research title about tourism and covid 19

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

COVID-19 Research in Hospitality and Tourism: Critical Analysis, Reflection, and Lessons Learned

Antony king fung wong, seongseop (sam) kim, yun yao (jennifer) liu, nancy grace baah.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Antony King Fung Wong, PhD, Assistant Professor, Hainan University-Arizona State University Joint International Tourism College, Hainan University, 58 Renmin Road, Haikou, Hainan 86, China. Email: [email protected] .

Received 2021 Aug 4; Accepted 2022 Jan 19.

This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically affected everyday life and business. To describe the impacts, 566 COVID-19-related articles were published between January 2020 and March 2022 in 18 hospitality and tourism journals. This study identifies the research streams, using content and bibliometric analyses. Content analysis and co-citation analysis revealed six research streams and four research clusters, respectively. A critical analysis was conducted to reflect the theoretical and practical implications and provide suggestions for future research directions. The identified research weaknesses include concerns relating to generalizability, sampling and measurement-related issues, online survey methods, failure to identify different stakeholders’ views on the adoption of new technologies, lack of practical coping scheme studies, lack of effort to adopt multidisciplinary theories, and little exploration of customers’ reactions to virtual events. Results of this study can help facilitate and consolidate the knowledge on the impacts of the pandemic and proactively prepare for future disease crises.

Keywords: bibliometric analysis, content analysis, COVID-19, crisis, impacts

This study conducted both content and bibliometric analyses to identify the knowledge base of COVID-19 studies.

The results of the holistic content and co-citation analyses revealed six research streams and four research clusters, respectively.

Critical analysis was conducted to reflect the theoretical and practical implications for academia and industry.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on the hospitality and tourism (H&T) industry since its outbreak in late 2019 ( Ozbay et al., 2022 ; E. Park et al., 2022 ; Sanabria-Díaz et al., 2021 ). Research on COVID-19 in the H&T field began with descriptive studies that reflected experts’ or scholars’ viewpoints, prospects, and commentaries ( Sigala, 2020 ; Utkarsh & Sigala, 2021 ), and these writings were followed by empirical research. The impacts of COVID-19 on the H&T industry have been enormous from both consumers’ and managerial perspectives. Consumers now tend to seek products or facilities guaranteeing hygiene, safety, and reduced personal contact as well as new technologies (e.g., Gursoy & Chi, 2020 ; S. K im et al., 2021 ). Many H&T companies have encountered diverse managerial obstacles, including financial loss, streamlining of organizational structures, and concerns about employees’ job insecurity and mental health. H&T companies have also been required to adopt rapid digital transformation and new innovative management strategies in the post-COVID era (e.g., Donthu & Gustafsson, 2020 ; Hall et al., 2020 ).

Now that international tourism demand has resumed due to the relaxation of pandemic-related social-distancing measures, there is a need to explore the evolution of H&T research on COVID-19 via systematic critical analyses and reflections. An overall evaluative study is necessary to integrate the diverse literature on COVID-19 and facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the pandemic and how it has shaped both the H&T industry and research. A critical analysis and reflection are essential for academics, practitioners, and policy makers in recuperating and building resilient strategies to survive the post-COVID-19 era and prepare for future disease-related crises ( Utkarsh & Sigala, 2021 ). Therefore, this study attempts to critically discuss and reflect on the findings from both content analysis of the COVID-19 studies in the H&T field and bibliometric analysis to gain a more extensive understanding of COVID-19 studies in the H&T industry. A bibliometric study is appropriate to detect the hidden intellectual structure of a subject that may otherwise not be identified through content analysis ( Köseoglu et al., 2015 ; Wong et al., 2022 ). The driving force for existing bibliometric studies is to delineate the knowledge base, analyze study contexts, recognize research fronts through citation and co-citation analyses, and present the big picture for future research prospects ( García-Lillo et al., 2016 ; Utkarsh & Sigala, 2021 ). The blend of content analysis and bibliometric analysis aids in analyzing the literature on a topic from diverse angles ( Köseoglu et al., 2022 ).

In response to the call for a holistic understanding of customers’ responses to the pandemic mayhem and industrial paradigm shift (e.g., Gursoy & Chi, 2020 ; Kaushal & Srivastava, 2021 ; Sigala, 2020 ; Torres et al., 2021 ), academicians in the H&T field have probed the pandemic-induced impacts and newly surfacing phenomena. However, few published studies have integrated content analysis and bibliometric analysis of research on COVID-19 in the H&T field.

This study had four main objectives. The first was to examine research themes and summarize the significant findings of a systematic content analysis of 566 COVID-19 studies in the H&T industry, published between January 2020 and March 2022 in 18 H&T journals. The second was to explore the bibliographic information and research approach of COVID-19 studies in the H&T field by investigating theoretical perspectives, disciplinary areas, industry focus, units of analysis, methods, publication year, and study settings. The third was to undertake citation and co-citation analyses to examine the intellectual network of COVID-19 studies. The fourth was to conduct critical analysis and reflections based on the results of content analysis and bibliometric analyses to understand the state of the body of knowledge on COVID-19 and provide a solid agenda for future research. These multifaceted approaches can provide an assessment of research trends and a road map for future studies in the post-COVID-19 era and offer additional industrial insights on how to be an innovative leader and a game changer in a business ecosystem that has totally shifted since the emergence of COVID-19.

Research Design

To achieve Research Objective 1, this study investigated the research streams of H&T papers pertinent to COVID-19 using content analysis. After understanding the overall picture of COVID-19 studies, it then adopted citation and co-citation analyses to identify the knowledge base and intellectual network of research studies on the pandemic. Citation analysis is one of the fundamental techniques in bibliometric analysis, which assesses the influential power of a publication by counting the frequency of citations of authors and source titles ( Köseoglu et al., 2015 ). Citation and co-citation analyses have also been recognized in recent H&T studies as validated assessment techniques for visualizing the hidden intellectual network in strategic management ( Köseoglu et al., 2019 ), self-service technology ( Shin & Perdue, 2019 ), corporate social responsibility (CSR; Wong, Köseoglu et al., 2021 ), food tourism ( Okumus et al., 2021 ), revenue management ( Guillet, 2020 ), hospitality performance measurement ( Sainaghi et al., 2019 ), and COVID-19 ( Menon et al., 2021 ; Utkarsh & Sigala, 2021 ). The objectivity of citation and co-citation analyses can help overcome the weaknesses of content analysis, which include authors’ subjective interpretations, limited time ranges of publications for content analysis, research biases, and lack of validity ( Köseoglu, Rahimi, et al., 2016 ).

Data Collection, Data Analysis, and Visualization

Scopus was adopted as the major database because of its high reliability and trustworthiness in relation to bibliometric information ( Hassan et al., 2019 ). This study reviewed papers including “COVID-19,” “pandemic,” “coronavirus,” and “hospitality and tourism” in their titles, abstracts, and keywords and that were published between January 2020 and March 2022 in 18 targeted journals in the H&T field. Next, the researchers conducted further separate screening for each article on the basis of titles and abstracts, to decide whether these articles were related to the given topic or theme. If disagreements were discovered in the process of screening the entire manuscripts, the researchers met to discuss their opinions. A final sample of 566 articles was manually exported from the Scopus database. To achieve the first objective, content analysis was performed by reviewing the 566 articles.

To implement citation and co-citation analysis, a total of 34,094 citations of the papers were profiled. After the data were extracted, a coding book was developed to facilitate data cleaning and coding in an Excel spreadsheet. Journal names and publication years were manually checked to ensure spelling accuracy for bibliometric analysis. After coding and cleaning of the data, frequency and descriptive analyses were implemented to delineate the frequency of research thematic areas, distribution of articles according to country, and distribution of articles by year and journal. To examine the intellectual network of research related to COVID-19 in the H&T field, social network analysis was conducted to determine positions and linkages among key documents. VOSviewer and BibExcel software were used to actualize the visualization of bibliometric networks and probe specific research clusters.

Content Analysis of COVID-19 Studies in the H&T Field

Content analysis of extensive literature on the COVID-19 pandemic in the H&T field to derive major research themes or directions generated six discrete research streams. The first stream is descriptive research, relating to ongoing industrial prospects or research investigations without empirical testing (e.g., Gössling, Scott, et al., 2020 ; Hao et al., 2020 ; Jiang & Wen, 2020 ; Sigala, 2020 ; Zenker & Kock, 2020 ).Considering that most studies of this type were early COVID-19-related papers, they have received the largest number of citations. Some studies were conducted as a type of case study in one region or one company (e.g., Kaushal & Srivastava, 2021 ; Neuburger & Egger, 2021 ). For example, Hao et al. (2020) reviewed the overall impacts of COVID-19 on the hotel industry as evident in the research context in China. The results revealed a management framework for COVID-19 including postpandemic phases, new product design and investment, digitalization and artificial intelligence (AI) transformation, and market restructuring.

