In addressing research objective one, this section discusses the key elements of a V/R assessment. First, this section provides a gap analysis of the various vulnerability and resilience frameworks discussed in Section 2.7. This gap analysis (see Table 2-10) has been essential in identifying the key elements to be explored in a vulnerability/resilience framework. It incorporates the strengths of current frameworks and addresses the identified gap of climate change policies not being explicitly covered in any of the frameworks. Second, a brief overview of the established key elements, which will be tested in the case study of Luganville’s dive tourism system (research objective two), is provided.
79 Attributes/ elements Frameworks Gross anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability1 A process of human vulnerability to nature-triggered environmental extremes2 Guiding questions in the investigation of socio- ecological systems3 Sustainable Livelihood Framework for Tourism4 Vulnerability Framework5 Destination Sustainability Framework6 Regional Adaptation Framework7 Five-step tourism vulnerability assessment methodology8 Field of origin Systems approach: - Focus on sub-systems
- Focus on whole system
Multiple shocks & stressors
covered
Effect of climatic stimuli
Climate change policy analysis
Vulnerability factors:
- Tourism specific
- Economic
- Human & Social
- Physical & Natural
- Governance Adaptation options - Processes of adaptation - Typologies of adaptation Evaluation incorporated - Consumers - Other stakeholders Feedback Loops Place Scale - Geographic - Relational Time
1 Smit et al., 2000; 2 Hague & Burton, 2005; 3 Renaud et al., 2010; 4Shen et al.; 5 Turner et al. 2003; 6 Calgaro 2010; 7 Jopp et al. 2010; and 8 Moreno & Becken, 2009
Criteria is met Disaster and risk management Sustainability science Tourism management Source: Adapted from Calgaro (2010, p. 55).
80
2.9.1 Step 1: Tourism system
An understanding of the tourism system was common across all three V/R frameworks for tourism as each of them start out by identifying the systems characteristics. Identifying the system characteristics provides the context for further analysis.
2.9.2 Step 2: Risks and opportunities
This element is apparent in all the frameworks. In terms of the tourism frameworks, the key hazards are identified in Moreno and Becken’s (2009) framework, Calgaro’s (2010) framework looks at the exposure in terms of shocks and stressors, and in Jopp et al.’s (2009) framework the focus is not only on the risks, but also on the identification of opportunities arising. This step entails an identification of the shocks and stressors that have affected the tourism system, an understanding of how the climatic stimuli have an effect on these.
2.9.3 Step 3: Policy analysis
Apart from Calgaro’s (2010) framework, little emphasis has been paid to the policy environment and policies. Nevertheless, it has long been known that policies and the policy environment influence the tourism system (Gunn, 1994) and vice versa (Hall & Jenkins, 1995). Addressing climate change requires implementation of policies due to its nature as a multi-scale policy issue (Hall, 2009). Stakeholders of tourism systems are also becoming more involved in responses to climate change and tourism-specific responses are more apparent in nations with strong climate change policy frameworks (Becken & Hay, 2012). Nevertheless, none of the current V/R frameworks have a strong focus on the climate change adaptation policy environment. Consequently, in accordance with the literature review on tourism, climate and policy (Section 2.8), this step entails a policy analysis that seeks to: (1) observe the policy-making environment; (2) examine the policy-making mechanisms and implementation; (3) create an inventory of policies pertinent to PICT tourism climate adaptation; and (4) identify policy gaps and provide input for the evaluation of adaptive capacity of the tourism sector.
2.9.4 Step 4: Sensitivity and adaptive capacity
Once the exposure of the tourism system is understood (based on an analysis of step 1, 2 and partly 3), the overall vulnerability of the system can be identified through an understanding of the factors that either make the system sensitive or enhance the system’s adaptive capacity. This involves a discussion of factors within the following
81 five categories: (1) tourism-specific; (2) economic; (3) human and social; (4) physical and environmental; and (5) governance processes.
2.9.5 Step 5: Adaptation
This phase is based on the knowledge gained from the outcome of the previous phases. Adaptation, as Becken and Hay (2007) emphasise, can if implemented successfully, reduce the vulnerability of a system to climate change impacts and make the system more resilient. Consequently, this step aims to look at current adaptation actions and to propose new adaptation actions that aim to further build the resilience of climate change adaptation. These can be divided into 5 categories: (1) technical; (2), business management; (3) behavioural; (4) policy; and (5) research and education.
2.9.6 Step 6: Evaluation
Not all adaptation measures are successful, resulting in maladaptation. Consequently, an evaluation of the adaptation measures is crucial in order to ensure that the resilience of the tourism system is built. This step recognises the feedback loops of the system. In this thesis, this step can only look at any past adaptation measures that may have been implemented in Vanuatu, affecting Luganville’s dive tourism system, but it is still a vital step to emphasise.
2.9.7 Place, scale and time
As a sector that is largely dependent on natural resources (Gössling & Hall, 2006) and is particularly climate sensitive (Scott et al., 2008), the link between the environment and tourism can be studied at different levels, considering time, place and scale (Briassoulis & van der Straaten, 2000). Each is discussed individually below.
2.9.7.1 Time
The environment is always changing and this is never uniform either across time or space (Gössling & Hall, 2006). There can be direct as well as indirect impacts of climate change, but the effect of these impacts may vary in intensity and/or breadth over time, including differentiation between seasons, years, and decades. Furthermore, adaptation is also not a measure which happens instantaneously, so the link between vulnerability and adaptive capacity relies very much on the timescales of the hazards concerned (Brooks et al., 2005).
82
2.9.7.2 Place
A detailed understanding of place is also crucial, as some elements of the socio-cultural fabric may either increase or decrease the sensitivity of the system. Consequently, the vulnerability of a system is very much specific to system and place (Smit & Wandel, 2006). Furthermore, identifying the limitations of the system in terms of scale may also have an effect on the outcomes of the study.
2.9.7.3 Scale
This can refer to the scale of which the assessment or investigation is undertaken. In line with Patterson et al. (2006), Figure 2-20 presents a selection of spatial scales applying to the case study of Luganville, covering: 1) global; 2) regional (e.g. Pacific region); 3) national (e.g. Vanuatu); 4) local/community (e.g. Luganville, Espiritú Santo); and 5) site-specific (e.g. President Coolidge) scales. Climate change adaptation will need to be implemented at all these spatial scales (Urwin & Jordan, 2008) to ensure an effective response. Relational scale is also important to assess in order to understand how opportunities are created across scale through various relationships between stakeholders.
FIGURE 2-20: A SELECTION OF SPATIAL SCALES APPLYING TO THE CASE STUDY OF LUGANVILLE’S DIVE TOURISM SYSTEM