Equilibrating resources and challenges during crises: a framework for service ecosystem - Emerald Insight
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-5818.htm
Equilibrating resources and Framework for
service
challenges during crises: ecosystem
well-being
a framework for service ecosystem
well-being
J€org Finsterwalder Received 5 June 2020
Revised 18 June 2020
UC Business School, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, and 24 June 2020
Volker G. Kuppelwieser Accepted 25 June 2020
Department of Marketing, NEOMA Business School, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France
Abstract
Purpose – This article explores the impact of crises, such as the coronavirus pandemic, on service industries,
service customers, and the service research community. It contextualizes pandemics in the realm of disasters
and crises, and how they influence actors’ well-being across the different levels of the service ecosystem. The
paper introduces a resources–challenges equilibrium (RCE) framework across system levels to facilitate service
ecosystem well-being and outlines a research agenda for service scholars.
Design/methodology/approach – Literature on disasters, crises, service and well-being is synthesized to
embed the COVID-19 pandemic in these bodies of work. The material is then distilled to introduce the novel
RCE framework for service ecosystems, and points of departure for researchers are developed.
Findings – A service ecosystems view of well-being co-creation entails a dynamic interplay of actors’
challenges faced and resource pools available at the different system levels.
Research limitations/implications – Service scholars are called to action to conduct timely and relevant
research on pandemics and other crises, that affect service industry, service customers, and society at large.
This conceptual paper focuses on service industries and service research and therefore excludes other
industries and research domains.
Practical implications – Managers of service businesses as well as heads of governmental agencies and
policy makers require an understanding of the interdependence of the different system levels and the
challenges faced versus the resources available to each individual actor as well as to communities and
organizations.
Social implications – Disasters can change the social as well as the service-related fabric of society and
industry. New behaviors have to be learned and new processes put in place for society to maintain well-being
and for service industry’s survival.
Originality/value – This paper fuses the coronavirus pandemic with service and well-being research,
introduces a resources-challenges equilibrium framework for service ecosystem well-being and outlines a
research agenda.
Keywords Coronavirus, COVID-19, Disaster, Crisis, Pandemic, Resilience, Social distancing, Transformative
service research, Service ecosystem well-being, Research agenda, Resources-challenges equilibrium
framework
Paper type Conceptual paper
As guest editors, we would like to thank professor Jay Kandampully, editor of the Journal of Service
Management (JOSM), for his flexibility and openness to making available at short notice slots for a
special section with selected articles on The Coronavirus Crisis and Beyond: Implications for Service
Research and Practice. We would also like to thank Linda Alkire (nee Nasr), JOSM editorial director, for
her support in realizing this project. We believe it is important to initiate and publish work relating to
society’s big challenges in a very timely manner. While at the time of writing it is still unclear how the
coronavirus crisis will develop, papers in this special section endeavor to either shed first light on
service-related matters or provide first empirical insights relating to the crisis. We also thank the authors
of the papers published in this special section for making this special section happen in such a short Journal of Service Management
timeframe while potentially facing personal and/or professional challenges of their own relating to © Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-5818
COVID-19. DOI 10.1108/JOSM-06-2020-0201JOSM Introduction
COVID-19 has effected health and well-being of society worldwide (Cosi c et al., 2020). Since
the virus occurred, it has increased the cognitive, psychological, physical, and social
challenges (Dodge et al., 2012) faced by individuals and communities, as well as put pressure
on service industries and global economies. The global economic growth is predicted to drop
from around 3.0% to 2.4% and a best case forecasted monetary global gross domestic
product loss of USD 76.69bn (or USD 346.97bn in the worst case) might eventuate (Duffin,
2020). The service economy has been impacted very heavily, for example, travel and tourism
industry with an estimated decrease in revenue of around 34.7$ from 2019 (Lock, 2020a), and
hospitality industry suffering a year-over-year decline of seated diners in restaurants
worldwide of 76.4% for the months February to June 2020 (Lock, 2020b).
While the pandemic locked down the world, some organizations, such as the Global
Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB, 2019a), an independent monitoring and advocacy
body co-convened by the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO), but
also business leaders, such as Bill Gates (Loria, 2018), had been issuing warnings earlier that
such pandemic might occur. “There is a very real threat of a rapidly moving, highly lethal
pandemic of a respiratory pathogen killing 50 to 80 million people and wiping out nearly 5%
of the world’s economy. A global pandemic on that scale would be catastrophic, creating
widespread havoc, instability and insecurity. The world is not prepared” (Harlem Brundtland
and Sy, cited in GPMB, 2019b). Resulting from this warning, the GPMB (2019b) had urged
governments for more preparedness suggesting a seven-point action plan. It appears their
call had largely gone unnoticed when COVID-19 broke out.
COVID-19 and other pandemics can affect economy and social life and in particular
service providers and service customers. However, while there is a vast body of disaster and
resilience-related literature (e.g. Jia et al., 2020; Kimura et al., 2020; Norris et al., 2008), work on
disasters and services has been less prominent and only more recently become an emerging
field (e.g. Antara et al., 2016; Cheung and McColl-Kennedy, 2015; Finsterwalder, 2010;
Finsterwalder and Hall, 2016).
While some researchers focus on pandemics and service (e.g. Krumkamp et al., 2011), such
work does not necessarily take a service research perspective. More recently, also due to the
COVID-19 outbreak, work in the service domain has emerged (e.g. Addo et al., 2020; Hall et al.,
2020a; Leite et al., 2019). However, extant literature is still very sparse, and this paper aims at
contributing to fill this void.
This article makes several important contributions. It locates the COVID-19 occurrence in
literature referring to disasters, pandemics and crises and outlines emerging issues for service
actors before, during, and after a pandemic or major critical incident has stuck. It propels
theoretical contributions to the service domain (Benoit et al., 2017) by devising a framework that
conceptualizes the systemic nature of such incidents in the context of service and well-being.
This paper introduces the resources-challenges equilibrium (RCE) framework for service
ecosystem well-being by expanding on previous work on individual well-being (Chen et al., 2020;
Dodge et al., 2012). It also presents the concept of safe value co-creation spheres as well as
cognitive, physical, psychologica, and social safety to augment value co-creation and well-being
literature. Moreover, based on the framework, this article aims at stimulating future research by
condensing an agenda for research relating to the different actors at the different system levels
in the service ecosystem as well as by linking to the different phases of a major critical incident.
