Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
20 026
Examensarbete 30 hp
September 2020
Analyzing the resilience of tourism stakeholders during the COVID - 19 pandemic: A case study of Bend, Oregon
Fie Broker - Bulling
1
2
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... 0
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Importance of the Study ................................................................................................................. 7
2 Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 The History of Resilience Theory ................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Engineering Vs. Ecological Resilience .................................................................................... 8
2.2 Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems ......................................................................................... 9
2.3 Destination Resilience ................................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Community Resilience .................................................................................................................. 14
2.5 Business Resilience ........................................................................................................................ 15
2.6 Organizational Resilience ............................................................................................................. 16
2.7 Resilience during Crisis and Disaster .......................................................................................... 17
2.8 Critiques of Resilience Theory ..................................................................................................... 18
3. Bend, Oregon....................................................................................................................................... 20
3.1 History ........................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Bend’s Tourism Industry ............................................................................................................. 20
3.2.1 SWOT Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.3 Visitor Demographics ............................................................................................................ 21
3.2.4 Geographic Origin ................................................................................................................. 22
3.2.5 Occupancy rate ....................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.6 Trip Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 22
3.2.7 Purpose of visit ....................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.8 Method of Travel .................................................................................................................... 22
4. Setting the Scene ................................................................................................................................. 23
5. COVID-19............................................................................................................................................ 28
5.2 The Spread of COVID-19 ............................................................................................................. 30
5.3 The Current Situation .................................................................................................................. 31
5.4 COVID-19 and Tourism ............................................................................................................... 32
6. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 32
6.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 32
6.2 Research Process ........................................................................................................................... 32
6.3 Research Design ............................................................................................................................ 33
3
6.4 Research Approach ....................................................................................................................... 33
6.5 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 35
6.6 Sample............................................................................................................................................ 37
6.7 Ethics.............................................................................................................................................. 37
6.8 Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 38
7. Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 38
8. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 60
9. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 63
References................................................................................................................................................ 65
4
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. BEND SWOT ANALYSIS. SOURCED FROM VISIT BEND. ............................................................................ 21 FIGURE 2. "STAY HOME, SAVE LIVES" SIGNS ALONG A RESIDENTIAL ROAD IN BEND. ................................................ 25 FIGURE 3. THE EMPTY STREETS OF DOWNTOWN BEND.............................................................................................. 27 FIGURE 4. SIGNS OF THE PANDEMIC ......................................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 5. BEND PARKS AND REC CLOSES PUBLIC RECREATIONAL SPACES TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 .. 28
TABLES TABLE 1. ENGINEERING VS. ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE. ADAPTED FROM HALL ET AL. 2018 ......................................... 9 TABLE 2. KYALE'S DIFFERENT KINDS OF QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS. SOURCED FROM KYALE (1996) ........ 34
5
1. Introduction
The world is ever-changing, but the rate of change has been steadily increasing over the last ten years
(Weaver, 2010). Globalization, technological advancements, and rapid human-induced environmental
degradation has projected our world towards a state of irreversible damage (Weaver, 2010). The direction
in which our world is heading has caused academics to sound their alarms and has put sustainability at the
forefront of many academic debates (Weaver, 2010). The undeniable need for sustainability in all
industries is widely acknowledged, and to understand why, one must first familiarize themselves with the
definition of sustainability (Weaver, 2010).
The most recognized definition of sustainability, from a sustainable development perspective, is
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987; p. 43). This definition is used in many fields including
sustainable tourism. The need for sustainability within the tourism industry is undeniable. Tourism is
rapidly growing and currently employs 1 out of 10 individuals globally (UNWTO Annual Report, 2017,
2018). There are many benefits to the development of this industry, especially in areas that lack other
economic opportunities, but one must be aware that tourism growth often comes as at a cost (Pigram,
1992). Typically, the development of this sector triggers detrimental social, environmental, and cultural
impacts (Pigram, 1992). In order to minimize these impacts, the industry must acknowledge, measure,
and manage them (Pigram, 1992). It is crucial to keep in mind that sustainability is not an end product,
but rather an ongoing process of change that must be continuously monitored and adapted as the industry
and surrounding environments change (Bramwell and Lane, 1993).
The continuity of sustainability can make the implementation of sustainable practices extraordinarily
challenging and often unappealing to many tourism stakeholders (Bramwell and Lane, 1993). Though the
route to a sustainable future is steep and often dotted with obstacles, there are several concepts that have
been developed to help ease the process and enable industries to cope with the challenges of an
everchanging world (Cochrane, 2010).
Resilience theory is one of these concepts (Cochrane, 2010). The resilience of a destination, community,
ecosystem, and individual depends on that system's ability to cope with anticipated and unanticipated
change (Cochrane, 2010). A system's ability to cope is influenced by many internal and external elements
(Cochrane, 2010). To ensure the resilience of a system, all elements of the system, including how they
directly and indirectly relate, must be considered (Cochrane, 2010). This type of change is present in all
6
elements of our world, but the tourism industry is particularly exposed to change and unpredictability
(Hall et al., 2018).
As the tourism industry and connectivity grow, and as humans continue to significantly disrupt the earth’s
natural patterns, the likelihood of tourism systems encountering major crises or disasters increases
(Ritchie, 2004). Climate change- and the natural disasters, spread of disease, societal conflicts, and
economic downturns associated with it, will continue to wreak havoc on our society (Ritchie, 2004). The
tourism industry is an industry that will be greatly influenced by these changes (Ritchie, 2004). Though
tourism is regarded as a resilient industry, it is essential for tourism stakeholders to acknowledge future
threats and allocate resources, time, and energy to mitigating and coping with their impacts (Ritchie,
2004).
In this paper, I will analyze the resilience of tourism stakeholders in Bend, Oregon. This analysis took
place during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and, therefore, is analyzing the resilience of
stakeholders while they are in the midst of a massive crisis. Most research related to resilience is
conducted before or after a crisis/disaster has occurred. Therefore, this research contributes relevant and
extremely current insight into how tourism systems are coping with the current global crisis. The data
presented in this dissertation includes information from the start of COVID-19 in December to the
beginning of May, when I conducted my last interview. There may be current information added to the
research if it is relevant to the development of the situation.
1.1 Purpose and Objectives
The primary purpose of this study is to determine the impacts of COVID-19 on tourism stakeholders in
Bend, Oregon, and to analyze the resilience of those stakeholders.
Objectives:
• To understand how the COVID-19 crisis impacted stakeholders in Bend, Oregon.
• To analyze the resilience of tourism stakeholders from multiple levels of the tourism industry
during a global crisis.
• To identify past experiences that strengthened the resilience of tourism stakeholders in this
destination
• To identify ways in which insights gained from the crisis that could strengthen the resilience of
stakeholders.
7
Research Questions:
• How were tourism stakeholders in Bend, Oregon, impacted by the COVID-19 crisis?
• How was the resilience of these stakeholders challenged during this crisis?
• How did past experiences prepare these stakeholders for the current crisis?
• How can these stakeholders use the insight gained from the current crisis to strengthen their
future resilience?
1.2 Importance of the Study
Within the academic world, there is a lack of research related to destination resilience (Hall, 2018). That
lack of research is likely due to the complexity of destinations (Hall et al. 2018). A destination is made up
of many interconnected systems; therefore, gaining a holistic idea of the resilience of a destination would
require a lot of time and energy- often more than a researcher is willing to commit. Even more lacking is
research related to tourism stakeholder resilience. This research gap likely exists due to the complexity of
collecting that data. To get a glimpse into the resilience that exists within the tourism industry of Bend, I
chose to analyze tourism stakeholders. This analysis can provide researchers and stakeholders with insight
into how the on-going global crisis has impacted stakeholders in remote destinations. It can also provide
stakeholders with knowledge on the importance of building resilience in an everchanging world.
2 Literature Review
2.1 The History of Resilience Theory
Resilience is a multidimensional concept used to interpret how systems and people manage uncertainty
and stressors (Lee et al. 2013). The term dates back to the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
The concept stems from the Latin word resilio, meaning “spring back” (Klien et al., 2003). In academia,
the term resilience was initially used before the 1960s in engineering and material sciences (Hall, 2018).
The concept was then adapted and used in ecological and environmental science in the ’80s and surfaced
in social sciences in the early 2000s (Hall, 2018). Despite its frequent appearance in other fields, the term
has been most widely used in medical literature (Hall, 2018). The varied use of resilience speaks to the
malleability of the term (Hall, 2018).
Hall et al. 2018 state that there is no one definition of resilience which highlights the problematic nature
of a term with so much ambiguity (Bodin and Winman, 2004; Carpenter et al., 2001; Klein et al., 2003;
Rose, 2007). Not only do definitions of resilience differ by discipline, but they also often differ within the
8
same discipline (Amore et al., 2018). This vagueness has raised criticisms that doubt the precision and
validity of the concept (Amore et al., 2018).
Regardless of the definitional disparities, the term is still widely used by many researchers and has been
highlighted as an essential tool in conceptualizing how systems and people cope with anticipated and
unanticipated change (Amore et al., 2018). Within the field of tourism, the incorporation of sustainability
principles and policies is known to strengthen the resilience of the industry’s interwoven systems
(Brouder, 2017; Luthe and Wyss, 2016). Resilience within this field is considered positive and is said to
increase the ability of that system to cope with stressors and uncertainty (Seddon et al., 2011).
2.1.2 Engineering Vs. Ecological Resilience
The most common approaches to resilience have been divided into two categories, the “engineering”
approach and the “ecological” approach. The “engineering” approach defines resilience as an outcome, to
which an entity being impacted by a triggering event returns to its original state (Gunderson and Holling,
2002). As described earlier, within the field of engineering, resilience theory is used to determine a
material’s “breaking point,” which in turn, reveals if the material can recover to its original shape after
being bent, compressed, or stretched (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). This concept of resilience is linear
and rigid, unlike the ‘ecological’ concept.
The ecological perspective considers resilience within a multi-level panarchy framework that considers
many different dimensions of a system (Amore et al., 2018). This approach emphasizes all elements of
resilience and their capability to maintain, resume or adapt to change while coping with external
disturbances (Amore et al., 2018). In ecology, resilience is used to describe the degree with which a
system can absorb a shock or disturbance and regain stability (Holling, 1973). The ecological definition is
more attuned to systems thinking and focuses on the interconnectedness of many internal and external
elements (Cochrane, 2010). Hall (2016) points out that within the field of ecology, resilience is neither
positive nor negative. He justifies this claim by explaining that the long-term survival of a particular
species might make no difference to other species or the stability of the ecosystem (Hall, 2016). This
depends heavily on the system and the specific species.
Despite both falling under the arch of resilience, the concepts represent two contrasting ideas of stability,
and overall are quite different. “Engineering” resilience focuses on the maintenance of the efficiency of
9
an entity while “ecological” resilience focuses on maintaining the existence of an entity (See Table 1.)
(Amore et al., 2018; Hall, 2016, 2018). Though the two concepts are fundamentally different, many
studies related to resilience, especially within the field of tourism, neglect to define how their research
relates to the different framings of resilience, and how this might impact the nature of the system,
equilibrium, and change (Hall, 2016, 2018).
Engineering Resilience Ecological Resilience
• Static/Constant
• Complicated systems
• Equilibrium
• Predictable
• Numerical values of state variables
• Rate of recovery after disturbance
• Maximizing systems performance
• Optimal control
• Dynamic and fluid
• Complex systems
• Regimes
• Unpredictable
• Relationship between structure and
function
• Ability to absorb the effects of
disturbance
• Preserving favorable system function
• Monitoring and predicting Table 1. Engineering vs. Ecological Resilience. Adapted from Hall et al. 2018
2.2 Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems
The “ecological” concept of resilience is used to describe how social-ecological systems (SES) cope with
disturbances and change (Holling, 1973). However, once human agency is added as an influential element
of resilience, the integration of a new set of ideas, including adaptation, adaptive capacity, gained insight,
and innovation, must also be included in the concept (Holling, 1973). The inclusion of these human-
related elements allows space for the important recognition that people play a central role in how change
occurs (Hall 2018). People influence the degree to which change occurs and the impact that the change
can have on a system (Maguire and Cartwright, 2008).
When relating to SES, resilience theory describes the evolution of systems as cyclical and non-linear
(Holling, 2001). Holling (2001) illustrated the cyclical evolution using a figure-eight shape, or panarchy
called the Holling Loop. This figure-eight depicts the four different phases of resilience that a system
passes through while trying to regain stability (Holling, 2001). The four different stages or phases are
reorganization, exploitation, conservation, and release (Holling, 2001). Though a system might move
through these phases numerous times, each phase will affect the system differently depending on what the
10
system has endured before the current disturbance (Gunderson, 2000). If a system has previously endured
a similar disturbance without collapsing, it is likely less vulnerable to the current disturbance due to the
knowledge it gained from the previous disturbance (Adger, 2000). The experience of each phase varies, as
does the speed of recovery (Cochrane, 2010). The re-stabilization stage of a system is closely tied to the
system’s ability to adapt to change (Holling, 2001). As mentioned before, a system's ability to adapt is
impacted by the strengths and weaknesses gained from the phases of previous disruptions (Adger, 2000).
Extreme stress can cause a system to move from one phase to the next (Holling, 2001).
A system’s adaptive capacity describes its ability to adapt during a disturbance, determining how
vulnerable a system is, and in turn, how likely that system is to ‘bounce back’ from this shift (Gunderson,
2000). More specifically, adaptive capacity refers to the ability of a system to modify or change behavior
to cope with, manage, or adjust to current or future stressors (Smit & Wandel, 2006). The adaptation
happens in the form of a process, action, or outcome caused by a changed condition, stress, hazard, risk,
or opportunity (Smit & Wandel, 2006). More recently, social scientists are recognizing that a system's
ability to thrive during a change due to their behavioral or innovative adaptations, determines that
particular systems adaptive capacity (Smit & Wandel, 2006).
The vulnerability of a system is influenced by its adaptive capacity. A system can become vulnerable
after a disturbance impacting it’s present or future ability to absorb change (Turner et al., 2003). If a
dramatic change occurs to a system that has already become vulnerable from a prior disturbance, the
current disturbance can have devastating effects and lead to a system collapse (Turner et al., 2003). If a
system has a high adaptive capacity and can quickly adapt to a sudden change or disturbance that system
will likely experience innovation during the reorganization stage (Holling, 2001). This innovation or
development can lead to a system becoming more robust than it was in its previous state, making it less
vulnerable and more resilient (Holling, 2001).
When managing SES, the resilience of such systems should not be concerned with an equilibrium (Hall
2018). Priority should be placed on the mechanisms of the system that enable it to persist, all the while
acknowledging that these mechanisms have a capacity that can and inevitably will be diminished by
environmental change and human impact (Deffuant and Gilbert 2011, Hall, 2018)
The non-linear model of resilience emphasizes the need for the authorities in charge of managing systems
to consider the vulnerability and adaptive capacity of the system (Gunderson, 2000). In addition to
acknowledging adaptive cycles, it is essential to realize that within SES, all processes and structures are
11
linked (Walker and Salt, 2006; Hall 2018). The occurrence of an event on one level can impact or drive
what is happening on another level (Walker and Salt, 2006; Hall 2018).
Another vital element of SES is constant change. The consistency of change within these systems is not
always gradual and can be quite drastic (Folke et al., 2002). A regime shift can be challenging to handle,
expensive, and irreversible (Scheffer et al., 2001). These consequences often cause governing parties or
management authorities to attempt to control these changes (Folke et al., 2002). There are many examples
of SES management bodies attempting to suppress natural regime shifts or slow-changing ecological
variables which have led to disastrous results (Holling and Meffe, 1996). This type of management can
disrupt the SES social memory or remove mechanisms needed for creative, adaptive change by people,
which can then actually erode resilience and cause a system breakdown or collapse (Hughes and Redman,
2002). On the other end of the spectrum, management can also build resilience that can enable the
sustainment of SES when faced with unpredictability and complexity (Folke et al., 2002)
As mentioned above, the management of SES can destroy or build resilience, depending on how the SES
organizes itself in response to management actions (Carpenter et al., 2001; Holling, 2001). The type of
management that builds resilience is not rigid and is instead open to gaining new knowledge (Gunderson,
2001). It supports fundamental slow-changing variables that promote diversity, memory creation, and the
capacity for both social and ecological components of the system to innovate (Gunderson, 2001). It
emphasizes the conservation and growth of fundamental diverse elements that promote reorganization and
adaptation, allowing for the SES to cope with a broader range of shocks (Gunderson, 2001; Folke et al.,
2002).
