Agrifood Tourism, Rural Resilience, and Recovery in a Postdisaster Context: Insights and Evidence from Kaikōura-Hurunui, New Zealand

Tourism Analysis, Vol. 26, pp. 135–149 1083-5423/21 $60.00 + .00 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/108354221X16079839951420 Copyright Ó 2021 Cognizant, LLC. E-ISSN 1943-3999 www.cognizantcommunication.com

AGRIFOOD TOURISM, RURAL RESILIENCE, AND RECOVERY IN A POSTDISASTER CONTEXT: INSIGHTS AND EVIDENCE FROM KAIKŌURA-HURUNUI, NEW ZEALAND

JOANNA FOUNTAIN,* NICHOLAS CRADOCK-HENRY,† FRANCA BUELOW,† AND HAMISH RENNIE*

*Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand †Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, Lincoln, NZ

On November 14, 2016 an earthquake struck the rural districts of Kaikōura and Hurunui on New Zealand’s South Island. The region—characterized by small dispersed communities, a local economy based on tourism and agriculture, and limited transportation connections—was severely impacted. Following the quake, road and rail networks essential to maintaining steady flows of goods, visitors, and services were extensively damaged, leaving agrifood producers with significant logistical challenges, resulting in reduced productivity and problematic market access. Regional tourism destinations also suffered with changes to the number, characteristics, and travel patterns of visitors. As the region recovers, there is renewed interest in the development and promotion of agrifood tourism and trails as a pathway for enhancing rural resilience, and a growing awareness of the importance of local networks. Drawing on empirical evidence and insights from a range of affected stakeholders, including food producers, tourism operators, and local government, we explore the significance of emerging agrifood tourism initiatives for fostering diversity, enhancing connectivity, and building resilience in the context of rural recovery. We highlight the motivation to diversify distribution channels for agrifood producers, and strengthen the region’s tourism place identity. Enhancing product offerings and establishing better links between different destinations within the region are seen as essential. While such trends are common in rural regions globally, we suggest that stakeholders’ shared experience with the earthquake and its aftermath has opened up new opportunities for regeneration and reimagination, and has influenced current agrifood tourism trajectories. In particular, additional funding for tourism recovery marketing and product development after the earthquake, and an emphasis on greater connectivity between the residents and communities through strengthening rural networks and building social capital within and between regions, is enabling more resilient and sustainable futures.

Key words: Agrifood tourism; Rural resilience; Postdisaster recovery; New Zealand

Address correspondence to Joanna Fountain, Senior Lecturer in Tourism Management, P.O. Box 85084, Lincoln University, Lincoln, 7647, Canterbury, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected] 135

Delivered by Ingenta IP: 192.168.39.210 On: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 14:37:26 Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location. 136 FOUNTAIN ET AL.