The second stream was to identify customers’ or travelers’ preferences for products or facilities that enhanced safety or catered to risk aversion (e.g., J. Kim, Park, Kim, Gonzalez-Jimenez, et al., 2022 ), improved cleanliness (e.g., Bae & Chang, 2021 ; Shin & Kang, 2020 ), and involved less crowding and more open spaces (e.g., I. Park et al., 2021 ). Potential travelers or customers indicated their intentions to choose a company, emphasizing variety seeking ( J. Kim, Park, Kim, Lee, et al., 2022 ), changes in lifestyle and travel preference patterns ( Wen et al., 2020 ), or safety and hygiene ( Jang et al., 2021 ; S. Kim, Kim, Choi, et al., 2022 ). Interestingly, a number of these studies adopted an experimental design method with given scenarios, using online survey data collection in a situation of limited travel options to explore customers’ or tourists’ psychological mechanisms.

The third stream addressed the need for technology adoption according to customers’ concerns about the pandemic (e.g., Davari et al., 2022 ; El-Said & Aziz, 2022 ; S. Kim et al., 2021 ; Lu et al., 2022 ; Shin & Kang, 2020 ; Z. Zeng et al., 2020 ). For example, S. Kim et al. (2021) found that customers displayed a preference for robot service (vs. human service) to reduce human contact and potential viral infection. Lu et al. (2022) predicted the popularity of virtual tourism given people’s unwillingness to travel during and after COVID-19. From the hotel perspective, Shin and Kang (2020) investigated how the reduction in customers’ perceived risk through the adoption of technologies in operations affected their intention to visit hotels.

The fourth group of studies focused on the effect of COVID-19 on human resources in the H&T industry or human rights. For instance, stressors such as transportation challenges, family obligations, and fear of getting infected and transferring the virus to family members were analyzed (e.g., Bufquin et al., 2021 ; Wong, Kim, et al., 2021 ). Adverse impacts of the pandemic on psychological consequences, such as mental health, have been studied (e.g., Karatepe et al., 2021 ; S. Kim, Wong, et al., 2022 ; Stergiou & Farmaki, 2021 ). Baum and Hai (2020) also addressed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employees’ vulnerability to job insecurity, travelers’ loss of human rights incurred by the inability to travel, residents’ antitourist attitudes, and border closures.

Research on H&T education amid the pandemic made up the fifth stream (e.g., Amin et al., 2022 ; Gupta et al., 2022 ; Joshi & Gupta, 2021 ; Nutsugbodo et al., 2022 ). In regard to students’ viewpoints, Nutsugbodo et al. (2022) analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on anxiety related to online learning and social support. Joshi and Gupta (2021) found that H&T educators experienced stress brought about by the switch to virtual learning and wanted to learn coping methods for dealing with the unfamiliar online learning environment.

The sixth research stream highlighted the connection between COVID-19 and sustainability. The negative effects of the pandemic have resulted in customers preferring more sustainable practices, brands, and products (e.g., Ioannides & Gyimóthy, 2020 ; Jones & Comfort, 2020 ; Romagosa, 2020 ). However, it has also led to concern about the downsizing of CSR efforts due to curtailed financial support ( Mao et al., 2021 ; S. C. Qiu et al., 2021 ). Additionally, such unfavorable scenarios created a difficult sharing economy (e.g., Jang et al., 2021 ).

Compared with the total of 566 articles dealing with COVID-19 in 18 H&T journals between January 2020 and March 2022, only a few review studies adopted content analysis or bibliometric analysis, and these investigated a range of 30 to 362 articles published after the pandemic outbreak ( Menon et al., 2021 ; Sharma et al., 2021 ; Utkarsh & Sigala, 2021 ; Zopiatis et al., 2021 ). The current study uses both content analysis and bibliometric analysis to identify the current knowledge and explain the relevant COVID-19 phenomena in the H&T field at a point in time when the impacts of the pandemic are declining, by using a sample of 566 COVID-19-related articles published in 18 hospitality and tourism journals.

Bibliographic Information and Research Approaches of COVID-19 Studies in the H&T Field

Crisis management (109) was the most frequently used theory in COVID-19 studies, followed by perceived-risk theory (50), resilience theory (36), protection motivation theory (19), theory of planned behavior (19), social exchange theory (14), and CSR (14). The majority of disciplinary areas were found to be tourism strategic management (101), followed by tourism market valuations and economic forecasts (80), tourism marketing strategies (78), human resource management (50), destination management (43), tourism sustainability (31), and information technology application (28). The industries investigated in the articles included tourism (269), hospitality (127), restaurants (69), hospitality and tourism (65), airlines (24), cruises (14), lodging (13), leisure and recreation (9), and casinos (6). The unit of analysis was identified as tourist (90), panel data (89), no empirical studies (78), consumer (67), manager (62), website (54), employee (47), publication (35), and resident (34).

Empirical research (464) was the dominant methodology, followed by viewpoint (67), conceptual (23), and review (12). The most popular research analytical methods included structural equation modeling (SEM) (116), regression analysis (105), content analysis (69), thematic analysis (56), and experimental design (31). The most popular publication year was 2021 (number of published articles = 350), followed by 2022 (through March; 131) and 2020 (85). When the publications were classified according to journal, the International Journal of Hospitality Management had the largest number of articles (115), followed by Current Issues in Tourism (113), International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (55), Annals of Tourism Research (50), Tourism Management (38), and Tourism Geographies (35). For countries where data for COVID-19 studies were collected, the largest number of papers was observed in the United States (119), followed by China (115), Spain (43), South Korea (23), the United Kingdom (21), Italy (21), and Australia (21).

Citation Analysis

The appendix (see online supplement ) provides information on the top 100 articles that received the most frequent citations among the 566 papers, which encompassed studies in both H&T and non-H&T fields. A study by Gössling, Scott, et al. (2020) on the impact of different types of epidemics and exploring how COVID-19 could change global H&T was the most frequently cited, with 179 citations, because this paper was one of the earliest studies relevant to the pandemic’s impacts. Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) study was ranked the second-most-influential paper, with 78 citations, because papers using SEM should adopt the criteria for validity tests established in this study. The third-most-cited study was written by Novelli et al. (2018) , with 75 citations; they described the travel challenges posed by an Ebola outbreak and the framework used to assess the crisis. The three key thematic areas of the framework are crisis/disaster planning, implementation, and feedback. The results show that appropriate tourism crisis management planning is essential. Effective approaches facilitate cooperation with all stakeholder sectors and the use of new information technology. The findings are similar to the fourth-ranked study, which received 69 citations ( Jiang & Wen, 2020 ). This study emphasized that big data and emerging technologies have a positive impact on AI, cleaning and hygiene, and health management in the hospitality industry, especially when it comes to capturing information about guest needs. Strengthening cooperation with government agencies and developing comprehensive contingency plans are also important themes for addressing this crisis.

In summary, following careful assessment of the most-cited literature on COVID-19 studies in the H&T industry, these studies can be broadly categorized into three research cohorts. The first cohort is pertinent to travelers’ psychological mechanisms, such as perceived risk and travel behavioral intention during the pandemic (e.g., J. Li et al., 2021 ; Neuburger & Egger, 2021 ; Sánchez-Cañizares et al., 2021 ; Shin & Kang, 2020 ). The second cohort is relevant to crisis management and recovery practices in the H&T field (e.g., Hao et al., 2020 ; Page et al., 2006 ; Ritchie, 2004 ; Yu et al., 2021 ). The third cohort investigated descriptive prospects of the impacts of COVID-19 on global H&T industrial aspects (e.g., Alonso et al., 2020 ; Gursoy & Chi, 2020 ; Nicola et al., 2020 ; Uğur & Akbıyık, 2020 ). Other case studies on risks due to different previous epidemics/diseases (e.g., Kuo et al., 2008 ; Lee et al., 2012 ; Novelli et al., 2018 ) and those arising in different regions and countries (e.g., Bae & Chang, 2021 ; Dryhurst et al., 2020 ; Kaushal & Srivastava, 2021 ; Neuburger & Egger, 2021 ) contributed to explaining the current status quo and proposing future COVID-19 research agenda.

