This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]On: 29 May 2014, At: 22:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

From vulnerability to transformation:a framework for assessing thevulnerability and resilience of tourismdestinationsEmma Calgaroa, Kate Lloydb & Dale Dominey-Howesa

a University of New South Wales, Australia–Pacific Natural HazardsResearch Laboratory, Sydney, Australiab bMacquarie University, Department of Environment andGeography, Sydney, AustraliaPublished online: 09 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Emma Calgaro, Kate Lloyd & Dale Dominey-Howes (2014) From vulnerability totransformation: a framework for assessing the vulnerability and resilience of tourism destinations,Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22:3, 341-360, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2013.826229

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.826229

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 whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2014Vol. 22, No. 3, 341–360, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.826229

From vulnerability to transformation: a framework for assessing thevulnerability and resilience of tourism destinations

Emma Calgaroa∗, Kate Lloydb and Dale Dominey-Howesa†

aUniversity of New South Wales, Australia–Pacific Natural Hazards Research Laboratory, Sydney,Australia; bMacquarie University, Department of Environment and Geography, Sydney, Australia

(Received 9 March 2012; accepted 1 June 2013)

Tourism is a key driver of global socio-economic progress. However, its sustainabilityis at risk from multiple shocks and hazards that threaten livelihoods. Surprisingly littleis known about the complex drivers of destination vulnerability, leading to the creationand application of ineffective resilience-building solutions. The paper presents the Des-tination Sustainability Framework (DSF) designed to assess destination vulnerabilityand resilience, and support successful resilience-building initiatives. Holistic in nature,the DSF comprises: (1) the shock(s) or stressor(s); (2) the interconnected dimensions ofvulnerability – exposure, sensitivity, and system adaptiveness; (3) the dynamic feedbackloops that express the multiple outcomes of actions taken (or not); (4) the contextualisedroot causes that shape destinations and their characteristics; (5) the various spatialscales; and (6) multiple timeframes within which social-ecological change occurs. Thisinnovative framework is significant because it’s the first framework to chart the complexmanifestation of vulnerability and resilience in tourism destinations. Further, it bringstourism sustainability research in line with wider debates on achieving sustainabilitywithin the dynamic coupled human–environment system, doing so through the inclu-sion of insights from contemporary systems approaches, including chaos–complexitytheory, vulnerability approaches, sustainability science, resilience thinking, along withthe geographies of scale, place and time.

Keywords: sustainability; development; tourism; vulnerability; resilience; context

Introduction: the vulnerability of tourism destinations to shocks

The vulnerability of tourism destinations to socio-economic and environmental shocks(rapid-onset events) and stressors (slow-onset events) is widely recognised (Sharpley, 2005).Political unrest and terrorist attacks, for example, are problematic for an industry that relieson the maintenance of positive images, reflecting a myriad of experiences that it sells toconsumers (Mansfeld, 1999; Richter & Waugh, 1986). Other events that affect tourismflows to destinations include economic downturns (Prideaux, Laws, & Faulkner, 2003),health epidemics (e.g. foot and mouth, SARS, bird flu, swine flu) (Miller & Ritchie, 2003;Tarlow, 2009), and concern about the impact of natural hazards and global environmen-tal change (Cioccio & Michael, 2007; Hay & Becken, 2007; Meheux & Parker, 2006).Overdevelopment and the pursuit of short-term economic gains, as well as pollution andenvironmental degradation of non-renewable resources also threaten the highly manicuredimages and longevity of tourism destinations and host communities, particularly thosewhose appeal depends on pristine natural environments (Burak, Dogan, & Gazioglu, 2004;Cohen, 2008). Events that disrupt tourism flows do not, however, occur in a vacuum. They

∗Corresponding author. Email: e.calgaro@unsw.edu.au†School of Geosciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

C© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

342 E. Calgaro et al.

take place within and are linked to a wider social-ecological context that is simultane-ously shaped by multiple drivers of change (Dwyer, Edwards, Mistilis, Roman, & Scott,2008). Events can occur simultaneously or overlap, forcing communities and businesses tocope with compounding effects and weigh up how best to utilise finite resources againstcalculated trade-offs (Tarlow, 2009).

These disruptive and compounding events destabilise livelihoods, communities andbusiness viability over time. Consequently, some question the wisdom of tourism as a de-velopment tool in resource-scarce regions (Baker & Coulter, 2007). Following the negativeimpact of the Bali bombings, Baker and Coulter (2007) asserted that “until there are fallbackpositions to reduce the vulnerability of those involved in tourism, the sector can never be afoundation for the development of sustainable livelihoods” (Baker & Coulter, 2007, p. 263).Their concern is valid but their solution untenable. Remote and developing populationsoften have few livelihood alternatives (Bankoff, 2003). What these populations do have arepristine environments and unique cultural experiences (Cohen, 2008; Nyaupane & Chhetri,2009). So what can be done to prepare and fortify destination communities in times of riskand uncertainty? The solution can be found within Baker and Coulter’s (2007) assertion:reduce the vulnerability of those involved in tourism. Long-term resilience-building activi-ties aimed at securing future sustainable livelihoods cannot be operationalised successfullywithout understanding and addressing the underlying sociopolitical processes and environ-mental linkages that form the foundations of vulnerability (Clark et al., 2000; Pelling, 2003;Turner et al., 2003).

This solution is not new. Richter and Waugh (1986) stressed the need for an understand-ing of the factors that underpinned tourism’s vulnerability to hazards, a position echoed byFarrell and Twining-Ward (2004), Ritchie (2008), and Scheyvens and Momsen (2008). Butsignificant gaps in our understanding exist on what conditions create and perpetuate thevulnerability and resilience of tourism business operators and host destinations (Calgaro& Lloyd, 2008; Ritchie, 2008). The available work focuses on a few select factors, and, indoing so, fails to capture the complexity of vulnerability and its contextualised manifesta-tion in a given place, population and system (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008; Faulkner & Russell,1997; Ritchie, 2008). Investigations into the complexity of vulnerability are time-intensiveand costly (Calgaro, 2010). However, having an incomplete understanding of the dynamicsocial-environmental system that supports tourism leads to the design and implementationof inappropriate solutions that fail to reduce destination vulnerability and jeopardise thesustainability of tourism-dependant livelihoods (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; Scheyvens& Momsen, 2008). But there is a more fundamental problem with research on destinationvulnerability. There are few rigorous frameworks and theoretical parameters to guide as-sessments of destination vulnerability and resilience (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008; Carlsen &Liburd, 2008; Farrington, 2001; Moreno & Becken, 2009).

The authors present a novel framework for conceptualising destination vulnerability andresilience, which provides the foundational building block needed to understand and addressvulnerability in destinations. We begin by identifying the causal factors and processes thatinfluence vulnerability levels in places (generally) and destinations (specifically), and weexplore the interconnected relationship between vulnerability and resilience. We then reviewa series of seminal systems frameworks and theoretical tools that illuminate different aspectsof vulnerability and resilience in tourist destinations. We assess how well each frameworkcaptures the identified factors and processes that heighten vulnerability. In light of the meritsand detractors of current systems approaches, the paper concludes with the presentation ofthe Destination Sustainability Framework (DSF). Social theory, however, as an expressionof the experienced world is only useful when it is empirically grounded and helps to explainthe real-world phenomena under investigation (Anfara & Mertz, 2006; Bhaskar, 1986). In

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 343

Calgaro, Dominey-Howes, and Lloyd (in press), we therefore operationalise the DSF andtest its effectiveness by using it to guide the assessment of the vulnerability and resilienceof Khao Lak, Patong and Phi Phi Don in Thailand to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.