Pandemics, disasters and crises
Disasters and pandemics
There is no commonly agreed definition of disaster as the term is often employed depending
on which discipline it uses (Staupe-Delgado, 2019; Shaluf et al., 2003). Other terms are also inuse, such as “disruptive event” (Tierney and Bruneau, 2007, p. 14), “turbulent times” Framework for
(Gunderson and Folke, 2005, p. 23), “shock” (Meyer, 1982, p. 515), “disturbance” (Norris et al., service
2008, p. 129) or “critical incident” (Oster and Doyle, 2000, p. 339). A disaster is “a serious
disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human,
ecosystem
material, economic or environmental losses and impacts” (United Nations Office for Disaster well-being
Risk Reduction, 2012, p. 9; for an overview of the key terminology used in this article, see
Appendix).
Pandemics fall into the category of biological disasters (i.e. natural disasters). Viral and
other diseases have been present throughout the centuries. The Black Death, a large bubonic
plague (mainly during 1347–1353), claimed 50% of the European population (Spyrou et al.,
2016). Research suggests that an early wave of the plague reaches as far back as the sixth and
eight centuries and that a third wave finished as late as the 18th century (Cohn, 2008; Spyrou
et al., 2016). Other biological disasters, such as the Spanish flu (1918–19; Trilla et al., 2008) but
also more recent ones, such as the cholera (1916–present), SARS (2002–03), swine flu (2009),
MERS-CoV (2012–present), Ebola (2014–present), Zika (2015-present) (WHO, 2020c; for an
overview see Hall et al., 2020a) have affected the world’s population. While there are claims
that there is potential of some 40 other viruses with the pandemic potential like Sars-CoV-2
(M€uller, 2020), COVID-19 is one of the more recent coronavirus occurrences.
A pandemic is an epidemic which is “a sudden outbreak of infectious disease that spreads
rapidly through the population, affecting a large proportion of people” (Concise Medical
Dictionary, 2015) and has extended across multiple regions or continents (WHO, 2010).
Pandemics usually have multiple phases (WHO, 2009, 2020a, p. 11, see Table 1), from no viral
activity detectable in human beings, to an onset of a potential threat when a virus causes
infections in humans, followed by sporadic cases which then increase in number. Next, the
virus commences to spread into the community, with international outbreaks ensuing
subsequently. This article aggregates these phases 1–5 in Table 1 denoting them as the pre-
pandemic phase. A peak phase with heavy community spreads across multiple regions
follows, at some point decreasing in viral activity levels postpeak but with the chance of new
waves emerging. This paper subsumes these three detailed phases as the pandemic phase.
Main phases Detailed phases Characteristics of phases
Prepandemic Phase 1 No virus circulating amongst animals has been detected to cause
phase infections in humans
Phase 2 A virus circulating amongst wild or domesticated animals has
caused infections in humans and is therefore considered a potential
pandemic threat
Phase 3 Sporadic cases or small clusters of virus-induced disease in people,
but human-to-human (H2H) transmission has not spread to cause
community outbreak
Phase 4 Community-level outbreak of virus occurs
Phase 5 Human-to-human spread of the virus in at least two countries in one
region occurs
Pandemic phase Phase 6 In this pandemic phase, sustained community-level outbreak in at
least one other country in another region ensues
Postpeak period Pandemic disease levels in most countries drop below peak levels
Possible new Pandemics can emerge in waves of activity stretched over several
wave months
Postpandemic Postpandemic Disease activity will have dropped to levels normal for an influenza
phase period Table 1.
Note(s): aExpanded from WHO, 2009, 2020a Phases of a pandemicaJOSM During the postpandemic period (postpandemic phase) viral activity lowers to levels normal
for an influenza. Earlier work by the WHO (1999, 2020b) delineates the prepandemic phase as
an interpandemic period, alerting to the fact that even without any major viral activity in
human beings there needs to be a level of preparedness maintained should a pandemic affect
society. However, this article employs the three aggregate forms delineated above.
To manage health and well-being of individuals, communities, and service industry, it is
important to understand these phases of a pandemic when a virus, such as COVID-19 ensues.
COVID-19
The outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by the novel severe acute
respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), also called new coronavirus
(2019-nCoV) (Harapan et al., 2020; Kahn, 2020). The virus appears to have caught the world by
surprise in late 2019/early 2020 (M€uller, 2020) when China reported the first cases in Wuhan,
in the Hubei province (Wu et al., 2020). COVID-19 infectious disease has been declared a
pandemic and “may become just another endemic virus in our communities, and this virus
may never go away” (Ryan, 2020).
Compared to other respiratory syndromes, SARS-CoV-2 has high and most likely also
undetected transmissibility and infectivity (Li et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020) with, at the time
of writing, case numbers beyond 17.8m people affected and reported casualties of over
685,000 people worldwide (ECDC, 2020). For the COVID-19 pandemic, as for other past and
future epidemics and pandemics, there normally exists no cure so shortly after an outbreak.
However, given the research, testing, and approval required, producing a substantial vaccine
could take in between 12 and 18 months (Anderson et al., 2020). In order to mitigate
the pandemic in the meantime the protective mechanisms society has at hand are the
following: (1) voluntary plus mandated quarantine, (2) preventing mass gatherings, (3)
closure of educational institutions or workplaces, and (4) isolation of households, towns, cities
or countries (Anderson et al., 2020).
Key measures amongst those are self-isolation and maintaining “social distancing”
(Dickson and MacLachlin, 1990; Glass et al., 2006), i.e. limiting physical contact (frequency
and proximity) between people to reduce the risk of spread of a disease (CDC, 2020b).
However, this comes with an adjustment of the population to new behavior with all of its
consequences (Davis et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2008; Lee and Lee, 2020).
COVID-19 has led to travel restrictions which have been put in place, borders that have
been closed, and governments have sent their populations into lockdown (e.g. COVID-19
Alert System, 2020), which is an imposed closure of businesses and public life by staying at
home for a period of time (Alvarez et al., 2020). Lockdowns introduce “a situation in which
people are not allowed to enter or leave a building or area freely because of an emergency”
(Cambridge Dictionary, 2020a). There is a connection between emergencies, such as caused
by disasters, and crises.