Introduction and sensitivity. Earthquakes and other perils not only have a human cost in terms of lives, liveli- On November 14, 2016, a M7.8 earthquake hoods, and well-being, but have flow on effects for struck North Canterbury, on New Zealand’s South primary production and productivity, tourism, and Island. The epicenter was a rural district, approxi- capital investment. Exposure to environmental and mately 60 km to the south west and inland of the georisks and hazards have significant implications popular tourist destination of Kaikōura. The earth- for the country, whose trade-oriented agricultural quake included the rupture of 21 faults across a economy is already sensitive to climate variabil- span of approximately 180 km (Stevenson et al., ity and extremes (Cradock-Henry, 2017; Kenny, 2017), caused widespread landslides (estimated 2011). between 80,000 and 100,000 separate slips), and As the recovery process in North Canterbury resulted in uplift of the seabed by an average of continues, local stakeholders are engaging in a 2 m along a stretch of the east coast of the South range of strategies to reduce risk and strengthen Island. While the region has experienced earth- the resilience of their communities and regions quakes before—including the Christchurch/Can- (Cradock-Henry et al., 2018). Drawing on insights terbury earthquake sequences in 2010/2011 and the from disaster risk and resilience science, documen- 2013 Seddon earthquake, north of the district—this tary analysis, and informant interviews, this article event was predominantly felt by rural communi- explores the potential of agrifood tourism, includ- ties. Road and rail access immediately stopped ing trail networks, to foster rural resilience for busi- due to surface faulting, buckling, landslides, and nesses, communities, and regions as a whole. In damage to bridges. State Highway 1 (SH1)—the rural communities throughout the world, agrifood main South Island travel route and key connection tourism is providing the basis for regional eco- for Kaikōura to the north and south—was closed, nomic development as tourists increasingly head and would remain blocked north of the town for “off the beaten track” in search of individualized, over a year, effectively stemming the flow of traffic educative, personal, and “authentic” experiences. through the township. Communications, electricity, These experiences often incorporate local food, water, and sewerage infrastructures were severely as they seek a “taste of place” (Bessière, 1998; disrupted. Throughout the region there was signifi- Fusté-Forné & Berno, 2016; Sidali, Kastenholtz cant damage to homes, businesses, farm facilities, & Bianchi, 2015; Sims, 2009; Timothy & Ron, and land, as well as stock losses and business inter- 2013). While usually framed in terms of tourism ruption or reduced productivity (Stevenson et al., development, or as an opportunity for producers 2017). In a region reliant on the tourism, fishing, to diversify income and distributions channels, we and agricultural sectors, the impact was immedi- suggest that these agrifood tourism networks have ate; thousands of tourists were stranded or faced the potential to reduce vulnerabilities and enhance substantial disruptions to their plans, and the col- rural resilience in multiple ways, particularly in lection, processing, and distribution of agricultural postdisaster recovery contexts. By enhancing and products—from sea and land—was compromised. diversifying product offerings, establishing link- Many businesses, and communities, faced an ages between communities and stakeholders, and uncertain future with the interruption to critical predefining potential recovery pathways prior to a infrastructure and lifelines. disaster, rural communities may be better placed For New Zealand, the earthquake prompted to realize opportunities for building resilience and renewed calls for greater attention to the need to to foster the capability and capacity for improved better understand, prepare for, and respond to haz- responses to future emergencies. ard events at a regional level. While aspirations of We begin the article with a review of resilience a “resilient New Zealand” have underpinned gov- and its relationship to rural studies. The salient ernment policy since the Civil Defence and Emer- characteristics of resilience that have potential gency Management Act 2002, recent experience to inform and characterize postdisaster recovery with earthquakes, floods, snowstorms, and wildfire efforts are discussed. This is followed by a case have highlighted the country’s continued exposure study from North Canterbury, where new agrifood