The concept of resilience highlights how the governance of SES can significantly influence the ability of
that system to adapt, absorb and flourish when faced with a variety of changes (Brunner et al. 1997, Folke
et al., 2002). This knowledge encourages management to consider the interconnectedness of SES and
promotes the use of resilience thinking and adaptive management to build the resilience of these systems
(Folke et al., 2002). Increasing adaptive capacity and building resilience is of utmost importance within
the fields of tourism and sustainable development. Acknowledging that governance systems and social
institutions that are flexible can create an environment that allows for future development, and increased
adaptive capacity to co-exist in any system will enable sustainable development (Brunner et al. 1997,
Folke et al., 2002).
12
The evolution of resilient SES systems can be used as a representation of how most tourism-related
systems react and develop when faced with uncertainty. Though the evolution of complex systems all
develop in a similar cyclical fashion, the indicators used to determine the level of resilience and predict
the course of those systems differ.
2.3 Destination Resilience
Early instances of resilience within tourism research focused mainly on the economic and organizational
dimensions of the industry and lacked theoretical development (Hall et al., 2018; Lew et al., 2016). Hall
et a. (2018) notes that most of that research occurred after 2005 despite the first use of the concept
appearing in tourism research in the 1970s. The majority of tourism-related resilience research after 2005
focuses on economic recovery after a crisis or disaster, highlighting appropriate management models for
dealing with such changes (Hall, 2018). Resilience theory initially presented itself in early tourism
literature in the form of ‘engineering’ resilience (Hall, 2018). This concept neglected the external and
internal linkages and non-linear development of tourism systems (Lew et al., 2016; Hall, 2016). The shift
from the use of ‘engineering’ resilience to “ecological” resilience was initially made by Tyler and
Dangerfield (1999) when describing ecotourism. This shift from the ‘engineering’ concept to the
‘ecological’ concept contributes significantly to the ongoing inconsistencies and confusion relating to
resilience and sustainable development within the tourism field (Amore at al., 2018; Hall et al., 2018;
Hall, 2018)
Despite many developments within the field, currently, about half of all resilience research relates to
economic dimensions of tourism (Hall, 2018), and surprisingly, research explicitly related to the
resilience of destinations is quite limited (Hall et al., 2018). This gap in research could be attributed to the
complexity of destinations (Hall et al., 2018). In destination research, there is no one definition of
resilience that works for all destinations. Instead, one must apply several different concepts rooted in
different core disciplines to get a holistic idea of the resilience of a destination (Hall et al., 2018).
Destination systems are rooted within more expansive tourism systems that are susceptible to broader
changes and impacts (Hall, 2018). Though this adds to the complexity of destination systems, the
complexity does not end there.
Destinations not only experience vertical influence from the top-down but also from the bottom up (Bec
et al., 2015; Hall 2018). For example, destinations can be significantly impacted by communities or
13
organizations that are influenced by individuals (Hall et al., 2018; Hall, 2018). Horizontal linkages to
other destinations or regions also influence the resilience of a destination (Biggs et al., 2012; Hall 2018).
Change to destination systems not only comes in the form of rapid external shocks, such as those
resulting from disasters or crises, but also comes in the form of gradual change (Hall et al., 2018). The
resilience of the tourism systems is heavily influenced by interconnections and linkages to different parts
of the system on different levels (Hall, 2018). These linkages mean that the resilience of tourist
destinations cannot be assessed using only one framework, but instead must be assessed using multiple
frameworks that incorporate all features of the tourist supply and demand and also incorporate vertical
and horizontal linkages (Amore et al., 2018).
As mentioned above, destination resilience can be influenced by many different elements, but changes in
one system, or at one scale of a system, do not always lead to changes in all interconnected elements
(Hall, 2016, 2018). The panarchy fashion of the ‘ecological’ concept of resilience more accurately
represents the interconnectedness of complex systems while also acknowledging that in non-linear models
there will not always be a domino effect of change (Hall, 2018). The lack of predictability of tourism
systems is difficult and can be problematic when attempting to manage them (Hall, 2018).
Though destinations can often be unpredictable, specific indicators can help determine their resilience
(Bec et al., 2016). Connectedness and diversity are seen as an essential indicator of resilient tourism
systems. However, it must be acknowledged that even though increased interactions and engagement with
regional, national and global systems can increase resilience, it may, in some instances, expose the
destination to more threats (Bec et al., 2016). Though the increased knowledge gained from these
relationships may build resilience, the connections might make the destination more vulnerable to
external changes (Bec et al., 2016). It is unlikely that a tourism system will choose to be excluded from
larger systems due to the financial benefits such a relationship can bring, so the impact that these
relationships can have on a system should be considered.
Secondly, community resilience significantly impacts destination resilience and is also considered an
important indicator (Bec et al., 2016; Biggs et al., 2012). In fact, according to Hall (2018), about one-third
of all tourism research revolves around community resilience. It is essential to recognize that, despite
there being a deficit in destination resilience research, destination and community systems share many
features and are quite similar. Therefore, community resilience research should be considered when
conducting destination research (Hall, 2018). Diversity, connectivity, and heterogeneity within
14
communities and destinations are known to contribute to greater levels of resilience (Brand and Jax, 2007;
Hall, 2018). These are the leading indicators identified in destination resilience, but many other indicators
help determine the resilience of different elements of destinations, such as communities, businesses, and
organizations.
2.4 Community Resilience
Community is a concept that can be defined in several different ways (Wilson, 2012). Communities are
often assumed to be ‘open’ and ‘unbound’ systems meaning that they are not easily identifiable, and often
their boundaries must be clearly marked (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). The lack of clear boundaries often
leads to misinterpretation of the concept (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). Additionally, similar to
destinations, communities can be constructed of many different ‘stakeholders’ or individuals that exist
within a complex system of powers and agendas (Allen, 2003; Wilson, 2012). Therefore, community
resilience is often associated with the quest to achieve resilience in multiple systems, some of which can
be contradictive (Allen, 2003; Wilson, 2012). These contradictions can be particularly evident if issues of
scale are not taken into consideration when assessing community resilience (Wilson, 2012). The notion of
community can be scaled up and down; therefore, it is crucial to be aware that communities are not
homogenous entities, and community members may have resilience pathways that differ from the
community of which they live (Wilson, 2012). The methodologies used to measure resilience should be as
inclusive as possible to ensure that they contain the many varying views within a community (Wilson,
2012). Though the meaning and definition of community will likely be debated indefinitely, researchers
have managed to identify what aspects of the system can strengthen the resilience of a community.
Community resilience centers around the idea of ‘bouncing back’ from external shocks (Cutter et al.
2008; Murphy et al., 2007; Skerratt, 2013; Wilson, 2012). Community resilience has been identified as
the presence, development, and engagement of community resources by community members, which
enable members to thrive in a changing environment (Magis, 2010). A resilient community is one that can
innovate while experiencing uncertainty, unpredictability, and unexpected events (Magis, 2010).
Individuals that are a part of a resilient community consistently engage in the development of personal
and collective capacity that enables them to deal with and influence change, to maintain and renew the
community, and to modify the trajectory of the community as needed (Magis, 2010). Though a
community's response to disaster plays an essential role in determining the resilience of that community,
15
resilience goes beyond disaster and crisis preparation, and should include the continuous building of
strengths within a system that can contribute to resilience when needed (Skerratt, 2013). Though
community resilience considers non-tourism entities, these entities still influence tourism and, therefore,
should not be excluded.
Additionally, there are two other vital systems that contribute to the overall resilience of a destination and
those are businesses and organizations. The vitality of a tourism destination depends heavily on both
these systems. Therefore, when analyzing destination resilience, these two contributors should be
considered.
2.5 Business Resilience
Research exploring the everyday resilience of tourism businesses is lacking (Hall, 2018). Most of the
available research explores how tourism organizations respond to disaster, but there is a clear gap that
excludes small tourism businesses (Hall, 2018). This gap is problematic for several reasons, one being
that small scale tourism businesses contribute significantly to destinations (Hall, 2018). They are also
often the most vulnerable when a disaster or crisis impacts a tourism system (Dahles and Susilowati,
2015). The small amount of research that does exist on small businesses highlights financial resources as
the most critical indicator of resilience (Dahles and Susilowati, 2015; Hall, 2018). Though small
businesses tend to have more flexibility within their companies, which can enhance their ability to
overcome external shocks and maintain a competitive advantage, their financial fragility can override this
adaptability (Dahles and Susilowati, 2015).
Business resilience is defined by Briggs et al. (2015) as a business’s ability to continue operation and
adapt to disturbance while maintaining its image or identity. Resilient businesses cannot only recover
from disturbances but are also able to display adaptive capacity, which leads to innovation and permanent
changes to their overall business concept (Fiksel, 2006; Hall, 2018). Openness and flexibility are key
elements in business resilience and will allow for a business to manage drastic and unplanned changes
(Cutter et al., 2008; Fiksel, 2006). These changes might come in the form of new business partners and
networks, different methods of operation, new markets, different products, and new forms of leadership
within the business (Dahles and Susilowati, 2015). Businesses play a critical role in destination resilience,
but resilient organizations are just as important.
16
2.6 Organizational Resilience
At the most basic level, organizational resilience is associated with the survival of organizations when
encountering severe shocks and stress (Shaw and Maythorne, 2012). Some researchers argue that this
definition is too passive (Somers, 2009), and state that resilience is more than just the ability to ‘bounce
back’ (Nilakant et al., 2016; Somers, 2009). They describe a more ‘active’ definition of resilience that
involves an organization, not only overcoming disturbances but embracing them and thriving when faced
with adversity (Somers, 2009). The idea is that by maximizing an organization's capacity to adapt to
complex situations, the organization is building its resilience (Somers, 2009)
Organizational resilience plays a vital role in the resilience of other systems, such as community
resilience and destination resilience (Lee et al., 2013). Both systems, especially when confronted with
disasters and crises, will experience social and economic challenges and rely heavily on a variety of
different organizations for services and leadership while navigating, and recovering from, the impacts of
these disruptions (Lee et al., 2013). Conversely, the resilience of community and destination systems will
also impact the resilience of organizations (Lee et al., 2013; Somers, 2009).
Organizational resilience is not simple, it is a “complex blend of behaviors, perspectives, and interactions
that can be developed, measured, and managed’ (Lengnick-Hall and Beck, 2005, p. 10). Several
researchers have agreed that organizational resilience should consist of two elements (Somers, 2009).
Firstly, organizations should have an inherent resilience that enables the optimal function, outside of
disasters and crisis events (Cutter et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2013; Somers, 2009). Secondly, organizations
should possess adaptive resilience, which requires flexibility in response to crises and disasters allowing
for a quick recovery (Cutter et al., 2008; Hall, 2008; Lee et al., 2013; Somers, 2009).
Leaders openly acknowledge the need to improve organizational resilience, yet it is often not prioritized
(Lee et al., 2013). Lack of time, resources, and urgency allow for other, more pressing issues to take
center stage (Lee et al., 2013). Additionally, it is difficult to gain financial support for an investment that
lacks immediate, measurable returns, and quantifiable benefits (Lee et al., 2013). The rapid evolution of
business and political environments and the recurrence of financial crises add a level of difficulty in
understanding and prioritizing organizational resilience (Lee et al., 2013). This often leads to a lack of
protocol and preparedness when faced with disaster and crises (Lee et al., 2013).
17
Enhancing organizational resilience will not only benefit organizations but will also benefit many other
interconnected systems (Lee et al., 2013; Sommers, 2009). Analyzing the current state of resilience within
organizations and making changes to leadership and management to improve resilience will greatly
benefit the organization and all those directly and indirectly connected.
2.7 Resilience During Crisis and Disaster
A large portion of resilience research within the tourism field is related to overcoming crises and
disasters. Most researchers define a crisis and a disaster as two individual states, but they are very closely
related and share many elements (Adger et al., 2002). According to Faulkner (2001), the major difference
between the two is that a disaster is outside of anyone’s control while a crisis is self-inflicted, and
therefore controllable. By this definition, an earthquake would be a disaster, and a civil war would be a
crisis. Despite their differences, both a crisis and a disaster can significantly impact a tourism system
(Adger et al., 2002). The severity of the impact depends on the resilience and vulnerability of the system,
which, as mentioned above, is determined by many different elements (Adger et al. 2002; Calgaro and
Cochrane, 2009).
A tourism system has a high level of resilience if it is prepared for disaster or crisis to the extent that
ensures that during and after an event, it does not lose its fundamental structure and function. This can be
done by using techniques that improve the system’s ability to respond to, cope with, and adapt to both
slow and swift changes (Adger et al., 2002). Though a system can build resilience through
planning/preparation, that system's resilience will also depend on several other internal and external
elements (Calgaro and Cochrane, 2009). Resilience can be influenced by the level of exposure the system
has to a stressing event, the response of the system to the event, and the systems adaptations after the
event (Calgaro and Cochrane, 2009). Externally, the type of disaster or crisis, its magnitude, duration, and
frequency will impact resilience (Calgaro and Cochrane, 2009). Overall, a tourism system's resilience to a
disaster or crisis depends heavily on the resilience of several interconnected systems (Calgaro and
Cochrane, 2009). This can make it very difficult to predict how the system will respond during an event
(Adger et al., 2002). The uncertainty involved in predicting the response of complex and dynamic systems
during a crisis causes some researchers to doubt the ability of the theory of resilience to accurately depict
how systems will cope during a crisis (Olsson et al., 2015).
18
2.8 Criticisms of Resilience Theory
Though resilience thinking is used to describe and understand how essential features of human and non-
human elements cope with and recover from disturbance, shocks, and stress (Brand & Jax, 2007). Some
academics believe that the widespread use of the theory might dilute the accuracy and precision of its
meaning (Brand & Jax, 2007). They believe that resilience theory should not be used within social
sciences stating that inconsistent definitions, the inadequate translation of vocabulary, the malleability,
and the lack of unification within the field make it unfit for use within the social sciences (Olsson et al.,
2015).
Definitions of resilience vary greatly from narrow to broad, from logical to contradictory, from brief to
extended, and from explanatory to normative to predictive (Olsson et al., 2015). Even within the scientific
field, a field that often prioritizes precision, there are contradictions regarding core elements of resilience
thinking. Within this field, transformation has been identified as ‘critical to maintaining resilience” by
some scholars, while others have described the avoidance of transformation critical in preventing a
regime shift (Olsson et al., 2015). Resilience thinkers within the scientific community have addressed this
ambiguity by including both change and resistance to change within the definition of resilience, claiming
that critics have simply misunderstood the notion of transformation (Olsson et al., 2014)
Varying definitions of resilience arise in all fields that incorporate the concept, but resilience is met with
many additional barriers when used in the social sciences (Olsson et al., 2015). Olsson et al. (2015)
highlight the absence of social sciences vocabulary from resilience theory as a massive barrier to the
commensurability of the concept. Terms such as agency, conflict, knowledge, and power are fundamental
in describing the complex relationships that exist within the social sciences, and the exclusion of them can
have drastic consequences (Olsson et al., 2015). Political actors can take advantage of the exclusion of
these concepts and use the theory as a tool to push for the development of management protocols and
policies that might not be appropriate (Olsson et al., 2015). This leads to our next point of contention, is
resilience “good,” “bad,” or neither?
Across all fields, the overwhelming majority of resilience thinkers identify the concept as a normative
one, meaning that the literature highlights resilience as positive and beneficial (Olsson et al., 2014). The
desire to view resilience, and all that it entails, as positive and beneficial is problematic to social science
research that centers around the benefits of social progress and change (Olsson et al., 2015).
19
Resilience thinkers often highlight the importance of defining the boundaries of a system when analyzing
that system, but as many academics know, defining boundaries can be extremely challenging (Olsson et
al., 2015). We live in a world that lacks boundaries and closed systems. Even the boundaries of planet
Earth can be contested when one considers the layered atmosphere (Olsson et al., 2015). In specific fields
such as psychology, systems are well-established, or research demands that those boundaries be defined,
but in most other circumstances, boundaries are much less clear.
In the natural and social sciences, determining where one system ends and the other begins can be
impossible, or is otherwise fabricated, which can exclude important and essential complexities of that
system (Olsson et al., 2015). To gain a holistic idea of a system, researchers should incorporate how
these social relations and scales are interwoven with actors, institutions, and structures that exist beyond
the “system” being observed. The desire to simplify or exclude elements of a system to make resilience
theory applicable to the social sciences is tempting but can have devastating consequences (Olsson et al.,
2015).
2.9 Literature Review Conclusion
The theory of resilience has developed a lot since it was first used in engineering and material sciences
(Hall, 2018). The theory has morphed from its original linear process to a more cyclical process (Hall,
2018). This cyclical version of the resilience concept is typically referred to as the ecological concept of
resilience and is used to analyze complex and dynamic systems (Hall, 2018).