Co-Citation Analysis

A total of 34,094 citations were input for co-citation analysis to evaluate the intellectual network of the articles relevant to COVID-19 in the H&T field. The network of the co-cited articles was visualized as shown in Figure 1 . A node in the network indicates the normalized number of citations of COVID-19-themed articles. The links between the nodes refer to the association between two articles, while the thickness of the links denotes the strength of the relationship. Table 1 illustrates information about the respective research clusters and their weight in the network for each cited article.

Network Visualization of COVID-19 Studies in the Hospitality and Tourism Field

Clusters in COVID-19 Studies in the Hospitality and Tourism Field

In co-citation and network analysis, four research clusters were identified using individual colors in a network. Considering that having all articles perfectly fitting one or two research themes within one identified research cluster is nearly impossible, the majority of the cited references related to the impacts of COVID-19 with the most weight in the clustered network were used to label the research clusters, as suggested in a previous study ( Köseoglu et al., 2015 ; Okumus et al., 2021 ).

To ensure the reliability and validity of the results, this study adopted the following rigorous steps to label the research clusters. First, the three authors of this article separately labeled the identified research clusters on the basis of the discussed criteria. Second, the three coauthors discussed any discrepancies in their labeled research clusters to ensure that a consensus was reached. Third, two active H&T researchers who were not coauthors of this study were invited to hold an online meeting to discuss the suitability of the labeling. Finally, the four identified research clusters were labeled: “quantitative methodological approach” (Cluster 1, red); “crisis and disaster management” (Cluster 2, green); “perceived risk, travel intention, and behavioral theories” (Cluster 3, blue); and “COVID-19 impacts on H&T industry” (Cluster 4, yellow).

Cluster 1 (red): Quantitative methodological approach

The quantitative methodological approach was the most influential in this cluster. More specifically, SEM dominated the research methodology for COVID-19 studies in the H&T field. The two most influential references ( Fornell & Larcker, 1981 , R2; Podsakoff et al., 2003 , R6) in this domain were those that adopted quantitative methodological research methods. Given that Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposed statistical methods and thresholds to calculate validities in SEM, quantitative studies cited this research. Podsakoff et al. (2003) were highly cited because most behavioral studies tend to collect and analyze data collected through diverse surveys, which are vulnerable to major methodological weaknesses that can significantly affect reliability and validity in corroborating the research procedures and results.

Along with studies on the quantitative methodological approach, another focus in this domain is COVID-19’s impacts on the hospitality industry. Despite involving a range of stakeholders’ perspectives, these articles clarified how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the requirement for new approaches in hotel marketing and management ( Jiang & Wen, 2020 , R4), the need to reorganize the industrial structure as a result of a paradigm shift ( Hao et al., 2020 , R12), risks to human rights ( Baum & Hai, 2020 , R13), customers’ demands for cleanliness and the adoption of new technology ( Shin & Kang, 2020 , R23), and job insecurity issues ( Baum et al., 2020 , R24). Jiang and Wen (2020) extensively addressed the influences of COVID-19 on hotel marketing and management and further proposed three research directions incorporating AI and robotics, cleanliness and hygiene, and lifestyle and health care.

Cluster 2 (green): Crisis and disaster management

This research cluster focuses on crisis and disaster management related to specific health crises, such as Ebola, SARS, and avian flu. In terms of methodological approach, descriptive studies without empirical testing research prevailed in this research cluster, many of which investigated the general crises and disasters affecting tourism demand, the magnitude of their impacts, and recovery strategies ( Faulkner, 2001 , R18; Mair et al., 2016 , R35; Ritchie, 2004 , R17; Ritchie & Jiang, 2019 , R7). Another group of studies discussed the impacts triggered by a specific health crisis ( G. C. Chien & Law, 2003 , R29; Kuo et al., 2008 , R11; Novelli et al., 2018 , R3; B. Zeng et al., 2005 , R26).

To mitigate the negative impacts, Faulkner (2001) proposed a consistent perspective on disaster management in the tourism industry, which presented the significance of prepreparedness, and called for systematic research into disaster management. Extending Faulkner’s (2001) study, Ritchie (2004) conceptualized crisis action implementation stages, including proactive planning at the precrisis stage as well as strategic implementation, performance evaluation, and feedback for future improvement. Mair et al. (2016) and Ritchie and Jiang (2019) reviewed the previous literature on crisis and disaster management and suggested future research directions in the postdisaster or crisis recovery stage.

Various researchers undertook case studies relating to a region/country or disease ( G. C. Chien & Law, 2003 ; Kuo et al., 2008 ; Novelli et al., 2018 ; Ritchie, 2004 ; B. Zeng et al., 2005 ). For example, Novelli et al. (2018) described the influence of the Ebola virus epidemic in Gambia. Kuo et al. (2008) examined the impacts of avian flu and SARS on tourism demand in Asia; the study found that tourism demand in SARS-affected countries was highly affected, whereas it was resilient in avian flu–affected countries. Some studies ( G. C. Chien & Law, 2003 ; B. Zeng et al., 2005 ), which explored the influence of SARS on tourism businesses in Hong Kong and China, proposed feasible solutions through risk identification, evaluation, and partnership strategies.

Cluster 3 (blue): Perceived risk, travel intention, and behavioral theories

Perceived risk and travel intention constitute the main research theme in Cluster 3. Behavioral theories dominated in this cluster, and quantitative research approaches far outweighed qualitative approaches. The most influential article ( Lee et al., 2012 , R20) in this cluster uses the health crisis of H1N1 in Korea to explore the extension of the model of goal-directed behavior by introducing non-pharmaceutical interventions. Lee et al. (2012) concluded that perception of a health risk may not negatively influence travel intention if prospective travelers have an adaptive plan or coping plan, which can compensate for the perceived risk of traveling while the disease is spreading. Reisinger and Mavondo (2005 , R22) found that perceived risk indirectly influenced the intention to travel due to perceived anxiety. However, most COVID-19 studies in Cluster 3 agreed that the perceived risk of COVID-19 negatively influenced travel intention ( Neuburger & Egger, 2021 , R21).

The theory of planned behavior ( Ajzen, 1991 , R31) and protective motivation theory ( Rogers, 1975 , R38) were the theories most commonly employed in this cluster. The theory of planned behavior has been used to explain tourists’ behaviors. Protective motivation theory, which has been used in the health psychology field, was applied to explain tourists’ protective motivation mechanisms in reacting to threats. Therefore, studies that adopted the two theories showed strong linkages with those of perceived risk and travel intention because both theories played a role in furthering empirical testing of tourists’ future intentions.

Cluster 4 (yellow): COVID-19 impacts on the tourism industry

In Cluster 4, the qualitative research approach outweighed the quantitative research approach. Gössling, Scott, et al. (2020 , R1) produced the most influential article in this domain, which provided an overview and a rapid assessment of COVID-19 impacts based on the reported statistics and figures. Sigala (2020 , R5) suggested that the tourism industry and academia should deem the COVID-19 pandemic an opportunity for advancing and resetting the industry to produce transformational change in the post-COVID-19 era. Similarly, Hall et al. (2020 , R8) claimed that a fundamental transformation of the global tourism system corresponds to sustainable tourism development, whereas Higgins-Desbiolles (2020 , R16) stressed the importance of responsible tourism and community-centered tourism after the pandemic. From an academic perspective, Zenker and Kock (2020 , R9) proposed six research themes, including the level of complexity of the tourism impact, change in tourists’ behavior, change in residents’ behavior, change in the tourism industry, change in the destination image, and long-term and indirect effects. Unlike most conceptual studies in Cluster 4, Y. Yang et al. (2020 , R15) tested the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourism demand using dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modeling, while R. T. Qiu et al. (2020 , R19) attempted to quantify the social cost of tourism during the pandemic in three Chinese regions.

Density View of COVID-19 Research in the H&T Field

Figure 2 shows the results of visualizing the density of COVID-19 research in the H&T field using a heat map, in which the colors and the sizes of the fonts represent the strength of the linkages between the highly co-cited references ( Zupic & Čater, 2015 ). In the heat map, the hottest areas (red color) are located at the center of the map, showing that studies in Cluster 4 (COVID-19 impacts on H&T industry) played a seminal role in disseminating their research findings to studies in other clusters. Given that most of the studies in Cluster 4 were published in the pandemic’s initial stages, they substantially contributed to knowledge formation and its transfer to research in Clusters 1 and 3. Clusters 4 and 2 indicate a juxtaposed pattern, in that studies of COVID-19 impacts on the H&T industry often cited previous studies relating to crisis and disaster management.

