{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03388299548366768, 'fraction_numerical': 0.027854216994013234, 'mean_word_length': 5.658181818181818, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 4, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
SME resilience as a catalyst for tourism destinations: a literature review

This study proposes a holistic framework, which synthesized the literature on resilience, tourism, and tourism micro small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). The dimensions of resilience were used as lens to highlight the role played by tourism small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and extract strategies for tourism destination resilience amid various disasters. The systematic integrative literature review of 107 documents covered six books and 101 papers. Seven sources are chapters from 6 books and 94 articles from 47 journals. The literature review uses thematic analysis to extract dimensional concepts from extant literature on resilience, tourism resilience, and tourism MSMEs. Key insights on limitations and strategies on resilience emerged from the review. These addressed aspects of governance, economics, environment, and social resilience. This analysis led to the formulation of a framework that underscored the dimensions of tourism. It provides insights for tourism policymakers in drafting strategies to address limitations, which anchored on a more comprehensive perspective. As a contribution to theory, this study expanded the scope of resilience dimensions to address limitations. The strategies intend to fortify MSME resilience as a dominant part of tourism resilience. The insights from the study offer an enhanced view of tourism MSME resilience as crisis and disaster management literature.


Introduction
As a collection of suppliers, the tourism industry lays subject to movements in people, weather events, and economic changes that may cause it to flourish (when times are good), or debilitate it (in times of disaster). The tourism industry is reliant on the movement of people (Yang et al., 2020) subjecting the industry to be susceptible to various threats of natural disasters, health pandemics (Dayour et al., 2020a(Dayour et al., , 2020b, and economic and political upheaval (Cheer & Lew, 2018a, 2018b. When crisis (due to natural disasters, economic downturn, terrorism, and internal chaos) occur, self-employed individuals and owners of small-scale enterprises in tourism and tourism-related ventures feel the brunt due to dependence on international and domestic tourist arrivals and destination marketing agencies (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015;Romão et al., 2016;Chowdhury et al., 2019). Post-disaster impacts hound the tourism industry in terms of tourist flows cessation (Espiner et al., 2017) causing decreases in demand (Romão et al., 2016), a prolonged decrease of visitors (Orchiston, 2013;Calgaro et al., 2014), destruction to critical infrastructures including accommodation capacity (Orchiston, 2013;Calgaro et al., 2014) and negative image from the media (Orchiston, 2013). Hence, the need for post-disaster recovery aims to bring tourism destinations either to their pre-disaster condition or an improved state through the development of strategies and pertinent implementation (Mair et al., 2016).
The concept is similar to resilience defined as the ability to cope and persist amidst external shocks, disruption, and disturbances (Folke, 2016;Shimada, 2015;Kaufmann, 2017;Oliva & Lazzeretti, 2017) brought about by various disasters. In the same thread, tourism resilience involves the employment of actions for disaster-stricken tourism destinations to recover from the impacts of either various disasters and/or tourism-induced stresses.
However, compared to sustainability, resilience in its exercise of a range of responses that may be pragmatic and inclusive may not be sufficient nor align with sustainability endeavors (Espiner et al., 2017). Sustainability aims for sustained provision through responsible utilization of resources. Tourism resilient systems may implement new norms to continue functioning in the short period, albeit not sustainably long lasting (Brown et al., 2017). Nonetheless, the thoughts on resilience and sustainability are significant in the interpretation of environmental, economic, and social factors of tourism communities. Resilience is necessary though not sufficient to attain sustainability (Espiner et al., 2017), but achieving tourism sustainability necessitates tourism resilience as an important factor (Saarinen & Gill, 2019a, 2019b. The tourism industry is comprised of a considerable number of micro small-and-medium-sized enterprises (MSME), but there is a dearth of studies about these organizations (Thomas, 2015;Mair et al., 2016). The tourism sector and tourism operators are mostly composed of small enterprises and micro-businesses (Mair et al., 2016;Coles et al., 2014;Orchiston, 2013). Small-medium hotel enterprises (SMHEs) hold an important position in both the traditional tourism destination and hotel sector (Buffa et al., 2018). Despite the inadequate perceptions of MSMEs on the impacts of disasters and pertinent implementation of resilience development activities (Pandy & Rogerson, 2019), small tourism firms play a substantial part in the socio-cultural and economic health of tourism societies . Most economic activities of rural tourism destinations are driven by micro and small tourism businesses (Ismail et al., 2019). Small tourism businesses add value in terms of community engagement and promotion and sustain other businesses, thus boosting the local economy and communities (Steiner & Atterton, 2015). Nonetheless, current literature reviews do not seem to include studies on tourism MSME resilience, even as its concepts inform operational policies at tourism destinations. There are limited papers that cover a comprehensive scope anchored on the dimensions of resilience by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and included in the study of Jamalia and Powell et al. (2018) covering economic, social, environmental, and institutional/ governance resilience. Achieving tourism MSME resilience, therefore, requires identifying limitations on tourism MSME resilience and extracting a comprehensive range of strategies in addressing such limitations culled from both tourism and tourism MSME literature. A framework with a particular focus on tourism MSMEs compared to other generic and community-centered tourism frameworks highlight the considerable role played by the sector in enhancing tourism destination and community resilience.