Concerning sustainable tourism, resilience theory can provide insight into how different stakeholders
within a destination, such as community members, business owners, and organizations, can absorb and
adapt to change when encountered with a disaster or crisis (Brouder 2017; Luthe and Wyss, 2016). The
theory focuses on identifying protective factors and strengthening a system's ability to deal with adversity
(Maclean et al., 2013). Resilience theory can provide a deep understanding of the external and internal
complexities involved in the management of systems (Seddon et al., 2011). It can provide a framework to
help policymakers, governing bodies, and resource managers identify emergent behavior and give them
the tools to cope with internal and external stressors (Seddon et al., 2011). This should enable systems
within tourism to increase adaptive capacity and decrease vulnerability. If a system is capable of
adapting, learning from, and responding to change while still maintaining its foundational structure, and
20
without eroding future opportunities, it is considered to be resilient. Therefore, the likelihood of it
surviving and thriving during a disaster is increased (Ruiz-Ballesteros, 2011; Schianetz and Kavanagh,
2008).
Though resilience theory can be useful in helping destinations and other systems improve their ability to
cope with change, some researchers argue that the theory is not transferable to fields within the social
sciences (Olssen et al., 2015). Olssen et al., (2015) claim that the definition of the theory is so variable
that it has caused the theory to become diluted. They claim that for the theory to be used on SES, these
systems must be simplified and artificially bound to boundaries that are not present in reality (Olssen et
al., 2015). These discrepancies can exclude fundamental elements of the system's coping process and can
have severe outcomes when it comes to the creation of policy and management for these systems. Despite
these criticisms, resilience theory still has the ability to shed light on the elements of a system that need to
be strengthened in order for it to overcome and thrive during a diaster or crsis.
3. Bend, Oregon
3.1 History
Before the arrival of early European settlers Bend, and the surrounding areas, were used as seasonal
hunting and fishing grounds for indigenous peoples (The History of Bend). Bend was officially
recognized as a city in 1905 (The History of Bend). The development of The Oregon Trunk Railroad
enabled the city of Bend to establish a prosperous logging industry and an early tourism industry (The
History of Bend). The establishment of two large timber mills and Mt. Bachelor Ski Resort made Bend a
very appealing city for settlers and contributed to its growth and development (The History of Bend).
Today Bend has a population of about 85,000 residents, and its primary industries are healthcare, retail,
and hospitality (Overview of the United States). The city is most well-known for its ski resort, craft
breweries, and the beautiful natural landscapes (The History of Bend).
3.2 Bend’s Tourism Industry
The tourism industry in Bend has been growing at a steady pace. This destination has a variety of
different activities, amenities, and events to offer tourists. As mentioned above, the area is most well-
known for recreational tourism, stunning landscapes, events, and a strong craft beer culture. Emerging in
popularity is Bend’s growing culture and art scene (Visit Bend)
21
You can find Downtown Bend tucked right up against the iconic Deschutes River. Bend’s Downtown
district is filled with young and vibrant energy (Visit Bend). It is packed with restaurants, bars, breweries,
and local retailers (Visit Bend). Bend is an outdoor hub with easy access to some of Oregon’s more
popular recreational areas such as The Deschutes National Forest, Mount Bachelor, Sisters, and the
Deschutes River (Visit Bend). There are hundreds of hiking, mountain biking, kayaking, and backpacking
areas surrounding the city (Visit Bend). There are also 80 public parks within the city limits offering
tourists with a large variety of recreational space (Visit Bend).
3.2.1 SWOT Analysis
The SWAT analysis below was conducted by Visit Bend before the pandemic. As you can see, Bend does
conduct risk assessments; unfortunately, a global pandemic was not a threat on Visit Bend’s radar
Figure 1. Bend SWOT Analysis. Sourced from Visit Bend.
3.2.3 Visitor Demographics
The majority of Bend’s visitors stay overnight (92%) of all visitors, 4% of visitors come for a day trip,
and the remaining 5% are seasonal visitors or second homeowners (RRC, 2017). Historically, there have
been more female than male visitors (RRC, 2017). The average age of a summer visitor is 47.9, and the
median age is 48. Couples and older “empty” nesters make up the main population of visitors (RRC,
2017). The median annual income of visitors is about 87,000 (RRC, 2017).
22
3.2.4 Geographic Origin
In the summer, about 63% percent of summer visitors are from outside of Oregon state (RRC, 2017).
There are slightly more out of state visitors in the summer months than there are in the winter
months (RRC, 2017). California (19%) and Washington (15%) account for the majority of out of state
visitors. Together, Oregon, Washington, and California make up 70% of all of Bend’s visitors (RRC,
2017). International visitors accounted for about 4% of Bend visitors, and Canada is the top international
country of origin, accounting for about 50% of all international visitors (RRC, 2017).
3.2.5 Occupancy Rate
The occupancy rate in Bend is between 80%-90% during the summer/high season (June-September). The
average annual occupancy rate has been steadily increasing, with a significant increase recently being
seen during the winter (RRC, 2017).
3.2.6 Trip Characteristics
There is a significant seasonal cross-over with 51% of all visitors, indicating that they have visited Bend
during the winter months. Additionally, 68% of all visitors are repeat visitors. The average group size of
visitors is 3.1 people (RRC, 2017).
3.2.7 Purpose of visit
Seventy-eight percent of Oregon state residents visit Bend for outdoor recreation/leisure/sightseeing
(RRC, 2017). Out-of-state visitors were often visiting friends or relatives in the area (30%). Downtown
Bend is the most popular tourist attraction, but the Old Mill shopping district and the breweries are also
trendy (RRC, 2017). These three attractions are the top attractions during the summer and winter seasons.
Out-of-state visitors were more likely to visit a variety of different attractions than in-state visitors. 67%
of visitors participated in dining, 48% in brewery visits, 43% in shopping, 42% in hiking/trail running,
and 42% in floating/ paddle sports (RRC, 2017).
3.2.8 Method of Travel
The majority of Bend visitors traveled to the area in their private car (79%) (RRC, 2017). About 25% of
visitors took a flight into Bend, 12% arrived in a rental car, and 4% came in a camper or RV (RRC,
2017).
23
3.2.9 Length of Stay
Visitors stayed an average of 3.9 nights in Bend. Out-of-state visitors generally stayed longer, with an
average length stay of 4.4 nights (RRC, 2017).
4. Setting the Scene- COVID-19 arrives in Bend, Oregon.
The entire world is currently overflowing with uncertainty. There is minimal trust, a lack of definite
answers, and a whole lot of unknown, but there is one thing that I know for sure, and that is that things in
this world are not as they used to be. They are not as they used to be, and they will likely never be the
same again. No matter where an individual is in the world, or what their political views may be, they too
know that COVID-19 have forever changed our world. While I was in the United States conducting my
research on COVID-19, my thesis advisor in Sweden was diagnosed with the disease. This goes to show
how widespread the impacts of this pandemic are. The ripple effects are being felt in every corner of the
world, even in places so isolated that they are typically untouched by happenings in the world around
them.
Though Bend, Oregon is certainly not the most isolated place in the world, it is considered rural. Bend is
a mid-sized town in central Oregon that is host to an eclectic mix of outdoor enthusiasts, ranchers,
farmers, and tech industry folk. It is surrounded by deserts, mountains, and steep canyons with miles of
wild terrain to explore. Industries in Bend are growing, and the population is increasing at astonishing
rates.
Despite its rapid growth, Bend still has an air of isolation, perhaps because the closest big city is a three-
hour drive away. Feeling isolated is very different from actually being isolated, and the truth of the
globalized world that we live in today is that there are very few communities that are truly isolated and
unaffected by global affairs. As the COVID-19 crisis unfolded, it was apparent that many destinations did
not fully realize the severity of the situation or understand how vulnerable their communities were to the
impacts of this global pandemic- Bend is no exception.
When COVID-19 landed in the states, I was living in Bend, Oregon. A few weeks before the lockdown, I
was interviewing a business owner for a different thesis topic. I remember asking them if they were
worried about the threat of COVID-19, and the business owner seemed unphased. They joked about how
their business could operate in small groups and could remain socially distant if necessary, stating that
they should be fine. They did not seem very worried about the situation. I later interviewed this same
24
business again after switching my thesis topic. By the time I conducted my second interview with them,
their business had been completely shut down by the governor's ‘stay at home’ order. They had not
worked for at least a month, had laid off most of their employees, and were scrambling to figure out how
they would make it through the season. This situation is an example of the lack of understanding of the
severity of the impacts that COVID-19 could have on the industry.
Though many academic fields have been warning governments and institutions about the looming threat
of a global pandemic (Garret, 2005; Osterholm, 20017), smaller destinations and communities often do
not have the financial resources to prepare for such a threat (Lee et al., 2013). Additionally, the WHO and
the CDC did not fully recognize the swift pace at which the virus was spreading, and eventually,
communities around the world were feeling the devastating impacts of this rapidly unfolding crisis.
The state of Oregon discovered it is the first case of COVID-19 very soon after the virus landed in the
USA (CO: A timeline of events, 2020). As the situation progressed through March, Oregon State
Governor, Kate Brown, continued to tighten restrictions on gatherings (CO: A timeline of events, 2020).
First, starting with a ban on gatherings of more than 250 people, and finally eleven days later, putting a
total ban on all gatherings and issuing a statewide “stay at home order” (CO: A timeline of events, 2020).
The following text is my first-hand account of how the situation unfolded in Bend, Oregon
In cities across America, citizens are being ordered to stay in their homes at all times. They are not
supposed to leave unless it is for an ‘essential’ activity. Essential activities include grocery shopping,
outdoor exercise, doctor appointments, food delivery to vulnerable individuals, and bank visits. By law,
every other activity is prohibited. All national/state parks, retail stores, salons, community spaces, fitness
centers, playgrounds, campgrounds, recreational facilities (theaters, bowling alleys, pools, amusement
parks.), museums, tour operators, visitor centers have been ordered to close until further notice.
It is a bizarre time, and it is nearly impossible to avoid being reminded of the abnormal circumstances that
we are all currently enduring. Though many people refer to COVID-19 as the invisible virus, we are
surrounded by signs, literally and figuratively, that indicates we are in a global pandemic. There are both
obvious and less obvious indicators of the crisis unfolding around us. Some of the more apparent
reminders include the large construction signs dispersed around the city that continuously flash “STAY
HOME, SAVE LIVES.” (See Figure 2.).
25
Figure 2. "Stay Home, Save Lives" signs along a residential road in Bend.
A trip to the grocery store also includes many apparent indicators of strange and unfamiliar
times. Walking into the store makes me feel as if I am walking onto the set of a low budget apocalyptic
movie. Handwritten and heavily pixelated printed signs hang on windows, doors, grocery carts, checkout
stands, and in the middle of most isles. They all include the same plea for customers to stay 6ft apart and
abide by social distancing measures. Signs and masking tape are used on the floor to indicate how far
apart people should stand while waiting in the checkout line. Some grocery stores are even limiting the
number of customers allowed in the store at once. All grocery store clerks wear plastic gloves and masks.
In most stores, customers are no longer allowed to bring their reusable bags and are forced instead to take
one-time-use bags. Large plexiglass walls have been erected at checkout counters to separate the grocery
clerks from the customers.
Almost all shoppers have their faces covered with some sort of cloth, either a bandana, homemade mask,
surgical mask, or some other type of covering. It is surreal. I am not used to seeing people wearing masks,
and seeing them regularly is quite strange. In the past, I have associated masks with heavily polluted areas
or people who are incredibly sick. I have a feeling that masks will become the new normal, but currently,
it is still quite unusual. Another noteworthy element of a grocery trip is the attitudes and energy of the
people in the grocery stores.
Clerks and customers are both extremely uneasy and tense. The friendly chit chat that is often exchanged
between customers and employees has been silenced and replaced with fear and frustrations. Everyone is
26
struggling right now, whether their struggles are financial, emotional, or physical, the collective struggle
and suffering can be felt. Tempers are easily triggered, and I have seen numerous arguments unfold in the
middle of the grocery store. Individuals are fighting to pay an ungodly amount of money for standard
items such as sugar, flour, vinegar, cleaning supplies, and toilet paper. Grocery stores are even forced to
restrict the quantity that customers can purchase to ease the burden on their suppliers and prevent people
from selfishly buying the entire stock. Though going to the grocery store is stressful and relatively
unpleasant, the most peculiar feeling arises when visiting the empty streets of downtown Bend.
I am currently walking through the downtown district of Bend, and it is about 21 degrees outside. It feels
like a typical summer day, except that there is nothing typical about this day besides the weather. On a
typical weekend like this, especially this time of the year, when most schools are on spring break, the
downtown area of Bend would be flooded with people. The outdoor seating areas would be overflowing
with patrons enjoying cold drinks and local food. Visitors and locals would be flocking to the trails,
rivers, lakes, and mountains to make the most of this beautiful weekend. Unfortunately, this year is very
different, and few local businesses will be reaping the benefits this spring break. Almost all of the
downtown businesses are closed, and the streets are deserted (See Figure 4.).
The scene is very still and extremely quiet. There are no open doors welcoming visitors, no lights on in
the businesses, and minimal activity on the streets. I honestly cannot think of a time in my life that I have
ever seen the center of a town so abandoned. Just a few weeks ago, the same area was full of people and
life, which makes the scene all the more outlandish. Many of the windows have handmade “closed” signs
that also encourage the community to stay positive and stay safe (See figure 5.). The uncertainty of the
situation is evident and none of the businesses list a definite reopening date. Mixed in with the closed
signs are uplifting and inspirational signs.
27
Figure 3. The empty streets of downtown Bend
Figure 4. Signs of the pandemic
28
When I go to the grocery store or I visit the downtown district, it is apparent that we are in the middle of a
crisis. The changes and unfamiliarity of these scenes make it evident, but I would also like to point out the
less obvious changes that are occurring around me because they atoo contribute to the uncertainty and
discomfort of this crisis. The unusual number of cars parked outside of houses during working hours,
children playing in their yards and the neighborhood during school hours, deserted city parks with
warning signs and caution tape sectioning off playgrounds are all contributing to this strange feeling (See
Figure 6.). Recreational trails that are typically two-ways have been converted to one-way, bikes are
prohibited, and signs are heavily dispersed throughout the entire span of the trail.
Figure 5. Bend Parks and Rec closes public recreational spaces to prevent the spread of COVID-19
It is evident that despite having a relatively low number of COVID-19 cases, Bend is still drastically
impacted by this crisis. Some industries are being much more heavily impacted than others, and tourism
is one of those industries. So, what exactly is COVID-19, and how is it managing to impact destinations
located in areas with low case counts drastically?
5. COVID-19
5.1 What is COVID-19
COVID-19 is identified as a zoonotic coronavirus and is common in different animals, but rarely infects
humans. COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease was first discovered in Wuhan, China, in late December
2019. Several patients at local hospitals were showing symptoms of an unidentifiable type of viral
pneumonia. All of these individuals had a shared history of visiting the Huanan seafood market (Peeri et
al., 2020). They were tested for pneumonia, but the virus was identified as a genus betacoronavirus,
similar to that of SARS and MERS (Peeri et al., 2020). Researchers initially believe that it originated
from a wild animal/seafood market in Wuhan, China, but an article released on January 25th, 2020, states
29
that the first individual to show symptoms of the virus on December 1st had no connection to the seafood
market in Wuhan (Health Home, 2020). Despite this development, it is still believed that the reservoir
host of COVID-19 was a wild animal. Ongoing investigations are attempting to identify the exact source
of origin (Health Home, 2020).
COVID-19 can be easily transmitted between individuals and is spread in respiratory droplets (Health
Home, 2020). The droplets from an infected person are released into the air when the infected individual
coughs or sneezes (Health Home, 2020). Currently, the incubation period of the virus is thought to be 14
days (Health Home, 2020). The symptoms of this newly discovered coronavirus are cough, fever,
shortness of breath, muscle aches, sore throat, unexplained loss of taste or smell, diarrhea, and headache
(Health Home, 2020). COVID-19 impacts individuals differently, and some infected individuals can be
asymptomatic, meaning they show no symptoms at all (Health Home, 2020). For others, especially those
with compromised immune systems or underlying illnesses, it can be much more severe and even lead to
death (Health Home, 2020). The case fatality rate of COVID-19 is currently 3.5% but can vary by
location (Repici et al., 2020).
Initially, COVID-19 testing was being conducted by assessing the clinical characteristics of the patient,
which included testing for common bacterial and viral pneumonia and chest imaging (Peeri et al., 2020).
Once medical professionals were confident that the typical viral and bacterial pathogens were not present
in the patient, cell cultures were taken from the lower and upper respiratory, and deep sequencing analysis
was performed (Peeri et al., 2020). After the medical community was able to isolate the virus, a
diagnostic test was developed (Peeri et al., 2020).
