Introduction

Tourism generates revenue, creates employment opportunities, and stimulates local economies (WTTC, 2022). However, tourism is vulnerable to various risks and challenges that can have significant impacts on destinations (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008; Sönmez, 1998; Y. Wang et al., 2022). Furthermore, the sustainability of tourism is a critical concern. The rapid growth of tourism can lead to overdevelopment, environmental degradation, and strain on local resources (Ekonomou & Halkos, 2023; Scarpi et al., 2022). These factors can undermine the long-term viability of destinations and their ability to provide quality experiences for visitors (Crotts et al., 2022), which makes destination resilience a crucial factor in ensuring the long-term sustainability and success of tourist destinations. Adger (2000) emphasized the connection between social and ecological resilience. Other studies have highlighted the significance of factors such as perceived community support (H. Wang et al., 2022) and stakeholder engagement (Pyke et al., 2018) in measuring destination resilience. These factors contribute to the well-being and adaptability of the destination and its ability to recover from disruptions. Sustainable tourism and destination resilience are closely interconnected concepts that play a crucial role in ensuring the long-term viability and success of tourist destinations (Holladay, 2018). It involves building the capacity of a destination to adapt and recover from shocks and disruptions (Bruneau et al., 2003), while also maintaining the integrity of its natural and cultural resources. Several studies have explored the relationship between sustainable tourism and destination resilience (Guo et al., 2018; Heslinga et al., 2019; Holladay, 2018). Holladay (2018) combines Butler’s Tourism Area Life Cycle and Holling’s Adaptive Cycle to present a heuristic model of destination resilience within the context of sustainable tourism. The model aims to stimulate theoretical thought that may be useful for evaluating destination resilience in the context of sustainable tourism development. While there is a growing interest in the concept of resilience in tourism, the research of resilience in tourism is still in its early stages, as mentioned by (Ketter, 2022). Wang et al. (2022) point out the lack of empirical case studies and the need to establish a systematic and holistic-oriented sustainable management framework that incorporates resilience assessment and management. The current study aims to contribute to an increasing body of literature about the relationship between sustainable tourism and destination resilience by building a conceptual framework based on sustainable tourism, destination resilience and tourism threats. The conceptual framework illustrates how sustainable tourism can serve as a driver of destination resilience, and in doing so, adds to the developing literature on this topic.

Literature review 

– Sustainable tourism 

Tourism has become an important activity that enhances economic expansion, widen avenues for employment, and enhances revenue streams for both government and the residents (Seetanah, 2011; Teye et al., 2002). Nonetheless, these advantages come with a cost. The progress of tourism within a specific region could potentially give rise to a spectrum of social and environmental challenges, including but not limited to concerns like traffic congestion and pollution. One theoretical framework that has been widely used to understand the development process of tourism destinations is Butler’s destination life cycle model (Fan et al., 2019). According to this model, destinations go through a series of stages, including exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation, and decline (Butler, 1980). As the destination gains popularity, it enters the involvement stage, characterized by increased investment and infrastructure development. The development stage follows, with a rapid increase in tourist arrivals and the establishment of a tourism industry. The consolidation stage is marked by a more mature and stable tourism industry. However, if the destination fails to adapt and innovate, it may enter the stagnation stage, where visitor numbers plateau or decline. Finally, if the decline stage is not addressed, the destination may experience a decline in tourism activity (Butler, 1980). By integrating sustainable tourism principles into each stage of the destination life cycle, destinations can achieve long-term sustainability. This requires collaboration and cooperation among stakeholders, including government authorities, local communities, tourism operators, and tourists themselves (Brooker & Burgess, 2008). It is important to note that the application of Butler’s destination life cycle model to sustainable tourism is not without criticism. Some scholars argue that the model oversimplifies the complex and dynamic nature of tourism development and fails to account for external factors and influences (McKercher, 2005). Nevertheless, the model provides a useful framework for understanding the evolution of destinations and the potential role of sustainable tourism practices in guiding their development.

