Resiliency is the ability of a system to recover from challenging conditions and external shocks (Holling, 2001; Becken, 2013; Amore et al., 2018; Iborra et al., 2020). Being resilient is not just bouncing back but adapting to the new environment by strategically adjusting and efficiently utilizing capabilities to maintain and improve functioning before, during, and after adversity (Prayag, 2023). Resiliency is relevant for tourism, which is vulnerable to disturbances in increasing frequency and magnitude (Amore et al., 2018; Hall et al., 2023; Prayag, 2023). Disturbances can be fast or slow, from an immediate crisis to incremental change (Becken, 2013; Amore et al., 2018), and can damage infrastructure, reduce visitation, affect available experiences, and harm the destination's reputation (Jiang et al., 2019; Filimonau and De Coteau, 2020). Further, with many connected components, the tourism system is subject to supply chain resiliency, as the collapse of one element affects another's ability to function successfully (Jiang et al., 2019).

Holling's (1973; 2001) seminal work informs much of the resiliency literature and his Adaptive Cycle is a “theoretical framework and process for understanding complex systems” (Holling, 2001, p. 391). The Adaptive Cycle explains how two separate functions happen: “[t]he first maximizes production and accumulation; the second maximizes invention and reassortment… [which] cannot be maximized simultaneously” (Holling, 2001, p. 395). The cycle has four stages: a system experiences a disturbance (release), reorganizes (reorganization), establishes new norms (exploitation), and settles into a new set of relationships and customs (conservation) that ultimately becomes too rigid and thus susceptible to a new disturbance. The Adaptive Cycle has been applied to tourism before. For example, Cochrane (2010) framed the 2004 Tsunami in Sri Lanka, as well as economic instability, bomb attacks, and changes to tourist visas in Indonesia as disturbances that led to new forms of development and tourism demand.

The Panarchy, as conceptualized by Holling (2001), describes the “hierarchical structure in which systems of nature… humans… and social ecological systems… are interlinked in never ending adaptive cycles of growth, accumulations, restructuring, and renewal” (p. 392). Prayag (2020) identifies three levels of the tourism system Panarchy: the microlevel, including employees, tourists, and residents; the mesolevel, including tourism organizations, businesses, and institutions; and the macrolevel that concerns the overall system and relationships among actors and communities. Within each level are sub-systems of formal and informal relationships and between different groups and stakeholders that influence policy and implementation (Amore et al., 2018).

By count, tourism businesses are almost entirely SMEs whose collective success affects community resiliency (Gianiodis et al., 2022), and thus deserve specific attention (Mair et al., 2016; Badoc-Gonzales et al., 2022). SMEs had already been experiencing challenges that were exacerbated by the pandemic, including limited financial capacity, reliance on suppliers, staffing pools, limited access to resources, and varied capacities (Mair et al., 2016; Prayag et al., 2019; Prayag, 2020, 2023; Saad et al., 2021; Gianiodis et al., 2022; Hadjielias et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 2022; Hall et al., 2023). Resilient SMEs require ambidexterity (Iborra et al., 2020), the ability to be both efficient internally and adapt to the external environment. Additionally, SMEs need strategic consistency which refers to their capacity to make strategic choices when confronting stressful external events and can be informed and facilitated through networks and macro level support and guidance (Iborra et al., 2020). Supply chain resilience is also important for SMEs, as they are more reliant on partners for components of their product or service (Prayag, 2023). Although SMEs are flexible (Tanner et al., 2022), and can improve their own resiliency, they are more vulnerable to disturbances that larger organizations might absorb (Holling, 2001; Orchiston et al., 2016), such as economic and political crises (Becken, 2013).

Destination Management Organizations (DMOs), at the mesolevel of the Panarchy, can help SMEs by proactively predicting disturbances, and identifying, developing, and consolidating resources in preparation (Holling, 2001; Orchiston et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2019; Filimonau and De Coteau, 2020). DMOs can lead community efforts (Amore et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2019; Filimonau and De Coteau, 2020), guide strategic consistency (Iborra et al., 2020), and facilitate collaborative and trusting networks that efficiently share resources (Cochrane, 2010; Amore et al., 2018; Filimonau and De Coteau, 2020; Pham et al., 2021; Ghaderi et al., 2022; Gianiodis et al., 2022; Prayag, 2023). Resiliency planning must, however, consider and conceptualize the ideal state, which can mean diverging from a business-as-usual path that brings negative consequences for other parts of the community system, and develops resources and relationships that may become irrelevant in a changing macrolevel environment (Amore et al., 2018). Calls for the tourism system to transition from a business-as-usual trajectory of economic growth bring attention to the need for the industry to acknowledge and adapt to these inevitable new realities for its own survival while cultivating greater awareness of the role tourism plays as a significant driver of environmental degradation (e.g., Fontanari and Traskevich, 2021; Wendt et al., 2022) and climatic change (Lenzen et al., 2018; Peeters and Papp, 2023).