Density Visualization of COVID-19 Studies in the Hospitality and Tourism Field

Implications and Future Research

Critical reflections on past literature and lessons learned.

Unlike previous health-related risks, such as SARS, avian flu, swine flu, and Ebola, whose effects on H&T businesses were regional and temporary (e.g., G. C. Chien & Law, 2003 ; Kuo et al., 2008 ; B. Zeng et al., 2005 ), the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic have spanned all industrial sectors and all entities, from individuals to businesses and nations ( Ozbay et al., 2022 ; E. Park et al., 2022 ). This study identified six research streams relating to COVID-19 as a result of extensive content analysis: descriptive research and reflections, customer perceptions of safety and risk, technology adoption, human resource management, H&T online learning, and sustainability.

Co-citation analysis provided four research clusters that illustrate the social network of the knowledge base of COVID-19 studies in the H&T field: quantitative research approaches, crisis and disaster management, risk and travel intention and behavior theories, and COVID-19’s impact on tourism.

The identified research streams from the content analysis are not fully synchronized with the research clusters identified using co-citation network analysis. A plausible reason relates to the data sources and analytical method used in co-citation network analysis. Although co-citation network analysis is a useful tool for visualizing the citation network and knowledge base of a research discipline ( Köseoglu et al., 2019 ), it focuses on the number of citations, which may not comprehensively reveal theoretical foundations or empirical testing. Therefore, the current study added critical reflection and content analysis in examining the holistic evolution of research relevant to COVID-19, rather than relying solely on bibliometric statistics.

Although COVID-19 has received a very high level of scholarly attention and citations in the H&T field, across a range of research topics, the specific influences of prevention measures or policies on destinations have not been fully examined, such as economic impacts or residents’ income inequity resulting from travel restrictions or quarantine requirements. In addition, even though tourism-related small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are crucially important in the recovery of local economies, previous research neglected the practical implications for SMEs.

Recent COVID-19 studies have contributed to revealing the challenges or problems facing the H&T industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. These have included the new occupational stressors of hospitality employees (e.g., S. Kim, Wong, et al., 2022 ; Wim, et al., 2021), the challenge of new online education systems (e.g., Amin et al., 2022 ; Gupta et al., 2022 ), the deterioration of ongoing CSR initiatives (e.g., Chua et al., 2020 ; Mao et al., 2021 ), growth in customers’ preference for sustainable products or brands (e.g., Ioannides & Gyimóthy, 2020 ; Jones & Comfort, 2020 ; S. Kim, Kim, Lee, et al., 2022 ), and customers’ risk avoidance behaviors (e.g., Foroudi et al., 2021 ; Gonzalez-Jimenez et al., 2022; Im et al., 2021 ; J. Kim et al., 2023). However, these COVID-19 studies did not provide specific measures for coping with the challenges or problems identified in their empirical studies. This implies that there is a need to link academic knowledge and practitioners’ needs.

Online survey methods were the most widely adopted for empirical studies in the COVID-19 literature, using samples of potential or actual customers (e.g., Chua et al., 2020 ; Jang et al., 2021 ; J. Kim, Park, Kim, Lee, et al., 2022 ; Wong, Kim, et al., 2021 ).However, they have inherent sampling-related concerns, such as exclusion due to potential participants having no internet or software to access web-based surveys, unfamiliarity with programs and e-surveys, untrustworthy or fake answers resulting from the provision of incentives to induce participation in e-surveys, and difficulty in checking respondents’ sincerity when replying to the questions ( Wright, 2005 ).

A new academic phenomenon also emerged: Many COVID-19 studies used scenario-based experiments during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, hypothetical experiments are vulnerable to concerns about failure to obtain genuinely representative samples, the presentation of unrealistic scenarios, insufficient sample sizes, failure to perform manipulation checks and reality checks, vulnerability to measurement errors, and lack of internal and external validity ( Fong et al., 2016 ; Lynn & Lynn, 2003 ). More importantly, tourists’ experience may not be applicable in scenario-based experiments, and overreliance on this research method because of physical restrictions on data collection may generate cognitive errors and biases.

Most COVID-19 studies in the H&T field were conducted using a single region or company as the case study. Even though this approach was often necessary due to the urgent need to understand the phenomenon or influences of COVID-19 in the H&T field, it had the potential to generate methodology or research biases, with concerns about generalizability and transferability. In addition, studies on new technologies and robot adoption increased hugely during the pandemic because of rising concerns about potential viral infection, and the need for convenience and speedy handling and contactless service ( M. Choi et al., 2023 ; Y. Choi et al., 2021 ; Hao et al., 2020 ; Lu et al., 2022 ; Shin & Kang, 2020 ; Z. Zeng et al., 2020 ). However, those studies focused heavily on the customer perspective without examining other important stakeholders in the H&T field. For example, employees’ views on the adoption of new technologies, such as AI, information technology devices and programs, robots, scan readers, and infrared thermometers for COVID-19 symptom checks, were ignored.

Online learning during the pandemic became a new trend, stemming from its low cost and lack of limitations due to geographical boundaries or time ( Lei & So, 2021 ). The current research on H&T education found that both teachers and students experienced stress and anxiety as a result of the unfamiliar online teaching-and-learning environment ( Amin et al., 2022 ; Gupta et al., 2022 ; Joshi et al., 2021; Menon et al., 2021 ; Nutsugbodo et al., 2022 ). As online learning is expected to be one of the major educational channels in the post-COVID-19 era, the current knowledge in H&T education research, which solely focuses on perceived stress and anxiety, may be limited in providing understanding of practical and future developments. In addition, the H&T industry experienced dilemmas in the deployment of sustainability strategies because hospitality companies slashed their budgets for CSR ( Chua et al., 2020 ; Jones & Comfort, 2020 ) even though customers showed a preference for sustainable brands and products ( Kim, Lee, et al., 2022 ; Romagosa, 2020 ). However, the existing COVID-19 and sustainability studies provide limited exploration of sustainability strategy implementations in different economic situations.

Last, among the 100 most-cited references relevant to COVID-19 studies in the H&T field, approximately 88% of them were published in H&T journals, even though the H&T field is multidisciplinary ( Altinay & Taheri, 2019 ; Köseoglu et al., 2022 ; Sigala et al., 2021 ). This indicates a lack of effort to adopt diverse and novel theories that may help to explain new consumer behaviors and new business paradigms triggered by the COVID-19 crisis.

Future Research Agenda

To respond to the need to identify the state of the art and progress in COVID-19 studies in the H&T field and provide a road map for future COVID-19 studies, there is a need for robust future research agendas.

First, in a crisis where actual field surveys are not possible, there is a need to adopt a variety of alternatives, such as in-depth interviews, observations, big-data analysis, and trend analyses, to enhance the external validity of theoretical predictions ( Carracedo et al., 2021 ; Davahli et al., 2020 ; Hao et al., 2020 ; J. Kim, Park, kim, Lee, et al., 2022 ; Sigala, 2020 ).

Second, most countries, as of December 2022, have abolished travel restrictions or quarantine measures owing to the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination, herd immunity, and concerns about ongoing negative economic impacts. However, this ongoing global health crisis has altered customers’ decision-making patterns and preferences and the industry tactics used to attract and satisfy customers. Future studies should make a meticulous comparison between the COVID-19 era and the post-COVID-19 era to understand the paradigm shift or trend changes from both consumer and managerial perspectives.

Third, the case study or single-survey approach should be minimized or discouraged because of the low representativeness of the samples and the low generalizability of the research results. Future studies should adopt a cross-continental/cross-national/cross-industrial approach, which permits comparative or longitudinal analysis to gain additional insights by considering variations in influential factors. For instance, future COVID-19 studies need to explore the resilience of SMEs in the post-COVID-19 era because such businesses have significant impacts on household incomes and local economies.

Fourth, H&T employees may be sensitive to the adoption of new technologies (such as AI, machines, and robots) because they may lose their jobs or receive poor compensation with the introduction of new technologies ( Koo et al., 2021 ). Therefore, H&T employees’ reactions to and acceptance of the introduction of new technologies in industrial premises in the post-COVID-19 era should be empirically examined in future studies.