In the face of various disasters, there is a need for tourism resilience in tourism destinations. There is also a need for tourism resilience to be inclusive of tourism MSMEs in a comprehensive scope (economic, social, environmental, and institutional/governance resilience), especially so that limitations hound tourism MSMEs, hindering growth and consequent potential substantial contribution towards tourism industry. However, despite the capacity to achieve tourism resilience in destinations, resilience theories are not given much attention by tourism scholars. Most frameworks borne out of literature reviews are quite generic in nature and do not seem to emphasize tourism MSMEs. More so, in the coverage of this review, most studies covering both tourism and tourism MSME resilience favor social and economic resilience with environmental resilience given least attention despite the need for a balanced approach to equip tourism communities with the comprehensive dimension of tourism resilience. The majority of the frameworks included in this study was not comprehensive enough to involve all-encompassing tourism resilience dimensions and have the convergence of these dimensions trickle down to benefit tourism MSMEs. The gap is addressed in this study with the proposed framework capturing a balanced stance in all four dimensions and giving emphasis on how tourism resilience could in turn address the limitations affecting tourism MSME resilience. The COVID era brings to fore the necessity for tourism MSME resilience encompassing all four dimensions (governance, environmental, social, and economic) as major catalysts for tourism destination development. The findings delved into a more detailed understanding on how various tourism and tourism MSME literature covers these dimensions with emphasis on the limitations and strategies. The aim is to highlight the importance of these strategies to address limitations besetting tourism MSMEs and bring forward a proposed framework enabling tourism MSMEs to spur resilient tourism destinations.
The purpose of this discourse is to extract how these dimensions are implied in tourism and MSME resilience literature toward tourism destination resilience. Bridging resilience and tourism dimensions in the scope of governance, environmental, social, and economic resilience reveal how applications of dimensions in the tourism resilience literature bring advantage for tourism MSMEs as catalysts of tourism destinations and community development Dahles & Susilowati, 2015;Mendoza et al., 2018;and Ismail et al., 2019). The second section provides a literature review. A subsequent section expounds on the research methodology. The fourth part presents the research results. The fifth part offers insights and discussion from the findings where there is a more detailed presentation of the key insights. Then, a proposed framework based on the in-depth analysis is forwarded. The final sections of the paper discuss future perspectives and debates, conclusion, and limitations.

Literature review
There is an increase in the body of literature on disaster and tourism over the past 20 years (Brown et al., 2017). However, among the current literature review studies, only a few fused the concepts of resilience, tourism, and pertinent strategies, and these are more specific to hotels (Brown et al., 2017) or propose a framework with strategies particular to heritage sites (Chong & Balasingam, 2019). Literature review on resilience covers a range of topics from social-ecological perspectives (Folke, 2016), regional resilience (Fröhlich & Hassink, 2018), resilience of organizations by Annarelli and Nonino (2016), and to hotel sector resilience (Brown et al., 2017). Recent literature review on tourism focus on innovation research (Pikkemaat et al., 2019), environmental ethics (Holden, 2019), sustainable tourism (Ruhanen et al., 2019;Chong & Balasingam, 2019), and hotel sector resilience (Brown et al., 2017). In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, pieces of literature become focused on research notes and critical reviews on the impact of the pandemic on tourism resilience (Gössling et al., 2020). These reviews provide post-crisis strategies as with the studies of Yang et al. (2020) and Nicola et al. (2020), Gössling et al.'s (2020) push for tourism sustainability and socializing tourism by Higgins-Desbiolles (2020).
