This article was downloaded by: [Shanghai Normal University]On: 24 May 2014, At: 23:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Current Issues in TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

An integrated methodologicalframework: engaging local communitiesin Arctic tourism development andcommunity-based adaptationEva Kaján aa Department of Geography , University of Oulu , Oulu , FinlandPublished online: 30 May 2012.

To cite this article: Eva Kaján (2013) An integrated methodological framework: engaging localcommunities in Arctic tourism development and community-based adaptation, Current Issues inTourism, 16:3, 286-301, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2012.685704

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2012.685704

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

An integrated methodological framework: engaging localcommunities in Arctic tourism development and community-basedadaptation

Eva Kajan∗

Department of Geography, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

(Received 16 December 2011; final version received 10 April 2012)

The Arctic region is experiencing transformation due to climate change, generating boththreats and opportunities to local communities. In addition to warming, the signs ofclimate change are expected to materialise through an increase in the frequency andintensity of weather extremes. Climate-change adaptation (CCA) and disaster riskreduction (DRR) have so far operated fairly independently, but there is an emergingneed to examine their synergies due to their similarities. Tourism in the Arctic is alsoincreasingly being encouraged by the different levels of government and seen as animportant tool for economic development. The special features of Arctic tourisminclude a high dependency on natural resources, making it vulnerable to the effects ofclimate change. This article introduces a methodological framework mergingelements from DRR, CCA and tourism development with a focus on community-based data-acquiring technique. Its practicality is emphasised through the focus oncurrent and past community responses to weather anomalies and consequentadaptation measures. It additionally explores the relationship between theenvironment, community and tourism and aims to understand the characteristics of acommunity. Two case-study communities in Finnish Lapland demonstrate itsrelevance and contribution to CCA and to wider sustainable Arctic tourismdevelopment.

Keywords: methodological framework; climate change; community-based; adaptation;Arctic

1. Introduction

Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC, 2007a, 2012) projects an increase inthe frequency, intensity, duration and spatial extent of weather extremes due to climatechange. Although the focus in climate-change adaptation (CCA) is generally anticipatory(Tompkins & Adger, 2004), decreasing vulnerability to single weather extremes shouldalso be part of the adaptation processes (World Meteorological Organisation [WMO],2011). In terms of climate change, extreme weather is expected to have a greater overallimpact than the increase in average temperatures (Perry, 2005) and additionally have agreater impact on sectors which have close links with climate such as tourism (IPCC,2012). In addition to climatic extremes, the increasing variability in climate is an importantfactor motivating and generating responses in human systems (Berrang-Ford, Ford, &Paterson, 2011).

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

∗Email: eva.kajan@oulu.fi

Current Issues in Tourism, 2013Vol. 16, No. 3, 286–301, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2012.685704

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

The Arctic regions are considered extremely vulnerable to current and futureclimate change (IPCC, 2007a). In this article, the Arctic is understood in its broadsense including the communities of North which embrace the Arctic lifestyle throughthe common socio-economics such as a high dependency on and extensive use ofnatural resources (Arctic Environment Protection Strategy, 1997). Due to this depen-dency, the Arctic economies are facing challenges and opportunities generated by globalenvironmental change (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna [CAFF], 2010; Forbes,2011).

In terms of local economics in the Arctic, tourism is increasingly seen as a tool foreconomic development and being favoured and encouraged by national and regional gov-ernments (Nutall, 2011). In fact, the number of tourists nowadays exceeds host popu-lations in many Arctic destinations (Hall & Saarinen, 2010), generating both negativeimpacts and opportunities in many Arctic communities. Seeing that Arctic tourism ishighly dependent on natural resources, the extreme weather elements and weatheranomalies can affect tourism in the region. In destination management, it is vital to con-sider and analyse the extreme weather elements, as these events can threaten life, createdifficulties in accessing destinations, cause damage to infrastructure, increase the cost ofoperations, generate socio-cultural impacts (Martin, 2005; Ritchie, 2008; Simpson,Gossling, Scott, Hall, & Gladinet al., 2008) and interrupt the everyday lives of locals.Climate change can therefore jeopardise the development of the destination wheretourism acts both as a driving force of the economy and as an incentive for conservation(Moreno & Becken, 2009).

Climate-change impacts in general are highly dependent on the vulnerability, resilienceand the adaptive capacity of the system under study (IPCC, 2007b), causing some impactsaltering resource systems significantly. Therefore, adaptation to these changes wouldrequire restructuring and reorganising local economies and societies (Tompkins & Adger,2004). Seeing that adaptive capacity can vary between regions and even households(Smit & Pilifosova, 2003), the ongoing environmental and social change requires responsestrategies and management approaches that are flexible and inclusive and take into accountthe special characters of communities and individuals (Tompkins & Adger, 2004). A varietyof vulnerabilities linked with both extreme weather events and climate changes suggest aneed for systematic linkages between both fields in order to advance sustainable develop-ment (Birkmann & von Teichman, 2010).

These factors bring forward the core argument of this article, which seeks to present amethodological framework that combines elements from disaster risk reduction (DRR) andCCA, and consequently provides a data-acquiring framework to enhance the adaptivecapacity of tourism-dependent communities. The components in the framework are notnew but are combined in a novel way to create a holistic participatory assessmentmethod that links local economic development (e.g. tourism) with the current threats andopportunities generated by climate change at community level.

Rather than being scenario-driven and future-orientated, the vulnerability approachused in this article is experience-based. Past experiences with climate extremes andweather anomalies can contribute to our understanding of managing adaptation effectively(IPCC, 2012). Additionally, assessing the current vulnerability with respect to the existingclimate variability and extremes can help to create an adaptation baseline, against which it ispossible to measure the effectiveness of development of adaptation policy (Burton, Huq,Lim, Pilifosova, & Schipper, 2002). Due to the practical approach of the framework, itsbottom-up participatory approach and the focus on local knowledge, the results canassist in local and regional tourism development and contribute to sustainable development.

