolds over an extended period and occurs on a large scale. Many social, biological, and geophysical systems are exposed to climate risks, which are driven by extreme weather events or induced by long-term shifts in climate patterns [1]. The extreme events are acute and relatively short-lived devastating shocks, such as droughts, floods, or wildfires. Shifts that have occurred slowly are chronic climate stressors, like changes in annual average rainfall or temperature. According to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC [2], the most adverse effect of temperature rise (chronic climate stressor) is the increased frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events (devastating shocks). They are triggering adverse impacts for human health, assets (infrastructural systems and networks), and natural resources. For instance, an increased number of days per year with a maximum temperature above 35 °C causes a higher frequency of climate-related hazards such as heatwaves and wildfires. According to the World Health Organization [3] and the latest Lancet’s study [4], the impacts of heat waves on human health are of major concern due to heat stress and dehydration. Additionally, rising temperatures and humidity allow the spread of vector-borne diseases that are a menace to health and well-being [5]. Additionally, the climate risks are shaped by many social factors, such as cultural norms, social practices, and socioeconomic status, including social responses themselves [2].

Degradation of ecosystem quality, urbanization, environmental pollution, land use and land cover change, and water management, including social turbulence, are well-known non-climate-related risk drivers. These drivers can act alone or in conjunction with climate change. For example, heavy rainfall can indeed exacerbate soil erosion, especially in areas where human activities such as deforestation or soil sealing have compromised soil stability. Moreover, climate change often amplifies the harmful effects of these drivers, so that, for example, land cover change can greatly increase the effects of extreme climate events, resulting in increased mortality from heat waves, injuries/deaths from storms, and environmentally mediated infectious diseases. Additionally, individual or combined climate risks often cascade between natural ecosystems, built environments (infrastructure, settlements), and socioeconomic systems [2,6,7]. For instance, temperature extremes decrease water availability and impact tourism offerings, threatening the financial stability of a destination. It could be said that non-climate-risk drivers act as underlying climate-risk drivers, which increase vulnerability to climate-related hazards. So, they generally reduce the resilience of a community, region, or economic sector, and it seems that without urgent and decisive adaptation actions, climate issues may become extremely challenging [7,8].

At all geographic levels, impacts of climate change are increasingly threatening tourism assets and offers, including the health and wellbeing of visitors and the local population [9]. Climate risks have already reached critical levels, and some regions are exposed to multiple climate risks [7]. For instance, the Mediterranean region is globally recognized as one of the priority hotspots due to its warming, and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are highly susceptible to climate-induced hazards such as hurricanes and sea-level rise [2]. Since the tourism industry represents a key driver of socio-economic progress in these areas, it is extremely important to ensure its resilience, primarily focusing on disaster preparedness, institutional support, and financial resources needed for adaptation. Generally, tourism could be inherently seen as an extremely complex system due to the variety of its players, activities, and the diversity of environmental, geographical, and climate features [8]. Additionally, tourism provides direct employment but also indirect opportunities that benefit companies dealing with the visitor experience in sectors such as creative and cultural arts, entertainment and recreation, agriculture, manufacturing, banking, and finance [10]. This complexity points to an urgent need for equable climate adaptation knowledge as a prerequisite for achieving a satisfactory level of resilience in the tourism industry.

Although there are numerous guidelines for assessing sectoral resilience to climate change, it can be said that their more concrete implementation in tourism is lacking [11,12,13]. Adaptation-related guidelines mainly rely on the IPCC recommendations from the Third Assessment Report—TAR [14] and the Fourth Assessment Report—AR4 [15], which communicate vulnerability as the central point of assessing the sectorial resilience. More recent recommendations are contained in the IPCC Fifth and Sixth Assessment Reports—AR5/AR6 [2,16], the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation—SREX [17], as well as in other methodological documents that are directed towards the concept of climate risk and CRA. All those guidelines represent a knowledge base, and its understanding could be critical for the tourism industry to cope with an uncertain future.

The implementation of the CRA framework across diverse tourism contexts entails both significant challenges and potential opportunities. Challenges stem primarily from the sector’s heterogeneity, as each destination’s distinct geographical, ecological, and socio-economic characteristics shape its specific vulnerabilities and adaptation requirements. The absence of standardized metrics across regions further complicates CRA application, while many tourism stakeholders lack access to high-quality, localized climate data—an essential prerequisite for effective risk assessment, as Becken et al. [11] stated. In addition, there is a lack of understanding and cooperation between tourism stakeholders and climate and environmental experts, who are nevertheless more deeply involved in, for example, planning and construction of tourism infrastructure through environmental impact assessment studies. These limitations underscore the need to embed CRA within policy frameworks and technical guidelines, following precedents established by the IPCC and the EU (EU Mission: Adaptation to Climate Change). By systematically comparing earlier scientific approaches with the evolving methodological demands of the IPCC and SREX, this study advances the mainstreaming of vulnerability assessment (VA) and CRA practices within the tourism sector. However, tourism experts still face limitations, such as an insufficient knowledge base and closer collaboration with climate and environmental experts in the initial planning phase of tourism elements (infrastructure, resources, and supply). In addition, they face challenges in the availability of resources needed to analyze and implement climate adaptation options (financial, human) and limitations related to collaboration with destination stakeholders—all of which can hinder the consistent and effective implementation of CRA.

It could be said that the tourism industry has traditionally mainly relied on conceptually differently positioned VA as the core method to assess climate resilience. Most of the case studies highlighted the successful application of VA in tourism in destinations with diverse geographic, climate, and tourism features. For instance, McNamara and Keeler [18] explored the vulnerability of coastal areas to sea-level rise and increased storm intensity. Pons et al. [19] provided a VA of a ski resort, and Lazzari et al. published the VA for social-ecological vulnerability of coastal systems [20]. They concluded that tourism infrastructure and the local population are at significant climate risk, which requires urgent adaptation measures. Furthermore, Soontiens-Olsen et al. [21] explored coastal adaptation according to VA, and Jamaliah and Powell [22] provided a qualitative semi-structured study to assess the vulnerability of ecotourism to climate change. However, none of these studies included climate models for predicting climate risks. even though the creation of new generation adaptive strategies based on CRA and with integrative CAA options is expected (e.g., infrastructural measures and diversification of tourism activities). The main reason seems to be the lack of awareness among tourism practitioners regarding the evolution of VA towards CRA, as well as the skills to find and search relevant databases, which have increased significantly in recent years. This situation highlights a sectoral rather than cross-sectoral approach to addressing climate issues on tourism elements (infrastructure, supply, people, etc.). By following the latest findings of the IPCC community and working closely with environmental experts, tourism professionals can overcome this gap.

Recent empirical studies have advanced the scope of climate risk research in tourism. Zhou et al. [23] conducted a meta-analysis that revealed asymmetric demand impacts across economies, with small islands and lower-income countries suffering notable losses, while high-income destinations potentially experience growth—amplifying climate inequities. In the Bahamas, a CRA for tourism infrastructure under sea-level rise scenarios showed elevated flood and erosion risk, underscoring the necessity for integrated coastal management [24]. Similarly, Mitrică et al. [25] provide an empirical assessment of tourism’s climate vulnerability in Romania, identifying region-specific adaptation needs. A dynamic panel study of Baltic Sea destinations further confirms significant negative associations between climatic variables and international tourism metrics [26]. Together, these studies illustrate the growing empirical evidence base supporting CRA and CRM applications in tourism.