Literature reviews from 2015 to 2020 have little consideration on tourism MSMEs and do not seem to extend the strategies and resilience framework for MSMEs that are operating in tourism destinations. Furthermore, the frameworks presented are quite generic to socio-ecological systems resilience (Folke, 2016), tourism innovation studies (Pikkemaat et al., 2019), sustainable strategies for heritage sites (Chong & Balasingam, 2019), and a community-centered tourism framework (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020). The framework of Steiner and Atterton (2015) used in-depth interviews and systematic analysis as a basis to formulate a framework that aims to achieve a coherent balance of environmental, social, and economic resilience. The overlapping core in which these three dimensions converge is deemed to achieve strengthened local community resilience. However, this framework does not emphasize tourism MSME resilience nor does it include governance resilience in achieving community resilience. Folke (2016) used scenario planning with the framework on the principles to enhance resilience through management and governance in the pursuit of a social-ecological system to preserve humanity. The resilience dimensions that were dominant in the framework were governance, environmental, and social resilience. Nonetheless, the framework was not so keen on economic resilience nor with tourism MSMEs. With a systematic literature analysis, Pikkemaat et al. (2019) delved into the pillars of studies involving tourism innovation. The framework espoused the idea that the competitiveness of tourism MSMEs was best enhanced with social capital and innovation. Nonetheless, there was less emphasis on the other dimensions of resilience. Chong and Balasingam (2019) on the other hand focused on the sustainability of heritage sites borne out of systematic literature review. The framework touched on governance and economic aspects but none on tourism MSMEs. With a conceptual analysis, Higgins-Desbiolles (2020) formulated a community-centered tourism framework that seems to promote social and governance resilience but with less emphasis on tourism MSMEs. In summary, limitations on the various related frameworks covered in this study include the inability to cover all four comprehensive scope (economic, environmental, social, governance resilience) and to utilize these dimensions in promoting tourism MSME resilience. The proposed framework in this study is addressing this gap. The convergence and overlapping benefits of these dimensions can strengthen community and tourism resilience that is substantial towards tourism MSME resilience, which in turn can contribute towards resilient tourism destinations as espoused in the framework proposed by this study. Hence, by drawing out the concepts of the comprehensive dimensions of resilience from the current literature on resilience, tourism, and tourism MSME resilience, this paper proposes a framework that bridges resilience and tourism dimensions intended for MSMEs as catalysts towards destination resilience.

Methods
This paper uses the integrative review that considers different perspectives and insights (Snyder, 2019) on MSME resilience concerning that of tourism for theoretical framework development. The method utilizes a systematic review process. This is part of the integrative review, albeit devoid of statistical synthesis methods (Toronto, 2020) in the identification, evaluation, annotation, and synthesis (Rahimi et al., 2017;Holden, 2019;Chong & Balasingam, 2019;Pikkemaat et al., 2019) of literature to provide an explicit evaluation of findings.
Specifically, this paper adapts the integrative literature review methodology of Shuck (2011) where authors searched for Google Scholar, Web of Science/Clarivate, SAGE Publications, Taylor and Francis, Emerald Insight, Science Direct/Elsevier, and JSTOR databases. The keywords used were "resilience," "tourism resilience," and "tourism MSME resilience." Articles with substantive relevance (David & Han, 2004) particularly those studies concerned with resilience dimensions namely, governance, economic, environmental, and social resilience in the presence of disasters within the tourism industry and tourism MSMEs context. The exclusion of documents was based on publications that are not within the 2010-2022 observation horizon to accommodate currency in the research field (Cottrell & McKenzie, 2011). The review focused on papers from Web of Science and Scopus databases that are considered widely used sources (Singh et al., 2021). However, due to scarcity of literature, articles from Scimago indexed and seven studies from book chapters were included in the review. There was independent verification of the inclusion and exclusion criteria by other authors.
One hundred seven documents were identified, broken down into six books and 101 studies, seven were from book chapters from 6 books, and 94 from 47 journals. Most of the manuscripts are Scopus indexed (Rayan, 2018), while others are Scimago Indexed and part of Web of Science coverage. According to Singh et al. (2021), Scopus includes a big number of documents while most of Web of Science coverage is also included in Scopus. Each article was then read and organized using the deductive method of thematic analysis (Pikkemaat et al., 2019). The papers were first categorized into resilience, tourism resilience, and tourism MSME resilience in an Excel file throughout the data analysis. Then, the papers were subjected to a refined manual categorization of how the dimensions of resilience were defined by various articles either in manifest or in the latent presentation. Lastly, the limitations and strategies under tourism resilience and tourism MSME resilience articles respectively were extracted in the context of the four dimensions of resilience. The applied thematic analysis goes through an iterative process of theme identification and outlining the fences around those content themes (Guest et al., 2012). The synthesis of the limitations and strategies themes led to the formulation of the proposed framework.
Dimensions of resilience ( Fig. 1) for resilient cities according to the OECD, include economic (diverse products/ services and novelty in industries), social (unified and allencompassing communities), environmental (ecological development of infrastructures and natural resources preservation), and institutional/governance (increased involvement and concerted efforts of leaders) by Figueiredo et al. (2018) and Jamalia and Powell et al. (2018). However, Oliva and Lazzeretti (2017) claim that resilience literature offers few insights on communities' resilience. Social resilience pertains to the endurance and recovery of human communities while community resilience resembles an organization (Cheer & Lew, 2018a, 2018b. To achieve community resilience, as indicated by Lew (2018a, 2018b), processes that bridge networked adaptive capacities with the functional adaptation of basic populations after a disruption must be in place.

The development of resilience literature in tourism
As shown in Table 1, various authors address resilience as a whole with a particular focus on tourism resilience and tourism MSME resilience. However, the list of authors dwindles regarding the discourse on tourism MSME resilience. The impacts of COVID-19 however on tourism MSMEs seemed to increase articles on the subject. Several researchers made mention of the limitations of both tourism and MSME resilience. Literature is fecund with suggestions of strategies that would address limitations on tourism and tourism MSME resilience and boost tourism resilience in general and tourism MSME resilience in particular.