Current Issues in Tourism 287

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

Considering the increasing role of nature-based tourism in the Arctic, the methodology hasbeen applied in a pilot study in two communities in Finnish Lapland though it can beapplied in any region.

2. Linking CCA with disaster risk management

Local knowledge in the Arctic, which is based on experiencing and seeing the change anddeveloping consequent coping mechanisms, creates an instrumental basis for developingadaptation strategies (IPCC, 2007b). If tourism in the Arctic aims to be sustainable,locals must be given opportunities to participate in and gain financially from tourism,and decision-makers need to integrate local knowledge into planning processes, as itoffers an important avenue for participation in local tourism development options andCCA (Stewart, Draper, & Johnston, 2005; Timothy, 1999). Such participation avenuesare often offered by different community-based approaches.

Community-based adaptation to climate change shares several similar characteristicswith other participatory approaches such as community-based DRR, which has offered alongstanding tradition in response to climate variability and seasonal changes (IPCC,2007b). Still, CCA and DRR have so far operated fairly independently in terms of research,funding mechanisms, political processes and policy frameworks, but there is an emergingneed for more collaboration to examine synergies, to identify opportunities and to developjoint agendas between these components (Thomalla, Downing, Spanger-Siegfried, Han, &Rockstrom, 2006).

Adaptation is defined in a practical sense to be local or community-based adjustments toface the changing conditions which are constrained by broader economic–social–politicalarrangements (Smit & Wandel, 2006). As climate-change impacts are more drastic in thePolar regions (see IPCC, 2007a), a great deal of attention has been paid to Arctic commu-nities’ ability to adapt to these changes (see Berkes & Jolly, 2001; Berman, Nicolson,Kofinas, Tetlichi, & Martin, 2004; Ford et al., 2008; Pearce et al., 2010; Riedlinger &Berkes, 2001) but without a specific focus on tourism.

Although research in tourism and climate change has rapidly expanded during the pastdecade, the adaptation studies still largely focus on business-related adaptation (see Dawson& Scott, 2010; Hall, 2006; Moen & Fredman, 2007; Saarinen & Tervo, 2006; Scott,Dawson, & Jones, 2008; Scott & McBoyle, 2007; Tervo-Kankare & Saarinen, 2011) andon the potentially changing behaviour of the tourist (see Dawson, Stewart, Lemelin, &Scott, 2010; Gossling, Scott, Hall, Ceron, & Dubois, 2012; Landauer, Sievanen, & Neuvo-nen, 2009). Communities and individuals dependent on tourism are also at risk and need toplan for future changes in tourism demand and supply (Dawson & Scott, 2010). However,host communities’ ability to adjust to climate-induced changes and to extreme weatherremains still mostly unexplored in tourism, though some studies have begun to emerge(see Stewart, Draper, & Dawson, 2011).

Community-based DRR is understood as an approach that contributes to adaptation toclimate change by reducing vulnerability to natural hazards by increasing human, socialand environmental capacity and by improving infrastructure (Council of Europe & UnitedNations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction [UNISDR], 2011). Consequently, thecrucial area of commonality between CCA and DRR lies in the shared focus on communityvulnerability reduction and in the improvement of resilience (Gero, Meheux, & Dominey-Howes, 2011). These two overlapping fields have recently attracted attention from theresearch community (see Birkmann & von Teichman, 2010; Gero et al., 2011; McBean &Ajibade, 2009; Mercer, 2010; Thomalla et al., 2006; van Aalst, Cannon & Burton, 2008)

288 E. Kajan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

and from the IPCC (2012). CAA and DRR also share similarities in their approach to notreally being sectors themselves, but they must be implemented through other sectors’ policiessuch as environmental management, for example (UNISDR, 2009). Implementing adaptivemeasures independently from existing policies has proved to be ineffective but candevelop to be successful if they are integrated into broader management processes (Smit &Pilifosova, 2003). The need for combining these two concepts can further be reasoned bythe fact that communities themselves do not differentiate between the two (Gero et al., 2011).

As the focus of DRR is continuously based upon the experience at community level, ithas a full range of established tools, whereas the CCA only has a limited number of themunder development. Against this background, it appears to be more effective to incorporateCCA with the existing DRR tools rather than develop them separately (Mercer, 2010). Suchtools include vulnerability capacity assessment (VCA) which was originally developed byInternational Federation of Red Cross (IFRC) to assess communities’ resilience againstnatural disasters, but is being increasingly used to evaluate climate-change-induced vulner-ability at the community level (IFRC, 2006). The toolbox provided by the VCA acts as abase for the following framework.

3. Integrated methodological framework

3.1 Developing a framework

Climate¼change adaptation research has generated a variety of conceptual vulnerabilityframeworks (see for example Ford & Smit, 2004; Fussel, 2007; Smit & Wandel, 2006;Turner II et al., 2003), which address and explain the analytical relationship between thecurrent and future vulnerabilities and adaptive capacity. However, frameworks andmodels combining tourism and climate change are still a few, even though there seemsto be a growing need to address the particular requirements and needs of tourism industryin climate-change studies. The current tourism-related frameworks in climate-changeresearch focus on regional destinations (see Jopp, DeLacy, & Mair, 2010), key stakeholders(see Turton et al., 2010), coastal areas (see Moreno & Becken, 2009), ski resorts (see Scott,McBoyle, & Mills, 2003), nature-based tourism (Nyaupane & Chhetri, 2009) and touristperceptions (Gossling et al., 2012), and some being more general in nature (see Becken& Hay, 2007; Dawson, Maher, & Slocombe, 2007; Patterson, Bastianoni, & Simpson,2006). With the exception of Moreno and Becken (2009), most of these are conceptualin nature rather than focus on assessment methodology, and none of these explicitly concen-trate on a practical data collection method at community level.