As Wang et al. [27] stated, the newest adaptation strategies that rely on climate models have been implemented to reduce climate risks. Moreover, Jurgilevich et al. [28] highlighted that it is advisable to include climate models and related risk-impact assessment in adaptation strategies to track evolving climate risks. Additionally, Lucatello and Sánchez [6] recognized CRA as a tool that has guided the development of climate-resilient infrastructure and ecosystem restoration projects to enhance the adaptive capacity of tourism. Such strategies could address complex interactions between climatic and non-climatic drivers but have not yet been integrated with multiple interactions among ecological, social, and economic drivers [29]. To be successful in their implementation, such strategies require input from various disciplines like environmental science, public health, urban planning, and management of climate and non-climate risks [30,31,32], but there is limited empirical research on how cross-sectoral collaboration could be operationalized [33,34].

Despite significant advancements in the science-based IPCC climate change adaptation framework, much of the tourism literature still focuses on VA, which, while valuable, may be limited in addressing the complex, interconnected climate risks faced by tourism-dependent regions [11]. It could be said that tourism destinations are struggling to adopt an integrated approach that blends VA, CRA, and CRM to address climate risks. While IPCC’s AR5/AR6 and the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation—SREX [17] provide a holistic framework for CRA and CRM, they lack specific guidance on adapting these frameworks to tourism, which is a sector with unique exposure and sensitivity to climate risks. As some authors discuss [12,35], there is a lack in the application of more recent and consistent knowledge on addressing climate issues in tourism. The main research gaps identified are outdated methodological approaches in tourism, lack of sector-specific CRA and CRM frameworks for tourism, limited cross-sectoral collaboration in climate resilience planning, and underexplored potential of CRM in tourism adaptation.

To take a step forward and tackle increasingly rapid impacts of climate change on tourism, this work facilitates the understanding of the climate risk concept and related terminology. Additionally, this research clarifies the reasons for the transformation of VA towards a more comprehensive CRA, since tourism literature mainly relies on VA implementation. Through this work we discuss the implementation of a generally applicable IPCC AR5/AR6 climate risk-centered framework and propose a stepwise approach for the condition of CRA in the tourism industry. For taking climate action on CRA results, this overview provides descriptive insight into the structured elements of CRM and explains the significance and differences of CCA options. Therefore, key research questions include:

RQ1

What are the limitations of traditional VA for the tourism industry in the face of increasing climate risks, and how does the CRA framework address these limitations?

RQ2

How can CRM practices be effectively integrated into the tourism industry to enhance resilience to both climate and non-climate drivers?

RQ3

What challenges and opportunities arise from implementing the IPCC’s CRA framework in diverse tourism settings, and how can tourism stakeholders best collaborate with environmental and social experts to address these?

To answer these research questions, relevant literature was reviewed to gain a more comprehensive picture of tourism resilience in the context of climate change. Specifically, this research aims to provide actionable insights for integrating frameworks dedicated to climate adaptation into tourism planning and resilience strategies, ensuring that the industry is prepared to face both extreme weather events and long-term climate shifts. The basic aim is to assess significant gaps in knowledge and offer directions for future research goals. Ultimately, this research contributes to the broader goal of sustainable tourism development in an era of climate uncertainty.

2. Materials and Methods

Relevant climate, environmental, and tourism scientific and expert literature has been explored to achieve research objectives. The stepwise CRA framework was synthesized primarily from IPCC AR5 and AR6 documentation, complemented by technical guidelines [1,2,16,17]. Selected peer-reviewed studies and applied case studies were also examined to illustrate and validate the framework’s implementation in diverse contexts.

The literature search (February–June 2025) covered Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and institutional repositories (e.g., IPCC, UNWTO, OECD). Search terms combined “climate risk assessment,” “climate risk management,” “tourism adaptation,” “destination resilience,” and “sustainable tourism” with Boolean operators. Inclusion criteria were (a) peer-reviewed publications and authoritative reports in English from 2007 onward (covering IPCC AR4–AR6), (b) explicit focus on tourism-related CRA/CRM, and (c) empirical or conceptual relevance to tourism destinations. Exclusion criteria were lack of methodological transparency, no direct link to tourism, or outdated climate science. Additional sources were identified via citation tracking of key works.

The focus was on common understanding of the context, concepts, terminology, and methodological approaches related to climate drivers, vulnerability, impacts, risk assessment, and its management. The research has been designed according to the overall methodology presented in Figure 1.

3. Results

3.1. Theoretical Concept of Climate Risk

As it is stated in AR6, climate risk is “probability for adverse consequences for human and ecological systems, recognizing the diversity of values and objectives associated with such systems” [36] (p. 14). Slow-onset changes (e.g., in mean temperature, mean precipitation, and sea-level rise) and extreme weather-related events (e.g., drought, flood, and heatwave) can induce physical climate risks, which could have negative (and positive) impacts on people, ecosystems, economic, social, and cultural assets and services.

Climate-related literature broadly distinguishes climate physical risk from climate transitional risk [37,38]. The term physical risk is closely related to risks arising from climate impacts and climate-related hazards, while the term transition risk refers to risks associated with society’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Physical risks rank the direct impact of climate change on property, the environment, and human health and well-being. The nature and magnitude of such risks depends on how quickly the system develops resilience attributes—awareness, objectivity, diversity, and flexibility [36]. Transition risks are related to extensive or inconsistent policies and laws, technological changes and their cost, and changes in the market, as well as liability risk and reputational risk. If realized, they can be caused by loss of property value, loss of market, reduced investment returns, and financial penalty [39].

So-called non-climatic drivers like environmental pollution and unsustainable resource usage could accelerate the adverse impact of physical climate risks. Climate-induced physical risks in combination with non-climatic drivers require urgent global action to increase the resilience of social and natural systems, especially those that are highly impacted [31,40]. It is one of the major concerns for tourism destinations oriented to sustainability practices, especially ones that are faced with scarcity of resources, such as limited water sources on islands [41,42].

Climate change is a multiplier of climate risks. The IPCC conceptual climate risk framework recognizes a total of 35 Climatic Impact-Drivers (CID) as a physical climate system condition (e.g., means, events, extremes) that directly affect a human and ecological system or its elements [2]. This concept is designed as a tool for scientists to deliver climate information necessary for the decision process [43]. The CIDs are grouped in seven types of climate conditions—Heath and Cold, Wet and Dry, Wind, Snow and Ice, Coastal, Open Ocean, and Other (air pollution, atmospheric carbon dioxide, and radiation at surface). Their changes could be detrimental, beneficial, neutral, or a mixture and could interact between systems and regions. The IPCC globally projected CIDs for every world region [44]. Additionally, in the first European Climate Risk Assessment, the EEA [7] recognized 36 climate-related risks, and more than half of them need urgent action. Those risks are grouped into five broad clusters: ecosystems, food, health, infrastructure, and economy and finance. Each of them alone has the potential to cause significant environmental degradation, economic damage, and social and political turbulence. They could cascade between systems and regions, producing combined effects that are even more impactful. For instance, mega-droughts lead to water scarcity and disruption of critical infrastructure, including threats to food supply, market, and social stability [45,46].

3.2. Climate Risk-Centered Framework and Its Terminological Foundation

To rate climate-related risks and their impact on the system (sector), subsystem, its element and function, or region, different biophysical and socioeconomic variables should be evaluated. Its empirical evaluation depends on the concept and methodological approach employed. The concepts presented by IPCC provided a scientifically approved framework with related terminology and methodological approaches, but it has been changed over time. In TAR/AR4, vulnerability was the central point of the climate impact evaluation. It was used to examine the interlinkages between humans and their social and physical surroundings [47,48]. It was a function of three factors: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, in contrast to the new paradigm of AR5/AR6, which placed risk at the center of evaluation. These latest IPCC achievements recognized the dynamic relationship of the core components of risk: hazard, vulnerability, and exposure, and emphasized that societal response should be enhanced by disaster risk management.