Vulnerability and resilience: coexisting properties of a destination system

Enquiry into the causes of vulnerability, and attempts to address the causes, are problem-driven, providing a history of vulnerability research that has arisen from three dominantresearch strands: food security and livelihoods; risk and natural hazards; and climate change(see Adger, 2006). Insights taken from this enquiry and from contemporary sustainabil-ity science assert that vulnerability is a complex contextualised property of the coupledhuman–environment system (Turner et al., 2003), and is defined as:

The degree to which an exposure unit [households, human groups, ecosystems, and communi-ties] is susceptible to harm due to exposure to a perturbation or stress, and the ability (or lackthereof) of the exposure unit to cope, recover, or fundamentally adapt. (Kasperson, Turner,Schiller, & Hsieh, 2001, p. 7)

Vulnerability is place- and system-specific, contextualised, highly scaled, dynamic anddifferential. A household’s or population’s characteristics, the multiple stressors it is vul-nerable to and its capacity to respond and adapt continuously, all change over space andtime (Adger, 2006). These evolutionary changes are determined by three interconnecteddimensions: exposure, sensitivity and system adaptiveness (also referred to as resilienceand adaptive capacity) (Nelson, Adger, & Brown, 2007; Turner et al., 2003).

Vulnerability is largely determined by a lack of options due to unequal distributions ofpower and resources (Birkmann, 2006). An individual’s or a group’s vulnerability – theirability to anticipate, withstand and recover from shocks over time – is linked to access andentitlements to sociopolitical, economic and environmental resources and power systemsthat influence access (Pelling, 2003). Influencing this differential access and control overresources are: (1) the competing actions and agendas of multiple actors; and (2) the strengthand effectiveness of multiple-scaled governance systems and social networks that conferaccess to some, while restricting entitlements and influence to others (Wisner, Blaikie,Cannon, & Davis, 2004). Underlying these unequal entitlement patterns are historicallyembedded power structures, cultural norms and supporting ideologies and doctrines thatinfluence chosen development pathways and bind the fabric of society (Bankoff, 2003).

Human agency also plays a critical role in influencing differential vulnerability patterns.Understanding why actors choose certain actions (including inaction) over others requiresa deeper knowledge of people’s risk perceptions, assumptions, past experiences, personalcharacteristics and value systems, culture and economic circumstances (Cioccio & Michael,2007; Johnson & Covello, 1987). Understanding the narratives that underlie the contestedchoices and scaled actions of government, industry and civil society enable the identificationof both causal problems and alternative trajectories, thereby opening up opportunities foraction, change and transformation (Leach, 2008).

Frameworks designed to assess vulnerability therefore need to acknowledge and incor-porate all of these factors and processes in order to capture how vulnerability and resilienceare created and perpetuated over time and space. This is challenging, spawning theoreticaldebate and the creation of numerous frameworks (for example, Birkmann, 2006; DFID,1999b; Turner et al., 2003; Wisner et al., 2004). We review the most notable frameworks.However, discussions about vulnerability cannot take place without reference to resilience.

Resilience refers to the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganisethroughout periods of change, while retaining function, structure and identity (Folke, 2006).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

344 E. Calgaro et al.

Resilience is more than the positive flip side of (IPCC, 2001), or the absence of, vulnera-bility (Buckle, Mars, & Smale, 2000). Vulnerability and resilience are co-constituted andcoexist in the same households, communities, environments and economies, and are con-stantly in a state of flux (Rigg, Grundy-Warr, Law, & Tan-Mullins, 2008; Scheyvens &Momsen, 2008). Therefore, assessments need to examine both population/system weak-nesses (vulnerabilities) and strengths (resiliencies). Nor are vulnerability and resilienceuniformally experienced in a given population (Fulu, 2007). A household or community issimultaneously vulnerable and resilient, with the degree of each depending upon the typeof shock or stress experienced at a given time, and the resources and positive qualities theyhave at their disposal (pre- and post-event) to counter their vulnerability (Cannon, 2008).

Towards an improved conceptual understanding of destination vulnerability andresilience

The past decade has witnessed the emergence of a strong interest in understanding andaddressing the drivers of vulnerability in tourism destinations, much of which derivesfrom tourism researchers and practitioners engaged in disasters and crisis managementand climate change (see Calgaro, 2010). A review of this research reveals 12 factors thatincrease destination vulnerability (Figure 1) (see Calgaro, 2010). However, when lookingat dynamic social-ecological systems, the whole is more than the sum of its parts (Clark &Dickson, 2003; Faulkner & Russell, 1997).

Increasingly, tourism researchers argue that there is a need to look beyond the in-dustry and the tourism system and to align tourism investigations of vulnerability andresilience with the interdisciplinary holistic systems approaches found in sustainability sci-ence, resilience thinking, vulnerability research and chaos–complexity theory (see Farrell& Twining-Ward, 2004; Ritchie, 2008; Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008). Scott, Laws, andPrideaux (2008) identify four advantages of applying systems approaches. They: (1) assistin the identification of the system stakeholders; (2) illuminate the importance of networksand interactions between those networks in determining differential outcomes (positive andnegative) for different actors within and across systems; (3) recognise that shock or stressoreffects may be transferred across system boundaries through organisational relationships;and (4) they enable an analysis of the factors that influence the intensity of the impact ofthe event on the system, and explain rates of recovery and rejuvenation.

The application of systems approaches to investigating vulnerability, resilience andchange in tourism systems has begun (see Baker & Coulter, 2007; Biggs, 2011; Calgaro& Lloyd, 2008; Edgar & Nisbet, 1996; Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; Marshall, Marshall,Abdulla, Rouphael, & Ali, 2011; Moreno & Becken, 2009; Zahra & Ryan, 2007). But howuseful are these approaches in conceptualising the creation and perpetuation of vulnerabil-ity in destinations? To answer this, a list of the attributes of destination vulnerability andresilience was created (which includes key causal factors and processes of destination vul-nerability identified in Section 2 and Figure 1). Using this list as a set of criteria (presentedin the left column of Table 1), we assessed how well seven seminal systems frameworkscapture and explain the factors and processes that influence patterns of destination vulner-ability and resilience. Table 1 also includes examples of tourism research that have usedthese frameworks to understand tourism system processes and problems.

The results from the gap analysis show that each approach adds value and richnessto the conceptualisation and assessment of destination vulnerability. The key strengths ofchaos–complexity theory are that it (see McKercher, 1999):

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 345

Figure 1. Factors that increase destination vulnerability.

• Embraces the dynamism and multi-scaled nature of multiple interacting tourismsystems and sub-system elements that are capable of self-organisation.

• Recognises the interactive role human agency plays in shaping the system.• Acknowledges that disturbances and agency trigger chain reactions that feed back

into the system.

Its main weaknesses include: (1) the implicit exclusion of the ecological system, ignor-ing the natural environment that is often the main attraction in destinations; (2) inter-linkagesbetween listed tourism system elements are too random to explain causal relationships be-tween factors, process and feedbacks; (3) there is no detail on how stakeholders reorganise

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

346 E. Calgaro et al.

Table 1. Gap analysis of systems frameworks for assessing destination vulnerability and resilience.