While the tourism system faces numerous potential disturbances, “resilience building should be grounded in the response to the specific adversity” (Prayag, 2023, p. 515). Climate change is a particularly notable challenge (Scott and Gössling, 2022), fundamental to sustainable development more broadly (Becken and Loehr, 2022). The tourism system is often critiqued for its lack of awareness and preparedness relating to climate change (Filimonau and De Coteau, 2020; Badoc-Gonzales et al., 2022), despite many identified current and future impacts. For example, SMEs and destinations are facing increasingly extreme weather events that impact their capacity to survive (Skouloudis et al., 2020), as well as more gradual climatic shifts that affect experiences on offer and infrastructure required (Ma et al., 2021). Further, a changing climate holds the potential to affect mobility flows and demand as society moves away from the carbon intensive business-as-usual trajectory that is exacerbating climate-related impacts (Scott et al., 2019; Hall et al., 2023).

Despite a growing number of governments acknowledging the prominence of tourism's role in climate change (Scott et al., 2019), substantial action is required to meet greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reduction targets consistent with the 2015 Paris Agreement (Becken, 2019; Scott et al., 2019). Tourism accounted for at least 8% of global GHG emissions in 2013, driven by long-haul aviation (Lenzen et al., 2018; Gössling et al., 2023). Tourism stakeholders that presume long-haul travel can progress unabated with new technology arriving to reduce emissions risk being too optimistic (Holden, 2013), with real change in mobility patterns needed (Gössling et al., 2024). Consequently, there are growing calls and actions to dissociate tourism growth from air travel. For example, short-haul flights have been banned in France where rail alternatives are available, and airport capacity growth in Amsterdam is now capped (Peeters and Papp, 2023). Peeters and Papp's (2023) pathway for tourism to decarbonise and meet emissions requirements calls for the proportion of trips taken globally by airplane to decline from 23% in 2019 to 13% in 2050, and air-ticket prices to rise by 200%. Further, short-haul trips should account for 82% of all trips in 2050 (up from 68% in 2019), and trips taken by cars should constitute 62% of all trips in 2050 (up from 49%) (Peeters and Papp, 2023). As climate change becomes increasingly apparent, and the cost of oil and sustainable fuel rises, social pressure will shift (Mkono and Hughes, 2020) leading to government actions and changes making tourism flows more local (Peeters and Papp, 2023).

The post-COVID-19 moment presents an opportunity to consider how implications of the (recent) past can help to confront these current and future challenges. Strategies that simply revert to pre-COVID systems may not only be inequitable (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020; Hall et al., 2023), but also increase the likelihood and negative consequences of climate-related disturbances (Jiang et al., 2019; Filimonau and De Coteau, 2020). Many have called for degrowth (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020; Fan et al., 2023) and a greening of the tourism economy (Reddy and Wilkes, 2015). Others have identified tourist practices that (re)emerged during COVID-19 that can support such green transitions, such as the continued engagement of regional tourists seeking nature-based experiences following their renewed appreciation and prioritization of such outdoor recreation (Wu et al., 2022; Espiner et al., 2023; Power et al., 2023). Domestic markets are less volatile, generate fewer carbon emissions, and can foster local cultural and social connections (Lück and Seeler, 2021; Woyo, 2021), making them a possible foundation for a more sustainable and resilient tourism system (Arbulú et al., 2021). Ultimately, the resources and relationships nature-based destinations and SMEs developed through COVID-19 could be easily remembered to prepare for the next release phase that potentially restricts long-haul travel.