Tourism resilience
Resilience and tourism topics gained attention past 2010 (Hall et al., 2018). Authors claim that most articles before that year  were on environmental, social sciences, and business studies (Orchiston et al., 2016;and Hall et al., 2018). Authors are commonly united in framing tourism resilience within the sustainable development perspective (Cochrane, 2010;Becken, 2013;Luthe & Wyss, 2014;Lew & Cheer, 2018;Orchiston et al., 2016). However, though the approach in resilience is more on adaptation and transformation (Lew et al., 2017), it is not tantamount to sustainability. Nonetheless, Gill (2019a, 2019b) posit that tourism resilience is a significant element of sustainable tourism. A summary of the definition of tourism resilience from most authors connotes the tourism destinations' ability to alleviate and expedite recovery from both the negative effects of disasters and stresses caused by tourism activities. Lew (2014) categorizes the contexts of tourism resilience in two major changes, such as slow and sudden (Cheer & Lew, 2018a, 2018b impacting both site/individual tourism and community/collective tourism. However, Lew (2018a, 2018b) posit that tourism scholars have slow adoption of resilience theories.
The four domains of sustainability in the context of resilience in tourism include social, governance, economic, and ecological (Jamaliah & Powell, 2018;Powell et al., 2018;Holladay & Powell, 2016). Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 show these domains as the theoretical constructs in which definitions were culled from different sources of the review. The definitions provide the variables extracted from the review to represent each construct or key theme.

Tourism micro small and medium enterprises resilience
Micro small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) are major contributors in terms of employment and livelihood generation in the developing world. This sector holds the potential to enhance community-based resilience against disasters through economic opportunities according to United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2016). According to Mair et al. (2016), MSMEs occupy a significant proportion in the industry for tourism and yet they are subject to high levels of vulnerability (UNDP, 2016). They often find it difficult to understand responsible social, environmental, governance, and economic tourism guidelines (Musavengane, 2019). Dahles Cochrane, 2010 Harnessing market forces Organizational resilience, moderated cost, tailored insurance packages, diversity of tourism products/attractions, economic opportunities and resources, ecologically sustaining innovative alternative livelihoods, and economic efficiency and support.

Cashman et al., 2012
Tourism product diversification Biggs et al., 2012 Ease in shifting to alternative sources of income Calgaro et al., 2014 Structures and processes to ease access to economic resources Luthe & Wyss, 2014 Flexible and diverse innovations White & O'Hare, 2014 Affordable insurance and technology Cellini & Cuccia, 2015 Substitution of domestic over foreign demand Steiner & Atterton, 2015 Utilization of available economic resources Cumming et al., 2015 Economic processes shaping resilience Eckerberg et al., 2015 Bottom-up, action-oriented government collaboration for rural development Ghaderi et al., 2015 Adequate insurance Holladay & Powell, 2016 Sustainable economic diversity through traditional agriculture and fishing Mair et al., 2016 Awareness of price discounting (benefits and drawbacks) Bhati et al., 2016 Focus on long-term tourism growth van der Veeken et al., 2016 Tourist and market base diversification, infrastructures, and livelihood options Romão et al., 2016 Innovative activities and reorganized regional economic system Brown et al., 2017 Organizational hotel resilience Bellini et al., 2017 The transformative regional economic structure Choi et al., 2017 Promotion of responsible tourism Brown et al., 2018 Integrative inclusion of economic capital Mendoza et al., 2018 SMEs resilience Jamaliah  Controlled financial expenditure and variation of tourism product/attraction Powell et al., 2018 Diverse and ecologically sustaining livelihoods  Resilience in organizations Pyke et al., 2018 Solid stakeholder participation and involvement Njoroge et al., 2018 Integrative product diversification, insurance laws, and energy-efficient, carbon-proof tourism facilities and infrastructures  Gössling et al., 2020 Domestic tourism destinations Nicola et al., 2020 Grant and temporary state funding Nuñez & Musteen, 2020 Trial and error ventures and experimentation Dlamini & Schutte, 2020 Absorption of laid off employees and economic growth and Susilowati (2015) pointed out that business resilience involves surviving the crises, adapting to the new normal and embracing innovation. However, from the 107 articles covered in this review, only about 35% included topics covering both tourism and tourism MSME resilience where studies on tourism MSMEs gained more popularity during the COVID era. The developing countries, in particular, offer limited attention to how small tourism businesses fare during crisis (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015). Yet, tourism businesses that employed diversification within and across the tourism sector seemed most sustainable (Dahles, 2018). Community-related activities participated in by small business operators develop networking (Orchiston, 2013). More so, they encourage rural business owners to partake in responsible means of operations (Steiner & Atterton, 2015). The physical exposure and tourism-specific attributes, however, shape tourism destination vulnerability (Calgaro et al., 2014). Structures and processes determine destination vulnerability on governance, human capital, socio-political, and economic that can either ease or restrain resources accessibility (Calgaro et al., 2014). Table 6 shows key insights on the limitations of tourism resilience as a whole as well as specific tourism MSME resilience from existing studies. The insights on tourism and tourism MSME limitations are anchored on the key themes presented in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 especially that which fits into the respective variables either in the manifest or latent presentation. Regarding social resilience, limitations include the dearth of studies on organizational resilience  and the gap between awareness and attitude concerning tourism consumers (Antimova et al., 2012). Tourism MSMEs, on the other hand, lack awareness (Musavengane, 2019) attributed to limitations on entrepreneurial orientation . The adverse effects of natural disasters on tourist arrivals (Bhati et al., 2016) and the strain on businesses to avail insurance (Ghaderi et al., 2015) in the bigger scope of the tourism industry aggravate limitations on economic resilience. Small businesses, on the other hand, showed resource limitations  made worse by restricted access to credit and limited insurance coverage (Calgaro et al., 2014), thus the difficulty to rebound quickly (Mair et al., 2016). The COVID-19 pandemic, on the other hand, increased limitations on economic resilience and highlighted several limitations on governance resilience too.

