- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
This opinion piece argues the need for researchers to shift to resilience rather than crisis management research in tourism studies. While the two concepts are inherently linked, existing studies prioritize the latter rather than the former. Also, a strong focus on disasters as the backdrop for resilience research in tourism is highlighted. I argue that both fast and slow paced changes that impact the tourism system and conceptual issues with respect to concepts such as destination resilience must be studied. I highlight several gaps in the tourism literature on resilience and offer avenues for further research. Specifically, the need for research on destination resilience, psychological resilience, employee resilience and organizational resilience is emphasized.
The unprecedented rise in the number of disasters and crises affecting the tourism industry worldwide has brought forth the importance of resilience building in the tourism industry. While tourism researchers are devoting much attention to crisis management, it is perhaps now the opportune time to question the relationship between crisis and disaster management, and resilience. Inherently crises are different from disasters with the latter implying a situation where there is severe loss of life and long-term damage to the society (Boin & McConnell, 2007; Hall, 2010). As such, the scale of an event, its character, and the vulnerability of a system prior to an event are important issues that must remain at the forefront of any resilience or crisis management thinking in tourism studies. There is a tendency for researchers to view crisis management as a holistic process involving prevention, planning, response, recovery and learning. These phases are not static and clearly identifiable as implied (Boin & McConnell, 2007).