The first component of the AR5/AR6 risk-centered framework is hazard. This term presented by AR5 is defined as “the potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend or physical impact that may cause adverse effects on humans, assets, and the environment” [36] (p. 23). In short, it is a consequence of realized natural or human-induced climate physical risks. Another and equally important element is vulnerability. It implies a predisposition of the human and natural system or its element to be adversely affected [2]. It includes the concepts of sensitivity (susceptibility to harm) and adaptive capacity as the ability of a system or region to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences [36]. Therefore, VA should provide information on its sensitivity to harm and capacity to cope with climate hazards and to adapt to them. The third component of the core risk concept is exposure, defined as “the presence of people, livelihoods, ecosystem services, infrastructure, economic, social, and cultural assets in an area where a hazardous event may occur” [36] (p. 18). It is important to observe and evaluate the level of exposure in relation to the current climate and future climate projections. Climate impacts arise as a consequence of realizing climate risk on natural or human systems. They are a result of dynamic interaction between climate variables and hazards with the exposed and vulnerable systems and could be adverse or beneficial [36]. The climate impacts are closely related to the vulnerability of a system while considering their capacities to respond.

According to AR5, projections (exposure) of future climate conditions could be obtained by considering the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) that describe different levels of greenhouse gas emissions and other radiative forcings that might occur in the future. They cover four pathways, spanning a broad range of the year 2100 (RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5 in watts per square meter), but purposefully did not include any socioeconomic “narratives”. Recently, the latest AR6 explores five standard trajectories that represent possible future socioeconomic scenarios—Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) in accordance with a wider range of socioeconomic factors, like population and economic growth, education, urbanization, and rate of technological development [2,36]. They are defined in the following “modern” periods (after the pre-industrial period): the near-term (2021–2040), mid-term (2041–2060), and long-term (2081–2100) periods. Basically, these are about five possible narrative scenarios: a world of sustainability-focused growth and equality with low challenges to mitigation and adaptation (SSP1); a “middle of the road” world with medium challenges to mitigation and adaptation where trends broadly follow their historical patterns (SSP2); a fragmented world of regional rivalry with high challenges to mitigation and adaptation (SSP3); a world of increasing inequality with low challenges for mitigation and high challenges for adaptation (SSP4); and a world of unconstrained growth in economic output and energy use with high challenges in mitigation and low challenges in adaptation (SSP5).

Likelihood is “the probability of a certain outcome or event occurring, and whose potential impacts on society and nature could be low or high, which can be estimated probabilistically” [36] (p. 11). The likelihood scale usually ranges from “virtually certain” (99–100% probability) to “exceptional unlikely” (0–12% probability). According to Mastrandrea et al. [49], likelihood of outcome is used to describe probability associated with climate variables, and confidence levels are used to describe the quality of evidence and scientific agreement. According to the same source, confidence is the robustness of a finding based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, expert judgement) and on the degree of agreement across multiple lines of evidence. Therefore, experts should assign confidence levels to the presented evidence, using the terms “very low,” “low,” “medium,” “high,” and “very high.” The likelihood of climate hazard occurrence could be increased if uncertainties are not included in the assessment. According to AR5, uncertainty is “a state of incomplete knowledge that can result from a lack of information or from disagreement about what is known or even knowable” [36] (p. 21). It is critical to communicate uncertainty to increase transparency in decision-making processes [50].

The CCA options (adaptation measures) pose challenges to decision-makers who should decide whether and how to adapt activities and sectors (system), subsystems, elements, or their functions at all geographic levels. To prepare it for inescapable circumstances, the design and selection of appropriate CCA options should be based on available data, information, and applied methods, such as impact chain, indicators/scenario analysis, indices, or evaluation matrices [13,48,51,52]. The impact chain framework has been increasingly applied to the CRA in many fields: finance, civil protection, agriculture, or tourism recently [16]. It is a conceptual model used to capture hazard, vulnerability, and exposure dimensions that lead to a specific risk.

Regarding AR5 [16], adaptation measures are a part of more comprehensive CRM that incorporates Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) principles. The three main principles are prevention or mitigation of hazards, reduction in vulnerabilities to hazards, and strengthening capacities to withstand or cope with hazards [53]. It implies the design of climate strategies or plans and adaptation measures or policies directed to reduce the likelihood and/or severity of impacts or to respond to it [16].

According to AR6 [36], climate resilience is the “capacity of interconnected human and natural systems to cope with climate hazard, trend, or disturbance to respond and reorganize their essential function, identity, and structure” (p. 27). Therefore, it is critical to consider elements of the system or region and design effective responses to climate stimuli and risks [2]. Many authors discuss the necessity of comprehensive analysis that integrates knowledge about climate and non-climate drivers [26,54,55]. It could be said that climate resilience is founded in cross-sectoral learning and transformation of jointly established practices to maintain the capacities of the system for adaptation to the new reality.

3.3. Methodological Framework for VA and CRA Implementation

3.3.1. Evolution of VA into CRA Framework

Based on a comprehensive literature review, it is evident there are two main approaches for carrying out VA [47,55,56,57]. The vulnerability framework proposed in TAR/AR4 (Figure 2, left) considers vulnerability as a function of exposure (external element) and sensitivity and adaptive capacity (internal elements) of the system to ultimately overcome the potential impacts of hazards. However, in the IPCC SREX and AR5, exposure was separated from the concept of vulnerability (Figure 2, right), and vulnerability became a function of sensitivity and adaptive capacity. This recent shift introduced vulnerability as a characteristic internal state of the system and had implications on further evolution of VA.

Consequently, the risk-centered framework presented by AR5/AR6 points out the necessity of VA integration into CRA, where climate risk is expressed as a function of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability (Figure 3). As stated in recent IPCC reports AR5/AR6 [2,16], hazard, exposure, and vulnerability may each be subject to uncertainty in terms of magnitude and likelihood of occurrence, and each may change over time and space due to socio-economic changes and human decision-making.

3.3.2. Stepwise Approach for CRA Implementation

The recent IPCC conceptual and terminological changes resulted in a methodological shift for addressing climate change issues of a system or region. Relying on the latest IPCC AR5/AR6 achievements, its methodological explanation, and technical guidance developed by international agencies, such as the Deutsche Gesellschaft für International Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) [48,51], the stepwise approach should be carefully employed for CRA implementation (Figure 4).

In the initial stage it is necessary to define the context and purpose of CRA. In this step answers should be given to questions related to the policy context (regulations and laws), scientific and expert studies, strategic plans, values, and objectives. Definition of the time horizon (e.g., ongoing, near-term, mid-term, long-term) and detection of system boundaries (system, region) should also be provided. It is critical to take a more detailed system approach to assess the relevance of people, ecosystems, and economic, social, and cultural assets. In general, the scoping of the selected sector implies a more detailed consideration of representing the system (e.g., tourism), subsystem (e.g., tourism offer), exposed element (e.g., tourism infrastructure), and its functions (e.g., tourism experience). In the case of more comprehensive scoping of the tourism industry, the initial phase could be built upon information on several selected sub-systems at the site, such as resource inputs (energy and water), material assets (e.g., tourism infrastructure), transportation connectivity (e.g., transportation infrastructure, connectivity with public services), and human well-being (e.g., incidence of vector-borne diseases). This initial phase is also focused on the determination of climate risk screening scope and the general setups of the methodological approach. This stage also demands exploring the availability of quantitative data and a qualitative approach regarding expert knowledge and their roles in the process. Considering the affected system, relevant climate variables (temperature, precipitation, wind, humidity, and UV radiation) and potential hazards (e.g., heavy rain events, drought, and heat waves) should be recognized. Additionally, this mapping also includes non-climate drivers and trends (e.g., pressures on ecosystems, land use and land cover change, environmental pollution, urbanization, and population growth) that contribute to the occurrence of the physical climate risks. Finally, the list of actual adaptation measures and solutions should be explored to give insight into the potential of bridging the gaps in current and future responses to climate impact on affected human and/or natural resources.