There is still no single treatment for the virus, but various drugs have been used to ease symptoms that
patients are experiencing (Health Home, 2020, Peeri et al., 2020). Some hospitals are giving individuals
antibiotics to prevent secondary infections, but there are still no antivirals that have been effective in
treating COVID-19 (Peeri et al., 2020). Authorities around the world are hoping that a vaccine will have
the ability to slow down the spread of the virus, but WHO recently warned that there is no “silver bullet”
to stop this pandemic (WHO, 2020).
30
5.2 The Spread of COVID-19
On December 31st, Chinese health officials informed The World Health Organization (WHO) about a
cluster of 41 patients who were all showing similar symptoms of a mysterious pneumonia (Holly Secon,
2020). It was communicated that many of these individuals had some connection to the wildlife market in
Wuhan (Holly Secon, 2020). Two days later, WHO activated incident management systems in all country
offices, regional offices, and headquarters in anticipation of the virus spreading (COVID-19 situation
reports, 2020). On January 7th, authorities identified the virus as a novel coronavirus likely passed to
humans from a wild animal (Holly Secon, 2020). Less than three weeks after the virus was identified,
WHO declared a global public health emergency (Holly Secon, 2020). A few days later, WHO and
partners worked to develop a global strategy and preparedness plan (Al Jazeera, 2020). On February 9th,
less than six weeks after China first informed WHO of the cluster of 41 patients with pneumonia-like
symptoms, the death toll from COVID-19 in China passed those of the SARS epidemic, totaling 811
deaths (Holly Secon, 2020).
By February 21st, South Korea, Iran, and Italy had all reported cases (Holly Secon, 2020). This marked
the beginning of three extremely severe global outbreaks. On February 28th, the WHO increased the
global spread risk and risk of the impact of COVID-19 to very high. At this point, it was becoming clear
that the virus was spreading rapidly. The next day, the US reported the first COVID-19 related death on
American soil (Holly Secon, 2020). By March 4th, it begins to become evident that there is, and will
continue to be, a worldwide shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). At this point, the world was
just beginning to understand the severity of the situation.
About 11 weeks after the first cases were discovered in Wuhan, COVID-19 had spread to 100 countries
(COVID-19 situation reports, 2020). At this point, WHO urged all countries to prepare for the arrival of
COVID-19 (COVID-19 situation reports, 2020). WHO recommended that countries ready their
emergency response teams, increase their capacity to detect and care for COVID-19 positive patients,
ensure that their hospitals can deal with a patient increases, and confirm that there is supplies, space, and
personnel to deal with an outbreak (COVID-19 situation reports, 2020).
On March 11th, WHO officially declared COVID-19 a global pandemic (Holly Secon, 2020). By March
26th, just over one month after the first death occurred on American soil, the US reported 82,404 cases,
31
the highest number of cases of any country in the world (Holly Secon, 2020). This number surpasses
China’s 81,782 cases and Italy’s 80,589 cases (Holly Secon, 2020).
On March 27th, the global number of COVID-19 cases passed 500,000 (Holly Secon, 2020). By March
31st, one-third of humanity was under some sort of lockdown. India, China, France, Italy, New Zealand,
Poland, and the UK have implemented the world's most extensive and restrictive mass quarantines (Holly
Secon, 2020). The UN chief warned that the pandemic is the worst crisis that the world has faced since
WWII (Holly Secon, 2020). On April 4th, the number of worldwide cases passed 1 million (UPDATED:
Timeline of the Coronavirus: TGH). Four days later, the world has 1.5 million confirmed cases
(UPDATED: Timeline of the Coronavirus: TGH). By April 16th, 22 million American’s had filed for
unemployment (UPDATED: Timeline of the Coronavirus: TGH). By April 25th, over one-quarter of the
world Coronavirus deaths were in the US (UPDATED: Timeline of the Coronavirus: TGH). On May 5th,
the global number of cases surpasses 3.5 million (UPDATED: Timeline of the Coronavirus: TGH)
5.3 The Current Situation
The development of this crisis was and still is extremely rapid, and new information is being shared
almost daily. As the virus continues to spread globally, each country is dealing with own its unique
challenge, whether it is related to shortages of PPE equipment, lack of governmental transparency, lack
of testing, or a complete breakdown of health systems, the challenges that are being faced are seemingly
endless (Lee et al., 2020).
Today, on August 16th, there are confirmed cases of COVID-19 in 214 countries and territories in the
world (Tracking coronavirus' global spread.). In four months, the virus has gone from 1 million cases to
21.6 million cases (Tracking coronavirus' global spread.). That is a 2000% increase in under 150 days.
Many states in the US started to reopen their economies but were then faced with a rapid increase in cases
(Lee et al., 2020). Several states and counties were then forced to pause their reopening plans, and some
even returned to some form of lockdown (Lee et al., 2020). This crisis is far from over, especially in the
United States, and it will continue to impact many aspects of life. One aspect of life that is undeniably
being impacted is our ability to travel (UNWTO World Tourism Barometer).
32
5.4 COVID-19 and Tourism
The tourism industry is one of the hardest-hit by the outbreak of COVID-19 (UNWTO World Tourism
Barometer). The creation of travel restrictions and flight cancelations/reductions have significantly
decreased the supply of travel services domestically and internationally (UNWTO World Tourism
Barometer). Due to the rapidly changing nature of the crisis, it is too early to predict the full scale of the
COVID-19 outbreak on international tourism, but by using the impact of past epidemics as a benchmark,
UNWTO estimates that in 2020 international tourist arrivals could decrease by 20%-30% (UNWTO
World Tourism Barometer). This can be translated to a $30 to $50 billion loss in spending by
international visitors (UNWTO World Tourism Barometer). The impact will be felt across the entire
tourism value chain, but small/medium enterprises are expected to be the most impacted (UNWTO World
Tourism Barometer).
6. Methodology
6.1 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of COVID-19 on tourism stakeholders in Bend,
Oregon, and to determine how these impacts challenged stakeholder resilience. The aim of this research is
to identify what is impacting resilience, and identify ways in which stakeholders can use that information
to increase their resilience.
6.2 Research Process
The reason that I chose to conduct a case study of Bend, Oregon is because I had already relocated to
Bend to conduct research for a different thesis topic. My original thesis topic was based on the inclusion
of indigenous history within the tourism industry, and the proximity of Bend, Oregon, to Warm Springs
reservation made this an ideal location for my topic. I started conducting this research in early February,
but unfortunately, I had to switch my thesis topic in March. I made the difficult decision to switch topics
because the COVID-19 restrictions closed all access to public resources.
I was very interested in resilience theory and decided that I wanted to switch my focus to that instead. I
knew that this was a rare opportunity to do research in the middle of a crisis which encouraged me to
switch my topic. I then decided to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on the tourism industry in Bend,
Oregon. I knew that it would be too difficult to collect enough data to analyze the entire industry or
destination, so I decided to focus on stakeholders. I wanted to get an idea of how stakeholders on various
levels of the industry were coping, so I contacted individuals, businesses, and organizations. Getting
33
individuals to agree to an interview was more difficult than I thought it would be, but thankfully with a bit
of persistence, I was still able to get 11 in-depth interviews. Though I would have preferred to interview
more stakeholders, the circumstances did not allow for it.
6.3 Research Design
I chose to conduct a case study because I wanted to get an in-depth understanding of an area and case
studies involve the intensive and thorough analysis of a single case (Bryman & Bell, 2011). A case study
is often composed of a single factor and focuses on a bounded situation of the system (Bryman & Bell,
2011). Within my research, I focused on elements of the tourism system in Bend, Oregon. As suggested
by Bryman & Bell, 2011, my goals with this case study are not to be able to replicate the results
produced, but instead generate a deeper understanding of this case and the unique elements that it might
include. Though the insight gained from this research might not benefit stakeholders from other
destinations, it has the potential to provide insight for tourism stakeholders within Bend, Oregon.
6.4 Research Approach
The method that I used to collect data was semi-structured interviews. I managed to conduct 11 semi-
structured interviews with tourism stakeholders. The stakeholders represented different levels of the
tourism industry.
The interview is considered one of the most common methods in qualitative research (Bryman & Bell,
2011). It provides the researcher with flexibility and a platform for a deep understanding of a subject
(Bryman & Bell, 2011). A semi-structured interview includes an interview guideline on what questions
should be covered during the interview (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The interviewer can include questions not
included on the guideline but does attempt to include all of the questions throughout the interview
(Bryman & Bell, 2011). Though I did have a guideline of questions, my interviews were not completely
structured. I tried to let the interviewee guide the interview as much as possible. If the interviewee did not
cover the questions that I wanted to gain insight on, then I would prompt them with the questions from
my interview guide. My intention behind doing this was to allow the interviewee space to describe their
perspective of the situation without my input. I did not ask the same questions in every interview, nor did
I ask them in the same order, but I did make sure to gain insight on the same topics from every
interviewee.
34
One aspect of the interviews that was always the same was the beginning of the interview. I started the
interview by thanking the participants for taking the time to talk to me and asked for their consent to
record the interview. I gave an overview of how the interview would be conducted to ensure that the
interviewer felt comfortable and understood what the purpose of the interview was. This often gave the
interviewee a sense of direction and eased any stress they might have had related to the interview.
All of the interviews were between 45-75 minutes and were conducted over the phone. Phone interviews
are not typically used for qualitative research, but because of the global pandemic and the Oregon State
“stay at home” order, I was unable to conduct these interviews in person. All of the interviews were
recorded and later transcribed by me.
Though transcribing qualitative interviews can be time-consuming, it was necessary to help me
understand, process, and analyze the data being collected. It also allowed me to focus on the interviewee
instead of taking notes. This helped me stay engaged and present during the entire interview. Transcribing
interviews can also increase objectivity, capturing exactly what the interviewer said instead of relying on
our memory of the interview (Bryman & Bell, 2011). It allows a more thorough examination of the
interviewee's answers, including the ability to repeat examinations of the interviewees, and can aid in
countering accusations of researcher bias (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
When I conducted the interviews, I included all nine of Kvale's (1996) different kinds of qualitative
interview questions (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The types of questions included were:
1. Introduction questions 6. Indirect questions
2. Follow-up questions 7. Structuring questions
3. Probing questions 8. Silence:
4. Specifying questions 9. Interpreting questions
5. Direct questions
Table 2. Kyale's different kinds of qualitative interview questions. Sourced from Kyale (1996)
35
The inclusion of these different types of questions ensured that I gave the interviewee ample space to
elaborate on their thoughts and ideas. Though listening is the most crucial part of an interview, an
interviewer must remain active and responsive to ensure that they can prove the interviewee with any
reassurance of guidance they might need (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
Flexibility was vital for me while I was collecting my data. Not only during the interview but also before
and after. Flexibility during an interview is crucial because it can clear up inconsistencies in answers and
allow space for follow up questions (Bryman & Bell, 2011). It is also incredibly important in helping the
interviewer cope with events that might take place before, during, or after an interview (Bryman & Bell,
2011).
COVID-19 made the circumstances that I was interviewing under very stressful for both the interviewees
and I. I had to remain flexible towards my interviewees and their needs, but also toward myself and my
needs. Many of the interviewees were in the height of dealing with the COVID-19 crisis. Some of them
had lost their jobs, some of them had their businesses shut down, and some were working from home. All
of the participants were navigating a crisis that developed with magnitude, speed, and consequences that
they were unfamiliar with. Many of them were participating in constant zoom meetings and had been
working under an incredible amount of stress and pressure when I was trying to get in contact with them.
My interviews were, understandably, not the most pressing or essential items on their agenda. Many
interviewees had to reschedule the interview numerous times, and many of them delayed the start of the
interviews. Though this was sometimes difficult for me, I had a lot of empathy and gratitude for the
stakeholders that I was interviewing, which helped me remain calm and unphased when these changes
needed to take place.
6.5 Data Analysis
The purpose of analyzing qualitative data is to determine themes, relationships, and assumptions that
inform respondents' view of the world and the particular topic being researched (Basit, 2003). To analyze
my data and answer my research questions, I used holistic coding. Holistic coding is used “to grasp basic
themes or issues in the data by absorbing them as a whole [the coder as ‘lumper’] rather than by analyzing
them line by line [the coder as ‘splitter’]” (Dey, 1993, p. 104). This method is particularly useful when a
researcher has a solid idea of what they are looking for before they begin coding (Dey, 1993). It allows
researchers to see the whole picture (Dey, 1993).
36
As recommended by Basit, (2003), and Bryman and Bell, (2011), I analyzed my interviews immediately
after conducting them, which allowed for continuous analysis of my data. This is an essential aspect of
analyzing data because it helps researchers gain a deeper understanding of what they are researching and
allows them to continually refine their interpretation of the topic (Basit, 2003)
Coding or categorizing involves subdividing data and assigning categories (Dey, 1993). Codes are
described by Basit, (2003) as labels that allocate units of meaning to information compiled during a study.
These codes are attached to words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs that are connected or unconnected to
a specific topic (Basit, 2003). Kelle et al. (1998) describe coding as a tool that enables researchers to
notice relevant phenomena, collect examples of that phenomena and analyze that phenomena to find
commonalities, contrasts, patterns, and structures. Above all, the purpose of coding is to enable
researchers to communicate and connect to the data (Basit, 2003). This allows for an in-depth
understanding of the emerging phenomena and allows for the connection of that phenomena to theory
(Basit, 2003). Though codes can take a variety of different shapes, such as straightforward or metaphoric,
the codes I used in my research are straightforward.
I chose to use the code creation method preferred by Miles and Huberman (1994), which involves
creating a ‘start list’ of codes before the fieldwork that draws on themes identified from pre-existing
theory. The coding of my interviews was done manually and in several stages.
I started this process by transcribing all my interviews. I then went through the interview and looked for
themes revolving around my predetermined codes. Typically, coding is done using numbers, but colors
are easier for me to understand, so I color-coded all my codes. This allowed me to quickly see themes
emerging and helped me keep my categories organized. After doing this, I went through all the
interviews, reviewed my preliminary codes, and looked for other codes that I missed. After finalizing my
preliminary codes, I went through them again and created a final code. After creating this final code, I
analyzed the themes individually and then again collectively. Though this method was extremely time
consuming, I do believe it allowed me to conduct a thorough analysis of the raw data I collected.
37
6.6 Sample
For this research, I used opportunistic sampling to determine which stakeholders I would interview. I
interviewed stakeholders from all three levels of the industry; individuals, businesses, and organizations.
The criteria that the stakeholders needed to meet to be interviewed was relatively minimal. The
stakeholder just needed to be involved in the tourism industry in Bend or the surrounding areas. I
managed to get two individuals employed by the tourism industry (a guide and an uber driver/restaurant
worker), five businesses (a wedding photographer, an event coordinator, two tour operators, and an
accommodation provider), and four organizations to participate in interviews (a local destination
management organization, the parks department, regional management operators and a chamber of
commerce).
I reached out to 30 different tourism stakeholders (businesses and organizations) to inquire about
interviews and received eight responses, two of which were from businesses that I had interviewed for my
original thesis topic. I also made a public post on a community Facebook page stating that I was looking
for stakeholders from the tourism industry to interview for my master's thesis. From this post, I was able
to get connected to three stakeholders that I interviewed and included in my research. The circumstances
that this research was conducted under made it very difficult to get tourism stakeholders to participate in
interviews, but I was eventually able to conduct eleven interviews.
6.7 Ethics
My research involved human subjects, and therefore, ethical considerations were of the utmost
importance. To ensure that my research was ethical, I followed the ethical principles highlighted by
Diener and Crandall (1978) and Michrina & Richards (1996) throughout my entire research process.
Diener and Crandall (1978) encourage researchers to consider; whether there is harm to participants,
whether there is a lack of informed consent, whether there is an invasion of privacy, whether deception is
involved. Michrina & Richards cover similar principles of ethics but also include additional ethical
considerations that I also chose to consider. Michrina & Richards (1996) state that it is also important to
consider power dynamics and the process of giving and taking while interviewing participants. I found it
incredibly helpful to be aware of giving and taking during interviews. It encouraged me to share
information about myself, which seemed to make interviewees more comfortable during the process.
Considering the power dynamic also helped me create a comfortable and ethical environment for
interview participants. The participants included in my research were first contacted via email and
accepted my invitation for an interview in writing. Each participant was then asked for their consent to
38
participate in the interview and to be recorded. The identity of each participant and their associated
business or organization has not been identified during this process. I decided to keep them anonymous
before conducting the interviews because I wanted the interviewee to feel comfortable disclosing all
information. Bend is a small destination, and for this reason, it would be easy for individuals to identify
the businesses and organizations associated with the stakeholders that I interviewed. For this reason, I
chose not to include my original transcripts.
