Tourism Review International, Vol. 22, pp. 293–302 1544-2721/18 $60.00 + .

00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/154427218X15369305779092
Copyright © 2018 Cognizant, LLC. E-ISSN 1943-4421
www.cognizantcommunication.com

AN APPLIED DESTINATION RESILIENCE MODEL

ESTEFANIA M. BASURTO-CEDEÑO*† AND LORI PENNINGTON-GRAY*

*Tourism Crisis Management Initiative, Department of Tourism,

Recreation & Sport Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
†Facultad de Ciencias Administrativas y Facultad de Hoteleria y Turismo,
Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí, Manta, Ecuador

Destinations around the world are adopting a resilience framework to deal with the increasing
frequency and intensity of disasters affecting the tourism industry. However, agreed upon measures
and models of resilience by the tourism industry have yet to be determined. This article proposes a
scalable resilience model for tourism destinations, extending the application of the Regional Tourism
Adaptation Framework (RTAF) to diverse types of risks and different size destinations. Specifically,
it addresses gaps with the RTAF model and extends the model to address these gaps. As such, the
article uses theories from the resilience literature as well as knowledge about the tourism industry to
build out a more scalable and generalizable model. It further discusses limitations of the model that
need to be tested in future studies.

Key words: Resilience model; Scalable model; Destinations; Tourism industry

Introduction decade, the frequency and intensity of both man-

The tourism sector is one of the largest industries
in the world, promising economic growth, social
inclusion, cultural preservation, and environmen-
tal conservation (United Nations World Tourism
Organization [UNWTO], 2017). However, with the
heightened number of destinations that are turn-
ing to tourism as a tool for economic development,
most are not considering that parallel to this move-
ment there is an increased number of uncontrollable
events that are impacting this industry. In the past
made and natural disasters has increased (Drabek,
2012). As a result, many established tourism desti-
nations have started to increasingly discuss disaster
mitigation and disaster recovery. Unfortunately, for
the smaller, less established destinations, which
might rely on tourism even more heavily, this con-
versation—and more importantly, planning—has
largely been lacking.
As a management approach and philosophy,
destination resilience planning has focused on iden-
tifying risks, building infrastructure or hardening

Address correspondence to Estefania Basurto-Cedeño, Ph.D., Global Affiliate, Tourism Crisis Management Initiative,
Department of Tourism, Recreation & Sport Management, University of Florida, 325 Florida Gym, PO Box 118209,
Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. E-mail: ebasurto@ufl.edu