From disaster to crisis
Some experts voice that COVID-19 is not merely a natural disaster but a public health crisis as
well as an ecological one (Brown, 2020) which might bring other crises, such as a social crisis
(Van Lancker and Parolin, 2020) or an economic and financial crisis with it (Baker et al., 2020a, b).
Experts put forward that the COVID-19 disaster-turned-crisis will change organizations,
businesses, and society in multiple ways, such as relating to shopping and public health
investments (Reeves et al., 2020).
What makes a disaster a crisis? Disasters and crises are different but related events (Shaluf
et al., 2003). A natural disaster, for example, might turn into a crisis, that is, into a turning point
or situation that is extremely difficult or dangerous (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020b), if it affectsthe livelihood of a community, city, region, country, or beyond. While literature might not Framework for
qualify a natural disaster as a crisis (Shaluf et al., 2003), inappropriate human response to a service
natural disaster might cause a major crisis. This can be seen across the globe when comparing
how different countries manage the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. ECDC, 2020) as well as from its
ecosystem
economic and social ripple effects. An appropriate response largely avoiding any crisis depends well-being
on a society’s resilience.
Disasters and subsequent crises from a service ecosystem well-being
perspective
Disasters, service and well-being from a systems perspective
Fiksel (2006a, b) applies a systems perspective to disasters and resilience and stipulates that
humans are embedded in self-organizing systems which, during a critical incident, such as a
pandemic, require the capability to endure, adjust and develop to manage the circumstances.
The author also flags that to maintain sustainable human systems these must have ethical,
equitable and restorative characteristics and require agility, efficiency as well as being
prosperous.
Comparably, some service researchers (e.g. Vargo and Lusch, 2016, p. 10) take a systems
approach defining a service ecosystem as “a relatively self-contained, self-adjusting system of
resource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional arrangements and mutual
value creation through service exchange.” In service research, a systems approach has only
recently been linked to the well-being domain (e.g. Beir~ao et al., 2017; Frow et al., 2019; Hepi
et al., 2017).
Furthermore, not long ago scholarly work on well-being has entered the service research
domain (e.g. Hunter-Jones et al., 2020; Patrıcio et al., 2020; Tuzovic and Kuppelwieser, 2016),
also propelled by novel approaches, such as transformative service research (TSR; Anderson
et al., 2013). TSR combines the service domain with transformative consumer research to
assist with bettering people’s lives through the co-creation of well-being (Chen et al., 2020;
Finsterwalder et al., 2017). Applying such approach as a lens by focusing on the
transformative nature of service in the context of disasters appears to be suitable given
the claims that “[p]andemics and new diseases have (. . .) a transformational effect on
environments and societies” (Hall et al., 2020a, emphasis added), and as such impact service
ecosystem well-being (Frow et al., 2019).
As a working definition, service ecosystem well-being can be delineated as “a holistic,
dynamic, positive state” (Frow et al., 2019, p. 2667), describing an “aggregated perspective of
nested actor’s assessment of a system’s present conditions in terms of fulfilling its needs and
contributing to the betterment of itself” (Leo et al., 2019, p. 770), whereby system level–specific
well-being can be determined. During positive or negative “shocks” or “critical incidents”,
which can cause “service mega-disruptions” (Kabadayi et al., 2020), systems require “being
flexible, agile, and fluid” and to have “transformational capability” which is “the system’s
ability to flexibly adapt and change to altered or new requirements and, if necessary, to
reconfigure itself by means of new actor and resource combinations” (Kuppelwieser and
Finsterwalder, 2016, p. 97). Such a system has permeable system boundaries and enables
other service systems to connect to increase well-being efforts and outcomes for the actors
within the system (Kuppelwieser and Finsterwalder, 2016). Moreover, well-being efforts in
one system can have spill-over effects (Finsterwalder and Kuppelwieser, 2020) which can
extent to the other systems. An overarching system (e.g. at government/national level)
monitoring the lower level systems, thus not only can assist with largely averting negative
well-being outcomes from occurring and spreading within the ecosystem but also to the
neighboring systems (e.g. other countries’ service ecosystems) (Kuppelwieser and
Finsterwalder, 2016).JOSM A resources–challenges equilibrium (RCE) framework for service ecosystem well-being
Developing the RCE framework for service ecosystem well-being. Contrary to the existing
approaches relating to service ecosystem well-being (Frow et al., 2019; Leo et al., 2019), this
paper builds on recent work by Chen et al. (2020) who introduce a framework to conceptualize
the dynamics of well-being co-creation. This article’s approach extrapolates their use of Dodge
et al.’s (2012) well-being concept beyond individual well-being and applies it to all system levels to
incorporate “individual wellbeing; family wellbeing community wellbeing and societal
wellbeing” (La Placa et al., 2013, p. 118). A plethora of well-being concepts (e.g. Kahnemann
et al., 1999; Ryan and Deci, 2001; Steptoe et al., 2015) can be identified and utilized to feed into a
framework. However, it is not the aim of this article to provide a synthesis but to build on Dodge
et al. (2012) who undertook such work to identify a unifying well-being definition. In line with
Frow et al.’s (2019) view of service ecosystem well-being, Dodge et al.’s (2012) definition
describes a state at which well-being exists. In other words, Dodge et al. (2012, p. 230)
promulgate that there exists a “balance point between an individual’s resource pool and the
challenges faced”. This conceptualization draws on the notion that an individual wants to
return to a set point for well-being (Headey and Wearing, 1989) with the need for homeostasis or
equilibrium (Cummins, 2010). Chen et al. (2020) label this well-being approach the “resources–
challenges equilibrium (RCE)” as actors have to lessen cognitive, psychological, physical, and
social challenges they face and integrate cognitive, psychological, physical, and social
resources (Dodge et al., 2012; La Placa et al., 2013; Tov and Diener, 2013).