The methodological framework (Figure 1) is developed through converging elementsfrom CCA, DRR and tourism development. Assessing the current vulnerability buildsupon the communities’ experiences with climatic risks, the adaptive mechanisms andresource management strategies employed to confront the related risks (Ford & Smit,2004). More specifically, the objective of the framework is to assess the current vulner-ability of Arctic communities in relation to tourism development and climate change byusing methods originally initiated by IFRC.

The outer ring of the framework represents the three most essential themes which weredeveloped. As the community is at the centre of the framework, it firstly aims to understandthe spatial borders, the common norms, communication between the members and the sharedvalues of communities. Secondly, the framework seeks to examine the interdependentrelationship between the communities, natural resources and tourism. The stronger therelationship, the potentially greater the implications of climate change are to the community.Thirdly, it aims to discover and to identify the perceived changes that have already taken place

Current Issues in Tourism 289

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

in the environment and to understand the effects of those changes and weather anomalies onlocal communities. The framework gathers information about the past and current weatherextremes, natural disasters, weather patterns and long-term climate trends, which accordingto IPCC (2007a) can be helpful in understanding local adaptive mechanisms.

Active participation can be best supported through using a range of participative tools(Few, Brown, & Tompkins, 2007) which in the framework are present through maps and acalendar in combination of a historical outline and a livelihood portfolio. These were takenfrom the original VCA (see IFRC, 2007) and then applied to tourism-dependent commu-nities through household-based interviews. The information to be gained through the par-ticipatory exercises contributes to three themes to varying degrees. In general, theframework combines both socio-economic and biophysical implications, as vulnerabilityassessments which investigate both of these dimensions lay an important foundation forlocal adaptation strategies in tourism (Jopp et al., 2010).

3.2 Characteristics of community

Global change is more often felt at the local level where the communities are not only thetransmitters and the receivers of the forces of change but also the centres of resistance

Figure 1. Integrated methodological framework for tourism development and community-basedadaptation.

290 E. Kajan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

(Richards & Hall, 2000). This important role emphasises the need to understand communityperceptions and responses to social and environmental changes (Pearce, Moscardo, & Ross,1996) and to see whether these changes are embraced or resilience valued, for example. Theterm ‘community’ is an intangible and a dynamic term which is difficult to define seeingthat the local groupings are constantly moving and shifting their objectives (Fabricius,2004). More generally, it can be understood through three core elements of a spatial unit,as a distinct social structure and as a set of shared interests and norms (Agrawal &Gibson, 1999), which are also present in the framework.

The conceptualisation of the ‘community’ within the framework begins by asking theparticipants to draw community borders on a map which is an effective way to identifyhow the locals perceive their community and where their community borders are located.The synthesis of the borders will give an estimate to the geographical borders of the com-munity by the community and contribute to the element of ‘spatial unit’.

Adaptation is a dynamic social process where the ability of societies to adapt is partlydefined by the ability to act collectively. Collective action is often at the centre of manydecisions in natural resource management and for that reason it is also relevant toanalyse the degree of homogeneity within the community and dimensions that are relevantto natural resource management (Adger, 2003; Agrawal & Gibson, 2001). Additional ques-tions provoking answers concerning internal conflicts, local interest groups and the exten-siveness of community voluntary work can reveal local networks and provide informationfor the elements of shared norms, common interests and community structure. Communitystructure may be influenced by external factors such as in-migration due to typical season-ality related to Arctic tourism or by outside factors such as the length of residency, the localpopulation mix and the level of local involvement in tourism development (Boyd & Singh,2003). Both historical and future development may in fact help to understand the vulner-ability (Schroter, Polsky, & Patt, 2005) and by aiming to create a historical outline inrelation to the most important milestones in local history can create a sense on what isfound important by the community members.

Constant interaction among the community members might have developed particularmethods of managing the resources near which they are located, giving relevance to thecommunity’s way of communicating. Asking the participants to mark the most importantlocal events in the calendar and by letting them to identify the past and present conflictsites on the map can assist in understanding the shared community level interests andnorms. These can be particularly pertinent factors if those encourage cooperation, prohibitsome actions or in contrast promote exploitations (Agrawal & Gibson, 2001). Thus, theidentification of unique local features and seeking to recognise not only the separatingfactors but also unifying issues with the help of historical outline, the calendar and mapswill further the knowledge on and understanding about the ‘community’.

3.3 Interdependency

Natural resources, tourism industry and the community can generate exchanges and syner-gies between the living and the non-living components and create communities where theseelements are interlinked and one is not able to succeed without the other (Hall, 2000;Murphy, 1985). The degree of dependency on natural resources and the way they aremanaged can be a driving force behind vulnerability to climate change.

This interdependent relationship between three components is explored within the fra-mework through a multitude of exercises which study the perceived importance of theenvironment in socio-psychological and economic terms both at the individual and

Current Issues in Tourism 291

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

community levels. The toolbox provides a distinct method to understand individual house-holds’ dependency on the natural resources and tourism in both issues.