The second stage is dedicated to VA implementation with the focus on the sensitivity of the system to climate-related hazards and the adaptive capacity of people, ecosystems, assets, and services. This phase includes exploration of documented data and information, development of climate impact chains, identification of the indicators, and/or implementation of matrices for expert evaluation that are consistent with the latest achievements of the IPCC community [48,51,52]. In this stage, scientific and expert literature should be consulted.

In the third stage, the effort should be invested in considering the temporal scope of CRA, which is defined in the initial stage. That implies the selection of a minimum of two scenarios to understand the extent to which climate-related hazards may occur. Overall, that covers the current state and the near-term (e.g., until 2024), mid-term (e.g., 2041–2060), or long-term (e.g., 2081–2100) future. This stage also includes evaluation of current and future potential climate-related impacts. That implies collecting the exposure data of climate variables and their secondary effects (hazards) regarding current and future climate for each scenario (e.g., RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5) and their final rating. Combining the exposure data with the ratings of VA (from the second stage), it is possible to identify the magnitude and frequency of possible climate-related impacts.

The fourth stage involves the evaluation of climate risks and opportunities. Risk assessment stems from vulnerability and exposure analysis and further focuses on identifying the extent of climate impact on the system and assessing the likelihood of risk occurrence. It should be noted that the CRA considers only those aspects of the system’s vulnerability that are moderately or highly vulnerable to specific climatic phenomena or hazards, defined in VA. The results are a starting point for identification of climate CCA options in line with DRR as a basis for design of CRM.

Regarding data and knowledge used to implement CRA, the fifth stage is focused on explaining the uncertainties of the assessment. According to AR5, five qualifiers are used to express levels of confidence in key findings, ranging from very low, through low, medium, and high, to very high. This rating could be based on statistical analysis, model results, or expert judgment. As defined by the IPCC, the term “potential” makes it clear that uncertainty, or more broadly, incomplete knowledge about findings, is a key element of the concept of climate risk. Nevertheless, this uncertainty does not necessarily have to be quantified, and a storytelling approach could be explored through expert consultation and a participatory approach [16,17,51]. Neglect or insufficient involvement in the CRA can result in maladaptation, which refers to an action that could lead to increased risk of adverse climate-related outcomes [16].

Regarding the application of the stepwise CRA framework with RCP–SSP integration, each step is equally important and dependent on the characteristics of the system under investigation. For instance, in the initial stage, scoping may involve defining the CRA’s focus on a coastal resort, mountain ski destination, or urban heritage site. A Mediterranean island resort, for example, might examine policy drivers (e.g., EU climate adaptation directives), ecosystem sensitivities (e.g., beach erosion, marine biodiversity loss), and socio-economic dependencies (e.g., seasonal employment, GDP contribution from tourism). Relevant climate variables, such as sea-level rise, storm surge frequency, and extreme heat, would be linked to RCP 8.5 (high emissions) with SSP5 (fossil-fueled development) to assess worst-case stressors and to RCP 4.5–SSP2 to evaluate a more moderate development path. Non-climate drivers, such as urban expansion or overfishing, would also be mapped to anticipate compounding risks. In Step 2 (Vulnerability Assessment), for a ski tourism region in the Alps, the VA could assess sensitivity to declining snow reliability and adaptive capacity through measures such as artificial snowmaking, diversification of tourism offerings, and reduced dependence on seasonal tourism revenues. These could be evaluated under RCP 2.6–SSP1 (sustainable pathway), which indicates minimal long-term snow loss, versus RCP 8.5–SSP5, which suggests significant viability threats by mid-century. In Step 3 (Scenario-Based Hazard and Exposure Analysis), an exposure assessment could employ RCP 4.5 (mid-century stabilization) and RCP 8.5 (late-century severe warming) to project hurricane intensity, heat stress days, and infrastructure damage probabilities. Historical hazard data would be combined with model outputs for the 2041–2060 and 2081–2100 periods, allowing quantification of potential economic losses and disruption frequency, for example, for cruise tourism hubs. According to the results from previous steps, Step 4 (CRA and Opportunity Evaluation) should synthesize findings to identify major climate risks and potential adaptation options. For instance, in a UNESCO-listed city dependent on heritage tourism, risk assessment might reveal high vulnerability to flash floods due to RCP 8.5–SSP3 projections of intensified rainfall extremes. This situation certainly highlights opportunities for CCA options aligned with tourism activities, such as guided climate heritage tours or investments in resilient infrastructure. The evaluation should link the frequency and magnitude analysis from Step 3 to the VA findings to prioritize adaptation measures. Finally, in Step 5 (Uncertainty Communication), the process should ensure transparency in adaptation planning and reduce the risk of maladaptation, such as over-investment in infrastructure poorly suited to future climate realities. In a small-island ecotourism destination, for instance, uncertainties may arise from limited local climate monitoring, coarse-resolution models, and socio-economic volatility (e.g., fluctuations in tourist demand under pandemic scenarios). Following IPCC guidance, confidence levels in each risk estimate should be stated explicitly. Where quantitative modelling is insufficient, narrative scenario building, such as participatory discussion with stakeholders, could integrate local knowledge and improve decision confidence.

3.4. Societal Responses for Climate Change Adaptation

3.4.1. The CRM Framework for Climate Action

The performed CRA ensures an understanding of climate risks, their impacts, and their root causes. Based on the obtained data and information, it is possible to plan and implement measures to avoid, reduce, and manage climate risks. The CRA is a starting point for evaluating, preparing, and predicting decisions, which depend on information about the whole range of possible impacts and associated probabilities [49]. Decisions that include a risk management perspective are transformational chances for climate adaptation in the long-term [58].

So, the main purpose of CRA is to inform and support the CRM framework, which should determine possible DRR pathways and identify demands and entry points for CCA options. It should be done by mobilizing all mechanisms, such as plans, projects, actions, strategies, or policies, for managing current and future climate risks, which may turn into disasters. The DRR implies prevention, reduction, and management of new and existing risk. As a component of CRM, the CCA options pose as practices adopted to limit the actual and anticipated climate impacts or take advantage of positive opportunities to enhance adaptive capacities of the system or region [52]. Such an approach requires a revision of conventional policies, strategies, and operative plans regarding adaptation as a result of the dynamic forces of climate change [58,59]. Understanding climate risk involves considering the systems, subsystems, elements, and functions that are threatened during and after the occurrence of a climate hazard and/or natural disaster. To effectively prevent negative climate consequences and achieve climate resilience, it is very important to emphasize that it is critical to include CRM at multiple levels of planning [27,60].

3.4.2. The CCA Options with the Focus on Nature-Based Solutions (NbSs)

There are rough divisions on structural, non-structural, and ecosystem-related adaptation options [16,61,62,63]. Structural (physical) measures stand out as adaptation options that are concrete, with clear outputs and outcomes that are well defined in scope, space, and time [16,63]. They can be divided into four types of measures that imply structural and engineering changes (e.g., sea walls), application of technologies (e.g., water-saving technology), using ecosystems and their services to serve adaptation needs (e.g., NbSs), and measures for provision of specific services (e.g., food banks, vaccination) at national, regional, and local levels. These measures are aimed at protecting material goods and services against climate-related hazards. They are all intended to increase community resilience to climate impacts.