Challenges vs resources and safe value co-creation spheres. On an individual level, cognitive
challenges entail the comprehension of a subject matter, such as understanding pandemics
(Schneier, 2019) and their impact on health and well-being. Psychological challenges comprise
factors, such as mentally coping with the pandemic and the changes it brings about, such as
loneliness (Sadler, 2020). Physical challenges include factors, such as to stay physically safe
and well and protect oneself from the virus, and social challenges can involve components,
such as remaining connected with friends and family during a pandemic (e.g. Dodge et al.,
2012; Tov and Diener, 2013). Cognitive resources relate to how an actor responds to a stressful
situation, such as a pandemic, and does not allow for sources of stress to block the use of
rationality (Fiedler and Garcia, 1987). Psychological resources comprise elements of optimism,
personal control and meaning in an actor’s life experiences (Taylor et al., 2000), as well as self-
esteem and coping (Roberts et al., 1994), such as remaining positive to get through a
pandemic. Physical resources relate to an actor feeling energized and independent in
functional and instrumental activities of daily living (Dodge et al., 2012; Roberts et al., 1994),
for example, by remaining physically active despite having to stay home during a lockdown.
Social resources finally, consist of the networks available to an actor, like family and friends
that can be contacted and liaised with (Hobfoll, 2002), as well as the frequency and quality of
interaction (e.g. Roberts et al., 1994) during a pandemic. Particularly during a disaster these
four types of “resources become especially important when people are faced with [such]
challenging or threatening events (. . .). They may act as reserves, enabling people to cope
more effectively with such events” (Taylor et al., 2000, p. 99; see again the Appendix for a
summary of the definitions employed in this article).
For the purpose of this paper four new categories are introduced to denote that conditions
have to be present so that service interactions can be cognitively, psychologically, physically,
and socially safe. This requires establishing safe value co-creation spheres and service systems
which make the boundaries of behavior clear (May et al., 2004). Defining the boundaries of
behavior includes setting rules and regulations for appropriate conduct during service
co-creation. For example, citizen–consumers’ safety concerns of being exposed to a virus or
contaminated surfaces require clear signage, signposting and redesign of servicescapes.
Social marketing can assist with conveying behavioral imperatives for service interactions,
such as during shopping.As a consequence, such spheres and service systems permit value co-creation that is Framework for
cognitively, psychologically, physically, and socially safe. Cognitive safety refers to being free service
from impairment that could hinder the ability to “perceive, process, understand, and store
information, make decisions and produce appropriate responses” (Roiser et al., 2016, p. 445), e.g.
ecosystem
a new drug aiming at combatting COVID-19 might have side effects influencing an actor’s well-being
cognitive function. Psychological safety describes an actor’s sense of being able to show and
employ the self without negative consequences (Kahn, 1992). Kuppelwieser and Finsterwalder
(2011) employ this concept in a co-creation context and find that psychological safety affects
an individual customer’s perception of their own and others’ contributions to a service and
impacts the perceived outcome. For example, contrary to prepandemic behavior, not being
overly self-expressive, i.e. not talking to other customers or staff during a visit to a familiar
supermarket during the peak of a pandemic and feeling comfortable with this, could lead to
fellow customers reciprocating such behavior. This might increase the overall co-created
shopping experience and perceived safety of shoppers. Physical safety describes feeling safe
from harm or injury (e.g. La Placa et al., 2013), such as after having taken measures not to
expose oneself unnecessarily to the threat of the virus or contamination. Finally, social safety
denotes the sense of feeling safe with other people and not being exposed to any antisocial
behavior which might cause maltreatment or is short of consideration for the well-being of
others (Berger, 2020). For example, wearing facemasks in shops beyond the timeframe advised
by the government despite it being disputable whether they truly protect oneself or others
(Greenhalgh et al., 2020), might lead to negative backlash for an individual actor from others.
The balancing of challenges with resources available can be depicted as a see-saw (Dodge
et al., 2012). Chen et al. (2020) utilize this to showcase the dynamics of well-being co-creation
and the importance of other actors in this process, including all involved actors’ resources and
challenges. This paper draws on their depiction, however expands it to all system levels, and
applies it to contexts that can include positive or negative “shocks” or “critical incidents”,
such as pandemics. Figure 1 combines the three phases of a critical incident deducted from
disaster research on pandemics (WHO, 2009, 2020b) with the three system levels and
delineates the novel framework.
Micro-level well-being. The first level is the micro-system level and, in line with a service
ecosystems approach, each level up represents a higher level of aggregation (Vargo and
Lusch, 2017). Actors’ activities at each level influence well-being at this level as well as at the
other levels. The micro-system level contains interactions among individual actors, such as
citizens or customers. To simplify depiction, Figure 1 shows two actors at micro level who
interact to co-create value in a safe value co-creation sphere. This sphere represents a space
that enables interaction that is cognitively, psychologically, physically, and socially safe. For
example, this can be a reconfigured grocery store that has been altered to a one-way system,
prescribes a two-meter distance between shoppers, limits the number of shoppers in-store,
provides gloves and hand sanitizer, and has a contactless self-checkout (e.g. Mediterranean
Foods, 2020), or a car dealer that operates a virtual showroom with live tours (e.g. Renault
New Zealand, 2020). Each actor’s sphere consists of their personal RCE depicted as an upright
standing see-saw that can swing either way, depending on the increase or decrease in
challenges or resources. While each RCE signals individual well-being, the see-saw attached
to the outside of the micro level indicates collective well-being of the unit of the two actors,
such as family well-being of a couple.
Meso-level well-being. At meso level, community-level well-being is located (La Placa et al.,
2013) as well as the well-being of formal institutions, such as service businesses (Vargo
and Lusch, 2017). On an aggregate level challenges, such as social challenges can result in an
increase in domestic abuse, unemployment, lack of schooling and other issues, like
marginalization of members of society, such as certain ethnicities (Hepi et al., 2017) or
vulnerable members of society being left to their own devices, like refugees (Finsterwalder,JOSM
Figure 1.