Table 1 summarizes journal articles that have focused on tourism and/or hospitality SMEs, COVID-19 and resilience. The summary of main findings reveals a limited focus on nature-based destinations (Díaz-Aguilar and Escalera-Reyes, 2020; Fuchs, 2021; Sepúlveda and Bustamante-Caballero, 2023), as well as a paucity of studies that consider how tourism SMEs' experienced COVID-19 with implications for transitions beyond the pandemic toward a greener economy and the decarbonization of tourism. For example, Díaz-Aguilar and Escalera-Reyes (2020) discuss the importance of tourism in supporting the sustainability of the natural environment, Kukanja et al. (2022) recommend that government supports for tourism SMEs require or incentivize sustainable practices, and Castañeda García et al. (2023) identify “Environmental Orientation” as one of several attributes that distinguished resilient restaurant owners from others. By connecting the experiences of nature-based SMEs during COVID-19 to the decarbonization and greening of tourism, this study responds to this knowledge gap. Further, it underscores the importance of learning from past disturbances and predicting future challenges for resiliency planning.

During the conservation period of the Adaptive Cycle, connections and relationships are established, stabilize, and resources such as information and partnerships develop through trust and routine, becoming increasingly entrenched (Holling, 2001). Holling (2001) suggests that eventually a system's adaptability plateaus to a point of rigidity, and it “becomes an accident waiting to happen” (p. 394).

Leading up to the pandemic, the tourism system globally experienced decades-long growth. In Ontario, 2019 overnight visitation (including domestic and international visitors) was 2.0% higher than 2004 (after the 2003 SARS virus caused significant declines). International demand (excluding the U.S.) however increased by 94.3% over the same period, and although representing only 7.6% of visitors accounted for 27.0% of visitor spending in 2019 (Ontario Government, 2023a). The tourism system had become progressively reliant on long-haul demand and growth, with relationships between SMEs, destinations, tourists, and other suppliers well established.

The sample for this study is taken from two neighboring regions situated in Ontario's near North (Grimwood et al., 2019): Muskoka and Almaguin Highlands. Muskoka, with a population of around 67,000 (Statistics Canada, 2021a), is 150km north of Toronto, and has been an iconic wilderness destination since colonialism in the late nineteenth century (Jasen, 1995). As Jasen (1995) writes:

The region's wilderness, conveniently accessible by rail (Jasen, 1995; Watson, 2022), positioned Muskoka as an instant-north destination for urban Torontonians seeking “back-to-nature” holidays to recover from the health impacts of industrialization (Jasen, 1995; Watson, 2022), and eventually became established as an iconic destination for other Canadian and international travelers (Jasen, 1995; Watson, 2022).

Almaguin Highlands, directly north of Muskoka, developed in its current form after settlers, who arrived in the late nineteenth century, erected campsites and homesteads along the Magnetawan River where they worked in the logging industry (Taim, 1998). A legacy of these early settlement patterns is a scattering of small, amalgamated municipalities that make up Almaguin Highlands today. With an estimated population of 13,000 (Frangione, 2021), this area has been less economically dependent on tourism than Muskoka, and primarily attracts domestic visitors traveling for cottages, camping, fishing, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicles, and water recreation (Taim, 1998; Almaguin Community Economic Development, 2023). As the Almaguin Highlands Chamber of Commerce's (2023) website states:

This contrast between an iconic destination in Muskoka, and the lesser known Almaguin Highlands, offers a useful departure point for analysis of responses to the pandemic (Lück and Seeler, 2021).

These two regions are part of a broader destination represented by a Regional Tourism Organization (RTO) (Explorers' Edge., 2023). This RTO covers a much larger area that includes an estimated 870 tourism-related businesses of whom 88% employ <20 people (Ontario Government, 2023b). In 2019, this RTO area received ~3 million overnight visitors, dropping to 2.7 million in 2021 (Ontario Government, 2023b). Hotel occupancy returned to 2019 levels (53.8%) in 2022 (54.2%) after dropping to a low of 40.5% in 2020, however, media reports suggested that Muskoka fared well during the pandemic in comparison to other provincial destinations (e.g., Krause, 2022). While the majority (96%) of visitors to the RTO in 2019 were from Ontario, and specifically the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) – with a population of 6.2 million (Statistics Canada, 2021b) – out-of-province visitors contributed 15% of total spending (Ontario Government, 2023b). In summary, these two sub-regions offer distinct but connected contexts making them informative cases for considering the experiences of tourism SMEs in nature-based destinations and their experiences through COVID-19.