Fifth, occupational stress and mental health issues were raised in the H&T industry because of the effects of the pandemic. However, studies examining coping or intervention strategies for reducing stress or mental health issues are still limited. Future research should investigate the effectiveness of organizational programs and individual schemes for alleviating employees’ stress and supporting their mental health in the COVID-19 recovery period. In addition, most of the human resources studies during the pandemic have focused on employees’ views or experiences in their workplaces. Future studies need to explore the effectiveness and possibility of remote H&T working or “workcations” in the post-COVID-19 era.

Sixth, as online learning is expected to be a significant education channel in the future, studies need to explore the applicability of H&T online practical course curricula considering new advanced technologies, such as big-data analysis, websites, the development of applications, the use of new software programs, the use of social media, virtual events, and the role of technologies (such as the metaverse and blockchain), because they are likely to be mainstream techniques for future H&T educational and institutional development.

Seventh, the specific effectiveness of CSR and sustainability practices should be investigated to understand stakeholders’ perspectives before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. Such studies will provide a clear and precise picture on which H&T practitioners can base their decision-making relating to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) or CSR.

Last, even though the existing COVID-19 studies have tended to respond to urgent calls for the understanding of COVID-19, the novel application of interdisciplinary theories has remained embryonic. There are several theories that can potentially help in understanding the unique business environment shift between the pre- and post-COVID-19 periods. For example, situational crisis communication theory, stage theory of organizational change, behavioral inhibition system theory, affect control theory, and interactional theory can improve understanding of how to effectively communicate with related stakeholders, how to implement organizational change, and how customers’ emotions can vary during pandemic situations. In addition, since traditional economic forecasting models were not a good fit for tourism demand due to the unpredictable outlook, future studies should adopt and develop scenario-based forecasting models that will be more adjustable in predicting realistic demand for tourism and business performance during crisis periods.

Practical Implications

This study also has practical implications. The impacts of COVID-19 accelerated new H&T business trends, such as cocreation with technologies, online learning, cyberconferences or cyberevents, an increased emphasis on mental health, ESG and hygiene issues, and interest in adopting blockchain and cryptocurrency. The results of this study can help practitioners to better understand the impacts of COVID-19 on the H&T industry and on industrial prospects in a post-COVID-19 era. These holistic efforts can also contribute to the development of manuals or policies for future global health crises in different industrial sectors and/or countries. For example, H&T companies need to ensure that all their employees have mastered skills relevant to technologies, such as the use of online meeting platforms, the development of scanned codes, website design, robot use, and big-data analytics.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Some relevant studies were excluded due to the targeted journal selection. Therefore, future research should extend this investigation to articles in non-English journals in the H&T field because the severity of COVID-19 and its impacts vary across countries and regions ( Gursoy & Chi, 2020 ; Sigala, 2020 ). Second, authors may have a range of reasons for citing other research studies, including criticizing citations or presenting noteworthy citations, self-citations, biased citing, and self-justification ( Aristovnik et al., 2020 ). Therefore, given that citation analysis may not be 100% accurate in measuring the value or quality of the analyzed documents, future studies need to adopt an advanced intellectual structure analysis, such as latent Dirichlet allocation and text-net analysis, to ensure the objectivity and representativeness of the selected samples. Finally, the labeling and classification of subdomains of identified research clusters were decided by subjective interpretation, even though bibliometric analysis is the most widely accepted method for minimizing the subjectivity of literature review studies.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jht-10.1177_10963480231156079 for COVID-19 Research in Hospitality and Tourism: Critical Analysis, Reflection, and Lessons Learned by Antony King Fung Wong, Seongseop (Sam) Kim, Yun Yao (Jennifer) Liu and Nancy Grace Baah in Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

Author Biographies

Antony King Fung Wong , PhD ( [email protected] ), is an assistant professor at Hainan University–Arizona State University Joint International Tourism College, Haikou, Hainan, China.

Seongseop (Sam) Kim , PhD, is a Professor at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR.

Yun Yao (Jennifer) Liu is a lecturer at the Hilton School of Hospitality Management, Sichuan Tourism University, Chengdu, China.

Nancy Grace , BAAH , is a PhD student at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR.

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Supported by Hainan Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Project (HNSK(YB)22-25) Supported by Hainan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Chin (722QN289) Supported by the research fund of Chris Ryan’s Academician Workstation in Hainan Province.

Supplemental Material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Contributor Information

Antony King Fung Wong, Hainan University–Arizona State University Joint International Tourism College, Hainan University.

Seongseop (Sam) Kim, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Yun Yao (Jennifer) Liu, Sichuan Tourism University.

