Tourism and Earthquakes. Группа авторов
Derissen et al. (2011) proposed four different potential relationships between the two concepts: resilience of a system is necessary but insufficient for sustainability, resilience of a system is sufficient but not necessary for sustainability, resilience of the system is neither necessary nor sufficient for sustainability and resilience of a system is both necessary and sufficient for sustainability. However, the capacity for organizations and destinations to be agile and adaptive in responding to rapid, unexpected change is one clear point of difference between the concepts of resilience and sustainability (Espiner et al., 2017).
Espiner et al. (2017) argue that systems can be resilient without being sustainable, while if a system is sustainable, it is implicitly assumed that it is resilient to change. Destinations cannot be sustainable if they are also not resilient (Espiner et al., 2017). This is particularly the case when destinations are hit by disasters. The initial focus is usually on rebuilding the ‘hard’ infrastructure such as roads, sewage and airports to enable locals to have access to amenities and social infrastructure. However, consideration must also be given to the long-term needs of the community and its ability to cope with other sudden as well as incremental change. Yet, consideration of social infrastructure related to health and wellbeing is often secondary, while the tourism industry often even fails to provide a living wage in many situations, with both of these factors (among others) having significant implications for both community and destination resilience and sustainability (Pizzo, 2015; Lew et al., 2016; Hall et al., 2018).
Different disasters require different spatial and time frames for policies and action (Pizzo, 2015). Though the two are not mutually exclusive, resilience studies in tourism seem to almost suggest that the same resilience building approach can be applied to every type of disaster. Also, resilience thinking often lacks depth in analysing the social dimension, including the political economy of resource and power distribution, and the consequences of uneven patterns of resource use over space and time (Miller et al., 2010). For example, although social capital is described as a positive resource that allows individuals and communities to cope and bounce back, social relationships and networks can also foster social exclusion in the rebuilding process, manifested through dominant power structures and historically embedded cultural norms. The dark side of social capital must be acknowledged. This was evident across the 2004 tsunami affected destinations in Thailand (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008). In addition, many adaptive management strategies fail to be successfully implemented or bring about transformative changes due to existing governance structures (Folke et al., 2010). What appears to be a resilient structure can hold power structures, inequities and exclusion in a place that can create rigidity traps (Folke et al., 2010) and lead to substantial questions about the validity of any earthquake disaster responses.
Framework for the Book
As noted in the above discussion, the understanding of disasters can be framed in terms of planning or policy cycles and the response to hazard events (Hall, 2002, 2010; Gurwitch et al., 2004; Blakely, 2012; Hernantes et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2017). This approach has been used to position the chapters in the present volume in terms of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, with the latter stage including aspects of rebuilding, redeveloping and renewal, as well as post-event planning which brings the process full circle but aiming to mitigate future events (Table 1.2). However, it should be noted that many aspects of these stages are not discrete and key concepts, such as social capital, communication and trust in institutions, run across all stages. Chapter 2 by Martini and Platania looks at how resilience and preparedness of tourism operators in Mount Etna is shaped by the experience of previous earthquake events, perception of risk and institutional trust and social capital. Some similar themes are picked up in Chapter 3 by Das and Chakrabarty in their discussion of communication systems and earthquake preparedness for the tourism sector in Nepal. Subadra (Chapter 4) examines the mitigation of earthquake and tsunami risk in coastal Bali and reinforces the importance of effective communication of risk and appropriate response to tourists.
Table 1.2 Major focus of chapters in relation to stages of disaster management cycle
Chapters 5 to 7 are primarily focused on the response to earthquakes. Chapter 5 by Amore examines the expectations and disillusionment of tourism-relevant stakeholders in Christchurch following the 2010–2011 earthquake sequence and how this affects the trajectory of postearthquake recovery. Chapter 6 by Morpeth discusses response in a more compressed time frame in discussing the implications of the role of tourism in the immediate aftermath of the 2010 Earthquake in Haiti. In Chapter 7 Hashimoto and Telfer provide a more extended coverage of tourism industry post-disaster response, in their overview of how tourism businesses assisted evacuees after the 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes in Japan. The three chapters taken together are also interesting because of the different perspectives they provide of the role that tourism can play in the aftermath of earthquake related disasters.
Chapters 8 to 10 move from the response stage to more of a focus on recovery. Chapter 8 by Mardiah et al. examines the contribution of handicraft shopping tourism to economic recovery after the 2006 Jogjakarta Earthquake, with particular focus on the nature of government and institutional interventions, the development of a recovery network, and ongoing issues of risk perceptions. Chapter 9 by Fang et al. looks at the interrelationships between recovery and resilience and their interplay at individual, organizational and destination scales with respect to tourism entrepreneurs in Kaikōura, New Zealand, following the November 2016 earthquakes. Finally, Chapter 10 by Wright looks at the controversial issue of post-earthquake ‘dark’ and ‘ghost’ in L’Aquila, Italy. The three chapters collectively highlight the complexity of the tourism system’s response to earthquake disasters and the difficult relationships that may develop between tourism and non-tourism recovery goals. The final chapter by Prayag and Hall (Chapter 11) reinforce the major themes of the book and highlight some of the significant research gaps that exist in research on tourism and earthquakes.
Earthquakes and tsunamis undoubtedly have a major impact on communities and destinations and those that experience them and perceptions of risk and place. One of the great weaknesses of much tourism research on the effects of earthquakes is that it only examines a particular moment of the earthquake disaster, response and recovery cycle. Comprehensive long-term overviews are limited or are still being put into place. However, the present assembly of chapters hopefully at least provide some indication of the ongoing response of tourism, tourists and communities to the challenges that earthquakes pose in at-risk destinations and the social, economic and environmental benefits that improved planning and preparedness may bring.
References
Adger, W.N. (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related?. Progress in Human Geography 24 (3), 347–364.
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.W. (2002) Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review 27 (1), 17–40.
Aldrich, D.P. (2012) Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post Disaster Recovery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Aldrich, D.P. and Meyer, M.A. (2015) Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist 59 (2), 254–269.
Allenby, B. and Fink, J. (2005) Toward inherently secure and resilient societies. Science 309 (5737), 1034–1036.
Amini Hosseini, K., Hosseinioon, S. and Pooyan, Z. (2013) An investigation into the socioeconomic aspects of two major earthquakes in Iran. Disasters 37 (3), 516–535.
Amore, A. and Hall, C.M. (2016a) From governance to meta-governance in tourism? Re-incorporating politics, interests and values in the analysis of tourism governance. Tourism Recreation Research 41 (2), 109–122.
Amore, A. and Hall, C.M. (2016b) ‘Regeneration is the focus now’: Anchor projects and delivering a new CBD for Christchurch. In C.M. Hall, S. Malinen, R. Vosslamber and R. Wordsworth (eds) Business and Post-disaster Management: Business, Organisational and Consumer Resilience and the Christchurch Earthquakes (pp. 181–199). Abingdon: Routledge.
Amore,