First, a guide from the RTO's consumer website (Explorers' Edge., 2023) was scanned for operators in the Muskoka and Almaguin Highlands regions listed under the Stay (i.e., accommodations) and Do (i.e., activities) categories. The list was narrowed to only operators promoting experiences deemed natural and outdoors. For example, operators listed as Stays offering cottages, cabins and yurts were included, while large hotels and resorts were excluded. Similarly, under Dos, operators promoting outdoor experiences including treetop trekking, cycling, ATV and self-guided tours were included. This resulted in a list of 58 operators who were emailed an invitation to participate.

Between April and June 2022, 17 interviews were conducted with 20 participants, a sample size comparable to other relevant studies (e.g., Becken, 2013; Dahles and Susilowati, 2015; Filimonau and De Coteau, 2020; Fuchs, 2021; Lück and Seeler, 2021; Ghaderi et al., 2022; Pongtanalert and Assarut, 2022; Tanner et al., 2022). The study received ethics approval from the authors' respective institutions, and the interviews were conducted on Zoom due to COVID-19 protocols. Most participants were tourism operators in Muskoka (n = 9) and Almaguin Highlands (n = 9), predominantly owner-operated or micro businesses (Gianiodis et al., 2022), with two interviewees representing regional organizations relating to tourism. Both authors attended all meetings which lasted ~1 h. Bryman's (2016) semi-structured approach to interviewing was followed, where thematic questions informed by the Adaptive Cycle (Holling, 2001) were asked in an open-ended, conversational format. Participants were first asked to reflect on the immediate impacts of COVID-19 and how these responses evolved over time. Participants were then asked to respond to a set of broader questions about tourism, sustainability, climate change and the future of local tourism in their region. Audio recordings were transcribed, and the material organized into thematic clusters to identify broad patterns and differences in the experiences of tourism stakeholders from the two regions in relation to Holling's (2001) Adaptive Cycle by repeatedly and iteratively discussing the themes informed by literature.

The release phase of the cycle is “triggered by agents of disturbance” (p. 394), creating an “inherently unpredictable” (Holling, 2001, p. 395) environment. Accrued capitals in terms of resources, practices, opportunities, and knowledge shared through networks and relationships, collapse and move into a state of flux. COVID-19 was a substantial disturbance, causing travel restrictions and changes in tourist motivations, an event and immediacy that most tourism businesses were unprepared for (Tanner et al., 2022), with existing relationships in the supply chain collapsing causing distress and uncertainty (Prayag, 2020).

Participants consistently described the arrival of the pandemic in spring 2020, and the collapse of the tourism system, as a very difficult period. Widespread uncertainty defined this moment, with many concerned for their businesses. For example, one new business owner described this time as a “major setback” (3), delaying their launch date, leading to revenue losses. After learning all international bookings they relied upon had been canceled, another interviewee described “being in limbo and not knowing when we would be back open, [and] not knowing what being back open would look like” (4). This same participant noted revenues for 2020 were down “nearly 30% compared to 2019” (4), with another recalling being “35% down” (11).

The ensuing reorganization phase begins quickly thereafter. Actors experiment and innovate within this new reality, with resiliency demonstrated by those who identify opportunities from the new situation (Dahles and Susilowati, 2015; Castañeda García et al., 2023). As mobility and social gathering restrictions started to lift, destinations and SMEs reorganized (Fontanari and Traskevich, 2021; Badoc-Gonzales et al., 2022; Seyfi et al., 2023), with demand surging for outdoor experiences in natural areas that offered well-being (Rogerson and Rogerson, 2021; Zamanzadeh et al., 2022) and accessibility by personal vehicle within the tourists' own jurisdiction (Craig, 2021; Jeon and Yang, 2021; Fan et al., 2023; Pröbstl-Haider et al., 2023). Successful SMEs were willing to take risks (Dias et al., 2022), pivoted their focus toward local visitors (Fuchs, 2021; Tanner et al., 2022; Capeta, 2023; Rastegar et al., 2023), sought new revenue streams (Alonso et al., 2020), invested in employee relationships, and networked with other SMEs and related organizations (e.g., Badoc-Gonzales et al., 2022; Dias et al., 2022; Ghaderi et al., 2022; Kukanja et al., 2022; Pongtanalert and Assarut, 2022). Timely, flexible, and easy to access government supports were helpful for those who received them (Abhari et al., 2021; Kukanja et al., 2022), and sorely missed by those who did not (Ghaderi et al., 2022; Rastegar et al., 2023).