tourism opportunities are being proposed, in large depopulation, loss of services, and continued part as a response to recent earthquakes. dependence on climate-, risk-, and market-sensitive primary industries has in places decreased capacity for responding to disasters. Understanding rural Perspectives on Rural Resilience resilience—distinct in terms of spatial, social, and Resilience science has been evolving steadily temporal scales (Franklin et al., Newton & McEn- from its origins in ecology (Holling, 1973) and is tee, 2011; Kapucu et al., 2013)—can help inform a now applied across diverse fields of research and more dynamic perspective, with an explicit focus practice (Berkes & Ross, 2013). In a risk manage- on people and their experience of and reactions to ment context, resilience is described as “the ability risks (Franklin et al., 2011; Pain & Levine, 2012). of a system, community or society exposed to haz- A number of empirical studies have focused on ards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover and defined “community resilience,” often study- from the effects of a hazard in a timely and effi- ing rural and semirural communities as opposed to cient manner, including through the preservation distinctly urban populations (e.g., Franklin et al., and restoration of its essential basic structures and 2011). Community resilience is described as “the functions” (United Nations International Strategy collective ability of a neighbourhood or geographi- for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2009, p. 24). “Build- cally defined area to deal with stressors and effi- ing resilience” to reduce risks is an organizing prin- ciently resume the rhythms of daily life through ciple invoked by the UN to limit costs of emergency cooperation following shocks” (Aldrich & Meyer, response, minimize human suffering, and main- 2015, p. 255). For example, awareness of hazards stream climate change adaptation into development and the ability to cope with them, positive expec- practice (Pain & Levine, 2012). From disaster risk tations regarding the effectiveness of mitigation and resilience studies, climate change impacts and actions, communication of problems, empower- implications research, to human–ecological systems ment and participation in community affairs, and more generally, resilience is a valuable analytical trust are signposted as key attributes to enhance framework for studying the ability of systems to individuals’ collective resilience (Paton, 2013; cope with challenges and change (Anderies et al., Thornley et al., 2015). Particularly important in 2006; Duit et al., 2010; Tanner et al., 2015; Walker this context are studies of resilient communities et al., 2004). Resilience thinking has been applied that emphasize the role of social connectivity, to such diverse subjects as evaluations of sustain- and the various relationships that bind individu- ability, transportation, security, ecological crises, als and communities together, which can be drawn and water resource systems (Berkes & Jolly, 2001; on in particularly challenging times (Adger, 2000; Chelleri et al., 2015; Cox et al., 2010; Folke et al., Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Magis, 2010). 2016; Wang & Blackmore, 2009). Community resilience can be best understood as In rural studies, resilience provides a suite of both an outcome and a process that builds capacity analytical methods and insights, including ideas of from within (Franklin et al., 2011; Wilson, 2010). path dependencies and path creation as well as an Resilience is fostered through, or is a function of, alternative policy narrative for rural development collective action; as individuals socialize to respond practice (M. Scott, 2013, p. 597). These studies to challenges, they build on trusting relationships build on the recognition of rural space as having a that have developed in the area over time. This communal identity, which is determined, sustained, allows a community to work, and solve problems, enhanced, and reduced in certain ways. Rural together (Adger, 2000; Aldrich, 2011; Cradock- regions present additional challenges for disaster Henry et al., 2017; Paton, 2013). In this process risk management, emergency preparedness, and self-efficacy is strengthened, and problem-solving resilience building more generally. Populations are coping strategies reduce vulnerability (Miller et al., small and often dispersed over large areas; critical 1999; Paton et al., 2001), leading to an increased infrastructure and lifelines may pass through highly capacity to self-organize that helps realize resil- exposed areas, making them vulnerable to fail- ience (Berkes & Ross, 2012). Thus, Aldrich and ure. The “hollowing out” of rural regions through Meyer (2015) call for policy makers and planners