The calendar can be a very specific and accurate tool for understanding linkagesbetween seasonality, household incomes and exposure to extreme weather. The participantsare asked to use the calendar to indicate the beginning and the end of the local year, thetimes when they have uncertain income and those weather elements that affect theirlives. The calendar can assist in understanding how the locals perceive the yearly cyclein the community and what time of the year is the most vulnerable in economic termsdue to lack of income. In addition, in a community which is economically reliant on thenatural resources, it can indicate times when the potential income is at its peak, but thesevere weather elements hinder the income. On the other hand, certain natural phenomenacan signify the beginning of the financial year for households. Such a phenomenon can, forexample, be the arrival of snow. The seasonal calendar exercise can be linked with the live-lihood portfolio, which refers to the combination of potentially many different flows ofincome that affect the household. By aiming to build a household-based ‘livelihood portfo-lio’, one can highlight, for example, the limited economic opportunities during the year andwhether those opportunities are dependent on natural resources or natural phenomena.Using both maps and the calendar can also help identifying local sites which areexposed to extreme weather elements, their importance to local tourism development andto the locals and the most vulnerable times of the year.

Although the economic value of natural resources are frequently considered in environ-mental management and conservation, the community values are often less explored(Raymond et al., 2009). Thus, the mapping exercise draws attention to any existing land-use conflict sites and personal interest sites and helps to recognise locations that are per-ceived locally important. The locals can have a multifaceted and complex relationshipwith the nature due to the constant interaction with it, whereas the visitors’ (e.g. tourists)perceptions are often composed based on simply viewing it (Tuan, 1974). Places withhigh personal value to the locals may reveal potentially challenging areas or display oppor-tunities for future tourism development and natural resource management.

3.4 Climatic variability and local knowledge

One of the fundamentals in adaptation and DRR is the focus on local knowledge, whichempowers the locals. ‘Local knowledge’ refers to the information gained from the commu-nity members irrespective of culture or inter-generational history (Pearce et al., 2009). Inte-grating different sources of knowledge and creating linkages between specific sightings canbe a powerful method to uncover changes related to climate change (Weatherhead, Gear-heard, & Barry, 2010).

Information about the climatic variability and its effects on community is exploredthrough maps and a calendar, where the maps help to identify the affected locations andthe calendar the most vulnerable times of the year. Creating a historical outline by usingboth observed and historical data can help to evaluate the likelihood of the events tooccur in the future (Becken & Hay, 2007) and by knowing their environment well, thelocals can see and react to changes more quickly than managers, policy-makers andresearchers (Fabricius, 2004). Shifts in physical geography and biology will affect howthe attractions are perceived, as the scenic attractions change (Johnston, 2006), whereas cli-matic extremes can influence infrastructure and tourism services and are often linked withcertain seasons. Communities specify their levels of perceived risk, but in order to receivemore precise information to base the decision on, the community perceptions should be

292 E. Kajan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

combined with more objective statistics (Ritchie, 2008) about changes in environmentalconditions.

The methodological framework produces information directly to the general frameworkof adaptation studies by identifying current and past coping mechanisms and points of vul-nerability which create an important base for predicting future adaptive capacity. By addingthe elements of expected changes in natural and social systems and the adaptation needs andoptions will reveal the potential future adaptive capacity and vulnerability of communities(Ford & Smit, 2004; Smit & Wandel, 2006).

4. Applying the framework

4.1 Understanding community

To test the framework in context-specific surroundings, a pilot study was carried out in twocommunities in Northern Lapland in Finland (Figure 2). All together 18 semi-structuredhousehold-based interviews were conducted among the community members who live per-manently in the area and are either directly or indirectly involved with tourism. The inter-viewing session included the map and calendar exercises, where the participants were askedto draw and mark various things on them according to the methods specified earlier.

Both communities are situated north of the Arctic Circle in northern Finland. Saariselkais located in the municipality of Inari with a permanent population of 353, whereasKilpisjarvi, located in Enontekio, has a population of 131 (Statistics Finland, 2011).Both communities enjoy a close proximity to protected areas, by which direct and indirectlocal economic impacts are significant. Urho Kekkonen National Park in Saariselka is esti-mated to have generated E22 million locally in 2010, whereas the Wilderness Area andMalla Strict Nature Reserve in Kilpisjarvi generated E5.3 million, in the same year(Metsahallitus, 2011).

In both case-study communities, the results show that the physical borders of the com-munities stretch beyond the constructed areas and in several occasions the respondentsincluded parts of the national park, wilderness areas and Strict Nature Reserve within thecommunity, indicating a close relationship with nature. Some challenges were met in thecases where the community borders were perceived to extend far beyond the maps.

Establishing a complete historical outline was hindered in both cases by both commu-nities having a number of people coming from somewhere else. In fact, in Kilpisjarvi only3% of the community members are retired, which is way below the national average (26%)(Jarvinen & Heikkila, 2010), indicating how little local knowledge remains in the commu-nity. This fact also prevented properly identifying the past adaptation mechanisms to cli-matic extremes. In terms of historical development, the locals in Kilpisjarvi identified thearrival of the most basic infrastructure as the most important milestones in the history,whereas Saariselka stated the increasing role of businesses and international marketingbeing the historical benchmarks, indicating a more established and developed stage oftourism.

Several associations and interest groups in both communities signified an activenetwork of community members and added to the unifying factors of the communitiesalong with other factors such as small community size. Kilpisjarvi exhibited multiplesigns of conflicts and disagreements between interest groups and these issues were mani-fested through diverging interests in land development among tourism industry, reindeerherding and conservation, whereas Saariselka showed to be more homogenous communityin relation to land-usage.

Current Issues in Tourism 293

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

Local support for tourism development may affect the tourists’ perceptions of the des-tination (Gallarza, Gil, & Calderon, 2002), and according to Gruber (2010), communitieswhich have a homogenous structure, a history of cooperation and common interests andnorms are more likely to succeed in managing their natural resources. The individuals ofcommunities are more likely to engage in the process if they are unsatisfied with thecurrent situation, value their community and are dependent on the natural resources. Prefer-ably, the community does not have current severe disagreements which could lead to dis-turbance in cooperation. Despite the conflicts in Kilpisjarvi, nature was identified to be themain factor separating the community from the rest of the region, contributing to the

Figure 2. Case-study sites.