After the initial shock, participants shared their experiences of adjusting, or reorganizing, to the new and changing reality. Initially, dealing with trip cancellations, modifying rebooking policies, and pivoting from large to small groups were common experiences (1, 12, 14). The required changes to daily operations and unpredictability became increasingly “mentally taxing” (4), making larger concerns difficult to manage. One participant explained how they would usually sell their accommodation packaged with provincial park tickets, but new policies meant visitors had to pre-book themselves, reducing the operator's control of their visitors' experience (4). Accessing government resources created to ease the economic shock was described as a difficult and frustrating process, as the seasonality of operations created obstacles in securing support, and many lacked the capacity to navigate the process (2, 6, 7, 8, 11). Several operators described new or rising costs including PPE and cleaning products (4, 6, 8), and building and contracting services (3, 17) that for some meant delaying major investments and upgrading (3, 4, 6). Others mentioned challenges finding and accommodating staff (6, 16, 17), with some adapting or continuing without external labor (9, 17). In summary, the pandemic brought uncertainty, an increase in processes and costs, and a stress on mental and financial wellbeing.

The next phase is exploitation, where “connectedness and stability increase and capital is accumulated” (Holling, 2001, p. 394). Domestic travelers who pre-pandemic had often been sidelined by increased long-haul demand, were encouraged to appreciate local landscapes and culture, substituting for lost international visitation (Abhari et al., 2021; Lück and Seeler, 2021; Dias et al., 2022; Ghaderi et al., 2022; Pongtanalert and Assarut, 2022; Wendt et al., 2022; Rastegar et al., 2023; Sepúlveda and Bustamante-Caballero, 2023).

As restrictions eased in the spring and summer of 2021, participants received an influx of visitors from within Ontario. Interviewees described adaptations to meet and capitalize on this new demand. As one explained, “what the pandemic caused was a great rediscovery of Northern Ontario and the wilderness that is out there” (8) by GTA visitors (1, 6). One owner opened their ATV operation earlier than planned after they “realized how crucial it was… to give people in the community and people in Ontario somewhere to go” (1). Another new operator felt that increased demand for outdoor glamping accommodations reflected a desire to escape and rehabilitate from the demands of living and working through the pandemic (5). Some had repeat visits from people who “hadn't stayed with us for 10 years” (4) and were reconnecting with the region, while others attracted new visitors unfamiliar with this part of the province (9, 14). Visitors with limited or non-existent experience wanted to participate in recreational activities (1, 12, 14, 16), and positive reference was made to “New Canadians” or immigrants (10, 14, 15, 16). These new visitors, despite living in relative proximity, were discovering the region and even nature experiences for the first time, needing guidance and instruction (4, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16). For example, one accommodation owner recounted:

Many participants mentioned already receiving repeat visits from customers who visited for the first time during the pandemic, people who without the pandemic may not have visited, but had established a positive relationship worth maintaining into the future (1, 6, 11, 16). This new demand caused “an explosion of development and economic activity in the [Almaguin Highlands] area” (8) with a “new influx of people in the area” (2) that generated social and economic demands, including busier shops and more traffic on roads and waterways. Despite mostly positive experiences, several interviewees spoke of new challenges relating to people visiting for hedonic reasons who behaved inappropriately in the natural environment (1, 4, 10, 14, 15, 16). Others expressed concerns about the impacts of this rapid growth in tourism from new domestic visitors who appeared not to appreciate or were naïve on how to act in this environment. For example, they described increased boat traffic from visitors with limited experience, knowledge or etiquette, more traffic on roads, overflowing landfills, and litter on trails and in waterways (2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16). For some, these concerns had direct impacts on their business while others expressed general concern about the impacts on the whole region.

Participants in this study spoke about their medium and longer-term outlook, and many revealed transformations to their business models that may endure. New and refreshed relationships with local demand during the pandemic was common, consistent with literature from other destinations (e.g., Fuchs, 2021; Capeta, 2023; Rastegar et al., 2023), but several participants also expressed hope and optimism that domestic visitors would remain important beyond COVID-19 as a more stable and easily accessible market.