Sustainable tourism is crucial for the survival and long-term viability of destinations. The natural environment is a valuable resource for many tourism destinations, and there is an increasing interest among tourists in visiting unspoiled natural areas (Dolnicar & Leisch, 2008). To meet the demands of environmentally conscious tourists, destination managers need to implement ecologically sustainable practices (Dolnicar & Leisch, 2008). One approach to sustainable destination management is selective marketing, which targets tourists who are interested in protecting the local environment (Dolnicar & Leisch, 2008). Investing in sustainable tourism during the early stages of the destination life cycle can benefit destinations in the long run (Spenceley & Snyman, 2017). It has been suggested that destinations at the initial stages of the life cycle can learn from successful cases and invest in sustainable tourism practices (Spenceley & Snyman, 2017). Sustainable tourism represents a solution to several menaces that threaten environmental, social and economic aspects of destinations (Fang, 2021; Filipiak et al., 2020; Higham & Lück, 2007; Rukuižienė, 2022). Furthermore, sustainable tourism development involves finding a proper balance among environmental, socio-economic, and cultural aspects to ensure the long-term sustainability of tourism destinations (Than et al., 2020). This approach considers the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of tourism, allowing destinations to manage their resources effectively and create opportunities for future development while protecting their heritage and ecosystems (Than et al., 2020).

Threats to the industry

The environmental threats posed by tourism include pollution, habitat destruction, and the disruption of ecological balance (Filipiak et al., 2020). These threats can have long-term consequences for the environment and the wildlife that inhabit tourist destinations (Higham & Lück, 2007). Tourism activities can contribute to air, water, and noise pollution. Air pollution can result from transportation emissions, including airplanes, cruise ships, and vehicles used for sightseeing. Water pollution can occur due to improper waste disposal, sewage discharge, and the use of chemicals in hotels and resorts. Noise pollution from tourist activities can disturb wildlife and disrupt their natural behaviors (Higham & Lück, 2007). To address these threats, sustainable tourism emphasizes the need for scientific approaches to understand and manage tourist interactions with marine wildlife (Higham & Lück, 2007). It also calls for the protection of natural resources and the preservation of the integrity of the environment (Fang, 2021).

Social threats in tourism include the displacement of local communities, cultural commodification, and the loss of social values (Cocola-Gant, 2023; Filipiak et al., 2020). As tourist destinations become more popular, there is often a demand for cultural experiences and attractions. This can lead to the commodification and commercialization of local traditions, customs, and artifacts. In some cases, this can result in the dilution or distortion of cultural practices, as they are adapted to meet the expectations and preferences of tourists (Wegwu, 2022). This loss of authenticity can have a profound impact on the cultural identity and heritage of local communities (McIntosh et al., 2002). As tourist destinations develop and expand, there is often a need for land and infrastructure, which can lead to the displacement of local communities (Wegwu, 2022). Tourists may engage in activities that are disrespectful or offensive to local communities, leading to resentment and hostility (Al Haija, 2011; Rêgo & Almeida, 2022). Additionally, the influx of tourists can put pressure on local resources and infrastructure, leading to overcrowding, increased costs of living, and a decline in the quality of life for residents (Yu & Egger, 2021). These factors can contribute to social tensions and conflicts (Rêgo & Almeida, 2022).

There are also negative economic impacts associated with tourism. One of these is financial leakages, which refers to the outflow of tourism revenue from the destination economy. Financial leakages occur when a significant portion of tourist expenditures is spent on imported goods and services, or when profits from tourism businesses are repatriated to foreign investors (Suryawardani, 2015). This can result in limited economic benefits for the local community and hinder the development of local businesses (Suryawardani, 2015). This can occur when international hotel chains or tour operators enter the market and capture a significant share of tourist spending, leaving local businesses struggling to compete. A study conducted in Turkey showed that leakages through the ownership of tour operators seem to be the highest compared to employment of foreigners or imports (Terzioglu & Gokovali, 2016).

Destination resilience 

An often-referenced study exploring the concept of resilience is Holling (Baba et al., 2020; Holling, 1973), which holds that resilience is a concept expressing the properties of an ecosystem with regard to environmental changes. The specific meaning of resilience gets diluted and increasingly unclear. This is due to the use of the concept with many different intentions and with a very wide extension. Resilience is increasingly conceived as a perspective, rather than a clear and well-defined concept (Brand & Jax, 2006). Conceptually, various perspectives exist regarding the scope and content of resilience. Among the inquiries requiring clarification, resilience can be perceived as either an intended result (outcome) or as a progression toward achieving the intended result (Duchek et al., 2020; Melián-Alzola et al., 2020). Resilience as an outcome would be a target state, and resilience as a process refers to the organizational mechanisms that enable reaching that state. However, the literature has increasingly focused on resilience as a process (Melián-Alzola et al., 2020). A research model proposed by Melián-Alzola et al., (2020) explains hotel resilience and hotel performance with which identifies resilience as a result or the status the organization wants to achieve. Additional scholars also explore the relationship between resilience and performance, considering for example the change of the company profit as a resilience indicator (Afgan, 2010).