6.8 Limitations
This study was conducted during the peak of the COVID-19 crisis, which resulted in several limitations.
The first is the sample size. This research was conducted using a relatively small sample of tourism
stakeholders and, therefore, should not be used as a representation of how COVID-19 is impacting all
tourism stakeholders. It should be used as a tool to help stakeholders critically analyze their resilience.
Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the interviews were conducted over the phone, and I was unable to
interpret the body language of the participants. This could impact my interpretation of the data the
validity of my results. Additionally, I was forced to abandon my original thesis topic due to COVID-19
and started researching this topic four months into the allotted timeframe. This resulted in severe time
constraints which could impact the depth of the topic explored.
7. Analysis
For my analysis, I have used coding and the ecological concept of resilience to analyze my qualitative
interviews. Through several stages of coding, my data revealed eleven significant themes related to the
theory of resilience. The themes identified are uncertainty, adaptation, planning/preparation,
communication/collaboration, roles and responsibilities, innovation, external resources, governance,
internal resources, prior knowledge, gained insight, and recovery. Though I used known resilience
indicators to help me organize my themes, the themes identified above emerged from the data
authentically. Below I have included a small synopsis of each of the themes and how they relate to
resilience.
Uncertainty, within the context of a crisis, can be defined as the overload of unclear information or a lack
of knowledge about a specific problem or incident (Moynihan, 2005). Uncertainty can have destabilizing
effects and can cause people to be biased against creativity (Moynihan, 2005). During a crisis, this bias
has the potential to prevent cooperation, which in turn negatively impacts resilience (Moynihan, 2005).
39
Adaptation, when referring to global change from a human perspective, refers to a process, action, or
outcome that occurs to improve the system's ability to cope, manage or adjust to some type of stress,
hazard, or change (Smit & Wandel, 2006). Resilient systems will have a high level of adaptive capacity
and be able to adapt to changing situations (Smit & Wandel, 2006) quickly.
The integration of crisis preparation and planning will decrease the vulnerability of a system and increase
the likelihood that the system will survive a stressful event (McManus et al., 2007). Increasing situation
awareness through planning and preparation will ensure a stakeholder can focus their time and energy
towards overcoming the impact of a disaster or crisis (McManus et al. 2007). Effective planning and
preparation can look like the inclusion of risk management protocols, situation awareness, and scenario
planning. Financial reserves are also considered to be a form of preparation and planning.
Communication and collaboration are critical indicators of overall resilience and become even more
essential during a crisis (Dahles and Susilowati, 2015; McManus et al. 2007). Internal and external
communication increase adaptive capacity and allow for a system to more efficiently respond to change
(McManus et al., 2007).
Roles and responsibilities are closely tied to situation awareness, a key indicator of resilience within
systems (McManus et al., 2007). A stakeholder with an awareness of their roles and responsibilities
internally and within a community context ensures that they are aware of the role they will take when a
crisis happens (McManus et a.,2007). Thought these roles often change, a foundation of clear internal and
external roles and responsibilities is essential during a crisis or disaster (McManus et al., 2007).
Innovation is one of the most recognized indicators of resilience (Bec et al., 2016; Fiksel, 2006; Hall,
2018; Holling, 2001). A system that can innovate during a crisis or disaster is one that possesses all or
most of the resilience indicators (Hall, 2018). A stakeholder that can create innovative ideas or solutions
during a crisis or disaster has the potential to come out of the stressing event more robust and more
resilient (Hall, 2018).
Financial resources play a massive role in stakeholder resilience (Dahles and Susilowati, 2015; Hall,
2018). If a stakeholder does not have access to internal resources, their resilience will be influenced by
their access to external resources. During this crisis, access to external resources was essential for many
stakeholders.
40
Governance can largely influence the resilience of tourism systems (Brunner et al. 1997, Folke et al.,
2002). Governance that is flexible, transparent, and communicative during a disaster or crisis decreases
the uncertainty and increases resilience (Brunner et al. 1997, Folke et al., 2002)
Internal resources are essential during a crisis and can be the element that determines whether a
stakeholder will overcome a crisis or disaster (Dahles and Susilowati, 2015; Hall, 2018). I kept this
category separate from external resources because the need for those resources does not develop if a
stakeholder has access to internal resources such as emergency funds. Therefore, stakeholders with
internal funds are more resilient than stakeholders reliant on external funds.
The acquisition of knowledge from a previous crisis signifies that a stakeholder was able to overcome a
destabilizing event and learn from it (Adger, 2000). The ability to gain knowledge during or after a crisis
signifies resilience within a system (Holling, 1973). This knowledge can better prepare the stakeholder for
a crisis in the future (Holling, 1973).
Though insight gained will not be an indication of resilience until this crisis has passed and the
stakeholders have successfully overcome its challenges, the acknowledgment of gained insight from
stakeholders signifies the potential for resilience. As mentioned above, Holling (1973) testifies that the
ability to learn from a crisis is a significant indicator of a resilient system.
Recovery priorities are linked to situation awareness, which, as mentioned above, is a crucial indicator of
resilience (McManus et al., 2007). The ability of a stakeholder to prioritize recovery depends on the
stakeholder’s ability to cope with a crisis (McManus et al., 2007). Prioritizing recovery can come in a
variety of different forms and starts with minimizing elements of a system to ensure the continued
operation of that system.
Below I have included a general analysis of these themes and a summary of how they emerged for each
stakeholder and how they emerged collectively.
Uncertainty
The feeling of uncertainty was a common theme among all stakeholders. It is the only theme that surfaced
in every interview, which made it clear that stakeholders on all levels of the industry were dealing with
uncertainty. The stakeholders collectively expressed the most uncertainty relating to the future. They were
uncertain about the future of their livelihood/business/organization, their community, the economy, the
tourism industry, the world, and COVID-19 restrictions. Though the future was where most of the
41
uncertainty settled, stakeholders also expressed a substantial amount of uncertainty related to their current
circumstances. Stakeholders expressed uncertainty related to the current COVID-19 guidelines, access to
government support, and about the health risks posed by COVID-19. The origin of the uncertainty varied
by level of stakeholder. Individuals employed by the industry were able to get ample government support
but were still experiencing uncertainty related to work and the future. Business stakeholders seemed to
feel the most uncertainty related to their business adaptation and operations. Additionally, businesses
seemed quite uncertain about when they might have access to government support. Organizations were
the most uncertain about the recovery of the industry and the future of local tourism.
Crises are inherently unpredictable, and they come with a high level of uncertainty, but the amount of
uncertainty that stakeholders were, and likely still are, dealing with during this crisis is exorbitant. In
comparison to the 2008/2009 economic downturn, which severely impacted the tourism industry, several
stakeholders noted the speed at which this crisis developed as a considerable difference between the
two. It has become clear that no matter how resilient a stakeholder might be, they will still be negatively
impacted by high levels of uncertainty. Though resilience should enable them to cope with or even
overcome uncertainty, it was clear that the stakeholders that were struggling the least were still being
impacted by the unpredictability and uncertainty of this crisis. In theory, having emergency savings,
regularly practicing risk management, overcoming past crises, and being able to innovate during a crisis
are all indicators of resilience, but the level of uncertainty being experienced still seemed to be
threatening that resilience (Gunderson, 2001). Though uncertainty does not always put a stakeholder at a
higher risk for vulnerability, it can, and therefore should be measured and considered when discussing
resilience.
Stakeholder 1: This stakeholder was undeniably experiencing uncertainty. They expressed uncertainty
about reopening the economy and how people would react and what consequences those reactions would
have. They worked three jobs in the hospitality industry and lost all of them. They were laid off
indefinitely with no guarantee of work again, which causes uncertainty related to their future
employment.
Stakeholder 2: This stakeholder is experiencing uncertainty related to the businesses they support,
uncertainty for the state of the world, and uncertainty related to how they will be able to operate. They do
not seem to be experiencing as much uncertainty related to the survival of their organization, which could
42
be due to their emergency funds. They stated that things are changing minute by minute and day by day
and that they are not thinking in terms of a timeline because that is very difficult right now.
Stakeholder 3: This stakeholder was experiencing uncertainty about the economy, about their business,
about keeping the community safe, and about providing jobs for individuals. This stakeholder expressed
uncertainty related to government aid.
Stakeholder 4: The stakeholder is experiencing uncertainty related to the future of the world and their
business. The stakeholder also voiced uncertainty about the COVID-19 guidelines. They expressed
concern about the economy as well. They felt that the guidelines were not very clear about what business
in which businesses could operate. The stakeholder voiced their concern about reopening the economy
and then having it shut down again.
Stakeholder 5: This stakeholder experienced uncertainty related to everything. Uncertainty for their
organization, for the industry, for the local businesses, and the region. They are also experiencing
uncertainty related to their future budgets. They stated that this has been devastating for the industry, with
the most challenging part being the unknown.
Stakeholder 6: The stakeholder is experiencing uncertainty about the future, mainly because the summer
season is when they earn the majority of their money. They said that they “kind of do not know what
tomorrow brings.” They mentioned that no one knows what will happen and that people will have to wait
for the governor to give them some guidance. It is clear that no one has answers, and that makes it quite
challenging to plan.
Stakeholder 7: This stakeholder expressed quite a bit of uncertainty about the future of the world and the
survival of their business. The stakeholder also expressed uncertainty about current and future COVID-19
restrictions and how they would impact their business. The stakeholder said that they initially thought that
this would pass, and people would gather soon, but after a few weeks’ things started to change, and they
realized that they had no idea when this would end. They acknowledged that the economy might open,
but then get shut down again. They had much uncertainty surrounding the innovative events they were
trying to put together but mentioned that it was a necessity to surrender to the uncertainty.
Stakeholder 8: This stakeholder expressed uncertainty about the future of their organization and about
which parts of their organization would be allowed to operate. This stakeholder wanted to get parts of
their organization up and running but acknowledged that restriction might not allow for that to happen all
at once. They expressed uncertainty about what would be allowed and uncertainty about demand for their
services from the community. They explained that the community might not have the funds to support
them after the crisis. The stakeholder seemed incredibly anxious and uncertain about the threat of a
43
resurgence. They stated expressed this by saying, “the unknown of not knowing how many times you are
going to have to go through this depleting.”
Stakeholder 9: The stakeholder is experiencing uncertainty about the future of the world and uncertainty
about how their organization and how the industry will cope. It did not seem like the stakeholder was
worried about their organization surviving, but they did seem concerned about the impact that the crisis
might have on the organization. They stated that they were uncertain about how quickly and how badly
the industry would fall apart. The stakeholder also expressed concern and uncertainty related to the
community and when it would be ready to welcome guests back. There seemed to be less uncertainty
about guidelines, likely because this organization seemed to be responsible for setting many of the
guidelines for business in the industry, but there was doubt relating to how to construct those guidelines
in a way that is best for the local community.
Stakeholder 10: This stakeholder is experiencing uncertainty about the future of the world and the future
of the company that they work for. They are uncertain about how comfortable people will be participating
in tourism and recognize that once some restrictions are lifted, tourism will not go back to what it was
before. They believe that it will take time, but they hope that people will have a desire to get out. They
stated that they feel optimistic, which might be due to them not being as vulnerable as some stakeholders,
while acknowledging that their optimism might change if things continue to progress in the same way.
Stakeholder 11: This stakeholder is experiencing uncertainty about the survival of their business and the
future. They are worried about their staff no longer wanting to make a career out of guiding. They are also
worried about their staff’s well-being. They stated that it was too soon to know what they would have
done differently during this crisis because they do not know what the outcome is yet.
Adaptation/Adaptive Capacity
Some clear patterns emerge from this data concerning adaptability. The stakeholders that were able to
make drastic pivots quickly were faring much better than the stakeholders that could not. Often the
stakeholders that were able to make changes to cope with the circumstances were stakeholders that were
able to be flexible because of their access to internal emergency funds.
The stakeholders that were less able to adapt to this crisis were those that did not have access to
substantial internal emergency funds or did not have a diverse income. These stakeholders relied solely on
one industry or one subsection of the industry for their entire income. Typically, the stakeholders
struggling the most were nature-based tour operators and event coordinators (wedding photographers,
44
community event organizers, etc.). Not only were these businesses considered non-essential, but physical
contact and gatherings play an essential role in their business models. Most tour operators make their
income during the summer season, which made it difficult for them to adapt, and in turn, made them more
vulnerable.
The tourism organizations had a higher adaptive capacity than the smaller tour operators and event
coordinators. These organizations rely on multiple sources of income, do not require contact with
individuals, and generally have substantial internal emergency funds. Additionally, they were all able to
make fast changes to their business models while still maintaining their fundamental structure. Many of
them mentioned that they had made changes within their organization that they never thought would even
be possible. The organization with a higher adaptive capacity had space and resources to be creative,
allowing them to innovate, which as Gunderson, 2001 states, is a sign of resilience.
Stakeholder 2: The stakeholder has changed their focus in several ways. They have stopped all outbound
marketing and are focusing more on drive markets instead of flight markets. They have become a
resource for businesses and individuals. They are trying to stay flexible and adaptable because, as they
stated, “it is changing minute by minute and day by day.”
Stakeholder 4: This stakeholder has been able to adapt a bit to the circumstances. They stopped doing
larger events and started focusing on smaller ones. They are also focusing on developing other elements
of their business. They are also able to rely on their partner's income, which gives them a bit more
flexibility.
Stakeholder 5: This stakeholder was able to adapt their organization's business model to continue
operating. They shut down their two biggest marketing campaigns and instead became a resource for
those visiting and those that have ties to the region. The stakeholder praised their team for being able to
make quick and creative pivots. The organization completely changed gears and created a recovery plan
that had four stages. This organization made significant changes very quickly, which shows that its
flexibility and adaptability have made them less vulnerable and more able to cope with the situation.
Stakeholder 6: This stakeholder has a business model that is quite flexible and allows for them to be very
adaptable. The stakeholder switched their focus from vacation rentals to RV rentals. It is relatively easy to
isolate in an RV, and this allowed for the RV park part of this business to continue to operate. Their
vacation rentals are on wheels, which made it easier for the business to move things around and adapt to
the situation. The stakeholder mentioned that the business is lowering its summer rates to winter season
45
rates. This stakeholder had a very high level of flexibility, which greatly benefited them and made them
less vulnerable to this crisis.
Stakeholder 7: This stakeholder’s entire business is based around gathering people together. It was clear
that they were struggling with adaptability initially, but a few weeks into the crisis, they started to pivot
and create new innovative ideas. Some of their pivots included drive up concerts, drive-up movie theaters,
socially distant farmers markets, and moving all of their events to next summer.
Stakeholder 8: This stakeholder had a more challenging time adapting their organizational model because
a large percentage of their organization revolves around group activities such as sports, community
programs, and gatherings. All of these activities were put to a stop when the governor put out the stay at
home order. This organization did still make many adaptations to keep its parks and public spaces open
for people to use. They shut down playgrounds, made trails one-way, and put up educational signs. The
stakeholder switched their marketing and focused on educating people about distancing and being socially
responsible while recreating.
Stakeholder 9: The stakeholder needed to make some extreme changes to their organizations' model so
that they could continue operating. The stakeholder stated that they acted very early and were one of the
first of similar organizations to put out the “stay home, stay safe message.” This message is the opposite
of what they are used to advertising. The organization immediately pulled all of its tourism marketing,
furloughed staff members for their visitor center, and gave pay cuts to the top staff. When they started to
see other organizations putting out a similar “stay at home” message, the organization went into a cash-
saving strategy. This strategy included keeping essential staff for marketing but cutting everything else.
The organization did everything they could to get down to a barebones budget that would allow them to
preserve as much cash as possible. The only staff that they kept on were the staff that was needed to
create and execute a recovery plan when the time came. This is a massive pivot for a destination
management company; their focus went from outbound tourism marketing to anti-tourism marketing and
community and business support. This stakeholder expressed that he has been working harder than he has
ever worked in his life and that he is working on things that he is “not well versed at handling.” This
portrayed high levels of flexibility and adaptability, which made them less vulnerable to this crisis.
Stakeholder 10: This stakeholder is taking this opportunity to gain knowledge that can aid them in the
field. They believe that people in their line of work have a high level of resilience because they are forced
to adapt and deal with uncertainty daily. They believe those in their industry are used to having “curve
balls” thrown at them, and therefore they have the tools to cope with many different situations. This
stakeholder could also rely on their partner's income, which allowed them to be flexible.
46
Stakeholder 11: They were able to minimize their staff and cut expenses to adapt to the immediate
situation. They then figured out ways in which they could adapt what they offered so that they could
continue to operate. They took this time to get things done that they did not previously have time to do.