Resources–challenges
equilibrium framework
for service ecosystem
well-beinga
2017; PBS News, 2020). However, during disasters, such as pandemics, within a community
social resources can be drawn on from the social capital available (Parzefall and
Kuppelwieser, 2012). This can entail volunteering and helping out or more strongly
emphasizing customer-to-customer (Finsterwalder and Kuppelwieser, 2011) or peer-to-peer
sharing, networks and economy (Wirtz et al., 2019), such as neighborhood communities,
swapping goods and services and creating an informal service economy (Jha and Bag, 2019;
OECD, 2020; Ozanne and Ozanne, 2016). The well-being of service businesses’ employees and
management is located at the micro level. However, their individual well-being might be
connected to the well-being of the business itself at meso level, if service providers such as
tourism, hospitality and leisure service providers, retailers or transportation and travel
companies suffer due to lockdowns, quarantines or other restrictions imposed by macro-level
organizations, and jobs and employment are at stake. While government support might
create a safe value co-creation sphere for the businesses for the time being during the
pandemic phase, companies might suffer in the postpandemic phase when the critical
incident is over, due to a lack of resources available which would permit long-term viability
and well-being of the businesses. This might partially be buffered by business-to-business
initiatives via providing resources, such as support kits, videos and tips for restarting
businesses (e.g. Support Local, 2020) or “Go Local” and “Lockdown Recovery” offers to
customers (e.g. GrabOne, 2020) to increase demand in the postpandemic phase. Public service
providers, such as hospitals, general practitioners and other healthcare providers, as well as
emergency services and other providers at meso level might face challenges during the peak
phase of a pandemic. This can eventuate due to under-resourcing and heavy stress on
resources encountered relating to the high demand in healthcare by citizens.Macro-level well-being. The macro level is the locus of overall societal well-being (La Placa Framework for
et al., 2013) as well as of the well-being of those institutions governing entire service service
ecosystems, that is, the well-being of a nation and its government (Leo et al., 2019; Vargo and
Lusch, 2017). Societal well-being is facilitated by a government and its agencies sustaining
ecosystem
community and individual well-being at meso and micro level. This includes aiming at well-being
maintaining or restabilizing the economy and mitigating financial and other challenges that
might put pressure on society, such as having insufficient resources (Leo et al., 2019). For
example, maintaining supply chains and importing and/or producing essential goods and
services do not only ensure sufficient supply but also balance fluctuation in (customer)
demand (Baker et al., 2020a, b). Societal well-being also includes actors at the macro level (e.g.
government) imposing lockdowns, travel restrictions or bans, or putting in place quarantine
rules and an alert system to manage the pandemic and maintain well-being (e.g. COVID-19
Alert System, 2020). However, in the aftermath campaigns can be launched, such as a national
“Go Local” campaign to support businesses (e.g. NZ Herald, 2020; Scoop, 2020) and by
providing resources to meso-level actors (e.g. MBIE, 2020).
Well-being across system levels and across critical incident phases. It is important to note that
the different phases of a critical incident as indicated in Figure 1, such as each of the three phases
of the COVID-19 pandemic, pose different challenges and require different resources, skills and
knowledge from the actors to maintain well-being. Each phase might thus make the see-saws
swing differently at the different system levels. However, all resource pools across levels are
interconnected as well as are the challenges faced, and as challenges change the resource pools
(Dodge et al., 2012) might be drawn on more or less heavily, requiring different levels of resource
integration and value co-creation (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012). The more agile, flexible and fluid
the service ecosystem and the greater its transformational capability (Fiksel, 2006a, b;
Kuppelwieser and Finsterwalder, 2016), the easier it will adapt, restore, grow and balance
challenges with resources to regain an equilibrium and enable more equity among actors and
their RCEs (Chen et al., 2020; Dodge et al., 2012; Fiksel, 2006a, b).
When revisiting the earlier working definition of service ecosystem well-being in the light
of the introduced RCE framework, this paper draws on Kuppelwieser and Finsterwalder
(2016) as well as Dodge et al. (2012) to conceptualize service ecosystem well-being. It defines it
as a system’s transformational capability to balance challenges and resources within and
across system levels to achieve system level–specific and overall service ecosystem equilibria
and well-being via new actor and resource combinations, in order to adapt to system inherent
or external critical incidents.
Implications and agenda for service research
Based on the challenges outlined and the resources available to combat a critical incident,
such as the COVID-19 pandemic, Table 2 shows a detailed however not exhaustive list of
research topics service scholars should address. It incorporates a resources–challenges focus
as well as the notion of safe value co-creation spheres when organizing the topics using the
three system levels as well as the three phases of a critical incident to create a grid. Emerging
work that future research endeavors can expand on is highlighted by using references.
In essence, the research questions address how a service ecosystem can better prepare for
(pre-incident phase), respond to (incident phase), recover from (post-incident phase) and build
resources to become resilient (Himes-Cornell et al., 2018) to future critical incidents.
Practice shows that service providers, such as in airline industry, are already
implementing plans how to “Survive, then Revive, and finally Thrive” (Foran, 2020) when
aiming at taking action in regard to COVID-19. Increasing resilience ensures that citizen-
consumers, service businesses, not-for-profit organizations as well as government agencies
can facilitate, create and draw on as many safe co-creation spheres as possible before, duringJOSM CI Service ecosystem levels
phases* Micro level Meso level Macro level
Pre- (1) How can individual (1) How can service (1) What is the most suitable
incident actors better prepare for providers’ technological resource strategy to
phase potential well-being readiness and innovation create service ecosystem
challenges? (e.g. apps, contact readiness?
(2) Which resources can be tracing) be better (2) Which service platforms
identified that are stimulated? for joint value co-creation
pivotal to actors’ well- (2) How can an emergency during the pandemic
being? resource exchange phase can be designed?
(3) How can customers be network and platforms (3) Which services does
engaged to co-design amongst service government have to
safe value co-creation providers be established establish to maintain
spheres? and co-ordinated? society’s well-being over
(4) Which remote or (3) Which co-design a potentially extended
contactless services approaches can best period of time?
create the most value enable blueprinting of
for citizen-consumers? safe value co-creation
spheres?
Incident (1) What is the negative (1) What is the impact of (1) How can a service
phase impact of social lockdowns, travel bans ecosystem best respond
distancing and self- and other restrictions on to a major incident and a
isolation on well-being service industry’s well- potential increase in
in relation to safe value being? challenges?
co-creation spheres? (2) What is the uptake of (2) Which support packages
(2) What are the negative remote and other for service businesses
consequences of contact disaster-related services? require activating?
tracing and of wearing (3) What is the impact of (3) How can collaboration
facemasks on well- (forced) service among service businesses
being challenges and innovations on business be stimulated by central
service encounters? development, survival agencies?