In addition to what has been previously stated, this paper relies as well on the framework proposed by (Crotts et al., 2022) who presents a four-pillar structure primarily comprising straightforward, cost-effective, and accessible indicators. These indicators can play a valuable role in advancing sustainable tourism goals. By integrating insights from fields like hospitality, sociology, management, and tourism, the framework puts forward a comprehensive structure housing a destination’s key performance indicators. The suggested approach encompasses four pillars designed to bolster a community’s endeavors in enhancing the long-term performance and resilience of their tourism industry (Crotts et al., 2022).

The four pillars are the visitor economy, resident support for tourism, hospitality workforce job satisfaction, and environmental health. They support a viable and sustainable tourism economy separately and have the potential to create a synergy that can lead to a thriving and prosperous destination.

• Visitor economy: This pillar focuses on measuring and optimizing the economic impact of tourism, including indicators such as visitor spending, occupancy rates, and revenue generation.
• Resident support for tourism: This pillar emphasizes the importance of local residents’ attitudes and support towards tourism. It includes indicators such as resident satisfaction, perception of tourism benefits, and community engagement in tourism development.
• Hospitality workforce job satisfaction: This pillar recognizes the significance of a satisfied and motivated hospitality workforce in delivering quality tourism experiences. It involves measuring indicators such as employee satisfaction, turnover rates, and training and development opportunities.
• Environmental health: This pillar highlights the need for sustainable environmental practices in tourism destinations. It includes indicators such as waste reduction, energy efficiency, and conservation efforts to ensure the long-term health and preservation of the natural environment.

A conceptual Framework for Destination resilience and sustainable tourism

The relevant literature review provides robust grounds to establish meaningful connections between the concepts. The proposed framework was aligned with the four pillar key performance indicators and sustainable tourism principles. Additionally, this framework revealed sustainable tourism implicit value in destination resilience through the four pillars. Refer to figure 1 (below) for a visual representation of the proposed conceptual framework.

In the proposed framework (fig. 1), the main focus is on recognizing the challenges that pose risks to the tourism industry. This emphasis is rooted in the understanding that the durability of a destination forms the foundation of sustainable tourism. The framework presents sustainable tourism practices as a response to the potential dangers that the tourism sector might encounter. By viewing resilience as either a result to be achieved or a state to aim for, the framework encapsulates four pillars around the concept of destination resilience. These pillars function as indicators, providing a simplified method to evaluate the degree of destination resilience. In essence, the framework aims to identify and address threats to the tourism industry by promoting sustainable practices and using the concept of resilience as a guidepost for improving the industry’s long-term viability.

Implications

• Theoretical Implications

recent critiques regarding the perceived lack in comprehending the relationship between destination resilience and sustainable tourism, the current study makes an additional attempt to conceptually explore destination resilience in sustainable tourism. The proposed conceptual framework also serves as synthesis of a holistic point of view of the issues that the tourism industry faces. Moreover, thi study contributes to sustainable tourism literature by first adopting TALC (Tourism area life cycle) to point out the necessity of integrating sustainability principles from the nascent stages of tourism development. Additionally, it establishes a linkage between the outcomes of sustainable tourism and a readily applicable key performance indicator that could bring up more empirical research to the literature.

• Practical Implications

The study provides a roadmap with an overview of important KPI that can be used to track a destination’s performance. Stakeholders concerned should create a favorable environment and condition to generate the necessary collaborations.

 Limitations and Future Research

This study is not without limitations. It did not consider other sorts of threats such as catastrophes or crises that impact the tourism industry. Further, this study assumes resilience as an outcome that can only be described ex post. More recently, resilience has been understood as a process that leads to resilient outcomes. This process perspective points to ‘‘the dynamic nature of resilience”.

These limitations underscore the need for future research to explore these issues in more diverse settings. Future studies should also consider collecting either qualitative or quantitative data to validate the model.