Key insights and Limitations on tourism resilience and MSMEs resilience
Tourism limitations on environmental resilience include inadequacy of ecotourism research (Puri et al., 2019), climate change unawareness (Torres-Bagur et al., 2019), and the conflict between urban natural resource protection and development (De Leon & Kim, 2017). Small enterprises can only afford low-budget soft infrastructural, environmental management practices (Buffa et al., 2018) due to lacking facilities and resources (Musavengane, 2019). Inadequate coordination (De Leon & Kim, 2017), failure to come up with favorable methods (Cheer et al. 2019), and a restrictive top-down decision strategy (Holladay & Powell, 2016) are limitations of governance resilience. These limitations may affect small tourism businesses lacking long-term  contingency planning (Mair et al., 2016) due to limited government support (Buffa et al., 2018;Coles et al., 2014). Table 7 presents tourism resilience strategies suggested by studies and tourism strategies for MSMEs. Promoting social tourism resilience necessitates a focus on human capital , particularly on learning that could translate to culture and lifestyle values on responsible (Becken, 2013) and ethical tourism (Ruhanen et al., 2019). This, in turn, could enhance community network and wellbeing (Sheppard & Williams, 2016;Lew & Cheer, 2018). More so, in times of pandemic, Higgins-Desbiolles (2020) suggests communitycentered and socialized tourism. For tourism MSMEs, incorporation of planning, culture, and innovation factors (Orchiston et al., 2016), inherent ability to adapt (Ismail et al., 2019), knowledge sharing (Mair et al., 2016), social  Dayour et al., 2020aDayour et al., , 2020b Diversification, cost reduction, marketing and government support Ngo et al., 2020 Marketing strategies between local entrepreneurs and external stakeholders Kastenholz et al., 2021 Awareness on the pandemic's systemic impact Pyke et al., 2021 Mixed economic base (agriculture, healthcare and manufacturing) Zhai & Shi, 2021 Tourism support on small and medium enterprises Cahyanto et al., 2021 Embeddedness and business shift Coles et al., 2021 Efficient resource utilization and access network development (Musavengane, 2019) resource allocation for resilience of employees , and strengthening firm resilience (Mendoza et al., 2018) are strategies to promote social resilience. To achieve economic tourism resilience, studies recommend social collaboration (Pyke et al., 2018;Choi et al., 2017), stakeholder engagement (Eckerberg et al., 2015), and according to Cochrane (2010) harnessing market forces through innovative and ecologically sustaining livelihoods and substitution of domestic over foreign demand during crises (Cellini & Cuccia, 2015). Urban protected area protection Lew & Cheer, 2018 Combination of society's and environment's response to change Powell et al., 2018 Biological diversity level and endurance against adverse impacts Buffa et al., 2018 Implementation of "soft infrastructural" operational environmental practices Jamaliah  Level of disturbance tolerance Brown et al., 2018 Integrative inclusion of physical and natural capital Koninx, 2018 Ecotourism policies Tervo-Kankare, 2018 Energy savings and controlled use of natural resources Mahadew & Appadoo, 2018 Official environmental measures in the tourism industry Njoroge et al., 2018 Risk management, disaster preparedness, impact management plans, info sharing on conservation practices, and energy-efficient technical facilities adjustment.