294 E. Kajan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

concept of community identity. Similarly, the unique planning of Saariselka was stated to bea significant contributor to the village’s identity.

4.2 Tourism, community and natural resources

In both communities, the economic dependency of natural resources is present through theincreasing development of nature-based tourism, which again is largely dependent onprotected areas. The calendar exercises assisted in highlighting the importance oftourism-related income in households and helped to understand the strong link betweentourism-generated seasonality and what is understood as the local year. Local year begansimultaneously with the tourist season and equally ended at the same time.

In Saariselka, tourism was found to be the sole income generator, whereas in Kilpisjarvithe role of administrative jobs was also noted, indicating a more emerging dependency ontourism. Although the households’ dependency on tourism was high in both communities,the majority of the respondents (13/18) had multiple-skills-based and additional pro-fessions, indicating some flexibility.

The role of nature was found to be vital in both case-study locations and considered tobe an important contributing factor for the well-being of the individuals and the commu-nities. In simple terms, well-being refers to the quality of life and the level of sustainabilityfrom the community’s perspective (Beeton, 2006). Maps were essential in identifying localtourism development conflict sites and important personal interest sites in both commu-nities, indicating potential and existing challenges in the development. Natural resources’importance in local economics was identified and its role as a local strength recognised.The importance of the natural resources was indisputable and was considered extendingto all aspects of life both through work and free-time.

In most cases, rural people recognise the economic benefits of natural systems and theyalso have a broader relationship with the environment than that of a purely monetary one(Turner, 2004). The natural resource management can provide the communities a way toreduce risks and help to carry them through in the face of economic difficulties and climaticcycles (Fabricius, 2004), increasing the interest and the sense of ownership even with thestate-owned land.

4.3 Extreme weather and perceptions of change

The identification of the effects of extreme weather events and perceptions of climatechange took place by using maps and the calendar. The participants used maps to show dis-tinct sites that were vulnerable to floods and snowstorms in Kilpisjarvi, and though neitherof these events was currently considered crucial, any increase in these events could createdifficulties in the community. In Saariselka, the cancelled flights due to snowstorms wereconsidered a point of vulnerability and heavy winds were closing ski lifts and blockingthe cross-country skiing tracks. Tourists were cited to enjoy the extreme colds in bothlocations as it was considered exotic. Kilpisjarvi has also perceived an increase in thenumber of thunderstorms during the summers, which has created challenges in infrastruc-ture. The power cuts were causing the loss of data and telecommunications with consequenteffects on tourism services and the locals’ ability to conduct their chores.

The calendar exercise revealed the most vulnerable times of the year to weatherextremes though the term ‘good weather’ is entirely relative in tourism (Martin, 2005),with the same applying to the concept of ‘extreme weather’ too. This exercise was chal-lenged by the fact that the concept was not always understood since these extreme

Current Issues in Tourism 295

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

events were considered such a normal part of the yearly cycle. Heavy snowfalls were foundto prevent people from moving around both the communities effectively, but were ingeneral found to be normal and even beneficial as they draw tourists. In general, as longas the extreme events took place outside the tourist seasons, the effects on communitywere not considered drastic as both communities were well used to weather anomalies.

The calendar and the maps also revealed that the observed changes included shorteningof spring which is the financially important time to both communities. The physical changesincluded the early loss of ice-sheet and softening snow cover, which are important elementsof spring tourism.

5. Discussion and conclusion

The increasing economic role of tourism in the Arctic, its dependency on natural resourcescombined with the climatic extremes and warming caused by climate change, is requiringadaptive measures from northern communities. In the light of the increasing risks, newmethodological tools should be developed in the nexus of tourism systems and disasters(Ritchie, 2008); tools that recognise the unique features of communities and opportunitiesand threats generated by climate change.

This article has introduced a community-based integrated methodological framework toassess the current vulnerability of tourism-dependent communities in respect to climatechange. The framework focuses on combining elements from DRR and CCA based onthe reasoning that they generate synergies and share similarities in their approaches toreduce vulnerability. DRR is seen as a field of providing a highly promising tool for main-taining the balance between CCA and risk reduction (Birkmann & von Teichman, 2010) atthe community level. In relation to the tourism sector, understanding host communities’vulnerability to climate change plays an important part in local and regional tourism strat-egies and will assist in developing specific adaptation strategies for communities understudy (Moreno & Becken, 2009). Additionally, the participatory bottom-up approach con-tributes to the sustainable tourism development, empowers communities and highlights therole of local knowledge. The methodological framework has introduced a data collectionmethod that generates information to understand the community, to evaluate the interdepen-dency among the community, natural resources and tourism, and finally to discover the per-ceived changes in the environment and their effects.

The pilot study showed that climate change was already affecting these northern com-munities and some changes were already clearly visible. However, since the sample size issmall, these results are merely suggestive. The ownership of the natural resources could befelt through three factors: the areas are considered being part of community itself, the localsenjoy the economic benefits that they generate and they additionally use them frequently intheir recreational activities, contributing to the overall well-being of the community. Thusalso the dependency on natural resources is much larger than only that of a monetary natureand indicates potentially wider social implications if the environment was to change. Thesefactors combined can trigger a sense of ownership and more willingness to participate inplanning and signify understanding about the value of natural resources, raising the issueof perceived benefits. However, more research is needed to fully understand the impli-cations of climate change in these communities.

Although currently the climatic extremes do not severely interrupt the communities’lives, adaptive strategies may become exhausted and problems occur when weatherextremes expand beyond the normal deviation or the anomalies stay in place for prolongedperiods of time (Sander-Regier, McLeman, Brklacich, & Woodrow, 2009). Additionally,

296 E. Kajan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

the development of highly exposed regions and the high vulnerability of modern societiesand technologies combined with global warming will increase the costs of climaticextremes (UNEP, 2005).