(3) What is the impact of (Batat, 2020; Heinonen (4) How do major incidents
social robots on social and Strandvik, 2020) and change the supply chain
isolation (Henkel et al., well-being? and how can the service
2020; Odekerken- (4) How can service demand ecosystem adapt?
Schroder et al., 2020)? and supply be managed (5) How can upholding
(4) What is the impact of efficiently to replenish imposed restrictions
lockdowns on resources effectively? across service providers
customers’ brand (5) How can consumer be monitored?
engagement (Karpen displacement be (6) Which resources for
and Conduit, 2020) and mitigated and managed employees and managers
well-being? (Hall et al., 2020b)? of service businesses, to
(5) How do value co- (6) What are signs and improve well-being and
creation and service-to- signaling techniques safe value co-creation
service exchanges service providers use to spheres, can be provided
transform? indicate consumer safety centrally?
(6) How do actor’s (Bove and Benoit, 2020)?
challenges influence (7) How does service
perceptions of value? provider communication
(7) How can context-bound change during a major
service interactions and critical incident?
their co-created value be (8) Which opportunities can
substituted using service providers create
alternative safe value to delight customers
Table 2. co-creation spheres? (Barnes et al., 2020)?
Agenda for service
research (continued )CI Service ecosystem levels
Framework for
phases* Micro level Meso level Macro level service
ecosystem
(8) Which alterations do (9) What is the impact of new
servicescapes require to customer behavior on well-being
facilitate/maintain business continuity vs
actors’ RCE well-being business hibernation
during disasters? planning, and on employee
(9) Which services require well-being (Tuzovic and
an in-/decrease in Kabadayi, 2020)?
customer participation? (10) How can digital maturity
(10) How is the customer support service firms
experience altered during and their employees to
a pandemic (Klaus and better prepare for forced
Manthiou, 2020)? digitization (Bartsch
(11) What is the impact of et al., 2020)?
panic buying on other
customers’ challenges?
Post- (1) Which (new) service (1) How can the learnings (1) How can a service
incident consumer expectations from disasters be ecosystem recover from a
phase and behavior have translated into more major incident, and how
emerged/persisted and sustainable business can it build resilience for
why, and what is the models for service the future?
impact on well-being? industry? (2) What was the most
(2) If any, which level of (2) How can trust in effective and efficient
customer incivility has interacting safely with way of communicating
remained and what is the service businesses be with service businesses
impact on other customers’ rebuild? and service consumers?
perceived challenges?
(3) What can be learned to
better inform and train
service customers?
Across phases Across levels
(1) How can services better include the needs of vulnerable (1) To what degree do resources and
and marginalized consumers? challenges at the different system
(2) How can stigmatization of actors having had exposure to a levels affect one another?
disaster (e.g. by contracting a virus), or of certain (2) Which resources can be migrated
ethnicities (e.g. of country where virus emerged) be across system levels?
mitigated? (3) Which resources show stronger
(3) How can conspicuous service consumption be mitigated? linkages than others?
(4) What activates customer incivility (abusive behavior, (4) Which resources can be substituted and
fighting), and how can this be monitored and prevented? when?
(5) How can customer-to-customer relationships and social (5) How can negative spill-over of
capital as resource pools be better leveraged? balancing challenges with resources
(6) What role do customers’ contamination concerns in from one level to other levels be avoided
relation to unsafe value co-creation spheres play and how (Finsterwalder and Kuppelwieser,
can service providers respond adequately (Hazee and Van 2020)?
Vaerenbergh, 2020)? (6) What are the types of essential
(7) Which novel research approaches are available during services, service bricolage, service
times of crisis (Dodds and Hess, 2020)? practices and market shaping by
(8) How can customers and services be made more resilient companies amidst a pandemic
(Lang et al., 2020)? (Mollenkopf et al., 2020)?
(7) When and how does a critical incident-
related informal service economy
emerge, and what is its impact on the
resource pool?
Note(s): *Key: CI 5 Critical Incident Table 2.JOSM and after the incident by mitigating challenges and boosting resources across the service
ecosystem. Resources can include service (re-)design, such as a Dutch restaurant creating a
safe co-creation sphere by setting up pop-up glass houses outside to seat the diners while
being able to maintain social distancing (Reuters, 2020). Moreover, innovation, such as a
contact tracing app (NZ COVID Tracer, 2020) or open source instructions for 3D printing of
facemasks (Copper3d, 2020) provide additional resources. Furthermore, for example, when
travelling this can include providing more extensive resources at airports but also drawing
on resources of and value co-creation with the travelers. This can entail extensive screening at
check-in, including blood tests and taking the temperature, but also requiring facemasks on
board and quarantining upon arrival (New Zealand Herald, 2020).
As the examples show, some service providers are adhering to government regulations to
create safe co-creation spheres. However, understanding customer needs and utilizing
citizen–consumers to co-design such spheres is imperative to be able to properly cater to their
needs in times of disaster. Moreover, lessons learned from designing ad-hoc safe co-creation
spheres and from innovating should be capitalized on for the future.
Besides revising their regulatory frameworks for disasters, policy makers can provide
standards for service design that go beyond the generic recommendations, such as requesting
from retailers to signpost physical distancing for shoppers by providing two-meter distance
markers and signs. Here, clearer guidelines that apply to all businesses, such as creating one-
way systems in retail outlets and the enforcement of adhering to such design have to be more
clearly prescribed and policed. Such and other measures would enable citizen–consumers,
profit and not-for-profit organizations to better balance challenges and resources.
