Purpose

The vulnerability of the tourism industry to an array of risks, encompassing family-related, small- and medium-sized enterprise-specific, strategic, tourism-specific and external factors, highlights the landscape within which small and medium family enterprises (SMFEs) operate. Although SMFEs are an important stakeholder in the dynamic tourism sector, they are not one homogenous group of firms, but have different strategic orientations. This study aims to investigate the interplay between strategic orientation and risk perception to better understand SMFEs risk perception as it is impacting their decision-making processes, resilience and long-term survival. The authors investigate how different strategic orientations contribute to different perspectives on risk among owner-managers.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on a qualitative data corpus of 119 face-to-face interviews, the authors apply various coding rounds to better understand the relationship between strategic orientations and the perceptions of risks. Firstly, the authors analysed the owner–manager interviews and identified three groups of different strategic orientations: proactive and sustainability-oriented SMFE, destination-affirmative and resilience-oriented SMFE and passive SMFE. Secondly, the authors coded the interviews for different risks identified. The authors identified that the three groups show differences in the risk perceptions.

Findings

The data unveil that the three groups of SMFEs have several differences in how they perceive risks. Proactive and sustainability-oriented SMFEs prioritize business risks, demonstrating a penchant for innovation and sustainability. Destination-affirmative and resilience-oriented SMFEs perceive a broader range of risks, tying their investments to destination development, emphasizing family and health risks and navigating competitive pressures. Passive SMFEs, primarily concerned with external risks, exhibit limited awareness of internal and strategic risks, resist change and often defer decision-making to successors. The findings underscore how different strategic orientations influence risk perceptions and decision-making processes within SMFEs in the tourism industry.

Research limitations/implications

The authors contribute to existing knowledge include offering a comprehensive status quo of perceived risks for different strategic orientations, a notably underexplored area. In addition, the differences with respect to risk perception shown in the paper suggest that simplified models ignoring risk perception may be insufficient for policy recommendations and for understanding the dynamics of the tourism sector. For future research, the authors propose to focus on exploring the possible directions in which strategic orientation and risk perception influence one another, which might be a limitation of this study due to its qualitative nature.

Practical implications

Varying strategic orientations and risk perceptions highlight the diversity within the stakeholder group of SMFE. Recognizing differences allows for more targeted interventions that address the unique concerns and opportunities of each group and can thus improve the firm’s resilience (Memili et al., 2023) and therefore leading to sustainability destinations development. The authors suggest practical support for destination management organizations and regional policymakers, aimed especially at enhancing the risk management of passive SMFEs. Proactive SMFE could be encouraged to perceive more family risks.

Social implications

Viewing tourism destinations as a complex stakeholder network, unveiling distinct risk landscapes for various strategic orientations of one stakeholder has the potential to benefit the overall destination development. The proactive and sustainability-oriented SMFEs are highly pertinent as they might lead destinations to further development and create competitive advantage through innovative business models. Passive SMFEs might hinder the further development of the destination, e.g. through missing innovation efforts or succession.

Originality/value

Although different studies explore business risks (Forgacs and Dimanche, 2016), risks from climate change (Demiroglu et al., 2019), natural disasters (Zhang et al., 2023) or shocks such as COVID-19 (Teeroovengadum et al., 2021), this study shows that it does not imply that SMFE as active stakeholder perceive such risk. Rather, different strategic orientations are in relation to perceiving risks differently. The authors therefore open up an interesting new field for further studies, as risk perception influences the decision-making of tourism actors, and therefore resilience.

中文翻译：

---

中小型酒店家族企业的风险认知

目的

旅游业易受一系列风险的影响，包括家庭相关风险、中小企业特有风险、战略风险、旅游业特有风险和外部因素，凸显了中小型家族企业（SMFE）的经营格局。尽管中小型林业企业是充满活力的旅游业的重要利益相关者，但它们并不是同质的企业集团，而是具有不同的战略方向。本研究旨在调查战略导向和风险认知之间的相互作用，以更好地了解中小型林业企业的风险认知，因为它影响着他们的决策过程、弹性和长期生存。作者研究了不同的战略导向如何影响所有者兼管理者对风险的不同看法。

设计/方法论/途径

基于 119 次面对面访谈的定性数据集，作者应用了多轮编码来更好地理解战略方向和风险感知之间的关系。首先，作者分析了业主-经理访谈，并确定了三组不同的战略取向：主动和可持续发展导向的中小型企业、目的地肯定和弹性导向的中小型企业和被动型中小型企业。其次，作者针对已识别的不同风险对访谈进行了编码。作者发现，三组人的风险认知存在差异。

发现

数据显示，三类中小型林业企业在风险认知上存在一些差异。积极主动且以可持续发展为导向的中小型林业企业优先考虑业务风险，表现出对创新和可持续发展的偏好。目的地肯定和复原力导向的中小型林业企业认识到更广泛的风险，将其投资与目的地开发联系起来，强调家庭和健康风险并应对竞争压力。消极的中小型林业企业主要关注外部风险，对内部和战略风险的认识有限，抵制变革，并且经常将决策推迟给继任者。研究结果强调了不同的战略方向如何影响旅游业中小型林业企业的风险认知和决策过程。

研究局限性/影响

作者对现有知识的贡献包括提供不同战略方向的感知风险的全面现状，这是一个明显未充分探索的领域。此外，本文中显示的风险认知方面的差异表明，忽略风险认知的简化模型可能不足以提出政策建议和理解旅游部门的动态。对于未来的研究，作者建议重点探索战略导向和风险感知相互影响的可能方向，由于其定性性质，这可能是本研究的局限性。

实际影响

不同的战略方向和风险认知凸显了中小型林业企业利益相关者群体的多样性。认识到差异可以采取更有针对性的干预措施，解决每个群体的独特问题和机会，从而提高公司的弹性（Memili et al.，2023），从而促进可持续发展目的地的发展。作者建议为目的地管理组织和区域政策制定者提供实际支持，特别是旨在加强被动型中小型林业企业的风险管理。可以鼓励积极主动的中小型林业企业认识到更多的家庭风险。

社会影响

将旅游目的地视为一个复杂的利益相关者网络，为一个利益相关者的各种战略方向揭示不同的风险景观，有可能使整个目的地的发展受益。积极主动、以可持续发展为导向的中小型林业企业具有很强的针对性，因为它们可以引领目的地进一步发展，并通过创新的商业模式创造竞争优势。消极的中小型林业企业可能会阻碍目的地的进一步发展，例如缺乏创新努力或继承。

原创性/价值

尽管不同的研究探讨了商业风险（Forgacs 和 Dimanche，2016）、气候变化风险（Demiroglu等，2019）、自然灾害（Zhang等，2023）或 COVID-19 等冲击（Teeroovengadum等， 2021），本研究表明，这并不意味着中小型林业企业作为积极的利益相关者意识到了这种风险。相反，不同的战略方向与对风险的不同认识有关。因此，作者为进一步研究开辟了一个有趣的新领域，因为风险感知影响旅游参与者的决策，从而影响复原力。