293

Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 194.104.10.52 On: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:05:23
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article including the
DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
 294 BASURTO-CEDEÑO AND PENNINGTON-GRAY
infrastructure to risks, and including stakehold-
ers in the conversation. At the core of destina-
tion resilience lies creative ways to adapt to risks
and the plan and prepare for these risks. Beyond
the mere physical hardening of infrastructure, the
tourism industry must consider social, economic,
policy, and environmental investments to mitigate
any unforeseen shock to the system. However, cur-
rently a model that uses the fundamentals of resil-
ience planning (assessing vulnerabilities and risks
in concert with addressing adaptive strategies) has
not been readily agreed upon.
Thus, the purpose of this article is to present a
broad overview of the resilience literature, while
addressing existing literature in the tourism field.
It then presents one of the only operational mod-
els of resilience applied to the tourism industry, the
Regional Tourism Adaptation Framework (RTAF)
by Jopp, DeLacy, and Mair (2010). Then it identi-
fies gaps in the model based on the tourism litera-
ture with a goal of making the model scalable and
generalizable. Finally, the article presents the final
extended model. It concludes with a discussion of
limitations and suggestions for future research.
Literature Review
The Resilience Concept
The concept of resilience had its beginning in
1973, when Hollings (1973) proposed a new way
to understanding ecological systems and intro-
duced an “adaptive cycle.” This model addressed
a variety of components within a system that might
influence change in other components, or even in
the whole system. Hollings (1973) introduced the
“ecological resilience concept” and defined it as
“the time required for an ecosystem to return to an
equilibrium or steady state following a perturba-
tion” (p. 17).
In the late 1990s, the addition of a social compo-
nent became necessary when researchers acknowl-
edged that people shape ecosystems and infuse a
nature of dynamics into the process (Folke, 2006).
Since then, the notion of resilience has been
adopted and adapted by several fields, resulting
in a wide variety of terminology and concepts.
Some of the most common definitions and con-
ceptualizations of resilience used by scholars are:
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 194.104.10.52 On: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:05:23
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article including the
DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
(1) Engineering resilience, which is the capacity of
a system to bounce back to the stage prior distur-
bance (Folke, 2006). This approach is most com-
monly used to refer to the capacity of infrastructure
to manage stress generated from fast and slow
drivers of change. (2) Ecological resilience, which
is the capacity of the ecosystems to survive after
an unexpected event and keep up in a desirable
stage (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2008). (3) Social-
ecological resilience includes the human influ-
ence in the analysis of the system, their power to
shape the ecosystem, and adapt to different sets of
stressors (Folke, 2006). (4) Community resilience,
which is the capacity of the population to respond
to crisis and recover functionality (Cutter et al.,
2008). (5) Evolutionary resilience, which focuses
on the social component and the ability to change
and adjust continually through the intervention of
government (Sgro, Lowe, & Hoffmann, 2011). A
summary of the most common definitions and con-
ceptualizations of resilience is provided in Table 1.
Engineering
This framework outlines resilience as the behav-
ior of the system to return to a state of equilibrium
after exposure to a stressor or driver of change. In
other words, resilience is conceptualized as how
fast a system can return or bounce back to the pre-
vious stage in the presence of the stressor. Underly-
ing this paradigm is a temporal function, whereby
an estimation of time is required to determine
when the system returns to a “normal” state (Folke,
2006). In this approach, the process is conceptual-
ized as linear. Engineering resilience “focuses on
maintaining efficiency of function, constancy of
the system, and a predicable world near a single
steady state” (Folke, 2006, p. 256).
Ecological
Ecological resilience or ecosystem resilience is
the capacity of the ecosystem to withstand shock
and maintain its function. This approach recognizes
the ability of a system to absorb a disruption and
keep functioning, maintaining its original identity
but allowing for different states. The concept of
ecological resilience acknowledges the existence
of multiple systems and not just an ideal steady
 AN APPLIED DESTINATION RESILIENCE MODEL 295

Table 1
Definitions of Resilience
Definition Citation

Engineering resilience focuses on the ability to face stress and bounce back to a predesigned Folke (2006)
stage or function prior disturbance.

Ecological resilience allows for change of the stage of an ecological system after the presence Berkes et al. (2008)
of a stressor, as long as the new stage is desirable.

Social-ecological resilience includes humans and their influence in the analysis of the systems. Tyrell and Johnson (2008)
It is seeking for adaptive capability, learning, and innovation capabilities in a dynamic context,
focusing on planning and resource management.

Community resilience is an attribute of the population that is characterized by the active partici- Cutter et al. (2008)
pation of the community members in anticipation and response to crises (social or environ-
mental) in order to recover full functionality.

Evolutionary resilience is focused in the social world and its ability to deal with constant Sgro et al. (2011)
change through capacity adjustment and adaptation, adopting an inclusive stakeholder per-
spective with a networked and/or multilevel governance.