Conclusion
This paper embeds the COVID-19 occurrence in literature on disasters, pandemics, and crises
and bridges this body of work to service literature and well-being literature. The paper
introduces a novel RCE framework for service ecosystem well-being. Based on the notion of
individual challenges and resources available defining an actor’s well-being, this work
expands the concept of equilibria to the entire service ecosystem. Moreover, it defines the
concept of safe value c-creation spheres as having to provide cognitive, physical,
psychological, and social safety in times of major incidents, such as pandemics. Based on
the framework, the paper introduces a set of research questions service scholars should
address. While this work is a call to the service research community to engage with pandemics
and service-related matters, there might be a wider call in this to ponder – it is as if during a
disaster, such as COVID-19, planet earth appears to say: “You are not in charge, mankind. You
are just a part of a wider system”. Maybe, the bigger lesson from pandemics (and other
disasters) is to advance from COVID to coviability of social and ecological systems (Barriere et al.,
2019) by reconnecting society to the system it is embedded in and “internalizing nature rather
than externalizing our actions” (Barriere et al., 2019, p. XXXI). While potentially having to
physically remain distant, it is time for service researchers and practitioners to unite and
address the service-related challenges by carefully understanding customer needs and
behavior as well as repercussions for businesses during critical incidents and to draft and (re-)
design future co-creative encounters and services: T u ki te tahi – Stand as one!
References
Addo, P.C., Jiaming, F., Bakabbey, N.K. and Liangqiang, L. (2020), “COVID-19: fear appeal favoring
purchase behavior towards personal protective equipment”, The Service Industries Journal, doi:
10.1080/02642069.2020.1751823.Alvarez, F.E., Argente, D. and Lippi, F. (2020), A Simple Planning Problem for Covid-19 Lockdown, Report Framework for
No. W26981, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, doi: 10.3386/w26981.
service
Anderson, L., Ostrom, A.L., Corus, C., Fisk, R.P., Gallan, A.S., Giraldo, M., Mende, M., Mulder, M.,
Rayburn, S.W., Rosenbaum, M.S., Shirahada, K. and Williams, J.D. (2013), “Transformative
ecosystem
service research: an agenda for the future”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 8, well-being
pp. 1203-1210.
Anderson, R.M., Heesterbeek, H., Klinkenberg, D. and Hollingsworth, T.D. (2020), “How will country-
based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic?”, The Lancet,
Vol. 395 No. 10228, pp. 931-934.
Antara, A., Finsterwalder, J. and Shone, M.C. (2016), “Survival strategies of cultural service providers in a
post-earthquake context”, in Hall, C.M., Malinen, S., Vosslamber, R. and Wordsworth, R. (Eds),
Business and Post-Disaster Management: Business, Organisational and Consumer Resilience and
the Christchurch Earthquakes, Routledge, Abingdon, Milton Park, Oxford, pp. 65-78.
Baker, S.R., Bloom, N., Davis, S.J. and Terry, S.J. (2020a), Covid-induced Economic Uncertainty, Report
No. W26983, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, available at: https://
www.nber.org/papers/w26983.
Baker, S.R., Farrokhnia, R.A., Meyer, S., Pagel, M. and Yannelis, C. (2020b), How Does Household
Spending Respond to an Epidemic? Consumption during the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic, Report
No. W26949, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, available at: https://
www.nber.org/papers/w26949.
Barnes, D.C., Mesmer-Magnus, J., Scribner, L., Krallman, A. and Guidice, R. (2020), “Customer delight
during A crisis: understanding delight through the lens of transformative service research”,
Journal of Service Management, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0146.
Barriere, M.B.O., David, G., Douzal, V., Fargette, M., Libourel, T., Loireau, M., Pascal, L., Prost, C.,
Ravena-Ca~ nete, V., Seyler, F. and Morand, S. (2019), Coviability of Social and Ecological Systems:
Reconnecting Mankind to the Biosphere in an Era of Global Change, Springer International
Publishing, Cham.
uttgen, M. and Huber, A. (2020), “Leadership matters in crisis-induced digital
Bartsch, S., Weber, E., B€
transformation: how to lead service employees effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic”,
Journal of Service Management, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0160.
Batat, W. (2020), “How Michelin-starred chefs are being transformed into social bricoleurs? An online
qualitative study of luxury foodservice during the pandemic crisis”, Journal of Service
Management, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0142.
Beir~ao, G., Patrıcio, L. and Fisk, R.P. (2017), “Value co-creation in service ecosystems: investigating
health care at the micro, meso, and macro levels”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 227-249.
Benoit, S., Scherschel, K., Ates, Z., Nasr, L. and Kandampully, J. (2017), “Showcasing the diversity of
service research: theories, methods and success of service articles”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 810-836.
Berger, K.S. (2020), The Developing Person through the Lifespan, 11th ed., Worth Publishers, New
York, NY.
Bove, L. and Benoit, S. (2020), “Restrict, clean and protect: signalling consumer safety during the
pandemic and beyond”, Journal of Service Management, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0157.
Brown, K. (2020), “The pandemic is not a natural disaster-the coronavirus isn’t just a public-health
crisis. It’s an ecological one”, New Yorker, 13 April 2020, available at: https://www.newyorker.
com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-pandemic-is-not-a-natural-disaster (accessed 16 June 2020).
Cambridge Dictionary (2020a), “Lockdown”, available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/
english/lockdown (accessed 16 June 2020).
Cambridge Dictionary (2020b), “Crisis”, available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/
english/crisis (accessed 16 June 2020).JOSM CDC (2020a), “Introduction to epidemiology: epidemic disease occurrence”, available at: https://www.
cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section11.html (accessed 16 June 2020).
CDC (2020b), “Social distancing”, available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-
getting-sick/social-distancing.html (accessed 16 June 2020).
Chen, T., Dodds, S., Finsterwalder, J., Witell, L., Cheung, L., Falter, M., Garry, T., Snyder, H. and
McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2020), “Dynamics of wellbeing co-creation: a psychological ownership
perspective”, Journal of Service Management, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-09-2019-0297.
Cheung, L. and McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2015), “Resource integration in liminal periods: transitioning to
transformative service”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29 Nos 6/7, pp. 485-497.
Cohn, S.K. (2008), “Epidemiology of the Black Death and successive waves of plague”, Medical History,
Vol. 52 No. S27, pp. 74-100.
Concise Medical Dictionary (2015), “Epidemic”, in Martin, E. (Ed.), Concise Medical Dictionary, 9th ed.,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, available at: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/
acref/9780199687817.001.0001/acref-9780199687817-e-3258?rskey5yzwd0R&result51
(accessed 16 June 2020).