Nancy Grace Baah, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

• Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aliperti G., Sandholz S., Hagenlocher M., Rizzi F., Frey M., Garschagen M. (2019). Tourism, crisis, disaster: An interdisciplinary approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 79, 102808. 10.1016/j.annals.2019.102808 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alonso A. D., Kok S. K., Bressan A., O’Shea M., Sakellarios N., Koresis A., Solis M. A. B., Santoni L. J. (2020). COVID-19, aftermath, impacts, and hospitality firms: An international perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, 102654. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102654 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Altinay L., Taheri B. (2019). Emerging themes and theories in the sharing economy: A critical note for hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(1), 180–193. 10.1108/IJCHM-02-2018-0171 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amin I., Yousaf A., Walia S., Bashir M. (2022). What shapes e-learning effectiveness among tourism education students? An empirical assessment during COVID19. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 30, 100337. 10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100337 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson J. C., Gerbing D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aristovnik A., Ravšelj D., Umek L. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 across science and social science research landscape. Sustainability, 12(21), 9132. 10.3390/su12219132 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bae S. Y., Chang P. J. (2021). The effect of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) risk perception on behavioural intention towards “untact” tourism in South Korea during the first wave of the pandemic (March 2020). Current Issues in Tourism, 24(7), 1017–1035. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1798895 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bagozzi R. P., Yi Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. 10.1007/BF02723327 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum T., Hai N. T. T. (2020). Hospitality, tourism, human rights and the impact of COVID-19. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(7), 2397–2407. 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2020-0242 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum T., Mooney S. K., Robinson R. N., Solnet D. (2020). COVID-19’s impact on the hospitality workforce: New crisis or amplification of the norm? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(9), 2813–2829. 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2020-0314 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhati A. S., Mohammadi Z., Agarwal M., Kamble Z., Donough-Tan G. (2021). Motivating or manipulating: the influence of health-protective behaviour and media engagement on post-COVID-19 travel. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(15), 2088–2092. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1819970 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun V., Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brouder P. (2020). Reset redux: possible evolutionary pathways towards the transformation of tourism in a COVID-19 world. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 484–490. 10.1080/14616688.2020.1760928 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bufquin D., Park J.-Y., Back R. M., de Souza Meira J. V., Hight S. K. (2021). Employee work status, mental health, substance use, and career turnover intentions: An examination of restaurant employees during COVID-19. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, 102764. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102764 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carracedo P., Puertas R., Marti L. (2021). Research lines on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on business. A text mining analysis. Journal of Business Research, 132, 586–593. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.043 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen S., Law R., Zhang M. (2021). Review of research on tourism-related diseases. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 26(1), 44–58. 10.1080/10941665.2020.1805478 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chew E. Y. T., Jahari S. A. (2014). Destination image as a mediator between perceived risks and revisit intention: A case of post-disaster Japan. Tourism Management, 40, 382–393. 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.008 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chien G. C., Law R. (2003). The impact of the severe acute respiratory syndrome on hotels: A case study of Hong Kong. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22(3), 327–332. 10.1016/S0278-4319(03)00041-0 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chien P. M., Sharifpour M., Ritchie B. W., Watson B. (2017). Travelers’ health risk perceptions and protective behavior: A psychological approach. Journal of Travel Research, 56(6), 744–759. 10.1177/0047287516665479 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinazzi M., Davis J. T., Ajelli M., Gioannini C., Litvinova M., Merler S., Pastore Y, Piontti A., Mu K., Rossi L., Sun K., Viboud C., Xiong X., Yu H., Halloran M. E., Longini J., Vespignani A. (2020). The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science, 368(6489), 395–400. 10.1126/science.aba9757 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi M., Choi Y., Kim S., Badu-Baiden F. (2023). Human vs robot baristas during the COVID-19 pandemic: Effects of masks and vaccines on perceived safety and visit intention. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(2), 469–491. 10.1108/IJCHM-02-2022-0157 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi Y., Oh M., Choi M., Kim S. (2021). Exploring the influence of culture on tourist experiences with robots in service delivery environment. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(5), 717–733. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chua B. L., Al-Ansi A., Lee M. J., Han H. (2020). Tourists’ outbound travel behavior in the aftermath of the COVID-19: Role of corporate social responsibility, response effort, and health prevention. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(6), 879–906. 10.1080/09669582.2020.1849236 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper M. (2006). Japanese Tourism and the SARS Epidemic of 2003. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19(2-3), 117–131. 10.1300/J073v19n02_10 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cró S., Martins A. M. (2017). Structural breaks in international tourism demand: Are they caused by crises or disasters? Tourism Management, 63, 3–9. 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.05.009 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dahles H., Susilowati T. P. (2015). Business resilience in times of growth and crisis. Annals of Tourism Research, 51, 34–50. 10.1016/j.annals.2015.01.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davahli M. R., Karwowski W., Sonmez S., Apostolopoulos Y. (2020). The hospitality industry in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic: Current topics and research methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20), 7366. 10.3390/ijerph17207366 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davari D., Vayghan S., Jang S. S., Erdem M. (2022). Hotel experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: High-touch versus high-tech. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(4), 1312–1330. 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2021-0919 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dolnicar S., Zare S. (2020). COVID19 and Airbnb – Disrupting the Disruptor. Annals of Tourism Research, 83, 102961. 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102961 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donthu N., Gustafsson A. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on business and research. Journal of Business Research, 117, 284–289. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.008 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dryhurst S., Schneider C. R., Kerr J., Freeman A. L., Recchia G., Van Der Bles A. M., Spiegelhalter D., Van Der Linden S. (2020). Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. Journal of Risk Research, 23(7–8), 994–1006. 10.1080/13669877.2020.1758193 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dube K., Nhamo G., Chikodzi D. (2021). COVID-19 cripples global restaurant and hospitality industry. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(11), 1487–1490. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1773416 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• El-Said O., Aziz H. (2022). Virtual tours a means to an end: An analysis of virtual tours’ role in tourism recovery post COVID-19. Journal of Travel Research, 61(3), 528–548. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faulkner B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management, 22(2), 135–147. 10.1177/0047287521997567 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Filimonau V., Derqui B., Matute J. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and organisational commitment of senior hotel managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, 102659–102659. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102659 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Floyd M. F., Gibson H., Pennington-Gray L., Thapa B. (2004). The Effect of Risk Perceptions on Intentions to Travel in the Aftermath of September 11, 2001. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(2-3), 19–38. 10.1300/J073v15n02_02 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fong L. H. N., Law R., Tang C. M. F., Yap M. H. T. (2016). Experimental research in hospitality and tourism: A critical review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(2), 246–266. 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2014-0506 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fong L. H. N., Law R., Ye B. H. (2021). Outlook of tourism recovery amid an epidemic: Importance of outbreak control by the government. Annals of Tourism Research, 86, 102951. 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102951 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foo L.-P., Chin M.-Y., Tan K.-L., Phuah K.-T. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on tourism industry in Malaysia. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(19), 2735–2739. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1777951 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fornell C., Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. 10.1177/00222437810180010 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foroudi P., Tabaghdehi S. A. H., Marvi R. (2021). The gloom of the COVID-19 shock in the hospitality industry: A study of consumer risk perception and adaptive belief in the dark cloud of a pandemic. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 1–10. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102717 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallego I., Font X. (2021). Changes in air passenger demand as a result of the COVID-19 crisis: using Big Data to inform tourism policy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(9), 1470–1489. 10.1080/09669582.2020.1773476 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvani A., Lew A. A., Perez M. S. (2020). COVID-19 is expanding global consciousness and the sustainability of travel and tourism. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 567–576. 10.1080/14616688.2020.1760924 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Lillo F., Úbeda-García M., Marco-Lajara B. (2016). The intellectual structure of research in hospitality management: A literature review using bibliometric methods of the journal International Journal of Hospitality Management. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 121–130. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.10.007 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gössling S., Scott D., Hall C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1–20. 10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gretzel U., Fuchs M., Baggio R., Hoepken W., Law R., Neidhardt J., Pesonen J., Zanker M., Xiang Z. (2020). e-Tourism beyond COVID-19: A call for transformative research. Information Technology & Tourism, 22(2), 187–203. 10.1007/s40558-020-00181-3 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guillet B. D. (2020). An evolutionary analysis of revenue management research in hospitality and tourism: Is there a paradigm shift? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(2), 560–587. 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2019-0515 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gupta V., Roy H., Sahu G. (2022). HOW the tourism & hospitality lecturers coped with the transition to online teaching due to COVID-19: An assessment of stressors, negative sentiments & coping strategies. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 30, 100341. 10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100341 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gursoy D., Chi C. G. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on hospitality industry: Review of the current situations and a research agenda. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(5), 527–529. 10.1080/19368623.2020.1788231 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hajibaba H., Gretzel U., Leisch F., Dolnicar S. (2015). Crisis-resistant tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, 53, 46–60. 10.1016/j.annals.2015.04.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall C. M. (2010). Crisis events in tourism: subjects of crisis in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(5), 401–417. 10.1080/13683500.2010.491900 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall C. M., Scott D., Gössling S. (2020). Pandemics, transformations and tourism: Be careful what you wish for. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 577–598. 10.1080/14616688.2020.1759131 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hao F., Xiao Q., Chon K. (2020). COVID-19 and China’s hotel industry: Impacts, a disaster management framework, and post-pandemic agenda. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90, 102636. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102636 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hassan S. U., Visvizi A., Waheed H. (2019). The ‘who’ and the ‘what’ in international migration research: Data-driven analysis of Scopus-indexed scientific literature. Behaviour and Information Technology, 38(9), 924–939. 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1583282 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• He H., Harris L. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy. Journal of Business Research, 116, 176–182. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.030 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson J. C., Ng A. (2004). Responding to crisis: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and hotels in Singapore. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(6), 411–419. 10.1002/jtr.505 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henseler J., Ringle C. M., Sarstedt M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins-Desbiolles F. (2020). Socialising tourism for social and ecological justice after COVID-19. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 610–623. 10.1080/14616688.2020.1757748 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu X., Yan H., Casey T., Wu C.-H. (2021). Creating a safe haven during the crisis: How organizations can achieve deep compliance with COVID-19 safety measures in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102662. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102662 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Im J., Kim J., Choeh J. Y. (2021). COVID-19, social distancing, and risk-averse actions of hospitality and tourism consumers: A case of South Korea. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 20, 1–10. 10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100566 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ioannides D., Gyimóthy S. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity for escaping the unsustainable global tourism path. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 624–632. 10.1080/14616688.2020.1763445 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Israeli A. A., Mohsin A., Kumar B. (2011). Hospitality crisis management practices: The case of Indian luxury hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 367–374. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.06.009 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jamal T., Budke C. (2020). Tourism in a world with pandemics: local-global responsibility and action. Journal of Tourism Futures, 6(2), 181–188. 10.1108/JTF-02-2020-0014 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jang S., Kim J., Kim J., Kim S. (2021). COVID-19 and peer-to-peer accommodation: A spatial and experimental approach to Airbnb consumption. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 20, 100563. 10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100563 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang J., Wen J. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on hotel marketing and management: A perspective article. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(8), 2563–2573. 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2020-0237 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jin X. C., Qu M., Bao J. (2019). Impact of crisis events on Chinese outbound tourist flow: A framework for post-events growth. Tourism Management, 74, 334-344. 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.011 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones P., Comfort D. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis and sustainability in the hospitality industry. International Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(10), 3037–3050. 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2020-0357 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jonas A., Mansfeld Y., Paz S., Potasman I. (2011). Determinants of Health Risk Perception Among Low-risk-taking Tourists Traveling to Developing Countries. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 87–99. 10.1177/0047287509355323 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joshi V. A., Gupta I. (2021). Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitality and tourism education in India and preparing for the new normal. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 13(5), 622–635. 10.1108/WHATT-05-2021-0068 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jung H. S., Jung Y. S., Yoon H. H. (2021). COVID-19: The effects of job insecurity on the job engagement and turnover intent of deluxe hotel employees and the moderating role of generational characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102703–102703. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102703 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karatepe O. M., Saydam M. B., Okumus F. (2021). COVID-19, mental health problems, and their detrimental effects on hotel employees’ propensity to be late for work, absenteeism, and life satisfaction. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(7), 934–951. 10.1080/13683500.2021.1884665 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaushal V., Srivastava S. (2021). Hospitality and tourism industry amid COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives on challenges and learnings from India. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102707. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102707 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim S. S., Chun H., Lee H. (2005). The effects of SARS on the Korean hotel industry and measures to overcome the crisis: A case study of six Korean five-star hotels. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 10(4), 369–377. 10.1080/10941660500363694 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J., Lee J. C. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on preferences for private dining facilities in restaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 67–70. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.07.008 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J., Park J., Kim S., Gonzalez-Jimenez H., Lee J., Choi Y., Lee J. C., Jang S., Franklin D., Spence M., Marshall R. (2022). COVID-19 and extremeness aversion: The role of safety seeking in travel decision-making. Journal of Travel Research, 61(4), 837–854. 10.1177/00472875211008252 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J., Park J., Lee J., Kim S. (Sam), Gonzalez-Jimenez H., Lee J., Choi Y. K., Lee J. C., Jang S., Franklin D., Spence M. T., Marshall R. (2022). COVID-19 and Extremeness Aversion: The Role of Safety Seeking in Travel Decision Making. Journal of Travel Research, 61(4), 837–854. 10.1177/00472875211008252 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J., Park J., Kim S., Lee D., Sigala M. (2022). COVID-19 restrictions and variety seeking in travel choices and actions: The moderating effects of previous experience and crowding. Journal of Travel Research, 61(7), 1648–1665. 10.1177/00472875211037744 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim S., Kim J., Badu-Baiden F., Giroux M., Choi Y. (2021). Preference for robot service or human service in hotels? Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, 1–12. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102795 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim S., Kim J., Choi Y., Shin J., Morrison A. (2022). Can communication messages influence promotion of international air travel in preparation for the post COVID-19 pandemic era? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 51, 252–267. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.03.019 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim S., Kim J., Lee J. C., Park J. (2022). Threat-induced sustainability: How Covid-19 has affected sustainable behavioral intention and sustainable hotel brand choice. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 10.1177/10963480221116060 [ DOI ]
• Kim S., Wong A., Han H., Yeung M. (2022). Airline employees’ stress amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and its job-related consequences. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 27(1), 30–47. 10.1080/10941665.2021.1998158 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kock F., Nørfelt A., Josiassen A., Assaf A. G., Tsionas M. (2020). Understanding the COVID-19 tourist psyche: The evolutionary tourism paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 85, 103053. 10.1016/j.annals.2020.103053 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koo B., Curtis C., Ryan B. (2021). Examining the impact of artificial intelligence on hotel employees through job insecurity perspectives. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 95, 102763. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102763 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Köseoglu M. A., Okumus F., Dogan I. C., Law R. (2019). Intellectual structure of strategic management research in the hospitality management field: A co-citation analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 78, 234–250. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.09.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Köseoglu M. A., Rahimi R., Okumus F., Liu J. (2016). Bibliometric studies in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 180–198. 10.1016/j.annals.2016.10.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Köseoglu M. A., Sehitoglu Y., Craft J. (2015). Academic foundations of hospitality management research with an emerging country focus: A citation and co-citation analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 45, 130–144. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.12.004 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Köseoglu M. A., Wong A., Kim S. (2022). Intellectual structure of the hospitality literature via a topic modeling analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research. 10.1177/10963480221118814 [ DOI ]
• Kozak M., Crotts J. C., Law R. (2007). The impact of the perception of risk on international travellers. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(4), 233–242. 10.1002/jtr.607 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo H. I., Chang C. L., Huang B. W., Chen C. C., McAleer M. (2009). Estimating the impact of avian flu on international tourism demand using panel data. Tourism Economics, 15(3), 501–511. 10.5367/000000009789036611 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lai I. K. W., Wong J. W. C. (2020). Comparing crisis management practices in the hotel industry between initial and pandemic stages of COVID-19. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(10), 3135–3156. 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2020-0325 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee C. K., Song H. J., Bendle L. J., Kim M. J., Han H. (2012). The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions for 2009 H1N1 influenza on travel intentions: A model of goal-directed behavior. Tourism Management, 33(1), 89–99. 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.006 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lei S. I., So A. S. I. (2021). Online teaching and learning experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic – A comparison of teacher and student perceptions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 33(3), 148–162. 10.1080/10963758.2021.1907196 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lepp A., Gibson H. (2008). Sensation seeking and tourism: Tourist role, perception of risk and destination choice. Tourism Management, 29(4), 740–750. 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.08.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li J., Nguyen T. H. H., Coca-Stefaniak J. A. (2021). Understanding post-pandemic travel behaviours: China’s Golden Week. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 49, 84–88. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.09.003 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu-Lastres B., Schroeder A., Pennington-Gray L. (2019). Cruise Line Customers’ Responses to Risk and Crisis Communication Messages: An Application of the Risk Perception Attitude Framework. Journal of Travel Research, 58(5), 849–865. 10.1177/0047287518778148 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu J., Xiao X., Xu Z., Wang C., Zhang M., Zhou Y. (2022). The potential of virtual tourism in the recovery of tourism industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(3), 441–457. 10.1080/13683500.2021.1959526 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynn A., Lynn M. (2003). Experiments and quasi-experiments: Methods for evaluating marketing options. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 75–84. 10.1016/S0010-8804(03)90020-6 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mair J., Ritchie B. W., Walters G. (2016). Towards a research agenda for post-disaster and post-crisis recovery strategies for tourist destinations: A narrative review. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(1), 1–26. 10.1080/13683500.2014.932758 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mao C.-K., Ding C. G., Lee H.-Y. (2010). Post-SARS tourist arrival recovery patterns: An analysis based on a catastrophe theory. Tourism Management, 31(6), 855–861. 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.09.003 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mao Y., He J., Morrison A. M., Andres Coca-Stefaniak J. (2021). Effects of tourism CSR on employee psychological capital in the COVID-19 crisis: From the perspective of conservation of resources theory. Current Issues Tourism, 24(19), 2716–2734. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1770706 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKercher B., Chon K. (2004). The Over-Reaction to SARS and the Collapse of Asian Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 716–719. 10.1016/j.annals.2003.11.002 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Menon D., Gunasekar S., Dixit S. K., Das P., Mandal S. (2021). Present and prospective research themes for tourism and hospitality education post-COVID19: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 30, 100360. 10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100360 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Minh P. Q., Mai N. N. (2023). Perceived risk and booking intention in the crisis of COVID-19: Comparison of tourist hotels and love hotels. Tourism Recreation Research, 48(1), 128–140. 10.1080/02508281.2021.1885798 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mizrachi I., Fuchs G. (2016). Should we cancel? An examination of risk handling in travel social media before visiting ebola-free destinations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 28, 59–65. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.01.009 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuburger L., Egger R. (2021). Travel risk perception and travel behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: A case study of the DACH region. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(7), 1003–1016. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1803807 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicola M., Alsafi Z., Sohrabi C., Kerwan A., Al-Jabir A., Losifidis C., Agha M., Agha R. (2020). The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. International Journal of Surgery, 78, 185–193. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Novelli M., Burgess L. G., Jones A., Ritchie B. W. (2018). “No Ebola . . . still doomed”: The Ebola-induced tourism crisis. Annals of Tourism Research, 70, 76–87. 10.1016/j.annals.2018.03.006 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nutsugbodo R. Y., Mensah C., Amissah E. F., Baah N. G. (2022). COVID-19, parental job losses, online learning anxiety, and social support of hospitality and tourism students. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 1–14. 10.1080/10963758.2022.2056468 [ DOI ]