Framework Attributes of vulnerability & resilience

Adaptive Cycle (Holling and Gunderson,

2002) & Panarchy Model

(Holling et al., 2002)

Pressure & PAR/ Access

Model

(Wisner et al., 2004)

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

(DFID, 1999)

Vulnerability Scoping Diagram

(Polsky et al.,

2007)

Sustainability Science

Framework

(Turner et al., 2003)

Analytical Framework for Vulnerability

in the Tourism Industry

(Nankervis, 2000)

Chaos Model of Tourism

(McKercher,

1999)

Theoretical grounding Resilience/

Ecology

Vulnerability/Disaster

Management

Vulnerability/ Livelihoods

Sustainability Science

Sustainability Science Tourism & Risk

Chaos-complexity

Theory

Select research examples of application to tourism system issues

Identifies vulnerability as a product of:

Human system

Biophysical system -

Vulnerability/resilience are place and/or system-specific - -

Vulnerability /resilience are highly scaled - Recognition of the dynamism of systems and their vulnerability/resilience - characteristics of shocks, systems, and social groupings constantly change

- -

Inclusion of multiple shocks and stressors - Listing of exposure causal factors (including physical positioning of development) to shocks or stressors - - - -

Inclusion of factors that influence a system’s sensitivity - - - Inclusion of tourism-specific sensitivities i.e. main markets & marketing strategies, seasonality, destination development histories, and image sensitivity to risk perceptions

-

-

- -

-

Includes the way in which systems experience shocks and surprises and their capacity to respond, adjust and adapt

- - - -

Inclusion of political economy of access and entitlements to resources (including governance & institutional flexibility)

- - - -

Vulnerability/resilience are contextual and influenced by power systems, cultural norms, ideologies, human agency, attitudes, perceptions, expectations and experiences

-

Portrayal of the causal sequence of vulnerability/resilience (including feedback mechanisms) over space and time

- - - -

in times of change (i.e. how people access the resources they need to cope and adapt); and(4) there are no references to the types of resources that they need to do this.

The greatest contribution that resilience thinking makes is its focus on process (Farrell& Twining-Ward, 2004; Miller et al., 2010). Resilience acknowledges the existence ofmultiple stable and interlinked systems and the cascading effects (both positive and negativefeedback consequences) that disturbances in one system (tourist generating regions, touristdestinations, transit routes) have on other linked systems (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004;Miller et al., 2010). Its reframing of risk and change as predictable and unpredictableconstants in the social-ecological system (as opposed to seeing both as abnormal andunacceptable) is also progressive. These attributes have led to the growing applicationof resilience thinking to tourism system problems (see Biggs, Hall, & Stoeckl, 2011;Cochrane, 2010; Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; Petrosillo, Zurlini, Grato, & Zaccarelli,2006; Strickland-Munro, Allison, & Moore, 2010).

Resilience thinking, however, lacks depth in analysing the social dimension of the social-ecological system, including the political economy of resource and power distribution, andthe consequences of uneven patterns of resource use over space and time (Leach, 2008;Miller et al., 2010). Important questions that are overlooked include why some choicesand responses are taken over others, the reasoning for their success or failure (includingwhy appropriate responses fail) and who these actions serve (and marginalise) (see Leach,2008). Furthermore, identifying tipping points in order to help anticipate change is difficultto apply to a social system due to the unpredictability of human actions and outcomes(McKercher, 1999; Zahra & Ryan, 2007).

By contrast, the gap analysis shows that vulnerability and sustainability science ap-proaches enable this deeper analysis into who is vulnerable or resilient, what they arevulnerable to and why. Vulnerability research offers a sophisticated understanding of thepolitical economy of resource distribution, context, agency, equity and power (Eakin &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 347

Luers, 2006). Central to this understanding are: (1) the multi-scaled sociopolitical pro-cesses that shape reactions to risk and change (including resistance); (2) the form changestake in the social-ecological system; and (3) the underlying influences of power systemsand cultural norms, values and knowledge that are used by actors and institutions to legit-imise actions and acquire legitimacy, authority and power (Berkhout, 2008; Miller et al.,2010). But these approaches also have limitations. Vulnerability (and resilience) frame-works offer nested and, sometimes, hierarchical interpretations of scale. While populationsare place-based, constant interactions between different groups operating within the systemare relational and play out through networks that stretch across places, countries and scales,necessitating an alternative theorisation of scale (Rigg et al., 2008). Further, more detailis needed on how destinations as places are constructed, the temporality of change withindestinations (including the hazard impact and recovery cycles) and the impact that both ofthese processes have on destination vulnerability.

The differing focal points, as well as their strengths and weaknesses for assessing desti-nation vulnerability and resilience, reflect variances in purpose, approach, analytical scopeand contextual application. However, none of the frameworks present a complete analyticalapproach for assessing destination vulnerability. Accordingly, a novel DSF is presentedhere that draws upon the strengths of current systems approaches. It also incorporatesgeographies of place, scale and time in order to overcome hierarchical notions of scaledactions and processes that shape destinations and their vulnerability levels over time andspace.

The Destination Sustainability Framework

Building on earlier work presented in Calgaro and Lloyd (2008), the purpose of the DSFis to guide the identification and analysis of the factors and processes that create andperpetuate destination vulnerability and resilience, along with the social actors and agendathat drive action and non-action. Highlighting them creates entry points and opportunitiesfor adjustments and change. The scope of the framework is on place-based destinationpopulations for two reasons: (1) vulnerability and resilience are manifested in places; and(2) the destination is the focal point of the tourist experience. Supporting services (oftenlocated in supply markets), that are needed to attract the tourist and organise the experience,along with international transport links are critical components of the wider tourism systemthat enable the tourist experience to take place, but they are not the focal point of thatexperience. If more detail on the global tourism system is required, for example, theDSF can easily be paired with other tourism systems approaches. Before discussing theframework, however, we must stress that a theoretical model can never truly capture thedynamics of the lived experience. So the DSF is first and foremost a guide to identifyingand analysing the multiple possibilities that shape vulnerability, resilience and change inthe social-ecological system of which tourist destinations (and indeed the wider touristsystem) are a part.

Elements of the Destination Sustainability Framework

The DSF is composed of six elements: (1) the shock(s) or stressor(s); (2) the interconnecteddimensions of vulnerability – exposure, sensitivity and system adaptiveness; (3) the dynamicfeedback loops that express the multiple outcomes or consequences of actions taken (ornot) in response to the shock or stressor; (4) the contextualised causes and drivers that shape

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

348 E. Calgaro et al.

places and their characteristics; (5) the scale; and (6) multiple timeframes within whichsocial-ecological change occurs.

Shocks and stressors

The DSF is a multi-hazard framework. The event(s) that destabilises the system is thestarting point. The shocks and stressors element (to what) is shown as piercing the coreof the social-ecological system. The event does not cause vulnerability – it is the triggerthat reveals vulnerability – but the nature of the shock or stressor does influence howthe system is affected over space and time (Wisner et al., 2004). A distinction is madebetween shocks and stressors. Shocks are rapid onset events, such as terrorist acts, naturalhazards (such as the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami) and health epidemics. These are mostlikely unanticipated events in terms of frequency, size and form. This acknowledges thatthe uncertainty of future events, the form they take and their subsequent impacts, are anintegral component of the social-ecological system. Stressors are slow-onset events that areoften manifestations of human–environment interactions, and place increasing pressure onthe localised system over time. These include slow-onset climatic changes, such as sea-level rise and water shortages, environmental degradation, changes in biophysical elements,economic downturns and changes in travel and product trends. It is also important to stresshere that both shocks and stressors may take place either at the destination or close to it(such as the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami or terrorist attacks) or outside the destination(like wider economic downturns that may negatively impact potential tourists discretionaryspending levels). Nonetheless, both types have the propensity to disrupt tourist flows.