Participants spoke of maintaining changes to their services, promotions, and infrastructure developed through the pandemic in order to continue engaging this domestic market. New visitor groups brought new expectations which led some to upgrade infrastructure such as Wi-Fi (4) or room capacity (16, 17). Some suggested that guidance, interpretation, and services that developed organically for new visitors would be integrated into their ongoing practices (1, 8, 14, 15, 16). For example, one participant explained how pre-COVID-19 their business targeted avid international cyclists who brought their own equipment. With demand from a more localized, less experienced market they acquired rental bikes and created itineraries for families to take shorter rides, which was anticipated to remain due to the investment and relationships established (12). Another participant who ran a sugar bush (maple syrup producer) developed self-guided activities to engage the increasing number of visitors seeking experiences which would be kept as permanent fixtures (9). An accommodation owner, who bought as the pandemic started, explained that they were transitioning from accommodating shorter week-long stays as initially planned to seasonal stays:

The combined pressure of changing demand patterns from regional visitors looking for short breaks, and labor shortages, transformed their original business model. The unavailability of labor was a substantial issue noted by other interviewees (5, 6, 16), and participant 17's challenge exemplifies how many services offered were informed by the fact that having staff was “just too complicated” (9). Several explained changes to promotional messaging that targeted these new local markets in an effort to sustain these relationships into the future (1, 5, 12). Another pointed to increased expenditures on outdoor recreational equipment, such as RVs and camping gear made by Ontarians during COVID-19 (Farooqui, 2021), which should maintain domestic visitation as people seek a return on these investments (8). Although local demand was expected to wane as international travel re-opened, many anticipated that the relationships they had established would remain (1, 3, 8, 9, 14).

Participants shared some concerns with continued high demand. In Almaguin Highlands, some who appreciated the increased business noted their region lacked adequate infrastructure to provide visitors a full and diverse experience, nor to deal with the consequences of more tourism (5, 6, 7, 8). The dilemma of increased visitation, viewed as beneficial toward the goal of economic development, concurrently brought challenges and consequences to affordability and the environment. As one participant explained:

As a new variance of the adaptive cycle begins it is crucial for the tourism system to remember the “potential that has been accumulated and stored” (Holling, 2001, p. 398) through COVID-19 in preparation for the next disturbance. When asked about future challenges climate change was often referenced. Changing and unpredictable weather patterns were a major concern (1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 17) including disruptive climate impacts such as hotter summers (4), declining snow (5, 8), heavy winds and frequent power outages (3), shoreline erosion (10), unprecedented water levels (17), and an unpredictable maple syrup season (9) that were already affecting the ability of these operators to deliver visitor experiences. One interviewee captured these wider concerns, stating that:

Diminishing snow was another concern (5, 8), with one participant explaining that in winter “there are 3 months of boom and 2 months of very quiet, so when those boom periods are taken away [through limited snowfall], it is extremely detrimental... If the snow goes away, yes it kills our business” (5). New domestic demand was being contemplated as a substitution to visitors seeking winter conditions (5). Another mentioned new procedures for extreme weather events, including “safety protocols for guides to keep guests safe while they are out on excursion… GPS tracking and cell service on the trail… [and] rent[ing] outfits to prepare them [tourists] for the weather” (1). Many shared actual and anticipated costs to deal with climate change (3, 4, 8, 17). For example, making a new building “as energy efficient as possible” to respond to frequent power outages caused by high winds (3), and spending “$30,000 on a new dock system” because of “the unpredictable water levels affecting boaters” (17). A lack of government support for climate resiliency was identified (4, 8, 17), placing an “undue burden on tourism businesses” (8) to shoulder these costs on their own.

Many spoke proudly of practices they identified as environmentally and climate-friendly (3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 14). One operator described promoting “self-powered activities” in a region saturated with “motor sports or motor vehicle recreation, snowmobilers and ATVs…. That's not at all our market... We've always promoted snowshoeing, hiking, self-powered stuff, and that's partly for the environment” (4). Another operator maintained that “everything we do is human powered,” including backcountry tours that focus on land, environmental stewardship and the changing climate (14). One business owner stated that “our goal is to be able, if we walk away from this, we can take it away and we haven't had an impact on the land” (5). Others articulated a more complicated vision of environmental stewardship and, while viewing their own business practices as sustainable, pointed to external factors such as overtourism, lack of provincial infrastructure and resources, or a dependency on other environmentally harmful local businesses and services, that were limiting their own ambitions to maintain climate-friendly operations (3, 12, 14).