Although this article has focused on developing a framework for data collection phaseto assess the current vulnerability to climate change, the projections on climate change com-bined with other non-climatic factors will assist in identifying the future vulnerability. Thisstage would include collaboration with climate science community to assess the likelihoodof climatic variability to change in the future (Ford & Smit, 2004). The subsequent resultsshould be shared not only with the decision-makers but also with the locals, for them torealise the current and future opportunities and challenges. Further steps should includecommunities addressing these issues by planning and implementing follow-up programmesin collaboration with other stakeholders and contribute to establishing local and regionaltourism strategies and protected areas’ management issues (Figure 3). Monitoring andevaluation will assist in assessing the effectiveness of implemented programmes and infinding new needs and opportunities. As adaptation is a dynamic long-term process, theevaluation and monitoring are continuous activities.

In general, more attention should be paid to destination communities’ abilities andmethods to adapt to climate-induced changes in relation to tourism development, andtourism studies should focus more on finding synergies among extreme weather events,adaptation and associated response plans (Martin, 2005). The framework highlights theimportance of understanding these interrelated concepts, and seeing that the proposedapproach is more natural-resource-based than simply tourism-centred, it allows otheropportunities to emerge than those merely focusing on tourism, creating an important plat-form for communities living from natural resources. Considering the fragile state of theArctic in relation to climate change and the changing economic conditions in local commu-nities, the framework provides an effective way to increase our understanding about Arcticcommunities’ adaptive measures and current vulnerabilities.

As climate change affects natural resources directly, finding further synergies amongCCA, nature-based tourism and community-based natural resource management(CBNRM) becomes increasingly important. If applied successfully, enhanced naturalresource management can provide an outline for vulnerability reduction and address themany sources of climate-related vulnerability issues (Abramovitz et al., 2001), in whichthe methodological framework can also be applied to conduct further research.

Figure 3. Project cycle in tourism development and CCA.

Current Issues in Tourism 297

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

AcknowledgementsThis research was funded by the Academy of Finland through ‘CLICHE: Impacts of climate change onArctic environment, ecosystem services and society’ – project which is part of the Finnish ResearchProgramme on Climate Change (FICCA). The paper is also written within the research project‘Chair in Arctic Tourism. Destination Development in the Arctic (2010–2012)’, hosted by FinnmarkUniversity College, Alta, Norway and financed by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Special thanks to Jarkko Saarinen, Michael C. Hall and the anonymous referees for their helpfulcomments, to Juhani Paivarinta for assisting with the map and to people who took part in the study.

Referencesvaan Aalst , M.K., Cannon, T., & Burton, I. (2008). Community level adaptation to climate change:

The potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global Environmental Change,18(1), 165–179.

Abramovitz, J., Banuri, T., Girot, P.O., Orlando, B., Schneider, N., Spanger-Siegfried, E., . . .Hammill, A. (2001). Adapting to climate change: Natural resource management and vulner-ability reduction (Background paper to the task force on climate change, adaptation and vulner-able communities). Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources.

Adger, W.N. (2003). Social capital, collective action and adaptation to climate change. EconomicGeography, 79(4), 387–404.

Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community innatural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629–649.

Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C.C. (Eds.). (2001). Communities and the environment: Ethnicity, gender,and the state in community-based conservation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Arctic Environment Protection Strategy. (1997). Guidelines for environmental impact assessment(EIA) in the Arctic. Sustainable development and utilization. Finland: Finnish Ministry of theEnvironment.

Becken, S., & Hay, J.E. (2007). Tourism and climate change: Risks and opportunities. Clevedon,Buffalo, Toronto: Channel View Productions.

Beeton, S. (2006). Community development through tourism. Australia: Landlinks Press.Berkes, F., & Jolly, D. (2001). Adapting to climate change: Social-ecological resilience in a Canadian

western Arctic community. Conservation Ecology, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art18/.

Berman, M., Nicolson, C., Kofinas, G., Tetlichi, J., & Martin, S. (2004). Adaptation and sustainabil-ity in a small Arctic community: Results of an agent-based simulation model. Arctic, 7(4),401–414.

Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J.D., & Paterson, J. (2011). Are we adapting to climate change? GlobalEnvironmental Change, 21(1), 25–33.

Birkmann, J., & von Teichman, K. (2010). Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate changeadaptation: Key challenges – scales, knowledge and norms. Sustainability Science, 5(2),171–184.

Boyd, S.W., & Singh, S. (2003). Destination communities: Structures, resources and types. In S.Singh, D.J. Timothy, & R.K. Dowling (Eds.), Tourism in destination communities(pp. 19–34). Cambridge: Cabi Publications.

Burton, I., Huq, S., Lim, B., Pilifosova, O., & Schipper, E.L. (2002). From impacts assessment toadaptation priorities: The shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy, 2(2–3), 145–159.

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna. (CAFF). (2010). Arctic biodiversity trends 2010: Selectedindicators of change. Akureyri, Iceland: CAFF International Secretariat.

Council of Europe, & UNISDR. (2011). Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction inEurope: A review of risk governance. Geneva: United Nations International Strategy forDisaster Reduction.

Dawson, J., Maher, P., & Slocombe, D.S. (2007). Climate change, marine tourism and sustainability inthe Canadian Arctic: Contributions from systems and complexity approaches. Tourism in MarineEnvironments, 4(2/3), 69–83.

Dawson, J., & Scott, D. (2010). Climate change and tourism in the Great Lakes region: Risks andopportunities. Tourism in Marine Environments, 6(2/3), 119–132.