Jones, 2019
Short-term good practices and long-term global climate change measures Pandy & Rogerson, 2019 Systemic responses beyond small-scale greening initiatives Seetanah & Fauzel, 2019 Strategies on adaptation and climate change mitigation Holden, 2019 Utilization of tourism revenues in environmental conservation anddevelopment programs. Spenceley, 2019 Environmental certification for hotels Torres-Bagur et al., 2019 Increased awareness of climate change impacts among tourist accommodation establishments Puri et al., 2019 Ecotourism is a viable development approach Fyall & Garrod, 2019 Sustainability and climate change consideration Gössling et al., 2020 Transformation of worldwide tourism system in conformity to sustainable development goals (SDGs) Nuñez & Musteen, 2020 Right mix of environmentally-sustainable entrepreneurship Kastenholz et al., 2021 Nature and landscape value; appealing and sustainable destinations Dyachenko et al., 2021 Natural resources and cultural site improvement Orhan, 2021 Land use regulation development Pyke et al., 2021 Resilient geographical natural endowments Li et al., 2021 Safe and disinfected environment Duan et al., 2021 Environmental safety Orchiston, 2013 Development of formal disaster risk reduction plans among micro business Biggs et al., 2012 Government support Luthe & Wyss, 2014 Supportive governance structures Coles et al., 2014 The necessity of public support for tourism Cumming et al., 2015 Governance on biodiversity conservation in Protected Areas Steiner & Atterton, 2015 Holistic, cross-sectoral policy-making approaches for maximum benefits of businesses and communities Biggs et al., 2015 Government and tourism authorities' support for enterprises Eckerberg et al., 2015 Legal collaborations with complementary features of top-down and bottom-up management Ghaderi et al., 2015 Official tourism disaster management plan Mair et al., 2016 Importance of disaster preparedness in the tourism industry Holladay & Powell, 2016 Importance of joint power van der Veeken et al., 2016 Governance processes, adaptation in national development plans, and monitoring adaptation strategies Romão et al., 2016 Interventionist regional policy encompassing tourism and other sectors Brown et al., 2017 Assessment, innovation, adaptability, and overcoming disaster-related disruptions Choi et al., 2017 Wildlife habitat education for general and administrative management organizations De Leon & Kim, 2017 Management of protected area and land use planning harmonization Mahadew & Appadoo, 2018 Climate change legislative framework Buffa et al., 2018 Adoption of communication, organizational and operational environmental management practices Jamaliah  Effective leadership propelling collaboration among organizations and stakeholders with the support of policies and relevant legal actions Mendoza et al., 2018 Public sector and donor support Pyke et al., 2018 Participation of the community in the formulation of government plans and development of pertinent policies Tervo-Kankare, 2018 Information dissemination, promotion of environmental laws, and development projects by the government Njoroge et al., 2018 Political advocacy coordination, information exchange, adaptation behavior management strategies, and resource support Tanana et al., 2019 Training for the tourism support services providers, local population and tourists Torres-Bagur et al., 2019 Anticipatory and adaptive means by the government Shou-Tsung et al., 2019 Government support and in-depth tourism policy Musavengane, 2019 Dissemination of legislations on social responsibility compliance Yang et al., 2020 Comprehensive policy on subsidies for both tourism and health sector Gössling et al., 2020 Consideration of pandemic as an analog to unmitigated climate change by policymakers Moreover, Yang et al. (2020) recommend transformation of the health sector alongside with an emphasis on tourism consumption through comprehensive policies in times of pandemic. Tourism MSMEs, on the other hand, can resort to the diversification of livelihood opportunities (Walker, 2019) to complement the maximization of available economic, social, and environmental resources (Steiner & Atterton, 2015). More so, promoting resilient firms (Mendoza et al., 2018) in the form of affordable and tailored insurance packages (Dayour et al., 2020a(Dayour et al., , 2020b loans and emergency grants (Nicola et al., 2020) can facilitate small and medium enterprises even at the heights of a pandemic to attain just and sustainable tourism (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020). The onset of the pandemic pushed for more measures that are drastic to promote Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020 Social safety nets, social caring, and networks Nicola et al., 2020 Broad socio-economic development plan Nuñez & Musteen, 2020 Sustainable development programs and local government institution's initiatives Dlamini & Schutte, 2020 Friendly operational business environment prioritizing SME growth Dayour et al., 2020b Government's economic aid packages Haneberg, 2021aHaneberg, , 2021b Manager's experimentation behavior to accommodate affordable loss Dyachenko et al., 2021 Social dialogues between local authorities, businesses and community Orhan, 2021 Spatial, physical, infrastructural and risk regulations and mandatory basic preparedness and emergency measures Pyke et al., 2021 Empathetic leadership and support Zhai & Shi, 2021 Policy formulation on prevention and control Bichler et al., 2021 Leadership, adequate preparations and employee-specific capabilities Foris et al., 2021 Protection and economic policies Cahyanto et al., 2021 Community integration in redevelopment processes Palrão et al., 2021 Small business capital support Li et al., 2021 Health status monitoring Duan et al., 2021 Official travel advisories Musyck et al., 2022 Timely support and coordinated actions  Fig. 2 Graphical illustration of studies delving on dimensions of tourism resilience economic resilience with the necessity for more collaborations, economic diversification, and increased digitization in the new normal. Tables 6 and 7 both serve as the bases for the proposed conceptual framework in Fig. 3. They show that tourism resilience is a component of community resilience that can be fortified with the combination of resilience strategies involving governance, economic, social and environmental aspects. These, in turn, could strengthen tourism MSME resilience that will contribute towards resilient tourism destination communities even amid adverse impacts from disasters and tourism activities.