Shocks and stressors do not occur in isolation. Shocks, stressors and actor responseoutcomes (successes and failures) to both, compound over time. The types and amount ofresources people need, and the coping and response mechanisms people choose, will alsochange depending on the type of shocks and stressors people experience, as well as on thefrequency and magnitude of each event. Consequently, the resource base people need todraw from to respond effectively to the different types of shocks and stressors is slowlyeroded over time, culminating in circumstances that can overwhelm the system (Cutter,2003). Having to deal with, and respond to, the compounding impacts of multiple shocksand stressors on tourist flows over time is a constant challenge for tourist destinations(Biggs, 2011). The possible system disruption caused by overlapping shocks and stressorsis acknowledged in the DSF by the inclusion of multiple and overlapping events (picturedas overlapping yellow, orange and red discs).

The core interconnected dimensions of vulnerability

Vulnerability is place-specific. Therefore, the interconnected dimensions of vulnerability– exposure, sensitivity and system adaptiveness – form the heart of the DSF. The mainfactors that shape each dimension are listed to provide users with analytical focal points,but the lists are not exhaustive and will change based on the type of event that destabilisesthe system, the characteristics of the places (destinations) and populations that are affected,and the focus of the research question.

Exposure

Exposure is defined as the degree to which an exposure unit (who or what) comes into con-tact with stressors or shocks (Clark et al., 2000, p. 2). It is a product of the type of shock and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 349

stressor, and the character of the built and natural environment under stress (Polsky, Neff,& Yarnal, 2007). Accordingly, exposure in the DSF presents an inventory of the destina-tion’s defining characteristics, including: (1) the population (who are the main stakeholdersinvolved in the creation and delivery of the tourist product); and (2) the characteristics ofboth the biophysical and built environment. The natural terrain and man-made alterations,supporting ecosystems and the built environment collectively reflect the perceived tastesof the dominant tourist groups and their localised interpretations. However, biophysicalcharacteristics (e.g. flat terrain, removal of natural vegetation resulting in erosion) and de-velopment type and patterns (large sea-facing windows or wooden structures, for example)also highly affect exposure levels to natural hazards, including tsunamis (see Calgaro et al.,in press), climatic changes and environmental degradation.

Sensitivity

Sensitivity is defined as the degree to which a household or group is affected by exposureto stresses (Clark et al., 2000), and it reflects the pre-existing economic, social, politicaland environmental conditions that shape anticipatory and immediate response capabilities(Pelling, 2003, p. 48). Analysing sensitivity involves an exploration of the political economyof access and entitlements to resources and their distribution and use prior to the shock orbefore the tipping point of the stressor is reached.

Common sources of economic capital include livelihood portfolios, the accumulationof liquid and fixed assets, credit histories and insurance, employment opportunities, busi-ness stability and access to welfare safety nets. Human capital includes knowledge ofrisk (including traditional/historical responses to past shocks and stressors that aid pre-paredness), skills that enable greater employment flexibility if employment opportunitiesare interrupted, and labour capacity. Social capital embodies networks and connectedness,group membership, relationships and levels of trust and reciprocity. The importance ofsocial capital in aiding the recovery of destinations following major events, such as the2002/2004 Bali bombings and the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, is well documented (Baker& Coulter, 2007; Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008; Larsen, Calgaro, & Thomalla, 2011). Kinshipnetworks encourage cohesion, connectedness, reassurance and stability in times of need.They also promote greater access to financial capital and power networks.

Social relationships and networks, however, can also foster social exclusion, mani-fested through dominant power structures and historically embedded cultural norms (DFID,1999a). The positive and negative influences of social capital on differential vulnerabilitypatterns within and across the 2004 tsunami-affected destinations in Thailand are demon-strated in Calgaro et al. (in press). Physical capital and environmental sensitivities hereacknowledge that social and economic development cannot take place without a function-ing life support system (Nelson et al., 2007). Key factors include access to natural resources,the biophysical carrying capacity of a destination and access to infrastructure and com-munication systems. Localised infrastructure is important for the effective and sustainablefunctioning of the destination community, but so too are the transport links between thetourist markets and destinations.

Equally important in determining differential vulnerability and resilience levels indestinations is the mode of production operating in a given system, which influencesdevelopment histories and the rate of development of destinations, main markets and marketexposure, labour rights, governmental regulation over capital and capital concentration(McLaughlin & Dietz, 2008). From Figure 1, we know that destination vulnerability isheightened by six factors that are related to the type of product destinations offer consumers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

350 E. Calgaro et al.

and the mode of production and delivery of that product. These six factors are the image ofsensitivity to risk, seasonality, the location of destinations in hazard-prone areas, fluctuatingtravel choices and marketing strategies. These factors along with destination developmentalhistories and positioning, which affect the types of markets a destination attracts and thefinancial stability of businesses (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008; Calgaro et al., in press), are listedin the DSF as tourism-specific sensitivities.

Understanding how governmental regulations affect differential patterns of asset andresource distribution requires knowledge of governance. Governance draws attention tobroader issues of power distribution, and the ways in which a wide range of institutions andactors (including private enterprises, non-government agents and civil society) negotiate fordesired resources using a series of formal and informal networks and partnerships (Cannon,2008). The inclusion of governance processes in the DSF gives vital recognition to theintegral role formal and informal governance structures and processes play in influencingdestination vulnerability and resilience levels.

Laws, governmental policies and regulations, and wider governance structures andprocesses operating in a system determine entitlements to, and distribution of resources(including land acquisitions for development). They also dictate how resources are used(i.e. the type of buildings that are allowed and the amount of financial capital that isavailable for development). Regulations that affect destinations also run across scales.Tourist flows are influenced by national visa rules, aircraft regulations and airport taxes,and international emissions tariffs. These rules and regulations may affect costs, destinationattractiveness and tourist choices. Operating alongside these structures are cultural (ortraditional) governance structures and tourism business networks, both of which have thecapacity to contest governmental decisions and greatly shape the politics and stability ofdaily life. The coercive (and sometimes combative) power of tourism business networksand local elites (whose power is legitimised by cultural norms) in Thailand and their abilityto influence, block, and bypass formal government developmental regulations pre- andpost-tsunami are illuminated in Calgaro et al. (in press).

System adaptiveness

System adaptiveness refers to a dynamic state in which a population or system is effectivein responding to the convergence of multiple stresses (Nelson et al., 2007). It incorporatesanticipatory actions for preparedness, immediate and short-term coping responses, longer-term adjustments and adaptations, and it acknowledges their subsequent feedbacks (Nelsonet al., 2007). In doing so, the final dimension of vulnerability encapsulates the dynamic andunfolding processes of change (Turner et al., 2003).

Impact and coping responses (short-term) to shocks depend on the set of availablecapital, including the effectiveness of governance structures, levels of preparedness andcapacity to learn at the time of the shock’s impact or the breaching of the stressor’s tippingpoint (Tompkins & Adger, 2004). This relationship in the adaptive cycle between theaccumulation of capital prior to the destabilising event and the subsequent utilisation ofthat capital to help reorganise the system, is depicted in the DSF by the arrow connectingthe available capital (economic, human, social, political, physical and environmental) andplace-based tourism characteristics grouped in the sensitivity dimension, with the impactand short-term coping responses box in the system adaptiveness dimension. Reactionaryby nature, the immediate impact responses to shocks include emergency service actionsand the provision and distribution of aid. Short-term coping actions include financial aidand trauma support. These short-term coping mechanisms then give way to longer-term

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 351

adjustments and adaptation measures that can involve reflection, self-organisation, sociallearning and the embracing of emerging opportunities for transformation. Intervention atthis stage is critical in determining future vulnerability and resilience. But in spite of this,positive change is not guaranteed.