On the other hand, social measures imply soft adaptation [63,64]. They are focused on social aspects, such as education (e.g., awareness raising and integrating into education, participatory action research and social learning, and community surveys), information (e.g., hazard and vulnerability mapping, climate services, and community-based adaptation plans), and behavioral shifts (soil and water conservation, household preparation and evacuation planning, and livelihood diversification).

The third category of CCA options are institutional measures ranging from economic instruments (e.g., taxes, subsidies, and insurance arrangements) to social policies and regulations [16]. It implies enactment and implementation of laws, regulations, and planning measures. For instance, the declaration of protected areas, building codes, and rezoning could improve the safety of hazard-prone communities by determining land use to support resilience. A good example of synergy between nature and climate change measures is declared marine protected areas [64], due to their potential to increase ecosystem resilience and enhance recovery after climate hazards. This type of measure also includes implementation of emergency management with a risk assessment system, the so-called early warning system [65]. Such a system also includes schemes for raising awareness and informing about hazards, impacts, and recovery. Finally, there is a strong necessity to establish a flow of financial resources dedicated to the implementation of CCA options. A number of institutions and initiatives provide funding for societal response to climate change (e.g., post-disaster loss reduction funds).

Protective structural CCA options that leverage the adaptive opportunities associated with ecosystem services have increasingly been used over the last two decades. The Ecosystem Approach emerged in 2004 as a central principle in the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It was the strategy for the integrated management of land, water, and living resources dedicated to reaching the balance between sustainable use and sharing of natural resource benefits [66]. Nevertheless, the CBD’s Ecosystem Approach was a foundation for the development of the NbS framework recently established by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” [67] (p. 15). The NbSs are directly relevant to food security, human health and well-being, sustainability of cities and communities, protection and conservation of land, water and ocean resources, climate mitigation and adaptation, and natural disaster risk reduction [68,69]. This concept covers five categories of possible approaches: restorative (e.g., forest landscape restoration), issue-specific (e.g., climate adaptation services), infrastructure (e.g., green infrastructure), management (e.g., integrated water management), and protection (e.g., protected area management).

There are a number of NbSs that are effective in reducing climate risks for specific sectors and regions (

Table 1. Tourism-related Nature-based Solutions (NbSs): Climate hazards addressed and co-benefits.

NbS Type/Intervention	Climate Hazard Addressed	Tourism Co-Benefits	Reference
Mangrove restoration with boardwalk ecotourism (Caribbean)	Coastal erosion, storm surge	Ecotourism diversification, habitat for wildlife tours	Ghana et al., 2024 [70]
Dune and wetland restoration (Mediterranean resorts)	Storm surge, flooding	Scenic value, birdwatching, improved beach quality	Ayassamy, 2025 [71]; Zanin et al., 2024 [72]
Forest cover restoration and avalanche protection forests (Alpine regions)	Landslides, avalanches, erosion	Hiking, ski safety, biodiversity-based tourism	Rey et al., 2024 [73]
Coral reef restoration (tropical destinations)	Wave energy, coastal flooding	Dive tourism, snorkelling, beach protection	Brathwaite et al., 2022 [74]
Mountain meadow rehabilitation (European Alps)	Soil erosion, biodiversity loss	Summer hiking, landscape aesthetics	Zhou et al., 2023 [75]
Urban greenways and shaded corridors (tourism cities)	Urban heat stress	Visitor comfort, cultural tourism enhancement	Galagoda et al., 2018 [76]

). Generally, they consider positive contributions to sustainable development and other social goals. Tourism-related applications of NbSs have gained momentum in recent years, especially in coastal, alpine, urban, and protected area destinations. These approaches not only address climate hazards such as coastal flooding, heat stress, or landslides, but also generate co-benefits for tourism experiences, destination branding, and community well-being. Examples include mangrove restoration projects in the Caribbean that provide both storm surge protection and ecotourism opportunities; dune and wetland restoration in Mediterranean resorts enhancing beach quality and birdwatching; coral reef rehabilitation in tropical destinations supporting dive tourism; and urban greenways improving visitor comfort in heat-stressed cities (Table 1).

Still, some authors argue that, at this moment, NbSs are not large enough in scale since this approach was insufficiently integrated into policy [77,78].

4. Discussion

4.1. The Relevance of the Risk-Centered Framework for Climate Resilience of Tourism

Policy makers and scientists agree that the tourism industry is a highly vulnerable sector [2,14,15,16,46,79]. The adverse consequences of climate risks could affect lives, livelihoods, economic and social stability, infrastructural and cultural assets, and services (including ecosystem services). The EUCRA report [7] revealed that Southern Europe is a hot spot region for multiple climate risks, and tourism in the Mediterranean is particularly threatened by the increasing impacts of heat and drought. Sea level rise, flooding, and erosion are climate-related hazards with adverse impacts on low-lying coastal areas and densely populated cities. Ecosystems and urban environments are under a variety of pressures due to unsustainable tourism activities and the climate crisis. Projections reveal that forest and marine ecosystems in the south and east of the Mediterranean are threatened because of wildfires and consequences of seawater pollution (eutrophication), overfishing, and non-indigenous species. It is projected that water scarcity multiplies risk among interconnected sectors and water demand will double or even triple by 2050 [2]. Additionally, climate impacts could be manifested in socioeconomic turbulence that threatens highly tourism-dependent regional and local economies, which are particularly vulnerable to climate change [7].

Many authors agreed that there is a lack of literature that explains determinants and practical implementation of CRA on sectorial analysis for climate adaptation [11,46,80]. Additionally, it could be said that scientists are usually focused on an area of their own expertise, so there is a variety of concepts and methodological frameworks that are not comparable. Because of such a state, benchmarking of climate action is narrowed, as well as communication of comparable results. Regarding the multi-layered nature of tourism, the CRA implementation seems complicated. For now, VA is more represented in scientific literature than the climate-risk-centered framework. The recent evolution of the IPCC vulnerability concept to CRA is important not only because climate risks themselves pose a huge threat to the economy and environment, but also because they could migrate (cascade) between systems or regions, exacerbating existing risks and crises in tourism activities or destinations. This situation emphasizes the importance of acquiring knowledge and skills adequate for planning, measuring, assessing, and managing tourism climate adaptation. Hence, there are some successful case studies and projects that are in line with the novelized IPCC framework (AR5/AR6). Rizzi et al. [81] support end-users to establish adaptive management strategies according to CRA for human settlements, infrastructure, and economic activities. Salvati et al. [82] investigate the intensity of urban heat islands and their impact on residential buildings. Furthermore, Rizzo et al. [83] provide VA along the North-Eastern Sector of Gozo Island (Malta) according to AR5, and the results obtained are the ground for comprehensive CRA. The main goal was to translate adaptation choices into coastal protection strategies. With CRA implementation, Umgiesser [84] and Faranda et al. [85] contributed to understanding of risks related to sea level rise and Mediterranean cyclones with the aim to contribute to the project MoSE (Modulo Sperimentale Elettromeccanico, eng. Experimental Electromechanical Module) dedicated to protecting the city of Venice (Italy) and the Venetian Lagoon from flooding. Boras et al. [86] explored urban heat load in a small Mediterranean city in recent, extreme, and future climate conditions and applied land use/land cover changes in the model area.

