| Abstract [eng] |
This study analyses the adaptation success of the Baltic tourism sectors in the context of COVID-19 crisis management by examining the governance capacity and legitimacy of the tourism sectors in the three countries. The study examines seven active tourism seasons from 2017 to 2023, i.e., the pre-pandemic, pandemic, and post-pandemic periods. The concept of crisis management is based on two procedures for developing and empowering response forms-management capacity and management legitimacy-according to the organisational theoretical approach of Christensen, Lægreid, and Rykkja (2016), as well as the theoretical framework of A. Boin and P. Hart (2001) for classifying the crisis phenomenon. Using a comparative approach, this thesis seeks to explore the reasons for the success of adaptation to the challenges of the crisis through the similarities and differences in the forms of crisis management responses in the three countries. At the same time, the work presents the specific features of each Baltic country's tourism sector system and the legal framework for resort status, the creation of resort prestige, and added value for each country. Quantitative and qualitative data collected during the study substantiate the relevance of the crisis management issue for the tourism sectors of nation states and provide an assessment of statistical data over the timeline from 2017 to 2023. The outcome of the research is the justification of the success of adaptation to crisis challenges and the identification of the most and least successful tourism sectors, demonstrating that crisis management in different countries can be both similar and different: a) mobilization of strategic resources and human capital, b) planning, alignment, and empowerment of political culture and legal frameworks, as well as the duration of response validity, c) realization of public expectations and rapid adaptation of behavioral norms to response forms, d) public trust in the executive branch and feedback, e) funding priorities and leadership in maintaining the sector’s economic viability. |