Feedback loops

The outcomes of action, inaction and failed actions (or a combination of all three) of thosetaken in the immediate, short- and longer-term phases of the post-event adaptive cycle feedback into the system and determine new levels of exposure and sensitivity to future events(Cunliffe, 2006). The monitoring of the consequences of differential system feedbacks overtime and space is arguably the most important aspect of the adaptive cycle, but is oftengiven the least attention (Larsen, Miller, & Thomalla, 2009).

Actions can produce both positive and negative outcomes for different actors(McKercher, 1999). Interventions that address pre-existing weaknesses in the system,and increase preparedness, social cohesion, learning and exchange can enhance accessand entitlements to resources and redress power inequities. This, in turn, decreases futureexposure and sensitivity levels to shocks and stressors and enhances resilience. Thesepositive outcomes are portrayed by the dark green arrows in Figure 2. However, adjustmentsand mitigation strategies are not always possible or wanted. Lack of adaptation and/orthe failure of adaptive strategies are a function of institutional capacity and knowledgesystems, as well as human agency, involving choices based on perceived likelihood offuture risk and the socio-economic cost of implementing and managing strategies. Inactionin the face of adversity and the acceptance of pre-existing limitations merely compoundsexposure and sensitivity, and increases vulnerability levels (shown by the dark red arrows).

Figure 2. The Destination Sustainability Framework.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

352 E. Calgaro et al.

But the choices of which actions to take (if any), consequent trade-offs between choicesand the competing needs of population sub-groups, as well as their success or failure, arecoloured by value systems and dominant ideologies, perceptions of risk and probable gain(sociopolitical and financial), power system configurations and human agency. Together,these conditions shape the context of human–environment interaction.

Deconstructing contextual influences that shape destinations and theirvulnerability

Seeing vulnerability as a characteristic of a given location places context at the fore-front of vulnerability analysis. The final three elements of the DSF – place, scale andtime – highlight the socially constructed and dynamic spatio-temporal context within whichvulnerability and resilience are manifested in destinations and in the supporting tourismsystem. The spatial elements include the places or destinations where vulnerability andresilience are experienced, and the scales of social organisation, through which multiplestakeholder actions, reactions and consequences play out. Time captures how these interac-tions, along with the occurrence of multiple shocks, unfold, recognising that these can occursimultaneously but at different speeds. Some processes are quicker than others, engenderingmultiple rhythms of change in a given place and system.

Each of the three interlinked and all-encompassing dimensions of place, scale and timeare depicted as fluid, dynamic and malleable to demonstrate that each element (like change)is indeterminable and contested. Yet, while the concepts of place, time, space and scaleare present in the resilience theory and sustainability science to capture the dynamism ofvulnerability and resilience (see Table 1), their role in shaping vulnerability and change isunder-explored. The DSF redresses these shortcomings in existing work by deconstructingplace, scale and time through the theoretical lens of place, relational scale and geographiesof temporality.

Tourist destinations as constructed places

Place theory provides a lens through which to deconstruct the nature of destinations andidentify the actors (who) and the causal processes (why certain actions are taken over others)that influence the construction and deliverance of both the destination and inevitably itsvulnerability and resilience. Explorations of place also enable meaningful analysis of therole place-specific differences and personal circumstances play in producing differentialvulnerability and resilience levels.

Places are more than physical locations and politically demarcated spaces; they aredynamic, elastic and contested landscapes that have multiple identities, meanings andinterpretations dependent upon multiple and subjective viewpoints and socio-ecologicalinteractions that evolve over space and time (Agnew, 1997; Pritchard & Morgan, 2000;Young, 1999). Places experience constant inward flows and outward flows of people thatcolour the landscape with their perceptions, experiences and preferences (Harrison &Price, 1996). The feelings and opinions of those who interact with a space within any givenmoment in time tie these processes and events together, culminating in a “sense of place”from which identity of place and its corresponding subjects are derived (Agnew, 1997;Massey, 1994).

Place, as a sociopolitical construct of multiple meanings and interpretations by multipleactor interactions, is perfectly demonstrated in the creation of tourist destinations. Touristplaces are tangible but fragile constructions (Bærenholdt, Haldrup, Larsen, & Urry, 2004).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 353

Destinations may be the focal point of the tourist experience but the production of theproduct, encapsulated in the destination’s image and the experience it offers, is undertakenby multiple businesses and the scaled interconnecting networks that form the tourism system(Bærenholdt et al., 2004). They capture the enduring tourist images of desired experiencesthat are represented and packaged by tour operators and then reinterpreted and constructedby destination host community (Pritchard & Morgan, 2000; Young, 1999). The place andthe experience it provokes are again reinterpreted by interactions between the destinationand the tourist on their arrival. Tourists also play a role in determining a destination’svulnerability. Consumer perceptions of destinations along with their travel preferences arefickle, leaving destinations vulnerable to events or processes that alter these preferencechoices.

Further influencing the actions of tourism stakeholders, and the subsequent developmenttrends, are deeper political and economic ideologies, religious doctrines, cultural normsand power systems, values, the agenda and expectations of both the tourism industry andthe tourists, and perceptions of risk and resultant choices. These contextual influencesare depicted in the DSF as the fluid (and pink) element of place that encompasses thethree dimensions of vulnerability. The contested internal and external forces that shapeplaces and their vulnerability are acknowledged in the DSF by a series of dynamic arrows.Together, these influences permeate the fabric of a destination and influence the nature andintensity of disruptive events, actions, reactions and consequences, and in turn, vulnerabilityand resilience. They are power-laden and deeply rooted in culture, history, religion andideology. They shape governance structures and reinforce dominant ideologies, influencedevelopmental decisions and destination characteristics, determine differential access toresources and their usage, influence business decisions and shape perceptions of risk andcorresponding responses. Understanding these power dynamics and identifying the agendasthat determine the form tourism activity takes in each destination, and tourist flows to thosedestinations, is therefore crucial to understanding and addressing destination vulnerability.

Scale and power

The scaling of the production of the tourism product, the supporting system that crosseslocal, regional, national and international scales, and the geographical dispersion of shocksand stressors makes scale an integral consideration in destination vulnerability and re-silience assessments. However, hierarchical and nested depictions of scale that are evidentin resilience theory (see Holling & Gunderson, 2002) and existing vulnerability frame-works (Turner et al., 2003 is one example) are replaced in the DSF by a fluid and malleableconstant (portrayed in light green) to show scale as dynamic and relational. This more fluidand malleable representation of scale better reflects the multidimensional and contestedsocial processes and facilitating networks that shape the social-ecological system, and itsvulnerability and resilience (Tan-Mullins, Rigg, Law, & Grundy-Warr, 2007). This rela-tional depiction of scale is grounded in geographical theories of relational scale that explorethe discourse of scale, engaging in how scale is defined and used to exploit and manipulatepower and facilitate social action (Marston, Jones III, & Woodward, 2005).

Relational scale deconstructs naturalised scales of social organisation – categories ofhousehold, local, sub-national, national, regional, global – to reveal the subjectivity of socialrelations and illuminate how social actors simultaneously use multi-scaled social processesand supporting structures to either reinforce the differential access to power and resourceswithin a given society or to create new landscapes of power, recognition and opportunity(Howitt, 1993; Sadler & Fagan, 2004). These actions are not necessarily directed at one

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

354 E. Calgaro et al.

scale. Entry points for action can exist at multiple scales simultaneously. The social actorsthat recognise this and take advantage of all opportunities experience greater levels ofsuccess in getting what they want. Seen in this light, scale (like place) is a conditionalproduct of the tensions that exist between structural forces and human agency (Marston,2000).