They were thinking of ways in which they can market to locals. It seems like they made adaptations
because they were forced to do so to survive. They needed to come up with some solutions for their
business, and that involved letting most of their employees go.
Preparation/Planning
Not a single stakeholder was aware of the threat of a pandemic or a crisis of this scale. Though some of
the stakeholders had participated in risk management practices, a pandemic was not a threat that they ever
thought they would encounter. All the organizational stakeholders and several of the other stakeholders
mentioned that the 08/09 recession helped them to prepare for an economic downturn. Most of the
organizations that had significant emergency funds had the funds because they were ill-prepared for the
last economic downturn and did not want to make that mistake again. Though the 08/09 economic crisis
is the reason many of these stakeholders have emergency finances, they all noted that this crisis is vastly
different from any they have endured in the past. They all highlighted the speed at which this crisis hit
and how drastic and immediate the impacts were:
As compared [the 2008/2009 recession] to this event, it came with such hurricane force that, you know,
within basically weeks we were completely shut down, no one has a job, everyone is on unemployment,
and the future is, I would say, more uncertain as to how we will crawl back out of the obis” (I3-17)
“Never did I think that a negative economic turndown would be based on people not being able to
gather.” (Stakeholder 7)
“What is VERY different about this situation is how SUDDENLY it impacts a giant amount of the
services that we provide.” (Stakeholder 8)
“It became really clear that a pandemic is not something you run in front of; it is something that dictates.
“(Stakeholder 7)
47
“I’m trying to work harder than I've ever had to work my life on things that I'm frankly not well versed in
handling.” (Stakeholder 9)
“I've been in this position for under 2 years and have not faced anything like this” (Stakeholder 5)
Of the stakeholders I interviewed, only two mentioned the possibility of a second wave and how to plan
for that. Both of them mentioned that a second shutdown was possible and that the impacts of it would be
just as severe. Though other stakeholders did not explicitly mention a second wave, they were all
experiencing uncertainty related to how long the crisis would continue. It seems that they are aware that
the crisis might continue for a long time but were not actively planning for a second wave. This lack of
planning will make some of these stakeholders more vulnerable and less resilient to a second wave.
Stakeholder 1: It did not seem like this stakeholder anticipated a crisis of this magnitude happening, nor
were they prepared to lose all of their jobs. They were not prepared for this crisis.
Stakeholder 2: During the 08/09 recession, this stakeholder had to lay off all employees, and they did not
want to ever have do that again, so they created a saving account for the next economic downturn. They
now have a full year of operational costs to hold them over during this crisis.
Stakeholder 3: This stakeholder seemed to be shocked by the dramatic pace of the crisis and how fast it
shut everything down. The organization has participated in risk management related to their business, and
they also learned lessons from the 08/09 recession but had not experienced something so extreme before.
Though they were somewhat prepared for an economic downturn, they were not prepared for this crisis.
Stakeholder 4: The stakeholder has been able to save emergency funds because they come from a dual-
income household. This made them more prepared for this crisis.
Stakeholder 5: This stakeholder said that in the two years they have been with the organization, they have
never faced anything like this. They did mention the 2008/2009 recession stating that it prepared them for
budget cuts and plan revisions. They were somewhat prepared but made it seem like nothing could have
prepared them to face this crisis.
Stakeholder 6: The stakeholder did not seem to be aware of the threat of a pandemic or a crisis of this
magnitude. They seem aware of the uncertainty of this crisis and are planning for it as much as possible.
They had financial preparations but were unprepared for this type of crisis.
Stakeholder 7: The stakeholder knew there will always be some type of crisis in life and that one should
be prepared for that. They did also express that they were shocked by the magnitude of the crisis. They
48
mentioned multiple times that they did not think an economic downturn or crisis would ever prevent
people from being able to gather. They did not seem prepared for this crisis.
Stakeholder 8: The stakeholder stated that from a financial standpoint, they were in good shape, but they
were actively discussing the future and what it would look like for their organization if there is a second
wave. This is one of the few stakeholders that mentioned they were planning for a second wave. The
stakeholder said that some aspects of their business, the classes, and after school programs had to shut
down very suddenly, which has dramatically impacted that part of their business. This stakeholder
mentioned numerous times how quickly and drastically this crisis hit, and like many other stakeholders,
planning for that type of fast-paced and devastating shut down is very difficult.
Stakeholder 9: The organization did do a recent SWAT analysis in which wildfires, drought, and
seasonality were the biggest threat to their organization and the tourism industry. This stakeholder
admitted that they were not anticipating the threat of a pandemic and had not prepared for a crisis of this
magnitude. Fortunately, this organization started a reserve fund policy three years ago in preparation for
an economic downturn. The stakeholder seems to be aware of the challenges that lie ahead and even
stated that the most challenging part would be when the time for recovery comes. He also stated that
though it will be challenging, that how the organization handled themselves and prioritizes the safety and
well-being of the community will be incredibly beneficial for them.
Stakeholder 10: The stakeholder was not aware of the threat of a pandemic to their livelihood. This
stakeholder has also made themselves more prepared by “squirreling away as much money as [they]
can.”
Stakeholder 11: The stakeholder was not aware of the threat of this magnitude. This stakeholder has risk
management protocols concerning participant risk, but not for a crisis of this scale. The stakeholder said
that it is tough for small businesses to prepare and that they usually only have 13-21 days of cash reserves
on hand. It seems like this stakeholder was hit fast and hard by this crisis. It seems like the stakeholder
did not know what they could do differently to be more prepared for this crisis. They suggested having
more money in savings but cited high taxes as an obstacle. The stakeholder made it clear that they had not
talked about a second wave or how to plan for another shutdown.
Communication/collaboration
All but one of the stakeholders were involved in high levels of external communication. Most of them
were communicating and working together to find solutions that worked for all of them. The tourism
organizations took it upon themselves to guide and support the smaller businesses, offering them
49
resources and information. The smaller businesses were also communicating amongst themselves, though
one stakeholder mentioned they were all struggling and therefore did not have much to offer one another.
Several of the stakeholders mentioned the formation of new partnerships and collaborations, noting that
they likely would not have formed without this crisis. One stakeholder mentioned that the tone of the
communication between them and their partners changed drastically. Communication and collaboration
are both indicators of resilience, and the stakeholders that were participating in high levels of both were
exhibiting more signs of resilience.
Stakeholder 2: This stakeholder has had a high level of communication with other stakeholders,
community members, and government/state officials. They have become a resource for community
members, openly communicating how they can get the help that they need. They have been working
closely with the city government to ensure that they are giving businesses the support that they need.
They stated that the state government has been fantastic and that they have seen a new type of relationship
blossom during this crisis.
Stakeholder 3: There has been a high level of both internal and external communication for this
stakeholder. The stakeholder has been communicating with other similar stakeholders. This stakeholder is
also tracking their data for a local DMO. There seems to be a high level of communication with other
outfitters in the community. They have been sharing information and working together to identify what
they need from their recovery plans, but this stakeholder did say that they are all in the same position;
therefore, it is difficult to do much for each other.
Stakeholder 4: The stakeholder has been communicating with other stakeholders in the industry.
Stakeholder 5: This organization has had a high level of communication with other stakeholders. They
even allowed businesses to use their social media to keep customers in the loop with important business
info. They have been communicating with other stakeholders at indifferent levels of tourism within the
state. Additionally, they have been working with different organizations to come up with a plan moving
forward. The stakeholder was very adamant that everyone had a “piece of the puzzle” and that they
needed everyone to work together to come out of this crisis whole. They stated partnerships and
collaborations that had never happened before began to form. This organization has been very open to
collaboration and communication on all levels. They believe that collaboration and partnerships are
essential to recovery. They have also used open communication, creativity, and adaptability within their
organization.
50
Stakeholder 6: The stakeholder mentioned getting together as a team to discuss whether or not they would
stay open and how they would move forward. This shows that employees are involved in decision making
and makes it seem like there is a high level of transparency and internal communication happening in this
company. No mention of external communication/collaboration
Stakeholder 7: The stakeholder has been working with the local community that participates in his events
to try and come up with a plan that allows them to operate while being safe and abiding by restrictions.
They mentioned that they were also acting as support for these individuals. Their level of collaboration
does not seem to be very high.
Stakeholder 8: This stakeholder mentioned several different collaborations. The stakeholder has made
shifts that have allowed them to support their community better. They have shut down specific areas but
have worked very hard to educate recreation users on how to recreate responsibly. They seemed to have a
high level of communication and collaboration.
Stakeholder 9: This organization and stakeholders seem to be involved in a high level of communication
and collaboration. The organization is very involved with all sectors that are related to the tourism
industry. They stated that they are currently heavily involved in the restaurant and retail sector. They
stated that before bringing any tourism back into the area, they need to get the core amenities open. It also
seems like they have been very involved with the tourism businesses, working with them to come up with
recovery plans and innovative solutions. It seems that all stakeholders in the industry are working together
to make decisions that are beneficial for them, but also keep the community safe. The stakeholder also
stated that their organization is not sending out advertising invoices to businesses because all businesses
are struggling, and it would not be right to ask them for money. This shows that the organization is
keeping the well-being of the entire business community in mind while they come up with their recovery
plan. The stakeholder also stated that their organization is working with tour guides and outfitters to set
up appropriate guidelines. They stated that the state came up with guidelines for some sectors, but that
this organization was responsible for coming up with guidelines for some of the main sectors. It also
seems as if this stakeholder and organization are putting pressure on the state to give them clarification on
the guidelines and when tourism businesses will be allowed to operate. They are acting as an advocate for
the businesses and supporting local businesses “in ways that historically, we have not.”
Stakeholder 10: There has been a high level of internal communication within the business that the
stakeholder is employed by. This enabled the stakeholder to feel supported and optimistic. The owner of
the company was very transparent with his employees and continuously updated them on the situation and
how they, as a company was going to move forward.
51
Stakeholder 11: It seemed like initially, the internal communication within this stakeholder’s business
completely stopped. They stated that they had minimal communication for a month and a half and were
just “scrambling to get things together… Applying for loans.” It did sound like their internal
communication increased as time went on. They talked about a platform created to help Bend business
owners get businesses, and they took advantage of that. It seemed like communication stopped but
gradually picked up again.
Roles and Responsibilities
All stakeholders seemed very aware of their roles and responsibilities within their community. Most of
them mentioned that community safety was their priority, and therefore they wanted to facilitate their
recovery plans with caution. Many of the stakeholders that typically lend their attention and expertise to
tourists shifted their focus onto the local community and local businesses. This enabled them to be a
resource for the community and create relationships that they would not have created under other
circumstances.
All the stakeholders made some type of pivot to better support their employees and the local community.
The local tourism organizations that typically focus their energy on outbound marketing switched their
message to discourage tourists from visiting. These stakeholders focused their attention instead on
providing tourism stakeholders with resources and communicating to the local community what
businesses were open and operational. Additionally, they provided businesses with additional marketing
opportunities that they wouldn’t have offered before the crisis.
The small businesses, especially the tour operators, seemed the most concerned about their employees.
They were worried about their employees getting the support that they needed and worried about the
future of their employees. Though this has been difficult for everyone, all the stakeholders seem to be
taking a selfless approach during this crisis. They are working together to find solutions that keep the
community safe and keep their businesses and the tourism industry afloat.
Stakeholder 1: This stakeholder, as an individual community member, seemed quite aware of their ability
to help people in the community. They became an administrator for a community group that helps
individuals have access to specific resources and or basic needs that they need during this crisis. Even
though this stakeholder was struggling, they were still working to support their community
52
Stakeholder 2: Though this stakeholder does not typically provide resources for the general public and is
usually geared more towards businesses and visitors, they have taken it upon themselves to be a support
and resources for businesses, visitors, and individuals. Typically, this organization provides businesses
with advice, which often includes planning for the next economic downturn and being financially stable
enough to do so. It seems that their role and responsibility to the business community is ingrained into
their business model.
Stakeholder 3: This stakeholder is very aware of their responsibility for their employees and seems to be
making many adaptations so that the employees feel supported.
Stakeholder 4: This stakeholder seems to be doing their part to protect the local community while also
understanding that certain events of hers are time-sensitive and cannot be redone.
Stakeholder 5: The stakeholder said that though they are a tourism marketing company, they have told
visitors to stay away to protect their local community. This shows that they have a high awareness of their
roles and responsibilities to the local community. This was a massive shift that they made to keep their
community safe. It seems like the local community responded very well to these messages.
Stakeholder 6: The stakeholder stated that essential employees were very grateful that there was a place
for them to stay. They mentioned that many other establishments had closed despite being a part of the
essential category. It did not seem like the stakeholder felt like that had a considerable obligation to their
community, but it did seem like they were happy to provide a space for people that needed it.
Stakeholder 7: The stakeholder believes that the wellbeing of a community relies heavily on the
community’s ability to gather. This stakeholder believes that gathering is vital for all people. They feel
that they must provide the community with that space. It did not seem like they were doing much to
support their local community during this time.
Stakeholder 8: This stakeholder was aware of their roles and responsibilities to the community. Not only
were they trying to keep the community safe by educating people on the trails, but they also used
innovative ways to make their programs available to community members. Recreation opportunities are
significant for individual well-being, and it was clear that this organization recognized that.
Stakeholder 9: This stakeholder is very aware of their roles and responsibility to the community.
Moreover, the stakeholder has made shifts to support the community better. Those shifts include not
invoicing local businesses for marketing, being the first to put out a “stay home, stay safe” message,
working with businesses to create guidelines that will enable them to start operating as soon as possible,
and making sure they have enough money to support and invest in the community when the recovery
starts. Additionally, this organization was not rushing the industry into reopening and instead prioritized a
53
slow and steady reopening. The stakeholder also identified that they kept staff because “[organizations]
like [ours] have an incredible responsibility and large role in any sort of recovery.” The stakeholder also
mentioned that they are “looking at the safety of [their] community first and foremost.” The stakeholder
mentioned that their organization is also trying to keep establishments that stayed open in good spirits and
as healthy as possible. It seems that this organization has taken on much responsibility during this crisis
and gone above and beyond for the local community and local businesses. From information gathered
from other stakeholders involved with this organization, this does seem to be the case. This organization
is guiding businesses that have no guidance.
Stakeholder 11: This stakeholder seemed very aware of their roles and responsibilities both to their
employees, clients, and the community. They seemed the most concerned with the seasonal employees
that depended on them for their income and seemed anxious about those employees potentially not
coming back because of the uncertainty of the outdoor business. They also talked about not wanting the
community to get upset that they are bringing visitors to the trails.
Innovation
Some stakeholders were able to innovate during this time, and some stakeholders were not. The
stakeholders that were able to innovate were the organizational stakeholders that had internal emergency
funds, remained flexible, and displayed a high level of adaptive capacity. These stakeholders were able to
downsize their operations and make pivots exceptionally quickly. They displayed a high level of internal
and external collaboration, and all mentioned the creation of new partnerships. They seemed to have their
basic needs met, which allowed them to have the room and the ability to innovate. Some of their
innovations included massive virtual campaigns, virtual courses, virtual market places, drive-in theaters,
drive-in concerts, and drive-in markets.
The stakeholders that were not able to innovate were the stakeholders that did not have diverse sources of
income or sufficient financial reserves. Many of these stakeholders were adapting to cope with the crisis,
but not creating new or innovative ideas. They seemed to be struggling to get their basic needs met and
therefore did not have space or time to innovate. Resilient stakeholders can often innovate and gain useful
knowledge during times of crisis (Adger, 2000). These gains will then be carried forward and likely make
them even more resilient in the future (Adger, 2000).
54
Stakeholder 2: They have had to adapt and be innovative during this crisis. They created a comprehensive
webpage of resources for all stakeholders. They have had to make some large pivots but created new
connections and resources while doing so.
Stakeholder 4: The stakeholder talked about taking this opportunity to specialize in their business and
focus more on elopements and intimate weddings rather than huge events. This stakeholder has a diverse
enough income to give them the security that they needed to be able to innovate during a crisis.
Stakeholder 5: This organization was able to implement innovative ideas that they may continue to
implement after the crisis. The stakeholder said that some of their online marketing had attracted much
more participation than they anticipated. Virtual marketing might be the future. This shows that the
organization was able to be flexible and adaptable to keep them afloat and allow them to innovate.
Stakeholder 7: The stakeholder has created new and innovative ideas during this crisis. They expressed
the desire to do a drive-in concert and movie series and also to figure out how to run a COVID-19
friendly farmers market.
Stakeholder 8: This stakeholder mentioned that this crisis had opened these stakeholders’ eyes to new
methods of delivery for their classes and courses. They had never done any virtual classes before, and
they stated that they might be doing this on a more long-term basis.