Copper3d (2020), “#HackThePandemic”, available at: https://copper3d.com/hackthepandemic/
(accessed 16 June 2020).
c, K., Popovic, S., Sarlija,
Cosi M. and Kesedzic, I. (2020), “Impact of human disasters and COVID-19
pandemic on mental health: potential of digital psychiatry”, Psychiatria Danubina, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 25-31.
COVID-19 Alert System (2020), “New Zealand’s 4-level alert system specifies measures to be taken
against COVID-19 at each level”, available at: https://covid19.govt.nz/alert-system/covid-19-
alert-system/#alert-level-4%C2%A0%E2%80%94-lockdown (accessed 16 June 2020).
Cummins, R. (2010), “Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: a
Synthesis”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1007/s10902-009-9167-0.
Davis, R., Smith, S.D. and Lang, B.U. (2017), “A comparison of online and offline gender and goal
directed shopping online”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 38 No. September,
pp. 118-125.
Dickson, J.P. and MacLachlin, D.L. (1990), “Social distance and shopping behavior”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 153-161.
Dodds, S. and Hess, A. (2020), “Adapting research methodology during COVID-19: lessons for
transformative service research”, Journal of Service Management, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0153.
Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J. and Sanders, L. (2012), “The challenge of defining wellbeing”,
International Journal of Wellbeing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 222-235.
Duffin, E. (2020), “Impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the global economy-statistics & facts”,
available at: https://www.statista.com/topics/6139/covid-19-impact-on-the-global-economy/
(accessed 16 June 2020).
ECDC (2020), “COVID-19 situation update worldwide”, available at: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/
geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases (accessed 3 August 2020).
EM-DAT (2020), “General classification”, available at: https://www.emdat.be/classification (accessed
16 June 2020).
Fiedler, F.E. and Garcia, J.E. (1987), New Approaches to Effective Leadership: Cognitive Resources and
Organizational Performance, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Fiksel, J. (2006a), “Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach”, Sustainability: Science,
Practice and Policy, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 14-21.
Fiksel, J. (2006b), Resilience and Sustainable Development. Trans-Atlantic Research & Development
Interchange on Sustainability (TARDIS), Estes Park, Colorado, 11-13 September 2006, available
at: http://tardis.tugraz.at/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media5tardis2006_04_fiksel.pdf (accessed
16 June 2020).Finsterwalder, J. (2010), “On shaky grounds? – customer needs and service provision after a major disaster in Framework for
the light of Maslow’s hierarchies”, New Zealand Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. No. 2, pp. 1-28.
service
Finsterwalder, J. (2017), “Refugee influx: repercussions and research agenda for service scholars”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 37 July, pp. 177-181.
ecosystem
Finsterwalder, J. and Hall, C.M. (2016), “Disasters, urban regeneration and the temporality of
well-being
servicescapes”, in Hall, C.M., Malinen, S., Vosslamber, R. and Wordsworth, R. (Eds), Business
and Post-Disaster Management: Business, Organisational and Consumer Resilience and the
Christchurch Earthquakes, Routledge, Abingdon, Milton ParkOxford, pp. 230-248.
Finsterwalder, J. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2011), “Co-creation by engaging beyond oneself: the
influence of task contribution on perceived customer-to-customer social interaction during a
group service encounter”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 607-618.
Finsterwalder, J. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2020), “Intentionality and transformative services:
wellbeing co-creation and spill-over effects”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 52, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101922.
Finsterwalder, J., Foote, J., Nicholas, G., Taylor, A., Hepi, M., Baker, V. and Dayal, N. (2017),
“Conceptual underpinnings for transformative research in a service ecosystems context to
resolve social issues – framework foundations and extensions”, The Service Industries Journal,
Vol. 37 Nos 11-12, pp. 766-782.
Foran, G. (2020), Air New Zealand – an Update from Our CEO, Email Communication, Auckland,
05 June 2020.
Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy Janet, R., Payne, A. and Govind, R. (2019), “Service ecosystem well-being:
conceptualization and implications for theory and practice”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 53 No. 12, pp. 2657-2691.
Glass, R.J., Glass, L.M., Beyeler, W.E. and Min, H.J. (2006), “Targeted social distancing designs for
pandemic influenza”, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 12 No. 11, pp. 1671-1681.
Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (2019a), “World at risk of pandemics that could kill millions”,
Panel warns, available at: https://www.preventionweb.net/news/view/67710 (accessed 16 June 2020).
Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (2019b), “A world at risk. Annual report on global
preparedness for health emergencies”, available at: https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_
report/GPMB_Annual_Report_English.pdf (accessed 16 June 2020).
GrabOne (2020), “Go NZ – supporting local business”, available at: https://new.grabone.co.nz/
christchurch/c/gonz?view5grid (accessed 16 June 2020).
Greenhalgh, T., Schmid, M.B., Czypionka, T., Bassler, D. and Gruer, L. (2020), “Face masks for the
public during the covid-19 crisis”, British Medical Journal, doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1435.
Gunderson, L.H. and Folke, C. (2005), “Resilience – now more than ever”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 22-26.
Hall, C.M., Scott, D. and G€ossling, S. (2020a), “Pandemics, transformations and tourism: be careful
what you wish for”, Tourism Geographies, doi: 10.1080/14616688.2020.1759131.
Hall, C.M., Prayag, G., Fieger, P. and Dyason, D. (2020b), “Beyond panic buying: consumption
displacement and COVID-19”, Journal of Service Management, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0151.
Harapan, H., Itoh, N., Yufika, A., Winardi, W., Keam, S., Te, H., Megawati, D., Hayati, Z., Wagner, A.L.
and Mudatsir, M. (2020), “Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a literature review”, Journal of
Infection and Public Health, Vol. 13, pp. 667-673.
Hazee, S. and Van Vaerenbergh, Y. (2020), “Customers’ contamination concerns: an integrative
framework and future prospects for service management”, Journal of Service Management, doi:
10.1108/JOSM-04-2020-0129.
Headey, B.W. and Wearing, A.J. (1989), “Personality, life events and subjective well-being: toward a
dynamic equilibrium model”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57, pp. 731-739,
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.731.You can also read