Considering the rapid nature of the current climate and discussions about understandable and applicable conceptual frameworks, terminology, and methodological approaches, we explored tourism literature related to the evaluation of climate resilience. The focus was on literature funded in an old (TAR/AR4) and the newest IPCC paradigm (AR5/AR6), and the explanation of VA evolution towards CRA [2,14,15,16,48,49]. Vulnerability has become a function of sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and a capacity to cope and adapt. Exposure now refers to the exposed system, subsystem, exposed element, or function (what is at risk) and where that risk is located [48,56]. Climate events can assume the character of hazards if conditions of exposure and vulnerability turn them into threats.

The goal is to prioritize climate risks and to more specifically address their impact on the systems, subsystems, their elements, or their function. Climate risk arises from a combination of local climate conditions and characteristics of non-climate drivers. Consequently, climate impacts are dependent on the magnitude and frequency of risk but also on external elements of the system (exposure and hazard) and internal elements of the system (sensibility and adaptive capacity).

It seems that IPCC’s transition from the VA to a risk-centered framework offers new perspectives on climate impacts assessment and enhanced adaptation pathways. For instance, by selecting hazard-specific sensitivity and adaptive capacity, it is possible to simplify indicator selection for VA. Consequently, indicators for exposure to hazards are not used for vulnerability assessment, and uncertainty is minimized. Ultimately, this “new paradigm” focuses on the system (and its parts and functions), instead of the effects of hazards on the system as it was defined by TAR/AR4. It enables a clearer recognition of the system’s weaknesses, thereby restoring its potential to establish a resilient state [55,87]. Nevertheless, this newest IPCC approach from AR5/AR6 could be particularly advantageous due to data collection [88,89,90] and finding adaptation measures for a big geographical scope, such as protected terrestrial natural areas, oceans, and seas [64], which are attractive for tourism activities.

The latest IPCC report considers not only direct climate-related hazards (e.g., heat waves and floods) but also the impacts of non-climatic risk drivers, such as pollution, adverse effects on ecosystems, land use, and settlement. This comprehensive approach ensures awareness and reflection on the interlinkage between natural capital and climate hazards. It is essential for tourism resilience regarding the fact that nature is its main resource. Additionally, the newest IPCC achievements consider climate, socioeconomic, and policy dimensions of change through the new global RCP-SSP scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways—Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) [91,92,93]. The combination of SSP-based scenarios and RCP climate projections within CRA serves as an integrative frame for climate impact and policy analysis. It could be said that these scenarios are valuable tools since they define different baseline worlds that could emerge in socioeconomic, cultural, and political spheres relevant for tourism. While RCPs set trajectories for greenhouse gas concentrations and, indeed, the amount of warming that could occur by the end of the century, SSPs set the stage for socio-economic narratives that are also applicable in the tourism industry. They provide information about where emission reductions will—or will not—be achieved and climate risks will be tackled. Additionally, IPCC provides in-depth assessment of the CIDs to deliver climate information necessary for the decision makers [2]. They are of greatest relevance for sectoral climate risk analysis.

To facilitate understanding and implementation of the climate risk-centered framework, we present a stepwise approach for its implementation. The CRA could be provided according to physical measurements and indicators, census and survey, modelling data, or through expert consultation and a participatory approach. In a case where data are not available in the required quantity and quality or there are not sufficient time or financial resources to provide in-depth research, expert consultation could be employed, as is suggested by IPCC [51]. The expert consultation is well founded on scenario matrixes [52]. In doing so, it is critical to understand the complexity of the tourism sector and its many activities and foundations (natural capital and ecosystems, urban environment). It is equally important to consider the interaction between risk determinants (i.e., hazards, exposures, and vulnerabilities), its climate and non-climate drivers (e.g., environmental pollution or socio-economic turbulences), and societal responses. Furthermore, CRA could establish more precise contextualization of climate (and non-climate) risks relevant for tourism because it explores and evaluates sectorial systems, such as tourism infrastructure, tourism offers, food, energy, water supply, supply chains, and nature protection. Further analysis could include evaluation of subsystems, their elements, and functions in accordance with risk drivers. Such a comprehensive approach could be very advantageous due to the complexity of the tourism industry and the variety of its geographical scope.

Regarding terminology issues, part of the literature is sometimes mistakenly confusing some terms. Among others, concepts of exposure and vulnerability are strongly connected, but they shouldn’t be synonyms. Namely, it is possible to be exposed (e.g., south coastal Mediterranean area) but not vulnerable (e.g., living in a drought area but with adequate measures to mitigate potential water loss). However, to be vulnerable to extreme events, it is necessary to be exposed. In addition, climate risks are sometimes equated with hazards, which is incorrect. While climate risk is the potential for adverse consequences for human and ecological systems, hazard is realized climate risk in the form of a natural or human-induced event or trend. Furthermore, the concept of risk used in the finance and investment literature is often, but not always, consistent with the IPCC definition. It explains that the term “risk” is limited only to negative outcomes, but the IPCC literature describes it as the potential for consequences to be different (better or worse) from their expected value. Such an approach is important for tourism because this industry could see some benefits from climate change, such as extension of the tourism season or diversification of tourism offers. Additionally, some parts of the financial and investment literature use risk only where the potential consequences can be quantified in advance [94]. In doing so, they do not consider that the consequences depend on the qualitative judgments or deep climate uncertainties as the IPCC approach recommends. Incorporating and communicating uncertainty is crucial to taking appropriate actions to reduce the vulnerability of a system or region. For instance, when neglecting uncertainties, there is an increased likelihood of maladaptation.

4.2. The CRM and Typology of CAA Options

The climate policy is the so-called “umbrella policy” because it considers the multidimensional complexity of energy, economic, social, and environmental policies and their interactions. Recently, the AR5/AR6 introduced DRR principles in the climate adaptation framework. The aim was to expand the scope of the VA towards the CRA, since climate risks obviously appear increasingly often in the form of natural disasters, like large-scale floods or forest fires. Such an approach is needed to implement effective CCA options and manage climate change issues in the short- and long term. They should be defined considering the capacity and willingness of the site, sector, region, or community to cope with climate risk.

It seems that climate resilience of tourism is demanding. Tourism infrastructure and offers are mostly unprepared for the climate crisis. Additionally, it is strongly dependent on destination characteristics and level of socioeconomic development. Since many tourist destinations and businesses face a variety of risk drivers, evidence-based CRA with RCP-SSP scenarios serves as a baseline for identification of possible climate impacts and CCA options. In accordance with IPCC AR6, climate transformation relevant for tourism adaptation is urgent and could also be planned considering the CIDs [43,95]. Such a tool provides evidence of physical climate conditions (means, events, and extremes) to deliver climate information necessary for the decision makers [2].

In the creation of decision-oriented CRM, these latest IPCC achievements could serve the tourism experts that usually cope with scarcity of data and its low quality. For significantly vulnerable and complex sectors like tourism, CRM should anticipate the magnitude, frequency, and duration of climate hazards and their possible consequences in the current and future climate. Therefore, CRM comes down to the evaluation of climate risks by considering the likelihood of any severe consequences on social, economic, and environmental aspects of the system or region [96], including narratives about uncertainties. It could be said that this comprehensive CRM framework is an evidence-based tool (data utilized from the CRA). The purpose of the CRM is sustainable management and development, i.e., establishing the economic and fiscal stability of the system and/or region. The CRM framework should clearly define the responsibilities of stakeholders regarding the diversity of tourism actors. In the tourism industry, it is critical to develop a climate strategy or plan with effective adaptation measures regarding the detrimental but also beneficial impact of climate change. The aim is to support climate change-resistant development [1]. Some authors discuss that the scope of adaptation options is narrowed due to the limited scope of human adaptation actions, their costs, and their applicability [97,98,99]. Since CRA is based on the in-depth analysis of a system, subsystem, element, and its function analysis, many authors [100,101,102,103] believe that adaptation strategies should take advantage of more customized CRM and CCA options.