Relational scale does not devalue, deny or exclude naturalised scales of social organisa-tion. Rather, it engages in the politics of scale, revealing the way in which actors scale theiractions and responses using existing power structures and social networks to gain betteraccess to the resources they need to fulfil their needs and goals in times of both stabilityand crisis. The angle taken by actors depends on their agenda and social position in society.Those in power work to reassert and strengthen their positions, while the marginalisedsearch for ways to contest existing power dynamics and create new power platforms andopportunity (Howitt, 2003; Jonas, 2006). Put simply, knowing which political buttons topress, what social pathways to use, and at what scale(s) is crucial in securing success. InCalgaro et al. (in press), we demonstrate how tourism actors in Khao Lak, Patong and PhiPhi Don used their networks and established pathways (at the local, provincial, nationaland international levels) to successfully get access to the resources they needed to recoverafter the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. This continuous manoeuvrability and wrestling overpower and resource access through scale is portrayed in the DSF as multiple arrows pullingand pushing scale – the way it is defined, the way in which activities are scaled and themultiple ways scale is exploited by social actors.

Scale is a powerful lens through which to explore and act upon change (Jonas, 2006),making it a potent addition to the DSF. Viewing scale as relational enables a deeper analysisof the scaled processes, networks (including formal and informal governance structures andbusiness networks) and relationships (personal and professional) that social actors use togain access to the resources they need to fulfil their objectives and agenda. The identificationof these constant and contested politicised actions and interactions also illuminates theprocesses that create and perpetuate social inequality and differential vulnerabilities withindestinations. Finally, the identification of key actors with a vested interest in tourismdevelopment, and the multi-scaled structures they work through, provides planners, policy-makers and community with a clear directive regarding the type of resilience strategiesrequired, the target audience and the most appropriate scales for policy action and execution.

Rhythms of time and change in tourism destinations

Temporality and multiple layerings of cyclical and linear rhythms of time, alongwith rhythms of repetition, stability and change are a fundamental attribute ofhuman–environment systems, the evolution of destinations, and their vulnerability (Adam,1995; Adger, 2006; Bærenholdt et al., 2004). There are temporal rhythms influencing:timing of travel (work time versus leisure time and seasons); destination evolution andplacement; business longevity; ecological processes and change in destinations (includingrapid shocks or longer-term stressors); experiences within destinations (as a workplace foremployers or as a tourist); and rhythms that dictate a sense of place. Some destinationrhythms like seasonality also increase destination vulnerability. While seasonality is a nat-ural rhythm, perceptions and the desirability of seasons and tourist travel time preferencesare determined by tourists and tour operators (Hall & Page, 2002). Those households andcommunities that are dependent on seasonal tourist inflows must therefore plan their livesaround uneven flows of income that are highly vulnerable to events like the 2004 Indian

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 355

Ocean Tsunami that occurred during the peak tourist season and wiped out the income forthe entire year (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008; Calgaro et al., in press).

The inclusion of time as the last element of the DSF (shown in light blue) acknowledgesthat destinations as places, the destabilising events that trigger change in the tourismsystem, actor reactions to these changes, and the consequences of these responses, allsimultaneously occur at different temporal speeds. Understanding and charting the timing ofmultiple changes that occur within the social-ecological system (including the existence ofoverlapping shocks and stressors) is crucial to the design and implementation of appropriaterisk reduction and resilience building actions as these changes and events unfold. Peoplemake personal, business and policy choices based on perceptions of possible risks, realisedevents, and acceptable trade-offs that are taken within a greater context of “economic andpolitical interests, established habits, national pride and legitimisation” (Adam, 1995, p.132). Yet invariably the timeframe of the perceived danger is often out of sync with theaction-time frames, as the exact timings of disruptive events are hard to predict (Adam,1995). Even when the timing of occurrences is more certain, action is still not a given(Thomalla & Schmuck, 2004).

The occurrence of multiple events with varying speeds and intensities, and differentsocial-ecological responses to those differential rates of change, are charted in Hollinget al’s (2002, p. 75) portrayal of panarchies. In this theoretical depiction of temporality in thesocial-ecological system, sudden change prompts immediate responses within the system,while slower changes prompt different responses, some of which come too late to avoidirreparable damage to a system’s structure and function. Yet, while this interlinked depictionof multiple change processes is highly commended for recognising the temporalities ofchange and their impacts, we contend that its representation of nested inter-linkages betweensystems fails to capture the existence of overlapping events and processes that coexist at anygiven moment, requiring multi-layered responses that unfold at different temporal speeds.Therefore, time in the DSF is depicted as a constant but highly variable component of thesocial-ecological system. Within this temporal sphere there exists a myriad of coexistingshocks and stressors and interlinked responses to these. It is impossible to clearly map outall the complexities of time and the temporalities of multiple processes in one framework,so a more generalising constant was chosen. There are some specific temporal expressionsin the framework, with the acknowledgement of short-term and longer-term responses, butthe feedback consequences of multiple actions will play out at different time-scales.

Conclusions

Finding credible pathways to achieving higher levels of tourism resilience and sustainabilityin a world of uncertainty has been a prominent feature of contemporary tourism discourse,but the goal remains elusive (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010;Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008). We have highlighted two contributing reasons for this. De-spite sustained enquiry from disaster and crisis management and climate change researchwithin tourism, significant knowledge gaps of what conditions increase vulnerability levelsin tourism destinations (where vulnerability and resilience are manifested) remain. Further-more, there are few rigorous frameworks and theoretical parameters to guide the holisticassessment of destination vulnerability and resilience. To bridge these fundamental gaps,we have created an innovative framework for conceptualising destination vulnerability andresilience – the DSF.

To complete this theory-building task, we undertook a series of retroductive steps.First, we offered a brief review of the interconnected relationship between vulnerability

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

356 E. Calgaro et al.

and resilience and outlined those conditions that create and perpetuate vulnerability inplaces (generally) and destinations (specifically) over time and space. Then, we reviewed aseries of seminal systems frameworks and theoretical tools that help to illuminate differentaspects of vulnerability and resilience in tourism. Informed by the merits and limitationsof each research tradition, the DSF presented here draws upon the strengths of currentsystems approaches. It also incorporates geographies of place, scale and time to overcomehierarchical notions of scaled actions and processes that shape destinations, and to exposethe contextualised root causes and processes that permeate every aspect of the social-ecological system and, in turn, its vulnerability and resilience.

The development of the DSF is theoretically significant for tourism research and practiceon two counts. First and foremost, it creates a new holistic theoretical base for understandingand analysing destination vulnerability and resilience to multiple shocks and stressors. Thisis a first for tourism research. Second, the creation of a theoretical framework that incor-porates the depth of current systems approaches – chaos–complexity theory, vulnerabilityapproaches, sustainability science and resilience thinking – brings tourism sustainabilityresearch in line with wider and inclusive debates on achieving sustainability within thedynamic coupled human–environment system of which tourism is a part. However, thecreation of the DSF does more than this. It has pushed the boundaries to advance the-ories of vulnerability by: (1) re-emphasising the importance of place and contextualisedinfluences in vulnerability creation and perpetuation; and (2) reconceptualising the scalingand temporality of vulnerability and resilience using human geography theories of place,relational scale and temporality. We also contend that the DSF could be used as a moregeneral theoretical tool for examining vulnerability and resilience levels of populations whoare not reliant on tourism as a livelihood source. This would be possible by removing thetourism-specific components that are particular to the tourism context and replacing themwith other context-specific factors that are appropriate to the chosen industry or population.