to look beyond investing in “hard” infrastructure disasters (Calgaro et al., 2014; Espiner & Becken, improvements (e.g., roads, communications) for 2014). disaster preparation and response, to consider also The majority of tourism disaster research to date the “softer” social initiatives that connect people to has focused on frameworks for assessing and man- each other, deepen social relations, or create new aging response and recovery, including planning social networks that strengthen community cohe- approaches (e.g., Faulkner, 2001; Ritchie, 2004; N. sion and trust. Scott et al., 2008), marketing strategies (Armstrong In the context of rural resilience in New Zealand, & Ritchie, 2008; Walters & Mair, 2012; Walters it has been noted that there is tension between differ- et al., 2016), and knowledge management tactics ent aspects of centralized (local or national govern- (Orchiston & Higham, 2016). Many of these studies ment) and community or stakeholder participation have found that the tourism industry is poorly pre- (Espiner & Becken, 2014; Mamula-Seadon & pared for disasters and slow to implement recovery McLean, 2015). A balance must be struck between initiatives (e.g., Becken & Hughey, 2013; Hystad & respecting local knowledge and ensuring “expert” Keller, 2008; Prideaux et al., 2003). There are often research on resilience is put into practice (Mamula- limited levels of preparedness among tourism busi- Seadon & McLean, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2010; nesses, particularly small and medium enterprises Skerratt, 2013). Imbalance between expert and (Cioccio & Michael, 2007; Hystad & Keller, 2008; lay knowledge can adversely affect rural regions’ Orchiston, 2013). Recently, there have been calls ability to recover and react (Glavovic et al., 2010; for tourism disaster research to focus on mitiga- Jakes & Langer, 2012; Rouse et al., 2016). Ensur- tion of risks and preparation and readiness, rather ing good communication, promoting transparency than response and recovery (Ritchie, 2008; Wang in decision-making processes, and enhancing rela- & Ritchie, 2012). This aligns with a similar shift tionships with stakeholders can build resilience in within disaster risk management (DRM) away from these contexts (McManus et al., 2008). In particular, top down, command-and-control type approaches social initiatives that connect people to each other of emergency management agencies to a new tac- and strengthen social relations can have dividends tic that emphasizes the need for a greater focus on for communities that are faced with, or have faced, building preparedness or readiness for potentially disasters (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015). disastrous natural hazard events and reducing their impact, particularly through local collaborative action plans (Hughey & Becken, 2016; Nguyen et Tourism, Disasters, and Rural Resilience al., 2017). Resilience is increasingly used as a theoretical The move towards resilience thinking is part framework in the literature on tourism and disas- of the general shift in focus towards prepared- ter (e.g. Becken, 2013; Biggs, 2011; Biggs et al., ness and readiness, reducing underlying vulner- 2012; Espiner & Becken, 2014; Lew, 2014; Strick- abilities and building adaptive capacities within land-Munro et al., 2010). Much of this literature communities (Mair et al., 2016, p. 15; see also focuses on empirical case studies and the impacts N. Scott & Laws, 2005). Much of this emerg- of environmental and geohazard events on the ing work views tourism destinations as coupled tourism sector, tourism businesses, networks, and human and natural systems, or social–ecological destinations (Becken & Hughey, 2013; Calgaro systems (SES). As Becken (2013) stated, tour- et al., 2014; Stewart et al., 2016). Tourists have ism is a “prime example of a SES, involving increasingly been drawn to remote places “off the both societal (including economic) and natu- beaten track” (Zurick, 1992), seeking adventures in ral resources, and their interactions” (p. 506). highly dynamic, ecologically sensitive, and hazard For example, Calgaro et al. (2014) used social– prone environments, such as coastal or mountain ecological systems, resilience, and vulnerability destinations (Espiner et al., 2017). While inacces- theory in their Destination Sustainability Frame- sibility and remoteness are often appealing for tour- work not only to assess destination vulnerability ists, such peripherality means tourism-based rural and resilience, but also as a way to evaluate and communities are particularly vulnerable to natural enable resilience-building actions and initiatives.