298 E. Kajan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

Dawson, J., Stewart, E.J., Lemelin, R.H., & Scott, D. (2010). The carbon cost of polar bear viewing inChurchill, Manitoba, Canada. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 319–336.

Fabricius, C. (2004). The fundamentals of community-based natural resource management. In C.Fabricius, E. Koch, S. Turner, & H. Magome (Eds.), Rights, resources and rural developmentcommunity-based natural resource management in Southern Africa (pp. 3–44). London:Earthscan.

Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E.L. (2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation:Avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7(1), 46–59.

Forbes, D.L. (Ed.). (2011). State of the Arctic Coast 2010 – Scientific review and outlook.International Arctic Science Committee, Land–Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone, ArcticMonitoring and Assessment Programme, International Permafrost Association. Germany:Helmholtz-Zentrum, Geesthacht. Retrieved from: http://arcticcoasts.org

Ford, J., & Smit, B. (2004). A framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities in theCanadian Arctic to risks associated with climate change. Arctic, 57(4), 389–400.

Ford, J.D., Smit, B., Wandel, J., Allurut, M., Shappa, K., Qrunnut, K., & Ittusujurat, H. (2008).Climate change in the Arctic: Current and future vulnerability in two Inuit communities inCanada. The Geographical Journal, 174, 45–62.

Fussel, H.-M. (2007). Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate changeresearch. Global Environmental Change, 17(2), 155–167.

Gallarza, M.G., Gil, I., & Calderon, H. (2002). Destination image. Towards a conceptual framework.Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56–78.

Gero, A., Meheux, K., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2011). Integrating community based disaster riskreduction and climate change adaptation: Examples from the Pacific. Natural Hazards andEarth System Sciences, 11, 101–113.

Gossling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M., Ceron, J., & Dubois, G. (2012). Consumer behaviour and demandresponse of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 36–58.

Gruber, J.S. (2010). Key principles of community-based natural resource management: A synthesisand interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons.Environmental Management, 45, 52–66.

Hall, C.M. (2000). Tourism planning: Policies, processes and relationships. Harlow: Prentice-Hall.Hall, C.M. (2006). New Zealand tourism entrepreneur attitudes and behaviours with respect to climate

change adaptation and mitigation. International Journal of Innovation and SustainableDevelopment, 1(3), 229–237.

Hall, C.M., & Saarinen, J. (2010). Polar tourism: Definitions and dimensions. Scandinavian Journalof Hospitality and Tourism, 10(4), 448–467.

International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC). (2006). What is VCA? An introduction to vulnerabilityand capacity assessment. Geneva: Author.

International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC). (2007). How to do VCA? A practical step-by-step guidefor Red Cross Red Crescent staff and volunteers. Geneva: Author.

IPCC. (2007a). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. In S. Solomon, D. Qin,M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H.L. Miller (Eds.),Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC. (2007b). Summary for policymakers. In M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, J. van derLinden, & C.E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.Contribution of working group ii to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmentalpanel on climate change (pp. 7–22). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC. (2012). In V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J.Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, & P.M. Midgley (Eds.), Managing the risks ofextreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report ofworking groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (p. 582).Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jarvinen, A., & Heikkila, T. (2010). Kilpisjarvi notes 23 (Kilpisjarvi Biological Station). Helsinki:Yliopistopaino.

Johnston, M.E. (2006). Impacts of global environmental change on tourism in the polar regions. In S.Gossling & C.M. Hall (Eds.), Tourism and global environmental change: Ecological, economic,social and political interrelationships (pp. 37–53). New York, NY: Routledge.

Current Issues in Tourism 299

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

Jopp, R., DeLacy, T., & Mair, J. (2010). Developing a framework for regional destination adaptationto climate change. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(6), 591–605.

Landauer, M., Sievanen, T., & Neuvonen, M. (2009). Adaptation of Finnish cross-country skiers toclimate change. Fennia, 187(2), 99–113.

Martin, B.G. (2005). Weather, climate and tourism. A geographical perspective. Annals of TourismResearch, 32(3), 571–591.

McBean, G., & Ajibade, I. (2009). Climate change, related hazards and human settlements. CurrentOpinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1(2), 179–186.

Mercer, J. (2010). Disaster risk reduction or climate change adaptation: Are we reinventing the wheel?Journal of International Development, 22, 247–264.

Metsahallitus. (2011). Kansallispuistojen, valtion retkeilyalueiden ja eraiden muiden suojelu- ja vir-kistysalueiden kavijoiden rahankayton paikallistaloudelliset vaikutukset vuonna 2010. Finland:Metsahallitus, Luontopalvelut [Finnish Forest and Park Service, Natural Heritage Services].Retrieved from www.metsa.fi/suojelualueetjapaikallistalous

Moen, J., & Fredman, P. (2007). Effects of climate change on Alpine skiing in Sweden. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 15(4), 418–437.

Moreno, A., & Becken, S. (2009). A climate change vulnerability assessment methodology for coastaltourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(4), 473–488.

Murphy, P. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. New York: Methuen.Nutall, M. (2011). Foreword. In P.T. Maher, E.J. Stewart, & M. Luck (Eds.), Polar tourism: Human,

environmental and governance dimensions (pp. xii–x). Elmsford, NY: CognizantCommunications.

Nyaupane, G.P., & Chhetri, N. (2009). Vulnerability to climate change of nature-based tourism in theNepalese Himalayas. Tourism Geographies, 11(1), 95–119.

Patterson, T., Bastianoni, S., & Simpson, M. (2006). Tourism and climate change: Two way street, orvicious/virtuous circle? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(4), 339–348.

Pearce, P., Moscardo, G., & Ross, G. (1996). Tourism community relationships. London: PergamonPress.