It must be remembered, however, that social theories, including the DSF, are designedto help facilitate a greater understanding of real-world problems like vulnerability. Theapplication of the DSF to events and problems that challenge the sustainability of destina-tions and other components of the tourism system is critical for demonstrating the worthof the new theoretical framework. We fulfil this need for theoretical reflection by usingthe DSF to examine the causal factors that contributed to differential vulnerability andresilience patterns found in the Thai tourist destinations of Khao Lak, Patong and Phi PhiDon following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (Calgaro et al., in press).

AcknowledgementsWe thank Macquarie University for the lead author’s Australian Postgraduate Award to undertake thisresearch, Stockholm Environmental Institute for financial assistance and Kannapa Pongponrat andSopon Naruchaikusol for their help with data collection.We also thank Richie Howitt and Frank Thomalla as well as the editors and referees for their detailedadvice on earlier drafts of this manuscript, which has improved the final paper.

Notes on contributorsEmma Calgaro is a human geographer at the Australia–Pacific Natural Hazards Research Lab atUNSW, Sydney. Her research explores the drivers of vulnerability and resilience in the coupledhuman–environment system. Specifically, she focuses on understanding the complex set of contextualfactors (sociocultural, political, economic and biophysical) that impede and/or improve resilience andvulnerability levels to risk, with a strong focus on contextual vulnerability in tourism destinations. Her

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 357

research aims to advance the theoretical underpinnings of vulnerability research and sustainabilityscience and applying these theoretical advances to the tourism context.

Kate Lloyd is a senior lecturer in the Department of Environment and Geography at MacquarieUniversity. Her research focuses on critical development geography and socio-economic change inAsia with a special focus on tourism. In particular, her research in tourism is strongly connectedto policy and community development outcomes with an emphasis on government–private sectorcollaboration and communication.

Dale Dominey-Howes is a professor at the School of Geosciences at the University of Sydney, Sydney.His interests are in natural hazards, hazard, risk and vulnerability assessment, disaster and emergencymanagement. He is particularly interested in the interconnections between biophysical systems andthe socio-economic contexts in which disasters unfold and considers “natural hazards” in terms ofcoupled human–environment systems and policy.

ReferencesAdam, B. (1995). Timewatch: The social analysis of time. Cambridge: Polity Press.Adger, W.N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281.Agnew, J. (1997). The dramaturgy of horizons: Geographical scale in the “reconstruction of Italy” by

the new Italian political parties, 1992–95. Political Geography, 16, 99–122.Anfara, V., & Mertz, N.T. (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks:

Sage.Bærenholdt, J.O., Haldrup, M., Larsen, J., & Urry, J. (2004). Performing tourist places. Aldershot:

Ashgate.Baker, K., & Coulter, A. (2007). Terrorism and tourism: The vulnerability of beach vendors’ liveli-

hoods in Bali. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3), 249–266.Bankoff, G. (2003). Vulnerability as a measure of change in society. International Journal of Mass

Emergencies and Disasters, 21(2), 5–30.Berkhout, F. (2008). Order in socio-technical systems: The dark side of resilience. In M. Leach (Ed.),

Re-framing resilience: A symposium report (pp. 11–13). Brighton: STEPS Centre.Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific realism and human emancipation. London: Verso.Biggs, D. (2011). Understanding resilience in a vulnerable industry: The case of reef tourism

in Australia. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 30. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss31/art30/

Biggs, D., Hall, C.M., & Stoeckl, N. (2011). The resilience of formal and informal tourism enterprisesto disasters: Reef tourism in Phuket, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20, 645–665.

Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: Conceptualframeworks and definitions. In J. Birkmann (Ed.), Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards:Towards disaster resilient societies (pp. 9–54). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Buckle, P., Mars, G., & Smale, S. (2000). New approaches to assessing vulnerability and resilience.The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 15(2-Winter), 8–14.

Burak, S., Dogan, E., & Gazioglu, C. (2004). Impact of urbanisation and tourism on coastal environ-ment. Ocean and Coastal Management, 47, 515–527.

Calgaro, E. (2010). Building resilient tourism destination futures in a world of uncertainty:Assessing destination vulnerability in Khao Lak, Patong and Phi Phi Don, Thailand tothe 2004 Tsunami (Doctoral dissertation). Macquarie University, Sydney. Retrieved fromhttp://hdl.handle.net/1959.14/164721

Calgaro, E., Dominey-Howes, D., & Lloyd, K. (in press). Application of the Destination SustainabilityFramework (DSF) to explore the drivers of vulnerability and resilience in Thailand following the2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. Journal of Sustainable Tourism.

Calgaro, E., & Lloyd, K. (2008). Sun, sea, sand and tsunami: Examining disaster vulnerability inthe tourism community of Khao Lak, Thailand. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 29,288–306.

Cannon, T. (2008). Reducing people’s vulnerability to natural hazards: Communities and resilienceUNU-WIDER Research Paper Series. Helsinki: World Institute for Development EconomicsResearch of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER).

Carlsen, J.C., & Liburd, J.J. (2008). Developing a research agenda for tourism crisis management,market recovery and communications. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4), 265–276.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

358 E. Calgaro et al.

Cioccio, L., & Michael, E.J. (2007). Hazard or disaster: Tourism management for the inevitable inNortheast Victoria. Tourism Management, 28(1), 1–11.

Clark, W.C., & Dickson, N.M. (2003). Sustainability science: The emerging research program.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 100(14), 8059–8061.

Clark, G., Jaeger, J., Corell, R., Kasperson, R.E., McCarthy, J.J., Cash, D., . . . Wilbanks, T.J. (2000).Assessing vulnerability to global environmental risks (Report of the Workshop on Vulnerabilityto Global Environmental Change: Challenges for Research Assessment and Decision Making,Vol. 2000–12). Cambridge, MA: Environment and Natural Resources Program, Belfer Centre forScience and International Affairs (BCSIA), Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Cochrane, J. (2010). The sphere of tourism resilience. Tourism Recreation Research, 32(2), 173–186.Cohen, E. (2008). The tsunami waves and the paradisic cycle: The changing image of the Andaman

coastal region of Thailand. Tourism Analysis, 13, 221–232.Cunliffe, S.K. (2006). Risk management for tourism: Origins and needs. Tourism Review Interna-

tional, 10(1–2), 27–38.Cutter, S.L. (2003). The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Annals of the

Association of American Geographers, 93(1), 1–12.DFID. (1999a). Social capital keysheet. Keysheets for Sustainable Livelihoods, (3), 1–2. Retrieved

from http://www.keysheets.org/red_3_social_capital.htmldoi:http://www.keysheets.org/red_3_social_capital.html

DFID. (1999b). Sustainable livelihood guidance sheets: Framework. Retrieved fromhttp://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section2 .pdfdoi:http:// www. livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section2.pdf

Dwyer, L., Edwards, D., Mistilis, N., Roman, C., & Scott, N. (2008). Destination and enterprisemanagement for a tourism future. Tourism Management, 30, 63–74.

Eakin, H.L., & Luers, A.L. (2006). Assessing the vulnerability of social-environment systems. AnnualReview of Environment and Resources, 31, 365–394.

Edgar, D.A., & Nisbet, L. (1996). A matter of chaos – some issues for hospitality business. Interna-tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(2), 6–9.

Farrell, B.H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualising tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,31(2), 274–295.

Farrington, J. (2001). Sustainable livelihoods, rights, and the new architecture of aid. Natural ResourcePerspectives (Vol. 69, pp. 1–4). London: ODI.

Faulkner, B., & Russell, R. (1997). Chaos and complexity in tourism: In search of a new perspective.Pacific Tourism Review, 1, 93–102.

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses.Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.