As in other fields, there is growing recognition homogenization and facilitating the regeneration of the need to study systems in their entirety, and a of an area’s sociocultural fabric” (Everett & Aitchi- need to consider the whole of community resilience son, 2008, p. 150; see also Bessière, 1998; Hall et and recovery, rather than focus exclusively on tour- al., 2003; Sidali et al., 2015; Sims, 2009). ist flows, or tourism stakeholders, for example. The Agrifood producers facing pressures to diver- shift towards more integrated assessments of desti- sify their production and distribution strategies and nation vulnerability and resilience draws attention networks in an increasingly “global countryside” to the importance of social networks, collaboration, (Woods, 2007) are paying more attention to the and knowledge sharing (Ciocco & Michael, 2007; specificity of place and more “localized and locally- Mair et al., 2016). Key attributes of resilience iden- identified production” (Overton & Murray, 2011, p. tified by tourism researchers—including the abil- 63; see also Everett & Slocum, 2013). The benefits ity to self-organize (Espiner & Becken, 2014) and from participating in agrifood networks and tour- the significance of diversification and community ism include the diversification of income streams. participation (Espiner et al., 2017)—are broadly This can take the form of developing farm-based accepted in the extensive literature on global and tourism experiences or producing artisanal and regional change where resilience has been widely boutique agrifood goods for sale at local outlets, applied. In tourism-specific examples, for instance, including specialty food stores, farmers markets, or glacial recession of the Fox and Franz Josef Gla- the farm gate or cellar door. Such activities gener- ciers on the West Coast of New Zealand’s South ally provide opportunities for greater returns to the Island has prompted operators to offer increased air producer, due to a shorter supply chain, and may access and to build new tracks to allow visitors to enable them greater control of their personal brand view the glaciers (Stewart et al., 2016). Similarly, story, as providing a food or wine experience to vis- by diversifying product offerings and target mar- itors can be an important outlet for small producers kets, tourism operators in Queenstown have found to speak passionately about what they do and to act ways to be more resilient (Becken, 2013). How- as ambassadors for their industry and region (Bes- ever, there remain few studies focused on whole- sière, 1998; Fusté-Forné & Berno, 2016; Lee et al., of-community resilience in the context of disaster 2015; Sidali et al., 2015; Sims, 2009). recovery (Sanders et al., 2015). There has been Agrifood tourism is also increasingly evident in no research to date exploring the significance and the strategic plans of national and regional govern- potential of agrifood networks as tools for enhanc- ments, and in the marketing and tactical activities ing rural resilience in postdisaster settings. of regional tourism organizations (RTOs). This form of tourism is particularly appealing as a policy intervention in rural contexts, representing an Agrifood Tourism and Trails for Rural Resilience opportunity to develop mutually beneficial links Over the past two decades there has been between two important sectors for many regional increasing interest from policy makers, the tour- economies (Eastham, 2003; Everett & Aitchison, ism industry, food producers, and researchers in the 2008; Hall, 2005). At a regional level, agrifood potential of agrifood tourism as an instrument of tourism provides opportunities to strengthen and regional regeneration and a pathway for enhancing sustain local food networks, which encourages rural resilience (e.g., Boyne et al., 2003; Everett & diversified production and agricultural practices Aitchison, 2008). Regions have undergone major and supports local businesses “through backward economic and social restructuring brought about by linkages in food supply-chain partnerships” (Ever- changing agricultural practices, technological inno- ett & Slocum, 2013, p. 789; see also Boyne et al., vations, job losses, and population decline (Hall, 2003; Lee et al., 2015; Sims, 2009). Through “buy 2005). In this context, agrifood tourism offers local” campaigns, economic leakage can also be the opportunity for a diversified economy (Hjal- reduced (Ibery & Maye, 2005; Sidali et al., 2015). ager & Richards, 2002) and a point of difference In this way reciprocal benefits exist for both tour- in “strengthening a region’s identity, sustaining ism and farming sectors: “local foodstuffs enhance cultural heritage, contesting fears of global food and strengthen the tourism product while tourists

and visitors provide a market for these products” producers may share a goal of creating a regional during, and ideally beyond, their visits (Boyne et reputation for local food products, and of sharing al., 2003, p. 134). food experiences with tourists, their needs and pri- At a regional scale, agrifood tourism has the orities differ considerably (Andersson et al., 2017). potential to not only strengthen the regional econ- For example, many farmers and small-scale food omy, but to stimulate social regeneration, social producers are dissatisfied with the returns they get networks, and ultimately, community resilience for their produce from the hospitality sector and (Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004). The develop- restaurant trade (Everett & Slocum, 2013; Fusté- ment and promotion of agrifood tourism can instill Forné & Berno, 2016; Green & Dougherty, 2008), community pride in local heritage, traditions, and while the latter voice concerns about the high cost ways of life, and a sense of place can be reaffirmed of buying locally and the lack of consistent sup- for tourists and locals alike (Fusté-Forné & Berno, ply from local food producers (Boesen et al., 2017; 2016; Hall, 2005; Sidali et al., 2015; Timothy & Everett & Slocum, 2013; Lee et al., 2015). The Boyd, 2014). At the same time, agrifood tourism challenges, however, provide opportunities also for requires stakeholders along the value chain to col- what is a potential strength of these networks, as laborate and coordinate activities. These networks noted by Hall (2005): can take many forms in the reconnection of “the consumer to the farmer” (Everett & Slocum, 2013, For rural regions the greatest benefits in the estab- p. 793). They may involve establishing partnerships lishment of networks are . . . the development of between individual producers, or between produc- intersectoral linkages and networks between firms ers and restaurants, tour operators, and retail outlets that had previously seen themselves as having little in common. By encouraging such relations, new (Green & Dougherty, 2008). The need to develop product and service innovations are developed as strong local networks for knowledge sharing and well as the generation of new social economic and support (both financial and practical) is frequently intangible capital that can lead to improved regional highlighted in the literature (Boyne et al., 2003; competitive advantage and resilience. (p. 161) Corigliano, 2002; Hall, 2005). One way to strengthen the connections within In the current context we argue that agrifood the agrifood supply chain to the tourism sector is tourism and trails provide multiple potential path- through agrifood trails or routes (Corigliano, 2002; ways to enhance rural resilience and serve a valu- Hjalager & Richards, 2002; Meyer-Cech, 2003; able function in terms of postdisaster recovery Sims, 2009; Timothy & Boyd, 2014; Timothy & and enhancing preparedness for future events. As Ron, 2013). These trails generally contain a number well as providing opportunities for enhanced and of nodes, or key sites, and attractions for tourists, diversified tourism offerings, thereby broaden- which are connected thematically through signage, ing markets, trails can provide an opportunity to icons, or emblems. Trail nodes may occupy a range strengthen communication and knowledge sharing of positions in the supply chain, from places of and enhance social capital between trail members. production (e.g., farms, vineyards), to manufactur- In this way, agrifood trail development contributes ing and processing plants (wineries, factories), and to enhancing the “soft” infrastructure of commu- various types of sales outlets, from a farm gate or nities so crucial for building social connectivity, cellar door, to a cooperatively run specialty store community capacity, and other attributes of com- or restaurants (Sims, 2009). Traditionally, these munity resilience (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Boyne routes or trails have been represented in brochures et al., 2003; Maclean et al., 2014; Magis, 2010; or maps, but increasingly they are being promoted Matarrita-Cascante & Trejos, 2013). to tourists via websites and apps. To understand and gain insight into the links A challenge of agrifood trails, and agritourism between local food networks and tourism and in general, is the need to collaborate both between its potential for enhancing rural resilience in and across the tourism and primary and food sector North Canterbury, key informant interviews (n = (Andersson et al., 2017; Everett & Slocum, 2013; 19) were conducted with diverse stakeholders Hall et al., 2003). While tourism actors and food including four representatives from the two local

authorities (Hurunui District Council and Kaikōura the nature of its topography means that the majority District Council), five representatives from three of its residents are located inland dispersed among RTOs (Destination Kaikoura, Hurunui Tourism, small townships, most of which function primarily Christchurch, NZ), a manager from a regional as rural support centers. The exception is Hanmer business incubator, and nine food, wine, and beer Springs, a thermal resort town particularly important producers. Interviews were audio recorded and as a domestic tourist destination and as a location for transcribed verbatim. Two researchers were present second-home ownership. Hurunui is predominantly for the majority of the interviews, and they worked agricultural; one third of employees (36.8%) work in independently on the transcriptions initially to the agricultural sector, which includes beef, sheep, identify key themes, based around content areas. and dairy farming, as well as viticulture. The second Themes were then discussed, revised, and refined highest industry by employee numbers is the accom- collaboratively with the whole research team to modation and food sector, reflecting the importance ensure credibility of the results, thereby offering a of Hanmer Springs as a destination, although the dis- high level of investigator triangulation (Wallendorf trict as a whole plays a significant role in serving the & Belk, 1989). many visitors who travel through the region. Interview data were supplemented by analysis of Kaikōura District stretches from south of the the numerous publications from national and local Haumuri Bluffs to a point just north of the settle- government agencies in the aftermath of the 2016 ment of Kekerengu. The Inland Kaikōura Ranges Kaikōura-Hurunui earthquake sequence, including and Pacific Ocean form the western and eastern situation reports, assessments of the emergency boundaries. “Where the mountains meet the sea” response, recovery strategies, and tourism plans. is an apt description of the district. At just over A close reading of media reports on the response 2,000 km2, it is the smallest district in New Zealand and recovery strategy in the region, and attendance by area and rating base. The district had a usually at industry workshops, provided further under- resident population of 3,552, with two thirds of the standing of the issues facing the region. Partici- population residing in the township of Kaikōura pant observation by the whole research team in the (2013 census). The importance of tourism is appar- region, including visiting food and wine outlets, a ent; 25.5% of the population were employed in local farmers’ market, and a wine and food festival, the accommodation and food sector, with another provided additional insights into the product base 15.3% employed in retail at the time of the last cen- of the region. sus. By comparison, only 12.1% of the population were employed in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector, with approximately 1% being employed North Canterbury Case Study in the significant, though relatively small, crayfish and seafood industry. Over the 7 years since the Context previous census, Kaikōura district had experienced For the purpose of this case study, North Can- a small drop in residents, despite the district’s repu- terbury refers to Kaikōura and Hurunui districts, a tation as a destination for marine wildlife tourism. predominantly rural area beginning approximately 50 km north of Christchurch, the South Island’s larg- Agrifood Destination: North Canterbury est city.1 Hurunui District covers an area of nearly 9,000 km2 and had a population of 11,529 at the North Canterbury has been promoting itself as time of the last census 2013, an increase of 10% an agrifood destination to some extent for the past over the previous census in 2006. The increase may two decades. The wine industry, initially located be explained in part by displacement of residents entirely in the Waipara Valley area of Hurunui dis- from the Christchurch/Canterbury earthquakes of trict, has hosted visitors at cellar doors in the region 2010/2011 (Wilson & Simmons, 2017). The land- since the 1990s, and the Kaikōura coast has long scape of the district is diverse, including significant been renowned for its seafood, particularly cray- areas of farmland, viticulture, and alpine terrain. fish (Kaikōura is Māori for “crayfish meal”). Since While Hurunui District contains 106 km of coastline, 2007, a regional food and wine trail guide has been

operating—a collaboration between a local business are price points around that, and also access to development agency (Enterprise North Canterbury) produce. and regional tourism associations. The guide’s objective is to showcase food and wine producers, Despite the reticence about the existing trail, hospitality outlets, and restaurants in the region, and this business owner, and many other stakeholders visitors are encouraged to “Experience the local fla- around the district, expressed strong support for an vours . . . take time to explore, enjoy the tranquillity invigorated strategy for North Canterbury based of the countryside and meet our passionate locals” around the fresh food, artisanal produce, and beer (http://www.edsworldwines.ch/shop/pdf/uploaded/ and wine being produced in the region. Weinregion_Food_Wine_Trail_Waipara_Val- This enthusiasm for strengthening and diversifying ley_North_Canterbury_Neuseeland.pdf). It is not of the reputation of North Canterbury as an agrifood surprising, given the general appeal of wine tour- producer and food tourism destination is apparent in ism and visibility of the industry in this region, that a range of initiatives being developed at the current wineries feature strongly in this trail, but the major- time. Some of these initiatives are being developed ity of entries are cafés or restaurants. While the at the level of individual businesses. For example, in seafood industry of Kaikōura and the farmlands of the Waipara Valley and surrounding area a number Hurunui are highlighted in the text of the brochure of wineries are developing food options at their cel- (http://www.edsworldwines.ch/shop/pdf/uploaded/ lar doors or creating additional wine experiences to Weinregion_Food_Wine_Trail_Waipara_Valley_ entice the visitor, including vineyard walks and win- North_Canterbury_Neuseeland.pdf), the absence of ery tours. The region’s emergent craft beer industry seafood producers in the brochure’s listings is is also expanding, with a new beer festival launched notable, as is the lack of visibility of the beef, lamb, in Kaikōura in 2017, and with two local brewers and dairy products grown in the region. Inclu- expanding operations. At a regional level, Hurunui sion in the trail—on the website and in the printed District Council is in the process of redeveloping its brochure—has been limited to businesses meeting tourism strategy, emphasizing food and wine tourism. specific criteria around production or use of local The area’s wineries are also developing a tourism and agrifood items and, as is often the case with these events strategy, rebranding the Waipara Valley as the types of trails, is subject to a membership fee. This North Canterbury Wine Region, with implications for fee requirement has constrained some of the small- tourism marketing. Furthermore, there are a number est agrifood enterprises from involvement (personal of collaborative projects between the RTOs, District communication, local food producer), a finding Councils, and community trusts seeking to link the supported by Fusté-Forné and Berno (2016), whose region through self-driving or cycle touring routes interviews with stallholders at farmers markets in (e.g., Alpine Pacific Touring Route, Hurunui Heart- Canterbury revealed that the cost of belonging to land Cycle Trail). For example, the Alpine Pacific trails such as these were prohibitive for microbusi- Touring Route, launched in March 2018, presents nesses. This observation is supported in our inter- a number of itinerary options, including one based views with key stakeholders, who felt that while exclusively on food and wine experiences, and is a the trail was a worthwhile concept, the inclusion of direct result of postearthquake recovery efforts. These a number of cafés with little commitment to local and other emergent initiatives reflect the window of food (but who could pay the membership fee) but opportunity in postdisaster settings, to regenerate, re- exclusion of some of the most renowned food prod- create, and reimagine previous conditions and to real- ucts, including artisanal producers, meant it did ize new opportunities (Brundiers & Eakin, 2018). not accurately represent the regional foodscape of North Canterbury (Fusté-Forné & Berno, 2016). As Agrifood Tourism Initiatives as one café owner included in the trail explained: Resilience and Recovery