Stakeholder 9: The stakeholder has been involved in creating new ideas during this crisis. They talked
about how their organization is attempting to get the local population to start supporting the tour
companies that have historically relied on tourism from outside of Bend. The stakeholder even mentioned
that they have seen much innovation during the crisis and said that “out of great difficulty comes great
innovation” This stakeholder seems to think that their organization will come out of this crisis more
robust and with more support from the local community.
External Resources
The access to external resources seemed to vary depending on what type of stakeholder I was
interviewing. Individuals that are employed by the tourism industry were able to get access to
unemployment funds and seemed to be doing fine with those funds. One of them even mentioned that
they were making more money on unemployment than they would have been making at their job. Small
business owners were struggling the most with access to external resources. Most of them seemed reliant
on government aid but were unable to get the support that they needed. Two of the stakeholders stated
that they were denied government support. The tourism organizations had more diverse sources of income
55
and were not reliant on government resources, but one did mention that the entire industry is struggling
and that their budgets would all be massively impacted by that.
Stakeholder 1: The stakeholder is reliant on external resources. It seems that they are aware of the
resources available to them, and they have been accessing them as much as possible. They stated that they
are not spending money at the moment.
Stakeholder 3: The stakeholder is aware of external resources that are available to them. They were trying
to get access to those resources but were denied. They seemed to be somewhat reliant on those external
resources because their company had been completely shut down.
Stakeholder 10: The stakeholder has a high awareness of the external resources that are available to them.
They were able to get access to those resources and even said that the money that they were receiving
from the government was more than they would typically be making if they were working at this time
during a regular season. This particular stakeholder also has their spouse’s income that they can rely on
and is good at saving their money, so at this point, they are not wholly reliant on the government aid. This
stakeholder said that right now, he and his colleagues are doing okay because they received the stimulus
money from the government, but that once that dries up, they might be hurting
Stakeholder 11: The stakeholder was very aware of the external resources available to them, and they had
access to some of the resources. They were rejected for their first PPP application, but were able to put on
a “skeleton crew.” They seemed to be very dependent on external resources.
Governance
In general, most stakeholders mentioned a lack of guidance from the government. There seemed to be
more positivity when addressing the state government officials than when talking about the federal
government. The larger organizations that were communicating directly with state officials seemed to
have more empathy and respect for the governing bodies. Several of the smaller businesses mentioned
that they prefer little to no government involvement. They felt quite frustrated with the lack of guidelines
and were experiencing very high levels of uncertainty because of it. Two of the businesses were denied
government support, and they were very frustrated by this. One stakeholder was hesitant about receiving
government support stating that there are always strings attached. Another business owner felt that
support from the local authorities for their innovative ideas was lacking. Overall, small businesses seemed
to be feeling a lack of trust and accountability towards the government. Individuals seemed reasonably
56
satisfied with the aid that they were getting from the government, but still voiced some frustration about
how the situation was handled. They also mentioned uncertainty related to the guidelines.
Stakeholder 1: This stakeholder seemed to appreciate government support and the aid that is made
available for businesses and organizations. They did voice that though they had received their stimulus
check from the government, many people that they know had not. This stakeholder voiced concern about
how the situation was handled and the lack of action from the government. They did have empathy for
individuals working in government and stated that “governments are made up of people, and people are
palpable and can always do better.” They expressed that they did not want the governor to open up the
economy too fast because they fear that it would lead to a resurgence and make the situation worse.
Stakeholder 3: The stakeholder voiced a severe lack of confidence in government support. They seemed
to be very frustrated with the process and the result. They also seemed frustrated by the lack of
consistency related to regulations. This shows that the stakeholder’s resilience can be significantly
impacted by the availability of external or governmental resources. The stakeholder also voiced concern
related to one of their employees not getting government aid.
Stakeholder 4: The stakeholder expressed that the guidance from the government is very vague about
what an essential business is. They expressed that they contacted the state's health authority for answers,
and they sent her a quiz. It seemed like she still felt uneasy about this method.
Stakeholder 5: This stakeholder said that on the federal level, leadership and governance had been a mess.
That there has been so much misinformation, and that creates confusion. They stated that the mess on the
federal level trickles down to the state level and leaves the state governments scrambling to try and fill in
the gaps created by the federal government. This shows that a lack of clear communication and
governance during a crisis can create more chaos and make the situation worse.
Stakeholder 6: The stakeholder declined to comment on how the federal government handled the
situation. It seems like they were resistant to getting involved with the government because they believe
there are strings attached. This indicated a lack of trust.
Stakeholder 7: The stakeholder mentioned having empathy for the government officials. They stated that
they believe that they are trying to look out for the community while trying to get elected. They did
mention that in their fantasy world, they would be able to have access to support that “looked like
subsidization, grants, waiving fees and co-sponsorships” but mentioned that those things have never
happened.
57
Stakeholder 9: The stakeholder stated that they did think there was not any rationale behind how decisions
about businesses were being made. They stated that it does not make sense that restaurants, which are
closed spaces, are open for people to enjoy, but that people cannot be on golf courses or go on a fly-
fishing tour. They stated that they were not pushing for things to be opening, but more equity around the
guidelines being made.
Stakeholder 11: This stakeholder seemed to be experiencing a lack of guidance from the government. It
seems like they were looking for that guidance but then determined that they would not get it, so they
switched gears, and with the help of a local DMO, created their own safety guidelines. They also
mentioned not getting one of the loans they applied for. This all indicated a lack of communication and
guidance.
Internal Resources
All of the organization stakeholders and a few of the business stakeholders had internal resources or
diverse incomes. The stakeholders with emergency funds all mentioned that they had those funds because
the 08/09 recession taught them the necessity of emergency funds. Three of the stakeholders mentioned
that there was a limit to their emergency funds and voiced concern about how long the crisis would
continue.
Stakeholder 2: This stakeholder has a year of operating budget to hold them over during this crisis.
Stakeholder 4: A dual income has allowed for this stakeholder to have financial reserves
Stakeholder 6: The stakeholder made it quite clear that the owner of the business has enough money to
keep the business afloat, even if the business itself ran out of money. They knew exactly how long they
could survive with the funds that they had. Despite the owner having access to emergency funds, it seems
that the employees and the business is trying to do everything to minimize their costs.
Stakeholder 8: The stakeholder mentioned that financially they are fine right now, but that if the crisis
continues or there is a second way of the virus, that they might be more at risk.
Stakeholder 10: The stakeholder’s partner is not in the same industry as him and has a stable job that can
provide income to their family while he is out of work. The stakeholder said that he is relatively good at
saving his money. Therefore, he is likely in a better position than most guides who might not do the same.
Prior Knowledge
58
As mentioned before, all but one stakeholder that survived the 08/09 recession mentioned it as a crisis that
gave them insight. Some stakeholders gained more knowledge than others, and several of the stakeholders
have emergency funds because of the 08/09 recession. The stakeholders all mentioned that this crisis is
hugely different, more impactful, and more restrictive than the 08/09 crisis.
Stakeholder 2: The operational budget is a lesson learned from the past that will significantly benefit this
stakeholder.
Stakeholder 5: The stakeholder stated that the 08/09 recession prepared them for budget cuts and revised
plans, but that they had never faced anything like this before.
Stakeholder 7: The stakeholder mentioned that their business plan was loosely based on knowledge they
learned in the 2008/2009 recession.
Stakeholder 8: The stakeholder mentioned that the 08/09 recession was tough for them and that they had a
decrease in demand for their programs, and that the economic downturn impacted how many community
members could afford their programs, but mentioned that the force of this crisis was different from that in
08/09.
Stakeholder 9: The stakeholder said that a roundabout way the 2008/2009 recession led to the creation of
their reserve fund.
Gained Insight
Seven out of the eleven stakeholders said that they had already learned valuable lessons during this crisis.
The lessons that they learned are the importance of improving risk management/crisis planning protocols,
the importance of financial reserves, and the benefit of new collaborations and connections. If the
stakeholders can take this insight and use it to build resilience once the crisis has passed, they will likely
be more resilient to crises/disasters in the future (Adger, 2000).
Stakeholder 5: The stakeholder stated that having content available is crucial during these times and that
investing in that surplus of content is a good investment. They learned that virtual marketing is a vital tool
for them because they are selling and experiencing and not just a product. This interview was conducted
soon after the “stay at home” order was put into place, and this stakeholder already learned many lessons.
This shows that they can absorb information and adapt while they are in the midst of a crisis.
Stakeholder 6: This stakeholder learned that is a good idea to have emergency funds.
59
Stakeholder 7: The stakeholder learned that right now, nothing can be said with certainty. They also
recognized that coming at a situation from a place of surrender results in fewer consequences. They said
that “it wasn’t until I realized how little control I have as it just kept changing daily, that I was able to get
into a position to start seeing things.”
Stakeholder 8: This stakeholder stated that they will have more virtual programs in the future
Stakeholder 9: The stakeholder stated that they have created partnerships and supported businesses in
ways that they historically have not.
Stakeholder 10: The stakeholder stated that the biggest lesson that they learned is that one cannot predict
what is going to happen with tourism.
Stakeholder 11: One of the employees did not take payments from the company because she was working
a different job, and during this crisis, they realized that was a mistake. They learned what they do and do
not need to keep running. They learned how to function on a skeleton crew, the importance of cross-
training, and that savings are vital. They seemed to have gained a lot of valuable lessons from this crisis,
and if their business survives, they will likely take those lessons with them forever.
Recovery
Every stakeholder took immediate action to ensure that they survive this crisis—this involved mass
layoffs, budget cuts, and completely pausing all operations. The stakeholders with clear recovery plans
are the stakeholders that are able to adapt, be flexible, and have large financial reserves. These
stakeholders have been able to create step by step recovery plans for their businesses and other
stakeholders. The stakeholders without clear recovery plans are those that do not have diverse incomes,
have been completely shut down or are experiencing extremely high levels of uncertainty.
Stakeholder 1: The stakeholder stated that in addition to government support, they are not spending any
money, so they are doing their best to stay afloat during this crisis.
Stakeholder 2: The stakeholder furloughed employees and stopped all outbound marketing and became a
resource. They have worked with several different stakeholders to come up with a recovery plan.
Stakeholder 3: This stakeholder was aware of the minimum operations they ended to survive, and that
included canceling all tours and putting all employees on unemployment.
Stakeholder 4: The stakeholder expressed that they are just trying to comply with the stay at home order,
but that if they can mitigate risks they will slowly start operating again.
60
Stakeholder 5: The stakeholder took immediate action to ensure that they could continue to operate. They
pivoted very quickly and made extreme budget cuts. They shut down marketing and created a thorough
recovery plan. This organization, along with another similar organization, had the most comprehensive
recovery plan I have seen. This shows that the stakeholder overcame the initial shock of the crisis very
quickly. It seems like from the beginning, and they have been working to figure out what their partners,
local businesses, the local community, and visitors need.
Stakeholder 6: The stakeholder canceled several renovations and offered deep discounts to guests. They
moved around their vacation rentals so that they could fit more RV’s in their lot. They have a very small
team of employees, and it sounded like they did not do any layoffs.
Stakeholder 8: This stakeholder had to lay off 400 employees and stop all of their recreational programs.
Stakeholder 9: This organization took immediate action to ensure the continuation of their business and to
keep their local community safe. They were the first organization to come out with the “stay home, stay
safe message.” They immediately cut everything they possibly could, including staff and the salaries of
their top staff. They are still seeing some essential employees stay in hotels which was giving them
enough money to come in to support their staff.
8. Conclusion
COVID-19 has impacted every tourism stakeholder that I interviewed. The impacts and consequences
vary by stakeholder, as do their coping mechanisms. The theory of resilience enabled me to observe how
stakeholders coped, and why some stakeholders managed better than others. Though researchers doubt
the transferability of resilience theory to social sciences, the theory was able to provide me with useful
insight into how tourism stakeholders cope with a crisis of this scale. Some stakeholders were severely
impacted and really struggling while others were able to make quick pivots that allowed for them to
absorb the shocks of the crisis.
The two stakeholders employed by the industry, lost their jobs and relied heavily on government support.
They both were unable to say when they would be able to work again and are both thankful for the
unemployment money that they were receiving. All except for one of the small tourism business were
forced to completely stop operations when the “stay at home” order was put into place. The two tour
operators had to furlough their employees and cancel most of their bookings. One business owner was
able to continue operating but was still forced to cancel most of their summer reservations. The
organizations were able to continue operating, but most of them were forced to lay off their employees
and continue operations virtually. One of these organizations had to lay off 400 employees. The tourism
61
management organizations had to stop all their outbound marketing and instead focus on the local
community. Though all the stakeholders were impacted, their abilities to cope with these impacts varied.
Certain stakeholders were trying to survive while others were beginning to thrive, but regardless of their
coping mechanism, they were all dealing with extremely high levels of uncertainty. While most
researchers simply consider uncertainty to be a part of a crisis or a disaster (Magis, 2010), the level of
uncertainty during this crisis seemed to exceed the level of uncertainty and unpredictability of crises of
the past. Each stakeholder was plagued with uncertainty, regardless of their level of resilience. Though
some of these stakeholders were still able to innovate when faced with uncertainty, which is a clear
indicator of resilience, the inclusion of a measurement of uncertainty would be beneficial for researchers.
According to Holling, (1973), when human agency is added to the theory of resilience, adaptation,
adaptive capacity, gained insight, and innovation must be included in the concept. These are all themes
that immerged in my research. The stakeholders with high levels of adaptive capacity were able to remain
flexible and take immediate action to guarantee the survival of their organization or business (Smit &
Wandel, 2006). They were able to make quick pivots to cope with, manage, and adjust to the current
stressor, which is a clear indication of resilience (Smit & Wandel, 2006).
Smit & Wandel (2006), elaborate on adaptive capacity by stating that resilient systems often thrive
during the crisis due to innovative or behavioral changes. Several of the organizational stakeholders
mentioned making adaptations that they would continue to implement after the crisis subsided. One
stakeholder even stated that they would come out of this crisis stronger. Some of the drastic changes made
by the organizational stakeholders had to do with their marketing, they were tasked with difficult duty of
discouraging tourists from visit while still maintaining connection. Many of them switched from being a
visitor resource to a community resource. They then became responsible for providing businesses with
COVID-19 guidelines. They all became an incredible source of information both for local businesses and
the local community. The innovations that took place revolved around virtual marketing, virtual tours and
virtual marketplaces. In addition to adaptive capacity and innovation, connectedness and collaboration
were found among some of the stakeholders.
Though Bec et al., (2006) argue that connectedness can make a tourism system more vulnerable, which
can be observed from the global spread of COVID-19, connectedness can also lead to gained knowledge
and increased resilience (Brand and Jax, 2007 and Hall, 2018). Dahles and Susilowati (2015), reason that
resilient systems that allow for openness and flexibility will often create new partnerships, networks, and
62
collaborations and this is something we have seen all organizational stakeholders do. Many mentioned
that they formed unexpected partnerships and significantly increased their levels of communication. The
stakeholders participating in increased communication and collaboration show more signs of resilience
than those that do not.
In addition to the characteristics listed above, the resilient stakeholders seemed to have substantial
internal financial reserves. These stakeholders mentioned that these financial reserves were directly or
indirectly related to the 08/09 financial crisis. Adger (2000), states that if a system has endured a previous
disturbance without collapsing, the knowledge it gained from that crisis will make it less vulnerable to a
future disturbance. These stakeholders overcame a crisis and managed to gain insight from that crisis,
which increased their resilience and made them more capable of coping with this current crisis.
Though other stakeholders also survived the financial crisis of 08/09, it seemed that they were not as
impacted by it as the stakeholders on the organizational level were. All but two of the business owners
mentioned the 08/09 crisis as a significant event that they overcame. Unlike the COVID-19 crisis, all
stakeholders were able to continue operating throughout the entire 08/09 crisis. Therefore, the impact of
the 08/09 crisis was less significant for specific stakeholders resulting in less gained insight.
Though several of the business stakeholders had emergency finances, many of them relied on one season
for most of their income. This makes them especially vulnerable to a crisis or disaster. Additionally, the
business stakeholders had little to no diversity in their income, making them particularly vulnerable to a
stressful event. Many researchers highlight internal and external diversity as an essential indicator of
resilience (Bec et al., 2006; Brand and Jax, 2007; Gunderson, 2001; and Hall, 2018). To improve
resilience, tourism stakeholders should diversify their incomes.
Another theme that immerged in this research was related to governance. It was evident that there was a
lack of top-down communication, which created confusion and uncertainty. Many stakeholders
mentioned being unsure about the guidelines or being excluded from the guidelines altogether. There
were very few concrete guidelines, especially relating to tourism operators, and the lack of clarity created
more uncertainty, negatively impacting the resilience of all the stakeholders.