state. Ecological resilience is defined by its adap-
tive capacity, which is the degree to which a system
is capable of reorganization and adaptation (Brown
& Williams, 2015). Adaptation within this frame-
work depends on the diversity of the species and
their evolution; therefore, the purpose of ecologi-
cal resilience is maintaining the system.
Social Ecological System (SES) Resilience
Social ecological system (SES) of resilience sug-
gests that the stability of a linked system includes
both humans and nature. Three variables define
this framework: resilience, adaptability, and trans-
formability (Walker, Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig,
2004). The social ecological resilience framework
acknowledges that systems are complex and inter-
related and that they are in constant change within
a cycle. Resilience is defined as the capacity of a
system to absorb disturbances and reorganize while
undergoing change and still retain essentially the
same function, structure, identity, and feedback
(Walker et al., 2004). The SES resilience approach
adopts an adaptive renewal cycle. The adaptive
renewal cycle is also referred to as “panarchy”
and includes four phases: exploitation (r), con-
servation (K), release (Ω), and reorganization (α)
(Gunderson & Holling, 2002).
The exploitation and conservation phases com-
prise of a slow, cumulative forward loop of the
cycle that is predictable. The conservation phase is
characterized by a reduction in the flexibility of the
system and decrease in its capacity to respond to
external shocks (Walker et al., 2004). The conser-
vation phase is typically followed by a collapse to
the system (release phase) that leads to reorganiza-
tion of the system.
The nature of this adaptive cycle allows for
interactions across multiple scales. In other words,
the system is dynamic and can move from one stage
to another and exist at different scales (Walker
et al., 2004). The interaction of people organized at
multiple levels is inevitable and thus determining
the desirability of the state of the system and the
effect of an intervention at different scales is nec-
essary. Within the SES resilience framework, the
concept of adaptability is important. Adaptability is
considered as the capacity of human actors to man-
age the system and influence the resilience of the
community (Walker et al., 2004).
An important element of this approach is “self-
organization,” which is the organization of the
system by external factors (Adger, Hughes, Folke,
Carpenter, & Rockström, 2005). Self-organization
or a grassroots initiative allows for transformabil-
ity of the system. Transformability can be positive
or negative. The way this process is shaped will
depend on knowledge of the capacity of the system
and the ability of its actors to cope with change in
both social and ecological structures.

Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 194.104.10.52 On: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:05:23
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article including the
DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
 296 BASURTO-CEDEÑO AND PENNINGTON-GRAY
Using a similar approach, Biggs, Schlüter,
and Schoon (2015) recognized the importance of
humans when shaping their environment. They
presented seven principles to build resilience using
a social ecological systems framework. They sug-
gested two major strategies: (1) governance sys-
tems strategies; (2) properties systems strategies.
Under the governance system strategy, resilience
can be accomplished with investment in four areas:
(1) improvement of the inclusion and participation
of different stakeholders; (2) the adoption of com-
plex systems thinking; (3) inclusion of all types of
learning available within a system; (4) polycentric
governance. Under the “properties” strategy, three
main principles can be followed to build resilience:
(1) promote diversity and reduce redundancy;
(2) allow for connectivity of the actors of the social
ecological system; (3) identify slow variables of
change.
Evolutionary Resilience
Evolutionary resilience is a newer framework
proposed by Davoudi et al. (2012). This framework
is concerned with the social element of resilience
and its ability to cope with change. According to
Davoudi et al. (2012), resilience is not conceived of
as a return to normality, but rather as the ability of
complex socioecological systems to change, adapt,
and, crucially, transform in response to stresses
and strains. Systems are conceived as “complex,
non-linear, and self-organizing, permeated by
uncertainty and discontinuities” (Davoudi et al.,
2012, p. 302). Similarly, Fabry and Zeghni (2002)
envisioned evolutionary resilience as an approach
focused on social worlds and decision making,
where the aim is to assess management and new
trajectories in order to determine actions needed to
build adaptation to complex and constant systems.
To achieve evolutionary resilience, the participation
of government is pivotal, but it is also important to
include as many different stakeholders as possible
in the process.
Community Resilience
Community resilience is an attribute of the popu-
lation. How resilient a community is depends on
active participation of members of the community
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 194.104.10.52 On: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:05:23
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article including the
DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
in planning and response to crises (social or envi-
ronmental). The greater the planned actions of the
community are, the quicker the recovery period
of the destination will be. Effective community
resilience is not only the volume of community
members’ involvement in the process, but also the
bonds between different groups within the commu-
nities. According to Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum,
Wyche, and Pfefferbaum (2008), there are four fac-
tors that shape and define community resilience:
(1) economic development; (2) social capital; (3)
information and communication; (4) community
competence.
For Herrera and Rodríguez (2016), communities
are resilient if they have faced a major disaster and
have returned to a “new normal” state. They use
the term “new normal” to refer to a positive change
to the system that is still in equilibrium after the
disaster and argue that after a shock of significant
magnitude, things will not return to a previous state.
Under this perspective, resilience of a community
needs to be assessed with a longitudinal perspective
in order to monitor the evolution of the destination
over time.
For Cai, Lam, Zou, Qiang, and Li (2016), com-
munity resilience is the ability to prepare for, plan
for, absorb, recover from, and adapt to adverse
events. Resilience is based on the relationship
between vulnerability (i.e., how exposure to a stres-
sor could result in damage to the community) and
adaptability (i.e., how a community can recover
after severe damage), as well as five community
resilience dimensions: (1) social; (2) economic;
(3) infrastructure; (4) community; (5) environmen-
tal. According to Cai et al. (2016), identification of
the stage of the community is important for destina-
tion planning and better management of resources
when preparing for possible disasters.
Norris et al. (2008) provided another approach
to community resilience. For Norris et al. resil-
ience is a process in which the outcome is adapta-
tion after a disaster. Under this paradigm, a disaster
is defined as a potentially traumatic event that is
collectively experienced, has an acute onset, and
is time delimited. For these researchers, commu-
nities are composed of four dimensions: (1) built
infrastructure; (2) natural environment; (3) social;
(4) economic environment. How those mentioned
dimensions evolve after a disaster will determine
 AN APPLIED DESTINATION RESILIENCE MODEL
how successful their resilience plan is. Under this
umbrella, adaptation is measured by: (1) physi-
ological wellbeing of the community (i.e., absence
of psychopathologies, healthy patterns of behavior,
adequate role functioning at home/school/work,
and perception of high quality of life); (2) popula-
tion wellness. Moreover, the set of capacities (net-
worked resources) that should become the focus of
community resilience are economic development,
social capital, information and communication, and
community competence.
Tourism and Resilience
In the tourism field, the concept of resilience
planning has emerged as an addition and extension
to the sustainable development paradigm, thereby
providing a more adaptive approach that allows for
adjustments to the system by building capacity to
enable a destination to return to a desirable state
following both anticipated and unanticipated dis-
ruptions (Lew, 2014). Jopp et al. (2010) suggested
tourism is a resource-dependent industry that must
deal with external pressures (such as natural disas-
ters and weather change); thus, the destination needs
to be prepared to address risks to deal with external
pressure and embrace change through mitigation
(of vulnerabilities) and adaptation. For Strickland-
Munro, Allison, and Moore (2010), resilience is