Pearce, T., Smit, B., Duerden, F., Ford, J.D., Goose, A., & Kataoyak, F. (2010). Inuit vulnerability andadaptive capacity to climate change in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada. Polar Record,46(237), 157–177.

Pearce, T.D., Ford, J.D., Laidler, G.J., Smit, B., Duerden, F., Allarut, M., & Wandel, J. (2009).Community collaboration and climate change research in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Research,28(1), 10–27.

Perry, A. (2005). The Mediterranean: How can the world’s most popular and successful tourism des-tination adapt to a changing climate? In M.C. Hall & J. Higham (Eds.), Tourism, recreation andclimate change (pp. 86–96). England: Channel View Publications.

Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A.S., Strathearn, S.J., Grandgirard, A. &Kalivas, T. (2009). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services.Ecological Economics, 68, 1301–1315.

Richards, G., & Hall, D. (2000). Tourism and sustainable community development. London:Routledge.

Riedlinger, D., & Berkes, F. (2001). Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climatechange in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record, 37, 315–328.

Ritchie, B. (2008). Tourism disaster planning and management: From response and recovery toreduction and readiness. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(4), 315–348.

Saarinen, J., & Tervo, K. (2006). Perceptions and adaptation strategies of the tourism industry toclimate change: The case of Finnish nature-based tourism entrepreneurs. International Journalof Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2(2), 214–228.

Sander-Regier, R., McLeman, R., Brklacich, M., & Woodrow, M. (2009). Planning for climate changein Canadian rural and resource-based communities. Environments, 37(1), 35–57.

Schroter, D., Polsky, P., & Patt, A.G. (2005). Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change:An eight step approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 10, 573–596.

Scott, D., & McBoyle, G. (2007). Climate change adaptation in the ski industry. Mitigation andAdaptation Strategies to Global Change, 12, 1411–1431.

Scott, D., McBoyle, G., & Mills, B. (2003). Climate change and the skiing industry in southernOntario (Canada): Exploring the importance of snowmaking as a technical adaptation. ClimateResearch, 23, 171–181.

300 E. Kajan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4

Scott, S., Dawson, J., & Jones, B. (2008). Climate change vulnerability of the US Northeast winterrecreation–tourism sector. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13(5–6),577–596.

Simpson, M., Gossling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M., & Gladin, E. (2008). Climate change. Adaptationand mitigation in the tourism sector: Frameworks, tools and practices. Paris: UNEP.

Smit, B., & Pilifosova, O. (2003). From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability reduction. InJ.B. Smith, R.J.T. Klein, & S. Huq (Eds.), Climate change, adaptive capacity and development(pp. 9–28). London, UK: Imperial College Press.

Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global EnvironmentalChange, 16, pp. 282–292.

Smith, R.J.T., Klein, S., & Huq (Eds.). Climate change, adaptive capacity and development(pp. 9–28). London: Imperial College Press.

Statistics Finland. (2011). Suomi postinumeroalueittain 2011. [Finland by postcodes]. Finland:Statistical Databases.

Stewart, E.J., Draper, D., & Dawson, J. (2011). Arctic human dimension. Coping with change andvulnerability: A case study of resident attitudes towards tourism in Cambridge Bay and PondInlet, Nunvaut, Canada. In T.P. Maher, E.J. Stewart, & M. Luck (Eds.), Polar tourism, human,environmental and governance dimensions (pp. 33–53). New York: Cognizant Communications.

Stewart, E.J., Draper, D., & Johnston, M.E. (2005). A review of tourism research in the polar regions.Arctic, 58(4), 383–394.

Tervo-Kankare, K., & Saarinen, J. (2011). Climate change and adaptation strategies of the tourismindustry in Northern Europe. In T.P. Maher, E.J. Stewart, & M. Luck (Eds.), Polar tourism,human, environmental and governance dimensions. New York: Cognizant Communications.

Thomalla, F., Downing, T., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Han, G., & Rockstrom, J. (2006). Reducing hazardvulnerability: Towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate adap-tation. [Special issue: Climate change and disasters]. Disasters, 30(1), 39–48.

Timothy, D.J. (1999). Participatory planning view of tourism in Indonesia. Annals of TourismResearch, 26(2), 371–391.

Tompkins, E.L., & Adger, W.N. (2004). Does adaptive management of natural resources enhanceresilience to climate change? Ecology and Society, 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10.

Tuan, Y-F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Turner, B.L., II, Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., &Schiller, A. (2003). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(14),8074–8079.

Turner, S. (2004). Community-based natural resource management and rural livelihoods. In C.Fabricius, E. Koch, S. Turner, & H. Magome (Eds.), Rights, resources and rural developmentcommunity-based natural resource management in Southern Africa (pp. 44–63). London:Earthscan.

Turton, S., Dickson, T., Hadwen, W., Jorgensen, B., Pham, T., Simmons, D., & Wilson, R. (2010).Developing an approach for tourism climate change assessment: Evidence from four contrastingAustralian case studies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 429–447.

UNEP. (2005). Global costs of extreme weather events. UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and GraphicsLibrary. Retrieved from http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/global_costs_of_extreme_weather_events

UNISDR. (2009). Adaptation to climate change by reducing disaster risks: Country practices andlessons (Briefing note 2). Geneva: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.unisdr.org/files/11775_UNISDRBriefingAdaptationtoClimateCh.pdf

Weatherhead, E., Gearheard, S., & Barry, R.G. (2010). Changes in weather persistence: Insight fromInuit knowledge. Global Environmental Change, 20, 523–528.

WMO. (2011). Weather extremes in changing climate: Hindsight on foresight (WMO-No. 1075 ed.).Geneva: Author.

Current Issues in Tourism 301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Shan

ghai

Nor

mal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:27

24

May

201

4