The CCA options could be structural (physical), social, and institutional. There are advantages but also constraints for its implementation that should be considered (

Table 2. CRM and Typology of CCA Options in the Tourism Sector.

Category	Implications for Tourism	Advantages	Constraints/Challenges
Climate Risk Management (CRM)	- Help plan for long- and short-term climate threats - Aligns risks with socio-economic and environmental contexts of tourism destinations	- Decision-oriented - Supports stable and adaptive tourism development	- Data scarcity and low quality in tourism - High uncertainty in climate impacts
Structural (Physical) CCA Options	- Protects infrastructure from extreme weather - NbS improves aesthetics and recreational value	- Long-term, impactful - Can be rapidly implemented if funded - NbS enhance biodiversity	- High cost - Rigid and less flexible - NbS benefits hard to monetize
Social CCA Options	- Raises climate awareness among tourists and local stakeholders - Empowers vulnerable communities	- Cost-effective - Environmentally friendly - Adaptable and participatory	- Social/political resistance - Difficult to scale without strong institutions
Institutional CCA Options	- Ensures cohesive adaptation strategy at destination/region level	- Enable integration across sectors - Supports collaborative action	- Requires strong leadership and cooperation - Risk of fragmented implementation
Technology and Data Role in CCA	- Improved forecasting, real-time risk management - Enhancing transparency and responsiveness	- Strategic planning support - Enables innovative solutions and empowerment	- Requires investment - Needs skilled personnel and reliable data systems

). For instance, structural adaptation measures could be planned in the long-term because they are easily realized if there is a decision and financial support. They could be quickly installed, but they are rigid and associated with high costs. On the other hand, social measures are more environmentally friendly and flexible but less cost-effective in responding to climate threats than structural measures. Additionally, they could be subjected to institutional or political constraints or social barriers [104]. Finally, ecosystem-approach measures, such as NbSs, could significantly reduce the impacts of storm surges, coastal erosion, sea level rise, and flooding by flood beach nourishments, dune restoration, and preservation of wetlands or rain gardens [105,106]. For instance, NbSs improve ecosystem health, aesthetic opportunities, and recreational potential of the area, although there is still limited understanding of how to value ecosystem services in monetary metrics [107,108].

Assessing the prospects for success in combating climate change requires a broad consideration of technical progress [109]. Additionally, progress in the implementation of CCA options is also a driver of technological and technical development. For example, adaptation can be more efficient and successful with the use of Information and Communication Technology if it is strategically integrated. In that case, the system relies on knowledge centers and relevant data that can spread to the community through mobile phones and interactive media [110]. It particularly helps empower vulnerable groups to reduce the risks of climate change by educating and raising awareness, sharing theoretical and practical knowledge. Microsensor wireless networking is one of the most prominent technologies of the twenty-first century. This technology has a wide range of applications, such as human-centric applications, robotics, and environmental monitoring [111,112]. The information system of sustainable environmental management, Big Data, and Artificial Intelligence enables research of climate solutions [113,114]. Moreover, they could help with the design of CCA options and guide the adaptation policy [114].

4.3. Theoretical and Practical Implications

To address the research questions (RQ1-RQ3) considering the discussion presented, here’s an exploration of how the Climate Risk Assessment (CRA) framework and Climate Risk Management (CRM) apply to the tourism industry’s resilience and adaptation needs.

RQ1

Limitations of traditional vulnerability assessments (VA) for tourism in the face of climate risks and CRA’s solutions

Traditional Vulnerability Assessments (VAs), especially those based on older IPCC frameworks (TAR/AR4), focus primarily on vulnerabilities by considering exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity in isolation. This approach does not comprehensively address the complex interplay of climate risks and the variety of non-climate drivers that are increasingly impacting tourism. For instance, while VA captures general sensitivity to climate impacts, it often lacks specificity in addressing the interconnected nature of hazards and vulnerabilities specific to tourism infrastructure, ecosystems, and socio-economic dependencies.

The CRA framework, as revised in recent IPCC assessments (AR5/AR6), addresses these limitations by shifting to a climate-risk-centered approach. By incorporating not only direct climate-related hazards but also non-climate drivers (such as pollution or socio-economic instability), CRA enables a more holistic understanding of risk. This shift allows tourism stakeholders to identify more precisely which elements within a system (such as coastal infrastructure) are exposed to which types of hazards and how these interact with broader environmental and socio-economic factors. CRA’s focus on integrating risk variables—hazard, exposure, and vulnerability—improves the assessment’s relevance for tourism by capturing cascading impacts across interconnected regions and systems, thus providing a clearer basis for action.

RQ2

Integrating climate risk management (CRM) into tourism to enhance resilience

The tourism sector can integrate Climate Risk Management (CRM) practices to enhance resilience by developing systematic, adaptive, and flexible risk management strategies that address both short- and long-term climate impacts. CRM in tourism can employ the IPCC’s Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) scenarios to help project future risks under various climate and socio-economic scenarios. For instance, CRM strategies may include structural measures (like resilient infrastructure), social measures (such as public awareness and engagement), and ecosystem-based approaches (e.g., dune restoration to mitigate coastal erosion).

Effective CRM in tourism requires a multi-layered approach that combines data-driven assessments, such as those from CRA, with participatory practices that include community input and stakeholder collaboration [12]. CRM can also benefit from integrating Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) principles to manage risks related to extreme events, ensuring that adaptation strategies consider the tourism industry’s dependency on local resources, transport, and ecological health. By establishing such integrated and anticipatory strategies, CRM can guide tourism destinations in adapting to both climate-induced and non-climate-driven risks, ultimately improving resilience.

RQ3

Challenges and opportunities of implementing the IPCC’s CRA framework in diverse tourism settings

CRA’s integrative approach offers significant opportunities. By establishing partnerships with environmental and social experts, tourism stakeholders can better understand and leverage the interdependence between natural capital, infrastructure, and socio-economic resilience. Collaborative efforts, such as through expert consultations, workshops, and focus groups, can help align adaptation strategies, ensuring that they are context-sensitive and evidence-based. These collaborations facilitate harmonized responses and help establish comprehensive CRM frameworks that integrate environmental, social, economic, and policy dimensions, ultimately supporting robust climate adaptation.

Based on answers gained through research, the theoretical and practical implications of this research reveal a growing need for an integrated climate risk framework tailored to the complex demands of the tourism sector. This aligns with the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report that underscores the compounded impacts of both acute events (e.g., droughts, floods) and chronic climate stressors (e.g., gradual temperature rise). Shifting from traditional Vulnerability Assessments (VAs) to Climate Risk Assessments (CRAs) allows for a more comprehensive approach that includes both climate risks and its non-climate drivers, addressing gaps [12]. The need for a unified approach that integrates VA, CRA, and Climate Risk Management (CRM) resonates with recent work on climate resilience [50,106], offering a model for more robust tourism sector adaptation strategies.