achieved through creating adaptability within sys-
tems through the enhancement of social, financial,
human, natural, physical, and technological capital.
Tourism systems are complex, and policies should
be adaptable to different scales (Luthe & Wyss,
2014) that include the geographical location, the
local community, and different tourism activities
within a geographical area (Strickland–Munro
et al., 2010).
The identification and mitigation of crises and
vulnerabilities within a system are key compo-
nents of any resilience model (Tierney & Bruneau,
2007). For Becken (2013), the goal of resilience is
to increase the robustness of the system through
reduction or assessment of the vulnerabilities and
the intensification of the adaptive capacity. Within
the assessment of vulnerabilities and possible risks,
destinations must consider both slow drivers (e.g.,
a set of drivers that could provoke a flip in the sys-
tem) and fast drivers (e.g., sudden changes in the
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 194.104.10.52 On: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:05:23
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article including the
DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
297
systems such as natural disasters, political unrest,
war, etc.). According to Holladay and Powell
(2013), the tourism industry is vulnerable to destabi-
lizing forces such as war, local-to-global economic
complexities, and natural disasters. Therefore, des-
tinations need to increase their adaptive capacities
to deal with global and internal stressors that may
cause the system to move from a desirable state
to an undesirable state. Adaptive capacities need
to propose clear and achievable methods ahead of
the disaster that can respond to the disaster. As pro-
posed by Davoudi et al. (2012) in the evolutionary
process, use of as many key stakeholder groups as
possible is a key to evolutionary resilience.
Thus, any comprehensive destination resilience
approach needs to take into consideration tourism
stakeholder feedback. Some adaptation strategies
for resilience that have come from a stakeholder
analysis include: (1) developing and securing
of tourism activities; (2) promoting the destina-
tion year-round; (3) promoting awareness of both
risky and safe areas for participation to tourists.
Other researchers (Dawson, Stewart, Johnston, &
Lemieux, 2016; Dronkers et al., 2016; Maier,
Ritchie, & Walters, 2016; Saarinen & Tervo, 2006;
Scott, Freitas, & Matzarakis, 2009) who are con-
cerned with slow drivers of environmental change
recommend construction of sea walls and beach
filling to deal with sea rise, implementation of new
infrastructure, adoption of green technology, acqui-
sition of snow-making and heating/cooling systems,
and pricing marketing and communications strate-
gies to restore destination image.
The Regional Tourism Adaptation
Framework (RTAF)
The Regional Tourism Adaptation Framework
(RTAF) was developed by Jopp et al. in 2010 to
assist regional destination managers and policy
makers to deal with the impact of climate change
(Jopp, DeLacy, Mair, & Fluker, 2013). With the aim
of addressing the possible alterations generated by
climate change, it was suggested that the model will
address risks through mitigation and adaptation.
Adaptation under this framework is oriented to
create strategies to adjust tourism activities (visitor
flows, ratio of international to domestic, pricing,
special events, etc.) in order to reduce vulnerability
 298 BASURTO-CEDEÑO AND PENNINGTON-GRAY
and improve business certainty. Vulnerability under
the RTAF approach is a function of exposure to cli-
mate factors that includes socioeconomic factors in
the assessment. The vulnerability assessment of a
tourism destination needs to be performed before
moving forward to the development of adaptation
strategies.
Under the RTAF paradigm, the assessment of
vulnerability and viable adaptation strategies are
identified to lead to the increase of resilience, resis-
tance, and readiness of the system. The mentioned
concepts taken from Jopp et al. (2010) are defined
as follows:
• resilience is defined as the ability to absorb
change;
• resistance is conceptualized as the reduction of
the impacts that are likely to affect tourism;
• readiness is the ability of the destination to capi-
talize on opportunities that arise.
The vulnerability assessment of the RTAF mod-
els includes three steps: (1) defining the system;
(2) establishing risk and opportunities; (3) deter-
mining the adaptive capacity. The definition of the
system includes an in-depth analysis of the desti-
nation and its geographical boundaries, inventory
of the environmental and social–cultural assets
within that geographical delimitation, and the iden-
tification of the key system stakeholders. For the
establishment of risk and opportunities, the model
recommends the participation of key stakeholders
of the system in order to identify, assess, and cate-
gorize the risk and opportunities that could emerge
from change. To determine the adaptive capacity
of the system, it is necessary to identify the fac-
tors that could limit or enhance vulnerability for the
destination.
The second phase of the model is focused on
increasing the resilience, resistance, and readiness
of the system, and involves the process of adap-
tation, which has five steps: (1) identification of
adaptation options; (2) assessment of the adapta-
tion options; (3) testing with consumers/tourists;
(4) implementation of strategies; (5) evaluation
of outcomes of the implementation of strategies.
Through the mentioned steps the model aims to
obtain both demand and supply side perspectives
on the efficacy of the adaptation options for the
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 194.104.10.52 On: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:05:23
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article including the
DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
destination, ultimately leading to increased resil-
ience, resistance, and readiness of the destination.
Gaps in the Knowledge
A majority of the tourism resilience literature
has focused on ensuring the survival of the destina-
tion in economic terms. However, the quality of the
tourism destination and its attractiveness depends
on more than just the economic contribution of