The framework bridging resilience and tourism dimensions for MSMEs (Fig. 3), approaches issues with MSME resiliency. Arrows in the framework indicate a flow of resources (in terms of financial, legal, human, organizational, informational, and relational) between individuals, firms, and the government. From the framework, to achieve environmental tourism resilience, innovative structures (Schiappacasse & Müller, 2015) must occur.
Furthermore, government, enforcement of existing regulations (Cashman et al., 2012), environmental certification (Spenceley, 2019), fund provision (Choi et al., 2017), and harmonious stakeholder relationship (Koninx, 2018) provide policy structures by which to encourage MSME resilience. According to Gössling et al. (2020), unmitigated climate change relates to the COVID pandemic, thus the need for the conversion of the global tourism system with the pursuit of attaining sustainable development goals. Tourism MSMEs, on the other hand, can resort to external subsidies from public actors for expensive infrastructural practices such as building insulations and solar installations (Buffa et al., 2018). Governance resilience strategies in tourism include supportive governance structures (Cumming et al., 2015;Torres-Bagur et al., 2019;Eckerberg et al., 2015) and policies Shou-Tsung et al., 2019;Choi et al., 2017;Tanana et al., 2019). A legal framework (Mahadew & Appadoo, 2018) on environmentally friendly actions (Tervo-Kankare, 2018) and the formulation of a tourism disaster management plan (Ghaderi et al., 2015) are significant to promote governance resilience. Furthermore, in the face of a pandemic, social buffer, and prevalence of social caring and linkages are necessary (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020), supported by comprehensive socio-economic development plans (Nicola et al., 2020). For tourism MSMEs policymakers need holistic, cross-sectoral approaches for businesses and communities to achieve  maximum benefits and encourage co-opetition (Steiner & Atterton, 2015;Mair et al., 2016). The integration of economic, social, and environmental processes create strong local community resilience (Steiner & Atterton, 2015). The balanced approach equips communities with social, economic, and environmental capitals. The comprehensive framework of this study is a departure from the community resilience key elements of Steiner and Atterton (2015) which focuses on the integrated balance of environmental, social, and economic resilience albeit with less emphasis on governance and tourism MSMEs. In this paper, the framework included governance resilience along with economic, social, and environmental resilience where the integrated balance promotes tourism resilience as part of community resilience. The interaction of various strategies through the lens of these aforementioned dimensions can create tourism MSME resilience, which in turn is an essential component towards resilient tourism destinations. The employment of resilient strategies and actions by tourism MSMEs that comprise a considerable number of tourism destinations to enhance recovery from various disasters (both natural and human-induced) contributes toward overall tourism resilience. In the same vein, tourism resilient practices in the macro level, with a particular focus on tourism MSMEs strengthen resilience in tourism destinations as well and help mitigate disaster impacts (decrease in tourist demands, infrastructure damages, and negative location image). Post-disaster recovery measures that encompass the comprehensive scope of governance, social, environmental, and economic resilience may gradually diminish the negative impacts of crisis brought about by economic decline, natural disasters, political upheavals, terrorism, and health pandemics in tourism destinations.
Tourism MSME resilience is important as family-owned enterprises particularly those under small-and medium-sized categories dominate the tourism industry (Pikkemaat et al., 2019). The resilience of small-scale tourism businesses during crisis contributes to local development (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015) and allows the community to rebound (Mendoza et al., 2018), even in coastal societies . Moreover, the "resilient factor" of transgenerational enterprises embedded in small family businesses at tourism destinations can achieve local community empowerment and sustainable tourism development (Ismail et al., 2019). The holistic perspective of the dimensions of resilience for tourism MSMEs as espoused in the framework (Fig. 3) intends to enrich the rural and urban family firms' resilience capacity (Brewton et al., 2010;Pikkemaat et al., 2019;Gunasekaran et al., 2011) and small family-owned businesses. The comprehensive stance of the strategies and the framework intended for tourism MSMEs expand the scope of strong family networks in the paper of Calgaro et al. (2014), local embeddedness of family business resilience (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015) informal tourism enterprise resilience Biggs et al., 2012) and SME resilience of Mendoza et al. (2018). More so, the strategies from the review are inclusive of the currently recommended strategies such as insurance, loans, and grants for MSMEs (Dayour et al., 2020a(Dayour et al., , 2020bNicola et al., 2020; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020) amidst COVID-19. Compared to the scope of the community-centered tourism framework of Higgins-Desbiolles (2020) with its focus on social resilience and the sustainable strategies for heritage sites by Chong and Balasingam (2019), the proposed framework of this study extends to other dimensions of resilience and tailors the concept for MSMEs especially so during the COVID era.