• Okumus B., Mehraliyev F., Ma F., Köseoglu M. A. (2021). Intellectual connections in food tourism literature: A co-citation approach. International Journal of Tourism Research, 23(2), 220–237. 10.1002/jtr.2409 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozbay G., Sariisik M., Ceylan V., Çakmak M. (2022). A comparative evaluation between the impact of previous outbreaks and COVID-19 on the tourism industry. International Hospitality Review, 36(1), 65–82. 10.1108/IHR-05-2020-0015 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Page S., Song H., Wu D. C. (2012). Assessing the impacts of the global economic crisis and swine flu on inbound tourism demand in the United Kingdom. Journal of Travel Research, 51(2), 142–153. 10.1177/0047287511400754 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Page S., Yeoman I., Munro C., Connell J., Walker L. (2006). A case study of best practice: Visit Scotland’s prepared response to an influenza pandemic. Tourism Management, 27(3), 361–393. 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.01.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park E., Kim W. H., Kim S. B. (2022). How does COVID-19 differ from previous crises? A comparative study of health-related crisis research in the tourism and hospitality context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 103, 103199. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103199 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park I., Kim J., Kim S., Lee J., Giroux M. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on travelers’ preference for crowded versus non-crowded options. Tourism Management, 87, 104398. 10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104398 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pine R., McKercher B. (2004). The impact of SARS on Hong Kong’s tourism industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(2), 139–143. 10.1108/09596110410520034 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J.-Y., Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prayag G. (2018). Symbiotic relationship or not? Understanding resilience and crisis management in tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 133–135. 10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.012 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qiu R. T., Park J., Li S., Song H. (2020). Social costs of tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Tourism Research, 84, 102994. 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102994 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qiu S. C., Jiang J., Liu X., Chen M. H., Yuan X. (2021). Can corporate social responsibility protect firm value during the COVID-19 pandemic? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, 102759. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102759 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quintal V. A., Lee J. A., Soutar G. N. (2010). Risk, uncertainty and the theory of planned behavior: A tourism example. Tourism Management, 31(6), 797–805. 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reisinger Y., Mavondo F. (2005). Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk perception. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 212–225. 10.1177/0047287504272017 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie B. (2008). Tourism Disaster Planning and Management: From Response and Recovery to Reduction and Readiness. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(4), 315–333. 10.2167/cit-0389.0 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie B. W. (2004). Chaos, crises and disasters: A strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 25(6), 669–683. 10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.004 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie B. W., Jiang Y. (2019). A review of research on tourism risk, crisis and disaster management: Launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on tourism risk, crisis and disaster management. Annals of Tourism Research, 79, 102812. 10.1016/j.annals.2019.102812 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rittichainuwat B. N., Chakraborty G. (2009). Perceived travel risks regarding terrorism and disease: The case of Thailand. Tourism Management (1982), 30(3), 410–418. 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.08.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rivera M. A. (2020). Hitting the reset button for hospitality research in times of crisis: Covid19 and beyond. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, 102528. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102528 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roehl W. S., Fesenmaier D. R. (1992). Risk Perceptions and Pleasure Travel: An Exploratory Analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 17–26. 10.1177/004728759203000403 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93–114. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Romagosa F. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis: Opportunities for sustainable and proximity tourism. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 690–694. 10.1080/14616688.2020.1763447 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosselló J., Santana-Gallego M., Awan W. (2017). Infectious disease risk and international tourism demand. Health Policy and Planning, 32(4), 538–548. 10.1093/heapol/czw177 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sainaghi R., Köseoglu M. A., d’Angella F., Tetteh I. L. (2019). Foundations of hospitality performance measurement research: A co-citation approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 79, 21–40. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.12.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanabria-Díaz J. M., Aguiar-Quintana T., Araujo-Cabrera Y. (2021). Public strategies to rescue the hospitality industry following the impact of COVID-19: A case study of the European Union. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 97, 1–12. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102988 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sánchez-Cañizares S. M., Cabeza-Ramírez L. J., Muñoz-Fernández G., Fuentes-García F. J. (2021). Impact of the perceived risk from Covid-19 on intention to travel. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(7), 970–984. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1829571 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma A., Nicolau J. L. (2020). An open market valuation of the effects of COVID-19 on the travel and tourism industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 83, 102990–102990. 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102990 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma G. D., Thomas A., Paul J. (2021). Reviving tourism industry post-COVID-19: A resilience-based framework. Tourism Management Perspectives, 37, 100786. 10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100786 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shin H., Kang J. (2020). Reducing perceived health risk to attract hotel customers in the COVID-19 pandemic era: Focused on technology innovation for social distancing and cleanliness. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, 1–9. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102664 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shin H., Perdue R. R. (2019). Self-service technology research: A bibliometric co-citation visualization analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80, 101–112. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.012 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sigala M. (2020). Tourism and COVID-19: Impacts and implications for advancing and resetting industry and research. Journal of Business Research, 117, 312–321. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.015 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sigala M., Kumar S., Donthu N., Sureka R., Joshi Y. (2021). A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management : Research contributions and influence. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 47, 273–288. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.04.005 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sönmez S., Apostolopoulos Y., Lemke M. K., Hsieh Y.-C. (Jerrie). (2020). Understanding the effects of COVID-19 on the health and safety of immigrant hospitality workers in the United States. Tourism Management Perspectives, 35, 100717. 10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100717 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sönmez S. F., Graefe A. R. (1998). Determining Future Travel Behavior from Past Travel Experience and Perceptions of Risk and Safety. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 171–177. 10.1177/004728759803700209 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stergiou D. P., Farmaki A. (2021). Ability and willingness to work during COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of front-line hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, 1–4. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102770 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torres E. N., Ridderstaat J., Wei W. (2021). Negative affectivity and people’s return intentions to hospitality and tourism activities: The early stages of COVID-19. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 49, 89–100. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.08.021 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tse A. C. B., So S., Sin L. (2006). Crisis management and recovery: how restaurants in Hong Kong responded to SARS. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(1), 3–11. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.12.001 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uğur N. G., Akbıyık A. (2020). Impacts of COVID-19 on global tourism industry: A cross-regional comparison. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36, 100744. 10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100744 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Utkarsh, Sigala M. (2021). A bibliometric review of research on COVID-19 and tourism: Reflections for moving forward. Tourism Management Perspectives, 40, 100912. 10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100912 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang J., Liu-Lastres B., Ritchie B. W., Mills D. J. (2019). Travellers’ self-protections against health risks: An application of the full Protection Motivation Theory. Annals of Tourism Research, 78, 102743–. 10.1016/j.annals.2019.102743 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wen Z., Huimin G., Kavanaugh R. R. (2005). The Impacts of SARS on the Consumer Behaviour of Chinese Domestic Tourists. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(1), 22–38. 10.1080/13683500508668203 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wen J., Kozak M., Yang S., Liu F. (2020). COVID-19: potential effects on Chinese citizens’ lifestyle and travel. Tourism Review, 76(1), 74–87. 10.1108/TR-03-2020-0110 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams A. M., Baláž V. (2015). Tourism Risk and Uncertainty: Theoretical Reflections. Journal of Travel Research, 54(3), 271–287. 10.1177/0047287514523334 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong A. K. F., Kim S., Kim J., Han H. (2021). How the COVID-19 pandemic affected hotel employee stress: Employee perceptions of occupational stressors and their consequences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, 102798. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102798 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong A. K. F., Kim S., Lee S. (2022). The evolution, progress, and the future of corporate social responsibility: Comprehensive review of hospitality and tourism articles. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 23(1), 1–33. 10.1080/15256480.2019.1692753 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong A. K. F., Köseoglu M. A., Kim S. S. (2021). The intellectual structure of corporate social responsibility research in tourism and hospitality: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 49, 270–284. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.09.015 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright K. (2005). Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3). 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang Y., Zhang H., Chen X. (2020). Coronavirus pandemic and tourism: Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modeling of infectious disease outbreak. Annals of Tourism Research, 83, 102913. 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102913 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu M., Li Z., Yu Z., He J., Zhou J. (2021). Communication related health crisis on social media: A case of COVID-19 outbreak. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(19), 2699–2705. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1752632 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeng B., Carter R. W., De Lacy T. (2005). Short-term perturbations and tourism effects: The case of SARS in China. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(4), 306–322. 10.1080/13683500508668220 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeng Z., Chen P. J., Lew A. A. (2020). From high-touch to high-tech: COVID-19 drives robotics adoption. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 724–734. 10.1080/14616688.2020.1762118 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zenker S., Kock F. (2020). The coronavirus pandemic: A critical discussion of a tourism research agenda. Tourism Management, 81, 104164. 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104164 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang J., Xie C., Wang J., Morrison A. M., Coca-Stefaniak J. A. (2020). Responding to a major global crisis: the effects of hotel safety leadership on employee safety behavior during COVID-19. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(11), 3365–3389. 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2020-0335 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zheng D., Luo Q., Ritchie B. W. (2021). Afraid to travel after COVID-19? Self-protection, coping and resilience against pandemic “travel fear.” Tourism Management, 83, 104261. 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104261 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zopiatis A., Pericleous K., Theofanous Y. (2021). COVID-19 and hospitality and tourism research: An integrative review. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48, 275–279. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.07.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zupic I., Čater T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. 10.1177/1094428114562629 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

• View on publisher site
• PDF (756.7 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections