Introduction
Throughout Australia, many small regional economies are dependent on nature based tourism. As a result of global warming, however, the increasing frequency and severity of bushfire represents a major threat to communities reliant on incomes and employment generated by visitors drawn by nature-based attractions. The resilience of such destinations, and the communities that tourism spending supports, is therefore deeply reliant on sympathetic planning and actions of multiple land managers and emergency services responsible for fire prevention, emergency response and recovery.
This paper draws on the findings of a study conducted with the aim to assess the economic value and vulnerability of nature based tourism of a destination affected by four bushfire events since 2003. The case-study destination is Harrietville ā a small town based in the Australian Alpine Region located on the Great Alpine Road between the regional centre of Bright and Mt Hotham, one of Victoriaās premier ski resorts. Despite its small population of around 400 residents, the town provides immediate access to abundant natural attractions including a national park and state forest, rivers, ski-fields and iconic touring routes for walkers, cars, motor-bikes and cyclists. One implication of this diversity of resources is that the tourism system and governance processes are highly complex despite the smallness of the destination. Key stakeholders include tourism operators, multiple land management authorities, emergency services and social and community services. The local residential community is also enmeshed with both the tourism system and governance bodies both directly through property, employment and/or business interests, and indirectly through community networks and an investment in the character of the locality.
The impetus for this study emerged in the context of the most recent bushfire, which started on 21 January 2013 and was ignited through a lightning strike at Smoko, a locality around four kilometres north-east of Harrietville. While the fire was named āthe Harrietville Fireā, the fire actually travelled around Harrietville to within 100 metres of Mt Hotham and across the Great Alpine Road. The result was that 37,000 hectares of Alpine National Park were burnt over a period of 55 days leading to the tragic death of two firefighters. The fire was also followed by heavy rains, which coupled with the after-effects of the fires, caused considerable flooding and water contamination in the township. The combined effects of fire and flood also caused mud slides forcing road closures between Harrietville and Mt Hotham. These events resulted in at least partial road closures to Harrietville for twelve weeks during 2013. As a result, the town suffered a loss of income from visitors or transit tourists for effectively three months of 2013. Further, damage was caused to parkland and many walking and four-wheel drive trails through parkland were either damaged, closed for safety reasons or difficult to access. A compounding issue was the reputational damage caused by misleading media coverage of the fire events.
The impact of the fire prompted a multi-agency government response primarily led by the state Emergency Management Authority. A key strategy was the support and facilitation of a community forum comprised of representatives of tourism operators, general community members and community groups and services such as the Country Fire Authority (CFA). The forum provided the communication mechanism for a number of projects designed to support Harrietvilleās planning, emergency response and recovery for future fire events. The study of tourism values in the area was part of this effort and one of the key resilience factors identified was the success of stakeholder engagement efforts, and the positive impacts this has made to community preparedness and response to fire events. At the same time, the process had been undertaken from an emergency management perspective and tourism values of the area have been a secondary, rather than a central focus of stakeholder engagement efforts. By taking a perspective focussed on the tourism economy, the study revealed important gaps in stakeholder recognition and engagement that have negatively impacted on both the integrity of the nature-based resources on which tourism relies and consequently, the resilience of the area as a tourism destination. Visitors, future visitors and to a lesser extent, tourism operators, have been particularly overlooked as a stakeholder in the process of fire prevention and recovery.
Informed by a Destination Sustainability Framework (DSF) (Calgaro, Lloyd, & Dominey-Howes, 2014), this paper presents the key vulnerabilities and resilience characteristics identified through the tourism values study. Drawing on stakeholder theory (Bourne, 2008; Byrd, 2007; Sautter & Leisen, 1999), the role of stakeholder engagement and communications in bushfire prevention, management and recovery is discussed. In particular, the intersections between emergency management authorities and the local tourism economy are highlighted.
The tourism resilience and stakeholder nexus
Harrietville is surrounded by expanses of bushland and bushfire risk is accepted as a part of life. However, the frequency and severity of bushfires in Australia are expected to increase (Hughes & Steffen, 2013) and in recent years, several major bushfires events have occurred in the Harrietville region in close proximity. These included the bushfire events of 2003, 2006/07, 2009 and 2013.
Traditionally risk analysis (see for example, ISO Guide 73, 2009) has been a top down approach identifying individual risks and estimating the likelihood of the risk occurring and the severity of its impact should it occur, to gain a quantitative, if relative, estimate of risk. More recently a more bottom up approach has come to the fore based around estimating a communitiesā vulnerability to a broad range of risks. To account for this change, this study approached the vulnerability assessment from a climate adaptation perspective where āadaptationā refers to adaptive actions to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience to the potential adverse impacts of climate extremes (IPCC, 2012).
Tourism has unique challenges and opportunities in regards to climate adaptation. Not only is tourism demand sensitive to changes in climate (for example skiing destinations that rely heavily on a conducive climate), climatic changes also pose risks to the appeal of a destination, transport infrastructure, the resource base (natural and human), tourist satisfaction, safety and health, as well as the sustainability of tourist facilities (Jopp, De Lacy, & Mair, 2010). The adaptive capacity also varies between tourism stakeholders (Scott et al., 2008). For example, accommodation providers, attraction operators and communities generally have a low adaptive capacity as they are bound to their geographic area, whilst their customers (tourists) are mobile and can simply choose a different destination to suit their individual needs.
To address individual climate change risks, a wide range of adaptations are used by tourism stakeholders around the world, including technological, managerial, policy and behavioural adaptation (Scott et al., 2008) and a number of adaptation frameworks have been proposed in the literature. These include the Regional Adaptation Framework (Jopp et al., 2010; Jopp, De Lacy, Mair, & Fluker, 2013), the vulnerability assessment methodology of Moreno and Becken (2009), the vulnerability scoping diagrams (VSD) of Polsky, Neff, and Yarnal (2007) and the Climate Change Vulnerability/Resilience Framework of Klint (2012). For this study, the Destination Sustainability Framework (Calgaro, Dominey-Howes, & Lloyd, 2014; Calgaro, Lloyd et al., 2014) was selected as the most appropriate methodology as it was developed in the context of a natural disaster (the Tsunami of 2006) and has since been applied in adapted forms in a number of destinations in the South Pacific including Samoa and Vanuatu (Jiang & DeLacy, 2014; Klint et al., 2012). The framework focuses on exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity as the key elements of vulnerability and incorporates feedback loops that highlight the inter-dependencies of the drivers within the system.
Whilst not an explicit part of the model, the DSF illuminates the role that stakeholder engagement plays in the vulnerability and resilience of a destination (Calgaro, Dominey-Howes et al., 2014; Calgaro, Lloyd et al.,Lloyd, 2014). As such, the approach has commonalities with the literature highlighting the importance of stakeholders in achieving sustainability (e.g. Waligo, Clarke, & Hawkins, 2013). Identifying who the stakeholders are, and how to engage with them, plays a critical role in resilience building of a destination.
Stakeholder theory has its roots in the works of Freeman (1984, p. 4), who identified stakeholders as āany group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisationās objectives.ā Since then, the literature has evolved and justified the concept in a variety of contexts, which has included sustainable tourism (e.g. Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Byrd, 2007; Fletcher, 2009; Sautter & Leisen, 1999; Waligo et al., 2013) and disaster risk reduction (e.g. Gaillard & Mercer, 2013; Mercer, Gaillard et al., 2012; Mercer, Kelman, Taranis, & Suchet-Pearson, 2010; Palttala, Boano, Lund, & Vos, 2012). Tourism, in its myriad of forms, provides a unique stakeholder context as it involves people travelling to a destination outside their usual environment. This gives tourism destinations a complex multi-stakeholder nature and the literature often identifies six tourism stakeholder types: tourists, industry, local community, government, special interest groups and educational institutions (e.g. Waligo et al., 2013). However, in the context of vulnerability and resilience of a destination, stakeholders also include the emergency and recovery services and others depending on the context. Culture and traditional knowledge, for instance, have been shown to play a critical role in disaster risk reduction and the vulnerability of a destination (Bird, GĆsladĆ³ttir, & Dominey-Howes, 2011; Gaillard & Mercer, 2013; Mercer et al., 2012; Mercer, Kelman et al., 2010). However, effective stakeholder collaboration between each of these groups can be complex and very difficult to achieve. Different stakeholders often have disparate interests and/or perspectives, while the engagement process is influenced by the quality of leadership, quality of information and accessibility, stakeholder involvement capacity, stakeholder relationships and implementation priorities (Waligo et al., 2013). This is particularly the case in the tourism context where the mix of stakeholder groups is highly heterogeneous with diverse interests.
Method
Informed by the DSF (Calgaro, Lloyd et al., 2014), a vulnerability/resilience (V/R) assessment of tourism in Harrietville was conducted to reveal the risks (shocks and stressors) for Harrietvilleās tourism system in the context of bushfire, the constraining factors increasing its vulnerability, and the enabling factors increasing its resilience. A mixed method approach was adopted in order to gather relevant data, both primary and secondary, to undertake the V/R analysis. Specific data collection methods included visitor survey and in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders.
A survey of visitors to Harrietville was conducted over the 2014 Easter period. With reference to relevant literature, (Sanders, Laing, & Houghton, 2008; Tourism Research Australia, 2014), the survey included 22 questions across three sections: purpose and motivations for visiting Harrietville, understanding of bushfire risks and impacts, and demographic details. A total of 285 usable surveys were completed and analysed using SPSS. The survey findings were used to inform the V/R analysis which considers visitors as an essential component of the tourism system and a key tourism stakeholder. Visitorsā are potentially exposed to bushfire risks, and their understanding of and preparedness for bushfire risks and impacts have significant implications for determining a tourism destinationās level of vulnerability and resilience.
A total of 25 semi-structured ...
