Modelling the crisis management and impacts of 21st century disruptive events in tourism: the case of the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to analyse the most significant disruptive events affecting tourism during the twenty-first century, particularly the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Design/methodology/approach Based on a thorough literature review, this study takes a complexity science approach to the field of tourism to shed light on the challenges of disruptive events in tourism systems. Findings Focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, this study acknowledges that disruptive events are complex and have tremendous impacts on several areas of society: people’s psychological well-being and the health-care system, as well as social, economic, cultural, technological, environmental and political dimensions. Whether they occur alone or interact, these dimensions add varying levels of complexity to the tourism system. In response, the tourism industry can adopt a resilience model as a crisis management tool to address disruptive events affecting this field. Research limitations/implications As this paper is mainly theoretical, future empirical research will contribute to refining the findings and testing the usefulness of the proposed model. Practical implications The paper looks at examples of successful and unsuccessful of COVID-19 outbreak management in various countries to analyse issues such as crisis management, resilience and tools for coping with the impacts of disruptive events. Originality/value This theoretical paper proposes a first taxonomy of the multidimensional impacts of twenty-first-century disruptive events on tourism and dissects the phases of crisis management, with a corresponding conceptual model.

The Spirit of Adventure: A Driver of Attractiveness of the Hospitality Industry for Young People during a Pandemic Crisis

“…Most of the studies gravitate towards disease-related discussions [ 16 , 17 , 18 ]. The emerging research field of HI and infectious diseases addresses the key concerns, ways of coping, business model innovation [ 19 ], risk perceptions [ 20 ], crisis management in extreme contexts [ 21 ], and the changes undertaken by the HI [ 22 ]. The impact of COVID-19 on the HI mirrors what occurred during previous pandemics such as SARS and MERS [ 23 ] and other disasters like the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami [ 24 ].…”

“Double-edged sword”: the effect of cultural distance on post-disaster tourism destination recovery

“…Disasters and crises negatively impact the tourism and hospitality industry, tourists and local communities (Li et al , 2021a). After a crisis or disaster has been resolved, the immediate actions taken in a destination are generally focused on tourism recovery (Aldao et al , 2021). Significantly, since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, global research interest in post-disaster tourism recovery and resilience has heightened, which are essential to sustainable tourism (Wen et al , 2020).…”

“…Tourist destinations and especially international tourist destinations are highly vulnerable to disasters (Liu et al , 2021a), such as the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in China, the 2005 hurricane Katrina in the USA, the 2011 great eastern Japanese earthquake, the 2015 earthquake in Nepal, and the COVID-19 coronavirus disease first detected in Wuhan, China, all of which resulted in significant negative impacts on tourism demand of destinations and great challenges to tourism destination marketing (Aldao et al , 2021; Li et al , 2021a). Paradoxically, after the disasters, some disaster sites have been found to become more popular tourist attractions, which has given a new focus to the impacts of disasters on tourism demand for tourist destinations and destination marketing; for example, New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (Miller, 2008), Thailand after the tsunami (Zhang et al , 2009), and Sichuan Province, China, after the 2008 earthquake (Biran et al , 2014).…”

The Association Between the Success of Information Systems and Crises Management (A Theoretical View and Proposed Framework)

“…The prevention stage also involves effective investigation for defects and possible obstacles. It is strictly associated with the first step because both preparedness and prevention are necessary not just when the signs have been recognized, but also when the crises are still under control (Abdalbaqi, 2021;Aldao, Blasco, Espallargas, & Rubio, 2021;Alpaslan & Mitroff, 2021;Alteneiji, Ahmed, & Saboor, 2020;Berbekova et al, 2021;Dayour et al, 2020;Kao et al, 2020;Le & Phi, 2021;Nizamidou & Vouzas, 2020;Ricke, 2020;Sofyan et al, 2021;Sumukadas, 2021;Tokakis et al, 2019;West, 2020;Wut et al, 2021). Consequently, the first and second stages are both classified as proactive strategies of crisis management.…”

“…This activity includes improving and performing examined recovery mechanisms. The institutional objective is to return to regular performances by recovering the damages of physical and immaterial assets and rebuilding relationships within the institution and with the outside public (Al Eid & Arnout, 2020;Aldao et al, 2021;Alpaslan & Mitroff, 2021;Alteneiji et al, 2020;Berbekova et al, 2021;Dayour et al, 2020;Ershadi & Shemirani, 2021;Ferwanah, 2019;Le & Phi, 2021;Ricke, 2020;Sofyan et al, 2021;Sumukadas, 2021;Thielsch et al, 2020;Tokakis et al, 2019;West, 2020;Wut et al, 2021). Interactive crisis management involves the educational element, which is an examination of the other actions.…”