Though not all the stakeholders gained knowledge from a prior disturbance, more than half of the
stakeholders mentioned that they had already gained insight from this crisis. As mentioned above, if a
stakeholder can overcome a crisis and gain knowledge from it, their likelihood of surviving the next crisis
is increased (Adger, 2000). The main lessons learned from this crisis were that the tourism industry is
63
unpredictable, that emergency funds are vital, that crisis and disaster are inevitable, that collaborations
and connection will benefit stakeholders during the recovery process of a crisis, and that having virtual
content and market is crucial to tourism survival during a crisis or disaster. These are invaluable lessons
that stakeholders can use to increase their resilience towards future crises.
Additionally, this research has highlighted the importance of flexibility, adaptive capacity, collaboration
and communication, internal and external diversity, and emergency funding. If the stakeholders severely
impacted by this crisis can survive, it will be imperative that they take the knowledge that they have
gained during this crisis and use it to guide them in the future. This can take shape in the form of adapting
business models, creating more connections and collaboration, creating an emergency fund, combating
seasonality, diversifying incomes, and increasing flexibility. Though the focus after recovery is often
centered around a swift economic recovery, these stakeholders have the unique opportunity to rebuild
themselves in a more sustainable and resilient manner.
This crisis has changed our world forever, and many things will not go back to the way that they used to
be. Destinations must not put sustainability on the back burner as they recover from this crisis. The
incorporation of sustainability into a destination builds resilience (Hall et al., 2018). Unfortunately, the
future includes more crises and disasters, and tourism stakeholders should take this current crisis as a sign
to prioritize resilience. Humans have significantly altered our earth, and we will continue to see the
impacts of these alterations; COVID-19 is just one of them. The climate crisis is another that will impact
stakeholders and the tourism industry as severely and significantly. Prioritizing sustainability will not
only build the resilience of destinations and tourism stakeholders but will also slow the pace of the
climate crisis and buy the industry more time to come up with innovative solutions to sustainability
challenges.
9. Discussion
Though this research was conducted with time constraints that limited the duration of the study, this
research can provide insight for tourism stakeholders. Though stakeholders around the world have been
impacted differently by this crisis, the indicators of resilience remain the same. Therefore, this research
provides proof of the importance of prioritizing practices that strengthen resilience. Though this study
provides stakeholders with useful information, many topics would be interesting to explore further.
Conducting a longitudinal study on a larger pool of tourism stakeholders could provide insight into the
long-term impacts of COVID-19. Additionally, a longitudinal study would account for other crises
occurring during the recovery from COVID-19, such as the Oregon wildfires, and provide knowledge on
64
how tourism stakeholders are coping with the combined impacts of a global crisis and local disaster. This
research could also provide information on resilience thresholds and potentially challenge the use of
resilience theory to determine the ability of systems to cope with large scale long-term crises.
Future research could explore the influence of uncertainty on stakeholder resilience. Uncertainty was a
common theme in my research, and it should be considered when analyzing resilience. Unfortunately,
most resilience frameworks do not consider uncertainty as an influencing element. During a long-term
crisis, levels of uncertainty should be measured and analyzed. This research could provide needed data on
the impact that governance has on levels of uncertainty and stakeholder resilience.
Lastly, further research could explore how the impacts of a global crisis influence sustainability practices
within destinations. Unfortunately, sustainability has been cast to the side during this crisis and is no
longer a priority for many destinations. It has been acknowledged that the direct environmental impact of
COVID-19 will be devastating, but more research needs to be conducted on the indirect impacts.
Overall, COVID-19 has the potential to provide insight into many different topics of research. The
tourism industry is going to continue to be severely impacted by this crisis, and tourism researchers must
use this situation as an opportunity to gain insight into how the industry can strengthen their resilience to
crises and disasters of this scale.
65
References
Abutaleb, Y., Dawsey, J., Nakashima, E., & Miller, G. (2020, April 04). The U.S. was beset by denial and
dysfunction as the coronavirus raged. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-
security/2020/04/04/coronavirus-government-dysfunction/?arc404=true
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? National Emergency Training Center.
Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural
Resource Conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629-649. doi:10.1016/s0305-750x(98)00161-2
Allen, J. (2003). Lost geographies of power. Blackwell Publishing.
Al Jazeera. (2020, May 02). Timeline: How the new coronavirus spread. Retrieved from
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/timeline-china-coronavirus-spread-200126061554884.html
Amore, A., Prayag, G., & Hall, C. M. (2018). Conceptualizing Destination Resilience From a Multilevel
Perspective. Tourism Review International, 22(3), 235-250. doi:10.3727/154427218x15369305779010
Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research,
45(2), 143-154. doi:10.1080/0013188032000133548
Bec, A., Mclennan, C., & Moyle, B. D. (2015). Community resilience to long-term tourism decline and
rejuvenation: A literature review and conceptual model. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(5), 431-457.
doi:10.1080/13683500.2015.1083538
Bend Oregon Visitor Bureau for Hotels, Lodging or Restaurants. (2020). Retrieved from
https://www.visitbend.com/
Biggs, D., Hall, C. M., & Stoeckl, N. (2012). The resilience of formal and informal tourism enterprises to
disasters: Reef tourism in Phuket, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(5), 645-665.
doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.630080
Bodin, P., & Wiman, B. L. (2007). The usefulness of stability concepts in forest management when coping with
increasing climate uncertainties. Forest Ecology and Management, 242(2-3), 541-552.
doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.066
Bowman, E. (2020, March 16). CDC Recommends Against Gatherings Of 50 Or More; States Close Bars And
Restaurants. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2020/03/15/816245252/cdc-recommends-suspending-
gatherings-of-50-or-more-people-for-the-next-8-weeks
Brand, F. S., & Jax, K. (2007). Focusing the Meaning(s) of Resilience: Resilience as a Descriptive Concept and
a Boundary Object. Ecology and Society, 12(1). doi:10.5751/es-02029-120123
66
Brouder, P. (2017). Evolutionary economic geography: reflections from a sustainable tourism
perspective. Tourism Geographies, 19(3), 438-447.
Brunner, R. D., Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S., & Light, S. S. (1997). Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of
Ecosystems and Institutions. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 61(4), 1437. doi:10.2307/3802148
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. Oxford Univ. Press.
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of
What to What? Ecosystems, 4(8), 765-781. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9
Cochrane, J. (2010). The Sphere of Tourism Resilience. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 173-185.
doi:10.1080/02508281.2010.11081632
Collier, J., & Cumming, G. (2011). A Dynamical Approach to Ecosystem Identity. Philosophy of Ecology, 201-
218. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-51673-2.50008-x
Coronavirus in Oregon: A timeline of events. (2020). Retrieved from
https://www.kezi.com/content/news/COVID-19-cases-in-Oregon-a-timeline-of-events-568939071.html
COVID-19 situation reports. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-
coronavirus-2019/situation-reports/
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.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013
Dahles, H., & Susilowati, T. P. (2015). Business resilience in times of growth and crisis. Annals of Tourism
Research, 51, 34-50. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2015.01.002
Deffuant, G., & Gilbert, N. (2013). Viability and Resilience of Complex Systems Concepts, Methods and Case
Studies from Ecology and Society. Springer Berlin.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis: a User-Friendly Guide for Social Scientists. London: Routledge.
Diener, E., and Crandall, R. (1978). Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice and
Policy, 2(2), 14-21. doi:10.1080/15487733.2006.11907980
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and
Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. AMBIO: A
Journal of the Human Environment, 31(5), 437-440. doi:10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437
Garrett, L. (2005). The Next Pandemic? Foreign Affairs, 84(4), 3. doi:10.2307/20034417
67
González, J. A., Montes, C., Rodríguez, J., & Tapia, W. (2008). Rethinking the Galapagos Islands as a Complex
Social-Ecological System: Implications for Conservation and Management. Ecology and Society, 13(2).
doi:10.5751/es-02557-130213
Gunderson, L. H. (2001). Adaptive dancing: Interactions between social resilience and ecological crises.
Navigating Social-Ecological Systems, 33-52. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511541957.005
Gunderson, L. H. (2000). Ecological Resilience—In Theory and Application. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 31(1), 425-439. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.425
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy understanding transformations in human and natural
systems. Island Press.
Hall, C. M. (2016). Putting ecological thinking back into disaster ecology and responses to natural disasters.
Business and Post-disaster Management, 269-292. doi:10.4324/9781315640211-17
Hall, C. M. (2018). Resilience theory and tourism. Resilient Destinations and Tourism, 34-47.
doi:10.4324/9781315162157-3
Hall, C. M., Prayag, G., & Amore, A. (2018). Tourism and resilience: Individual, organisational and destination
perspectives. Channel View Publications.
Health Home. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health
The History of Bend. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://bendchamber.org/history/
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 4(1), 1-23. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems,
4(5), 390-405. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5
Holling, C., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management.
Conservation Biology, 10(2), 328-337. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x
Holly Secon, A. W. (2020, April 23). A comprehensive timeline of the new coronavirus pandemic, from China's
first COVID-19 case to the present. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-
pandemic-timeline-history-major-events-2020-3#february-9-the-death-toll-in-china-surpassed-that-of-the-
2002-2003-severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-sars-epidemic-which-killed-about-774-people-globally-13
Hughes, J. D., & Redman, C. L. (2000). Human Impact on Ancient Environments. Environmental History, 5(3),
430. doi:10.2307/3985501
Kelle, U., Prein, G., & Bird, K. (1998). Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods and
practice. Sage.
68
Klein, R. J., Nicholls, R. J., & Thomalla, F. (2003). Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept?
Environmental Hazards, 5(1), 35-45. doi:10.1016/j.hazards.2004.02.001
Lee, A. V., Vargo, J., & Seville, E. (2013). Developing a Tool to Measure and Compare Organizations’
Resilience. Natural Hazards Review, 14(1), 29-41. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000075
Lee, J. C., Mervosh, S., Avila, Y., Harvey, B., & Matthews, A. L. (2020, April 25). See How All 50 States Are
Reopening (and Closing Again). Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/states-
reopen-map-coronavirus.html
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Beck, T. E. (2005). Adaptive Fit Versus Robust Transformation: How Organizations
Respond to Environmental Change. Journal of Management, 31(5), 738-757.
doi:10.1177/0149206305279367
Lew, A. A., Ng, P. T., Ni, C. (., & Wu, T. (. (2020). Community sustainability and resilience: Similarities,
differences and indicators. Tourism and Sustainable Development Goals, 270-279.
doi:10.1201/9780429324253-16
Lonsdorf, K. (2020, April 05). Confirmed Cases In The U.S. Top 300,000 As New Hot Spots Emerge. Retrieved
from https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/05/827605603/confirmed-cases-in-
the-u-s-top-300-000-as-new-hot-spots-
emerge?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprblogscoronavirusliveupdates
Luthe, T. and Wyss, R. (2016) Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a
combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis. Ecology and Society, 21(1), 27 DOI:
http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08234-210127
Maclean, K., Cuthill, M., & Ross, H. (2013, 05). Six attributes of social resilience. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 57(1), 144-156. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.763774
Magis, K. (2010). Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability. Society & Natural Resources,
23(5), 401-416. doi:10.1080/08941920903305674
Maguire, B., & Cartwright, S. (2008). Assessing a community's capacity to manage change: A resilience
approach to social assessment. Bureau of Rural Sciences.
McManus, S., Seville, E., Brunsden, D., Vargo, J. (2007) Resilience Management: A Framework for Assessing
and Improving the Resilience of Organisations. 79pp.
Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Learning Under Uncertainty: Networks in Crisis Management. SSRN Electronic
Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.868712
69
Murphy, B. L. (2007). Locating social capital in resilient community-level emergency management. Natural
Hazards, 41(2), 297-315. doi:10.1007/s11069-006-9037-6
Michrina, B. P., & Richards, C. (1996). Person to Person: Fieldwork, Dialogue, and the Hermeneutic Method.
State University of New York Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
Miller, T. (2020, March 25). Warnings Ignored: A Timeline of Trump's COVID-19 Response. Retrieved from
https://thebulwark.com/warnings-ignored-a-timeline-of-trumps-COVID-19-response/
Nilakant, V., Walker, B., Kuntz, J., Vries, H. P., Malinen, S., Näswall, K., & Heugten, K. V. (2016). Dynamics
of organisational response to a disaster. Business and Post-disaster Management, 35-47.
doi:10.4324/9781315640211-3
Olsson, L., Jerneck, A., Thoren, H., Persson, J., & O’Byrne, D. (2015). Why resilience is unappealing to social
science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Science Advances,
1(4). doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400217
Olsson, P., Galaz, V., & Boonstra, W. J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective.
Ecology and Society, 19(4). doi:10.5751/es-06799-190401
Osterholm, M. T. (2017). Preparing for the Next Pandemic. Global Health, 225-238.
doi:10.4324/9781315254227-19
Overview of the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://statisticalatlas.com/
Peeri, N. C., Shrestha, N., Rahman, M. S., Zaki, R., Tan, Z., Bibi, S., . . . Haque, U. (2020). The SARS, MERS
and novel coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemics, the newest and biggest global health threats: What lessons
have we learned? International Journal of Epidemiology. doi:10.1093/ije/dyaa033
Repici, A., Maselli, R., Colombo, M., Gabbiadini, R., Spadaccini, M., Anderloni, A., . . . Lagioia, M. (2020).
Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: What the department of endoscopy should know. Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.019
Rose, A. (2007). Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: Multidisciplinary origins and
contextual dimensions. Environmental Hazards, 7(4), 383-398. doi:10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.10.001
Ritchie, B. W. (2004). Chaos, crises and disasters: A strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism
industry. Tourism Management, 25(6), 669-683. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.004
Pigram, J. J. (1992, 01). Chapter 4. Alternative Tourism: Tourism and Sustainable Resource Management.
Tourism Alternatives. doi:10.9783/9781512807462-008
70
RRC Associates. (2017). Bend Area Visitor Survey Winter 2016/17 Final Results.
https://www.visitbend.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Bend-Winter-16-17-Visitor-Survey-FINAL.pdf
Ruiz-Ballesteros, E. (2011, 06). Social-ecological resilience and community-based tourism.
Tourism Management, 32(3), 655-666. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.021
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C., & Walker, B. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems.
Nature, 413(6856), 591-596. doi:10.1038/35098000
Seddon, A. W., Froyd, C. A., Leng, M. J., Milne, G. A., & Willis, K. J. (2011, 07). Ecosystem Resilience and
Threshold Response in the Galápagos Coastal Zone. PLoS ONE, 6(7)doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022376
Shaw, K., & Maythorne, L. (2012). Managing for local resilience: Towards a strategic approach. Public Policy
and Administration, 28(1), 43-65. doi:10.1177/0952076711432578
Skerratt, S. (2013). Enhancing the analysis of rural community resilience: Evidence from community land
ownership. Journal of Rural Studies, 31, 36-46. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.02.003
Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2010). The Politics of Social-ecological Resilience and Sustainable Socio-technical
Transitions. Ecology and Society, 15(1). doi:10.5751/es-03218-150111
Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change,
16(3), 282-292. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008
Somers, S. (2009). Measuring Resilience Potential: An Adaptive Strategy for Organizational Crisis Planning.
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(1), 12-23. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5973.2009.00558.x
Situation Summary. (2020, April 19). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-
updates/summary.html#anchor_1582494384908
Taylor, D. B. (2020, February 13). A Timeline of the Coronavirus Pandemic. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.html
Tracking coronavirus' global spread. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/
Turner, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J. J., Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., . . . Schiller, A.
(2003). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. National Emergency Training
Center.
Tyler, D., & Dangerfield, J. M. (1999). Ecosystem Tourism: A Resource-based Philosophy for Ecotourism.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(2), 146-158. doi:10.1080/09669589908667332
United States. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
UNWTO World Tourism Barometer, May 2020 – Special focus on the Impact of COVID-19. (2020).
doi:10.18111/9789284421930
71
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020, March 13). Secretary Azar Declares Public Health
Emergency for United States for 2019 Novel Coronavirus. Retrieved from
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/01/31/secretary-azar-declares-public-health-emergency-us-2019-
novel-coronavirus.html
UPDATED: Timeline of the Coronavirus: Think Global Health. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/updated-timeline-coronavirus
Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island
Press.
Weaver, D. (2010). Indigenous tourism stages and their implications for sustainability. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 18(1), 43-60. doi:10.1080/09669580903072001
WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 3 August 2020. (n.d.).
Retrieved from https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-
media-briefing-on-COVID-19---3-august-2020
Wilson, G. A. (2012). Community resilience, globalization, and transitional pathways of decision-making.
Geoforum, 43(6), 1218-1231. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.03.008