As mesolevel agencies in the tourism system (Prayag, 2020), DMOs and other government and community institutions can help scaffold a backbone for strategic consistency (Iborra et al., 2020; Tanner et al., 2022), upon which SMEs can build their own resiliency planning activities (Amore et al., 2018; Kukanja et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 2022). The availability of other interdependent tourism services, such as provincial park permits and lack of restaurants, impacts the visitor experience (Dias et al., 2022), highlighting the importance of supply chain resiliency to support organizational resiliency (Prayag, 2023). The ability of SMEs to function are affected by institutional collaboration too. One participant provided a more specific example of how cycling infrastructure differed drastically across municipal jurisdictions within the same region (12), affecting the quality of visitor experience for a high-yield market. The challenge of bringing stakeholders and policymakers together to make cohesive investments was well beyond this individual operator's scope. This is exemplary of the difficulties SMEs confront when relying upon other services and infrastructure to make their own business work; challenges that are very difficult to overcome without structural support (Li et al., 2022). Creating an environment where the influence, engagement and shared social capital of varied stakeholders can be integrated and leveraged is crucial to the metagovernance of a destination, including opportunities to critically engage policy makers (Amore and Hall, 2016; Becken and Loehr, 2022). Many study participants complained about the bureaucratic nature and ineffectiveness of government supports that were intended to provide relief during the pandemic. However, government supports and grants can be delivered effectively to shift destinations to more resilient pathways (Estiri et al., 2022), and crafted to require, incentivize, or reward SMEs that develop in certain sustainable directions (Kukanja et al., 2022), including engagement of local tourism demand in the pursuit of resiliency. Efforts and frameworks that identify gaps in the visitor experience, and foster collaboration and networking between stakeholders to provide enhanced visitor experiences should improve resiliency (Amore et al., 2018).

Tactically, DMOs can provide strategic direction through the continued engagement of diverse domestic demand to build resiliency. All participants experienced increased domestic demand, consistent with the literature on SMEs during COVID-19 (Arbulú et al., 2021; Craig, 2021; Jeon and Yang, 2021; Lück and Seeler, 2021; Tanner et al., 2022; Pröbstl-Haider et al., 2023), specifically visitors seeking escape and recovery from pandemic urban life (Jeon and Yang, 2021; Rogerson and Rogerson, 2021). Operators, in turn, shifted marketing and services to meet this demand from new domestic groups (Fontanari and Traskevich, 2021; Badoc-Gonzales et al., 2022; Ghaderi et al., 2022; Sepúlveda and Bustamante-Caballero, 2023), often consistent with a long-established wilderness idyll narrative of Ontario's “near North” (Jasen, 1995). Additionally, for SMEs who offered activities affected by a precious natural system exacerbated by climate change (e.g., snow-based operations), a local market with varied interests could become a reasonable substitute (Becken, 2013). Building upon these new and refreshed relationships with diverse domestic markets established through the pandemic thus offers a mechanism for developing resiliency against future challenges.

Although domestic visitors may spend less per visitor, destinations must decide what resiliency should entail given the predictability of future disturbances (Gianiodis et al., 2022; Seyfi et al., 2023). Domestic demand is more resilient in times of crisis (Woyo, 2021), and brings other benefits including higher lifetime spending, less economic leakage, participation in more varied activities, and less seasonal demand, which can result in subtle but important community benefits (Arbulú et al., 2021). An added effect of SMEs turning toward domestic visitors are carbon emissions reductions that can align with growing calls for decarbonization across the tourist system (e.g., Becken, 2019; Peeters and Papp, 2023).

DMOs and governments can “provide orientation and coordination” (Amore et al., 2018, p. 243), and strategic consistency (Filimonau and De Coteau, 2020; Iborra et al., 2020; Gianiodis et al., 2022), by investing in marketing and product development that helps meet diverse domestic visitor expectations. SMEs can then leverage these efforts in their own planning. DMOs can identify varied domestic visitor groups based on motivations, demographics, travel parties, and budget. They can then work with SMEs to develop and promote experiences that appeal to these domestic visitor groups. Another possibility is to consider what experiences these groups seek internationally, and on long-haul trips, and then find ways to offer local substitutions (Volgger et al., 2021). Developing different packaging of experiences can offer repeat visitors new activities and options. The provision of information and equipment (e.g., bike rentals, self-guided tours, boating instruction/etiquette) can help to attract and maintain relationships with new local visitor groups.