Fulu, E. (2007). Gender, vulnerability, and the experts: Responding to the Maldives tsunami. Devel-opment and Change, 38(5), 843–864.

Hall, C.M., & Page, S.J. (2002). The geography of tourism and recreation: Environment, place andspace. London: Routledge.

Harrison, D., & Price, M.F. (1996). Fragile environments, fragile communities? An introduction. InM.F. Price & V.L. Smith (Eds.), People and tourism in fragile environments (pp. 1–18). Milton:John Wiley and Sons.

Hay, J., & Becken, S. (2007). Tourism and climate change: Risks and opportunities. Bristol: ChannelView Books.

Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2010). The elusiveness of sustainability in tourism: The culture–ideology ofconsumerism and its implications. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10, 116–129.

Holling, C.S., & Gunderson, L.H. (2002). Resilience and adaptive cycles. In L.H. Gunderson &C.S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems(pp. 25–62). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Holling, C.S., Gunderson, L.H., & Peterson, G. (2002). Sustainability and panarchies. In L.H. Gun-derson & C.S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and naturalsystems (pp. 63–102). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Howitt, R. (1993). A world in a grain of sand: Towards a reconceptualisation of scale. AustralianGeographer, 24(1), 33–43.

Howitt, R. (2003). Scale. In J. Agnew, K. Mitchell & G. Toal (Eds.), A companion to politicalgeography (pp. 138–157). Melbourne: Blackwell.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 359

IPCC. (2001). Climate change 2001: Synthesis report. A contribution of working groups I, II, andIII to the Third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, B.B., & Covello, V.T. (1987). The social and cultural construction of risk. Dordrecht: D.Reidel Publishing Company.

Jonas, A.E.G. (2006). Pro scale: Further reflections on the “scale debate” in human geography.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(3), 399–406.

Kasperson, R.E., Turner, B.L., Schiller, A., & Hsieh, W.-H. (2001). Research and assessment systemsfor sustainability: Framework for vulnerability. Paper presented at the AIACC Project Develop-ment Workshop: Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation, Trieste, Italy.

Larsen, R.K., Calgaro, E., & Thomalla, F. (2011). Governing resilience building in Thailand’s tourism-dependent coastal communities: Conceptualising stakeholder agency in social–ecological sys-tems. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 481–491.

Larsen, R.K., Miller, F., & Thomalla, F. (2009). Vulnerability and recovery from the tsunami: Buildingresilient coastal communities. A synthesis of documented factors contributing to tsunami relatedvulnerability in Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Research Report (pp. 59). Stockholm: StockholmEnvironment Institute.

Leach, M. (Ed.). (2008). Re-framing resilience: A symposium report. Brighton: STEPS Centre.Mansfeld, Y. (1999). Cycles of war, terror, and peace: Determinants and management of crisis and

recovery of the Israeli tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 38(1), 30–36.Marshall, N.A., Marshall, P.A., Abdulla, A., Rouphael, T., & Ali, A. (2011). Preparing for climate

change: Recognising its early impacts through the perceptions of dive tourists and dive operatorsin the Egyptian Red Sea. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(6), 507–518.

Marston, S.A. (2000). The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography, 24(2),219–242.

Marston, S.A., Jones III, J.P., & Woodward, K. (2005). Human geography without scale. Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 30, 416–432.

Massey, D. (1994). Double articulation: A “place in the world”. In A. Bammer (Ed.), Displacements:Cultural identities in question (pp. 110–122). Bloomingdale: Indiana University Press.

McKercher, B. (1999). A chaos approach to tourism. Tourism Management, 20(4), 425–434.McLaughlin, P., & Dietz, T. (2008). Structure, agency and environment: Toward an integrated per-

spective on vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 99–111.Meheux, K., & Parker, E. (2006). Tourist sector perceptions of natural hazards in Vanuatu and the

implications for a small island developing state. Tourism Management, 27(1), 69–85.Miller, F., Osbahr, H., Boyd, E., Thomalla, F., Bharwani, S., Ziervogel, G., . . . Nelson, D.R. (2010).

Resilience and vulnerability: Complimentary or conflicting concepts? Ecology and Society, 15(3),11. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss13/art11/

Miller, G.A., & Ritchie, B.W. (2003). A farming crisis or a tourism disaster? An analysis of the footand mouth disease in the UK. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(2), 150–171.

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

Nelson, D.R., Adger, W.N., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change: Contributionsof a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32(November 2007),395–419.

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

Pelling, M. (2003). The vulnerability of cities: Natural disasters and social resilience. London:Earthscan.

Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Grato, E., & Zaccarelli, N. (2006). Indicating fragility of socio-ecologicaltourism-based systems. Ecological Indicators, 6, 104–113.

Polsky, C., Neff, R., & Yarnal, B. (2007). Building comparable global change vulnerability assess-ments: The vulnerability scoping diagram. Global Environmental Change, 17, 472–485.

Prideaux, B., Laws, E., & Faulkner, B. (2003). Events in Indonesia: Exploring the limits to for-mal tourism trends forecasting methods in complex crisis situations. Tourism Management, 24,475–487.

Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N.J. (2000). Constructing tourism landscapes – gender, sexuality and space.Tourism Geographies, 2(2), 115–139.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014

360 E. Calgaro et al.

Richter, L.K., & Waugh, W.L. (1986). Terrorism and tourism as logical companions. Tourism Man-agement, 7(4), 230–238.

Rigg, J., Grundy-Warr, C., Law, L., & Tan-Mullins, M. (2008). Grounding a natural disaster: Thailandand the 2004 tsunami. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 49(2), 137–154.

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

Sadler, D., & Fagan, R. (2004). Australian trade unions and the politics of scale: Reconstructing thespatiality of industrial relations. Economic Geography, 80, 23–44.

Scheyvens, R., & Momsen, J. (2008). Tourism in small island states: From vulnerability to strengths.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 491–510.

Scott, N., Laws, E., & Prideaux, B. (2008). Tourism crises and marketing recovery strategies. Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23(2), 1–13.

Sharpley, R. (2005). The tsunami and tourism: A comment. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(4), 344–349.Strickland-Munro, J.K., Allison, H.E., & Moore, S.A. (2010). Using resilience concepts to investigate

the impacts of protected area tourism on communities. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2),499–519.

Tan-Mullins, M., Rigg, J., Law, L., & Grundy-Warr, C. (2007). Re-mapping the politics of aid: Thechanging structures and networks of humanitarian assistance in post-tsunami Thailand. Progressin Development Studies, 7(4), 327–344.

Tarlow, P.E. (2009). How the next pandemic may impact the world’s tourism industry. Tourism Re-view On-line Magazine IX/2009 28 September 2009. Retrieved from http://www.tourism-review.com/travel-tourism-magazine.php

Thomalla, F., & Schmuck, H. (2004). “We all knew that a cyclone was coming”: Disaster preparednessand the cyclone of 1999 in Orissa, India. Disasters, 28(4), 255–269.

Tompkins, E.L., & Adger, W.N. (2004). Does adaptive management of natural resources enhanceresilience to climate change? Ecology and Society, 9(2), 10.

Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R., Christensen, L., . . . Schiller,A. (2003). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the United States, 100(4), 8074–8079.

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk: Natural hazards, peoples, vulnerabilityand disasters (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Young, M. (1999). The social construction of tourist places. Australian Geographer, 30(3), 373–389.Zahra, A., & Ryan, C. (2007). From chaos to cohesion – complexity in tourism structures: An analysis

of New Zealand’s regional tourism organizations. Tourism Management, 28(3), 854–862.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sy

dney

] at

22:

59 2

9 M

ay 2

014