tourism—it also depends the state of the environ-
ment, cultural assets, social assets, and how these
components are perceived by the visitor (Tyrell
& Johnson, 2008) and the community. These out-
comes are relatively unrepresented in the RTAF
model. Thus, more emphasis on adaptive strategies
that highlight minimizing environmental impacts,
enhancing cultural assets, building social assets
among stakeholders in the tourism industry, and
conserving historical artifacts is needed.
Moreover, the majority of the adaptation and
resilience approaches are theoretical and there is a
need for more applied methodologies. Extending
the RTAF model to include more identified steps in
the resilience planning process is needed. Identify-
ing exactly what needs to be done by destination
managers and the purpose of the step in the resil-
ience planning process is necessary to move this
adoption of a resilience philosophy to a resilience
process.
In addition, the RTAF approach focuses mostly
on slow drivers of change. As mentioned, the tour-
ism industry is vulnerable to both slow drivers and
fast drivers, such as unexpected economic slow-
downs, terror attacks, and earthquakes. The RTAF
approach needs to be modified to also examine fast
drivers, which may have different impacts on the
destination. This change would enable the RTAF to
identify all kinds of possible risks that could affect
a tourism destination, not just the ones related to
climate change.
Finally, the RTAF (as emphasized in the title)
focuses on regional tourism. A model that is scal-
able is necessary. A model that provides steps to
complete for any destination is an important con-
tribution to the model. The model would need to
scale the process so any destination could complete
the resilience planning process and move towards
creating a more resilient destination.
 AN APPLIED DESTINATION RESILIENCE MODEL
Thus, the aim of this article is to extend the RTAF
model and address the gaps and limitations of the
model to create a process that is attainable by any
type or size of destination.
A Proposed Model for Destination
Resilience Adaptation
This study adopts and modifies the RTAF model
proposed by Jopp et al. (2010). Under the RTAF
approach, resilience is defined as the ability to
absorb change, resistance is conceptualized as the
reduction of impacts that are likely to affect tour-
ism, and readiness is the ability of a destination to
capitalize on opportunities that arise. According to
Jopp et al. (2010), there are two phases to manag-
ing risk: (1) mitigation; (2) adaptation. Mitigation is
considered the first phase to increase resilience and
includes the risk and vulnerability assessments of
the tourism sector. To that end, assessments are per-
formed by different stakeholder groups to ensure all
parts of the system and its different scales are repre-
sented. The second phase of the model focuses on
the identification and assessment of opportunities
(adaptation strategies) that can emerge from sud-
den changes. This part of the process is critical to
the resilience concept because it includes change
(adaptation process), which is a primary character-
istic of resilient systems.
The effectiveness of the adaptation process needs
to be taken into consideration. The supply and
demand sides of the sector should both be included
in the process. Most studies neglect the opinion of
the community, as well as tourists (domestic and
international), when planning for adaptive strate-
gies, even though it is the tourists who will ulti-
mately visit (and revisit) the destination (Jopp
et al., 2010).
The effectiveness of the adaptation strategies
will lead to the reduction of vulnerabilities of
the tourism sector and will eventually increase
resilience, readiness, and resistance. It will also
ultimately contribute to the sustainability of the
system. Through analysis of the literature review,
the researchers have identified some gaps in the
current RTAF model:
• There is a need for a thorough risk/vulnerability
assessment of the destination that includes the
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 194.104.10.52 On: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:05:23
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article including the
DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
299
opinions of different tourism stakeholders across
sectors.
• There is a need for external evaluation (by
experts) of the adaptation strategies before being
presented to the possible consumers.
With the aim of providing a model that could be
applied in different destinations and could be used
to identify any kind of risk (i.e., not limited only to
the ones related to climate change), the research-
ers propose The Extended Destination Resilience
Model, which is presented in Figure 1.
The proposed model includes an exhaustive risk
assessment across tourism sectors and an opportu-
nity assessment validated by both an impartial third
party and the tourist. Thus, the extended model is
enhanced to five identifiable steps and five new
processes are added:
Step 1: New process 1. Addition of secondary
research to contextualize the destination.
Step 2: New process 2. Identify risks from sec-
ondary sources (i.e., disaster risk management,
department of environment). New process 3.
Identify risks from stakeholder groups (use of
focus groups within stakeholder groups to deter-
mine risks).
Step 3: New process 4. Identify opportunities from
stakeholder groups (where can the destination
invest to mitigate and minimize the impact of a
shock).
Step 5: New process 5. Use stakeholder group via
a large-scale survey to test validity and effective-
ness of adaptive strategies.
The extended model moves the four steps across
two phases to five steps. The first step focuses on
a detailed definition of the tourist system, includ-
ing the study of the geographical characteristics,
natural and cultural resources, identification of the
actors of the system, and a historical analysis of the
risks that have affected the system under study. In
a traditional crisis management planning process,
this process falls under the reduction phase of the
planning process.
The second step includes a thorough risk analy-
sis of the system—considering not only the ones
that have affected the tourism sector, but all of the
risks that have caused a crisis in the destination
 300 BASURTO-CEDEÑO AND PENNINGTON-GRAY