Practically, this research suggests that adopting CRA and CRM could improve risk assessment in tourism and guide effective climate adaptation strategies. For instance, coastal and alpine destinations have already shown how tailored adaptation, such as artificial snowmaking or storm surge protections, can mitigate specific climate impacts, as documented by McNamara and Keeler [18] and the European Environment Agency [7]. An integrated approach that incorporates cross-sectoral input from environmental, health, and urban planning experts could facilitate more resilient adaptation practices, as recommended by the IPCC [2] and Jurgilevich et al. [28]. The stepwise CRA framework advances tourism planning by embedding it within a risk-oriented paradigm that systematically integrates climate projections, vulnerability analysis, and adaptation options into cross-sectoral governance structures. Consequently, key policy implications emerging from the CRA framework include the incorporation of CRA into tourism planning processes by Destination Management Plans, the adoption of scenario-based policy design, the establishment of cross-sectoral governance mechanisms (such as formal coordination platforms linking tourism, environmental, and public health authorities), and the mainstreaming of adaptation considerations into investment decisions, mandating CRA application for tourism infrastructure and development projects. Moreover, capacity building for stakeholders (like training programs for tourism managers and local authorities), the policy support and financial incentives to encourage CRA implementation by tourism enterprises, and the development of comprehensive monitoring and reporting systems are critical for improvements of resilience to climate change.

Further, this study promotes collaborative frameworks that involve stakeholders from tourism, environmental, and social fields to inform policy and ensure that adaptation measures are contextually relevant and community driven [1]. Workshops, consultations, and knowledge-sharing platforms among tourism managers, policymakers, and local communities have proven effective in aligning climate resilience goals across diverse interests [6,107]. Incorporating real-time climate data and predictive modelling, as suggested by recent IPCC guidelines [108], could empower decision-makers to continuously monitor evolving risks, refine strategies, and respond proactively [109]. Overall, by uniting CRA and CRM with stakeholder collaboration and adaptive financial strategies, this study provides a practical framework to support tourism resilience in the face of accelerating climate risks. These methods build insights from IPCC’s AR5/AR6 reports, providing a foundation for sustained, resilient growth within the tourism sector.

Considering challenges and opportunities, the recommendation for decision-makers and tourism practitioners is to move beyond traditional VA. By adopting CRA, the focus should be on the system and its elements (infrastructure, services, natural capital) rather than only the impacts. It is also essential to consider systemic interdependence. It is equally important to prioritize data collection, use multi-source information, and use a participatory approach. Namely, physical climate data, socioeconomic information, expert consultations, and participatory methods are needed to build a comprehensive risk profile. Where data is limited, it is necessary to rely on expert knowledge and scenarios to estimate climate risks. Additionally, it is essential to consider both climate and non-climate drivers, like pollution, land use changes, and socioeconomic disruptions; the cascading nature of climate risks; and the integration of IPCC’s RCP-SSP Scenarios for planning to anticipate a range of future climate and socioeconomic conditions. This helps to develop adaptable strategies under different possible futures.

Adaptation measures should be holistic and cross-sectoral, such as strengthening infrastructure resilience, diversifying tourism offers, and enhancing early warning systems. It is important to incorporate uncertainty by acknowledging that risks may have positive or negative outcomes for tourism. This cautious approach reduces the chance of maladaptation and helps identify flexible, robust adaptation pathways. To regularly monitor the state and adjust adaptation strategies, it is essential to establish a transparent evaluation framework among different stakeholders (government, tourism operators, communities, scientists, and environmental managers) and enhance monitoring (database, indicators), including risk communication and terminology clarity to reduce misunderstandings.

5. Conclusions

Climate risk is a complex but essential concept for managing and communicating the impacts of climate change. Effective adaptation in tourism requires integrated disaster risk management and resilience-building, supported by evidence-based and well-planned strategies. As one of the most climate-sensitive sectors, tourism demands comprehensive Climate Risk Assessment (CRA) to evaluate and rank risks, inform decision-making, and enhance sustainability.

A wide range of policies and sectoral guidelines offer a range of methods and tools to address climate-related challenges and opportunities. They propose different implementation frameworks and will continue to be used to assess climate resilience. The scientific literature assessing tourism climate resilience in line with the recently established IPCC risk-based framework is limited, and the VA introduced by TAR/AR4 is still mainly used. In line with the frameworks outlined by the IPCC AR5/AR6 and UNDRR, VA could be regarded as a partial or preliminary analytical approach. In AR5/AR6, the IPCC developed CRA as an integrated approach to assessing climate risks by considering VA, hazard, and exposure for all sectors, including tourism elements. In addition, the CRA facilitates the assessment of physical climate risks and non-climate risk drivers, which is of great importance for the resilience and sustainability of tourism to climate change. Moreover, the climate risk-focused framework provides a foundation for linking the concepts of vulnerability and climate risk management, which have so far been practiced mainly in some research communities specialized in risk analysis. It enhances the knowledge and ability of decision-makers to assess alternative courses of action, balance a range of potentially negative consequences, and cope with future scenarios and uncertainties.

It is essential for the tourism sector to develop a shared understanding of the IPCC’s revised, risk-centered framework and its practical application. This study aims to address existing knowledge gaps by providing a more detailed understanding of the tourism industry’s complexity and the uncertainty associated with climate risks and their impacts. To this end, the paper introduces a stepwise approach for implementing Climate Risk Assessment (CRA) as recommended in IPCC AR5/AR6, with a focus on its applicability and transferability to tourism contexts. By reviewing the evolution of Vulnerability Assessment (VA) and its integration within CRA, the study highlights their close relationship with Climate Risk Management (CRM) and resilience-building strategies. CRM, as proposed here, should be grounded in transparent, comprehensive CRA and function as an effective, flexible, and participatory tool for developing adaptation strategies. Such a process requires consideration of socioeconomic, cultural, environmental, and institutional dimensions of tourism, while enabling evidence-based monitoring and iterative revision over time. Ultimately, this framework supports the identification of gaps, capacities, and opportunities for selecting climate change adaptation (CCA) measures within climate impact chains and facilitates the integration of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) benchmarks. To enhance the accessibility and operational use of CRA for tourism stakeholders, the following policy recommendations could be proposed:

• Integrate CRA into Destination Management Plans as a standard planning component
• Develop scenario-based policies using climate projections for adaptive tourism management
• Establish tourism and cross-sectoral coordination platforms to promote awareness and knowledge sharing with case studies and best practices
• Require CRA-based risk evaluations for tourism infrastructure and development investments
• Provide capacity building and training on CRA methods for tourism managers and local authorities
• Create financial incentives to support CRA-informed adaptation by tourism businesses
• Update legal and regulatory frameworks to incorporate climate risk considerations and financial resources
• Implement monitoring and reporting systems with accessible tools and metrics
• Through collaborative and advanced platforms

This review aims to strengthen the mutual understanding among tourism, climate, and environmental experts and to stimulate discussion on applicable methodological approaches for climate risk evaluation. The latest IPCC findings encourage tourism stakeholders to advance climate risk-oriented strategies. CRA and CRM offer a comprehensive framework for identifying adverse impacts while leveraging potential climate-related opportunities for innovation and sustainable tourism growth. Strengthening cooperation between climate, environmental, social, economic, and tourism experts with local policymakers—via consultations, workshops, and focus groups—will enhance the credibility, legitimacy, and effectiveness of the process and foster coordinated responses.

To advance the study and application of CRA and CRM frameworks in tourism, future research should be focused on developing robust, localized CRA methodologies that capture the specific vulnerabilities of diverse tourism environments. Ecosystem-based adaptation measures, such as NbSs, should be evaluated for their capacity to deliver sustainable, resilience-oriented options tailored to specific geographies. Further investigation into cross-sector interdependencies—such as links between tourism, transportation, and food systems—could inform an integrated resilience framework.

The adoption of advanced data collection methods and decision-support tools, including artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and real-time monitoring, will enable dynamic adaptation planning. Additionally, evaluating the financial implications of climate risks for tourism and exploring innovative funding mechanisms, such as climate resilience insurance, will be critical for safeguarding the sector’s economic viability. These efforts will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of climate risks in tourism, support adaptive management, and promote the transition toward resilient and sustainable tourism futures.