Discussion
This paper acknowledges the detrimental impact of various disasters on tourism destinations. Hence, it is important to develop tourism resilience that covers a comprehensive scope (economic, social, governance, and environmental) and inclusive of tourism MSMEs. This study brings to fore the significance of resilient tourism MSMEs in promoting resilient destinations. The limitations affecting both tourism and tourism MSMEs and pertinent strategies from various related studies were highlighted to facilitate the formulation of a framework that brings tourism MSMEs to the fore in improving tourism destination resilience. Governments and tourism administrators particularly in developing countries where MSMEs abound can take note of the various dominant strategies that can minimize limitations hindering tourism MSME growth. More so, the insights forwarded by the framework will encourage these institutions to strike a balanced convergence of tourism resilience's four dimensions to promote community and tourism resilience. Policies and programs can take the path of promoting a resilient tourism community that will in turn be conducive for resilient tourism MSMEs to thrive towards resilient tourism destinations. The framework of this study is a departure from the current frameworks (Folke, 2016;Pikkemaat et al., 2019;Chong & Balasingam, 2019;Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020;Steiner & Atterton, 2015) involving tourism and tourism MSME resilience by capturing the four dimensions of tourism resilience and taking special attention towards the development of tourism MSME resilience. The proposed framework acknowledges the role played by tourism MSMEs in achieving resilient tourism destinations borne out of resilient tourism communities. This operates on the concept that tourism resilience can best be dealt with, with a set of comprehensive strategies and an optimal balance among four dimensions of resilience to achieve all-inclusive goals.

Future Perspectives and Debates
Future studies should emphasize the best practices such as the comprehensive scope of strategies of MSMEs in tourism industries of disaster-prone and developing countries. They should also include discussions on how sector-specific MSMEs (accommodation, food and beverage, tourism support, and others) fared, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in the light of the comprehensive context of governance, economic, environmental, and social resilience. In particular, the studies should look into the significance of network collaboration on the performance and business continuity of tourism MSMEs before, during, and after disasters. There can also be an exploration of the comparison of resilience strategies between sector-specific tourism MSMEs.

Conclusions
Analyses of this review through the synthesis of the literature on resilience, tourism, and tourism MSMEs using the lens of resilience dimensions, brought to light limitations of tourism and tourism MSME resilience amidst disasters and pertinent strategies necessary to minimize these limitations. Major themes on limitations and pertinent strategies emerged from the review. Both limitations and strategies are evident from the perspective of tourism destinations as a whole and tourism MSMEs in particular. Tourism MSMEs are vulnerable to disasters and face the difficulty of recovery after a particular catastrophe, exacerbated by the limitations of both the tourism industry in general and tourism MSME specific inadequacies. Key insights on limitations are inadequate human capital, scant resources, low activities on environmental resilience, and insufficient coordination in governance resilience. However, this sector can equip itself with resilient strategies on human capital and strengthened networks. The effort can enhance social resilience, efficient use of resources, and provision of funds to boost environmental resilience, strong legal framework, collaboration, and government support for governance resilience, which could translate towards strengthened stakeholder engagement and innovative diversification of ecologically sustaining livelihood opportunities for economic resilience. These strategies are significant, as there seems to be a lack of empirical evidence of network collaboration in tourist destinations (Żemła, 2016). Moreover, the leaning of destination studies is more on environmental aspects (Fyall & Garrod, 2019), thus pushing destination competitiveness to dwell on tangible natural resources. Intangible aspects involving human and social capital have earned less attention. The limited existing evidence on the involvement of MSMEs in adapting to climate change (Linnenluecke & Smith, 2018;Pauw & Chan, 2018) and other disasters is another aggravating factor. Thus, the aforementioned strategies could enhance network collaboration and develop tourism MSMEs' full prospects in providing tourism livelihood opportunities in disaster-prone tourism destinations. The dimensions of tourism resilience provide a holistic mindset that can work for the best advantage of tourism MSMEs as they take on the role of catalysts towards tourism community development (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015;Mendoza et al., 2018;Biggs et al., 2015;Ismail et al., 2019). More so, the results highlighted the necessity of a comprehensive take on all resilience dimensions in promoting community and tourism resilience as a major determining factor in boosting tourism MSME resilience and enhancing tourism resilient destinations.
The results of the review are limited to relevant Scopus, Scimago Indexed, and Web of Science studies. There are studies on resilience, tourism resilience, and tourism MSME resilience that are not included based on the exclusion criteria. Thus, further literature reviews should include other important studies and documents to have a broader take on tourism MSME resilience.
Abbreviations MSME, micro small and medium enterprises; OECD, organization for economic co-operation and development; SME, small medium enterprises; SDG, sustainable development goals; SMHE, smallmedium hotel enterprises; UNDP, United Nations Development Programme