Figure 1. The extended destination resilience model.

within the past 10 years. It also contains a focus
group of tourism stakeholders to identify the risks
that have the greatest vulnerability for the sector.
This type of approach allows destinations to iden-
tify all of the risks that may arise in the destina-
tion but focuses on those that are more likely to
affect the tourism sector. The risks are ranked and
assessed.
The third step is an assessment of opportunities
to identify adaptation strategies to cope with the
main risks for the tourism sector (product of the
second phase of the study) and includes the par-
ticipation of tourism stakeholders from different
sectors (food and beverage, accommodations, oper-
ations, and intermediaries, transportation, parks
and recreation, and public sector). This step was
pulled out of the second step in the original model
because it was felt that it deserved more attention
and a secondary research component to determine
the range and scope of possible strategies that could
be adopted by the destination. Again, the addition
of a workshop to discuss the possible opportunities
to mitigate risks was determined to be a more com-
prehensive step in the process.
The fourth step includes identifying the adaptive
capacity of the destination. Again, using stakeholder
groups, discussing the vulnerability of the destina-
tion in conjunction with areas that require enhance-
ments is conducted in a focus group or workshop.
The fifth step of testing the adaptive strategies
with both stakeholder groups and tourists was
deemed more exhaustive than just testing with tour-
ists. Stakeholder group representation in this phase
was extended beyond those who participated in the
focus groups and workshops to include those from
wider geographic areas, as well as those unable to
attend the previous steps in person.
One of the main benefits of the extension of
this model is the greater emphasis on stakeholder
groups and conversations about both existing risks
and potential risks. It also addresses concepts of
resilience, which theoretically have received atten-
tion but practically have not. The extended model
operationalizes processes to build resilience, as
well as creates a model that is scalable and gener-
alizable so any size destination might benefit from
the process.
Discussion
Resilience is becoming a widely accepted con-
cept in the tourism field and there is a need for a
model for tourism destinations that could be appli-
cable at different scales and considers different
types of risks that might affect the tourism sector.
To fulfill this need, the researchers have proposed
the extended destination resilience model, which is
context based and includes a multirisks analysis.

Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 194.104.10.52 On: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:05:23
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article including the
DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
 AN APPLIED DESTINATION RESILIENCE MODEL
The extended RTAF model presents an option to
increase resilience in the tourism sector through
mitigation and increase of the adaptive capacity,
including the voices of different stakeholders in
the process. However, the model needs to be tested
in different destinations, and future research should
focus on this area.
References
Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R.,
& Rockström, J. (2005). Social-ecological resilience to
coastal disasters. Science, 309(5737), 1036–1039.
Becken, S. (2013). Developing a framework for assessing
resilience of tourism sub-systems to climatic factors.
Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 506–528.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2008). Navigat-
ing social-ecological systems: Building resilience for
complexity and change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., & Schoon, M. L. (Eds.). (2015).
Principles for building resilience: Sustaining ecosystem
services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, E. D., & Williams, B. K. (2015). Resilience and
resource management. Environmental Management, 56(6),
1416–1427.
Cai, H., Lam, N. S. N., Zou, L., Qiang, Y., & Li, K. (2016).
Assessing community resilience to coastal hazards in the
lower Mississippi River basin. Water, 8(2), 46.
Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E.,
Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for
understanding community resilience to natural disasters.
Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598–606.
Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L. J., Quinlan, A. E., Peterson,
G. D., Wilkinson, C., . . . Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience:
A bridging concept or a dead end? “Reframing” resilience:
Challenges for planning theory and practice interacting
traps: Resilience assessment of a pasture management
system in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience: What
does it mean in planning practice? Resilience as a use-
ful concept for climate change adaptation? The politics
of resilience for planning: A cautionary note (edited by
S. Davoudi & L. Porter). Planning Theory & Practice,
13(2), 299–333.
Dawson, J., Stewart, E. J., Johnston, M. E., & Lemieux, C. J.
(2016). Identifying and evaluating adaptation strategies
for cruise tourism in Arctic Canada. Journal of Sustain-
able Tourism, 24(10), 1425–1441.
Drabek, T. E. (2012). Human system responses to disaster:
An inventory of sociological findings. Berlin, Germany:
Springer Science & Business Media.
Dronkers, J., Gilbert, J. T. E., Butler, L. W., Carey, J. J.,
Campbell, J., James, E., . . . Schroder, P. C. (1990). Strat-
egies for adaptation to sea level rise. Report of the IPCC
Coastal Zone Management Subgroup: Intergovernmen-
tal Panel on Climate Change, Geneva.
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 194.104.10.52 On: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:05:23
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article including the
DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
301
Fabry, N., & Zeghni, S. (2002). Foreign direct investment in
Russia: How the investment climate matters. Communist
and Post-Communist Studies, 35(3), 289–303.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspec-
tive for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Envi-
ronmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy:
Understanding transformations in systems of humans
and nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Herrera, G., & Rodríguez, G. (2016). Resiliencia y Turismo:
El Caso de la Ciudad de Baños de Agua Santa. doi:
10.15628 / holos.2016.4303
Holladay, P. J., & Powell, R. B. (2013). Resident perceptions
of social–ecological resilience and the sustainability of
community-based tourism development in the Common-
wealth of Dominica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
21(8), 1188–1211.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological
systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1–23.
Jopp, R., DeLacy, T., & Mair, J. (2010). Developing a
framework for regional destination adaptation to climate
change. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(6), 591–605.
Jopp, R., DeLacy, T., Mair, J., & Fluker, M. (2013). Using a
regional tourism adaptation framework to determine cli-
mate change adaptation options for Victoria’s Surf Coast.
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18(1–2),
144–164.
Lew, A. A. (2014). Scale, change and resilience in com-
munity tourism planning. Tourism Geographies, 16(1),
14–22.
Luthe, T., & Wyss, R. (2014). Assessing and planning resil-
ience in tourism. Tourism Management, 44, 161–163.
Mair, J., Ritchie, B. W., & Walters, G. (2016). Towards a
research agenda for post-disaster and post-crisis recov-
ery strategies for tourist destinations: A narrative review.
Current Issues in Tourism, 19(1), 1–26.
Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F.,
& Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a
metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disas-
ter readiness. American Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy, 41(1–2), 127–150.
Saarinen, J., & Tervo, K. (2006). Perceptions and adapta-
tion strategies of the tourism industry to climate change:
The case of Finnish nature-based tourism entrepreneurs.
International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable
Development, 1(3), 214–228.
Scott, D., de Freitas, C., & Matzarakis, A. (2009). Adapta-
tion in the tourism and recreation sector. In Biometeo-
rology for adaptation to climate variability and change
(pp. 171–194). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Sgro, C. M., Lowe, A. J., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2011). Build-
ing evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity
under climate change. Evolutionary Applications, 4(2),
326–337.
Strickland-Munro, J. K., Allison, H. E., & Moore, S. A.
(2010). Using resilience concepts to investigate the
impacts of protected area tourism on communities.
Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2), 499–519.
 302 BASURTO-CEDEÑO AND PENNINGTON-GRAY

Tierney, K., & Bruneau, M. (2007). Conceptualizing and
measuring resilience: A key to disaster loss reduction. TR
News. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/online​
pubs/trnews/trnews250_p14-17.pdf
Tyrrell, T. J., & Johnston, R. J. (2008). Tourism sustainabil-
ity, resiliency and dynamics: Towards a more compre-
hensive perspective. Tourism and Hospitality Research,
8(1), 14–24.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2017). 2017
annual report. Retrieve from http://tourlib.net/wto/WTO_
annual_report_2017.pdf
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A.
(2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in
social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5.

Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 194.104.10.52 On: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:05:23
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article including the
DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.