I never felt we offered enough. We’re a daytime As outlined above, the renewed focus on regional café . . . we weren’t organic, we weren’t focused branding of North Canterbury as an agrifood destina- on organics, we like to when we can but there tion, and the development of new and diverse tourism

products, can be viewed as a direct consequence of Route proposition, a rebranding and reimaging of a recent hazard events. While the potential of North preexisting trail that had “fizzled out” due to lack of Canterbury as an agrifood destination has been rec- coordination and focus. An informant closely asso- ognized for some time, the earthquake catalyzed new ciated with the touring route explained the funda- ways of working together, established a greater sense mental significance of the earthquake and its impact of regional identity—including its unique food iden- in catalyzing changes in perceptions and promoting tity—renewed a sense of cooperation, and created a willingness among stakeholders to engage in new opportunities for shared understanding of common ways of thinking about the proposition: challenges during the recovery process. The November 14, 2016 M7.8 earthquake struck I think the maturity of revisiting or relaunching just after midnight. The epicenter was located in APT with wine tourism, with small towns, and a lot more capability than we ever had when this thing rural North Canterbury; however, the impacts were was first started, you’ve got a genuine tourism widespread due to the 12 m of combined horizon- route. And certainly coming out of the Kaikōura tal and vertical ground displacement. Buildings as earthquake—I hesitate to call it a disaster, I mean far north as the capital city Wellington—200 km it was an event—but coming out of the back of away—were damaged, along with local infrastruc- that you have everyone wanting to work a little bit harder on this and it is off and launched. ture and lifelines including road, rail, telecommuni- cations, and electricity. Another interviewee involved in disbursement of The township of Kaikōura was particularly badly the funding concurred: affected. The earthquake stuck at the beginning of peak visitor season—the start of summer in the What’s come out of it is that we’ve had the money Southern Hemisphere. Hundreds of landslides north to do the marketing. People are thinking outside and south of town cut off road access, stranding tour- the square and businesses are popping up now. ists and placing additional demand on local services. There’s a changing business model. For 13 months following the earthquake, SH1—the This “thinking outside the square” is also appar- main road connecting Kaikōura to the rest of the ent in the reconsideration of regional identity. In South Island—was closed for repairs, forcing traffic discussions about the future role of agrifood in via an inland route (SH 70), which was frequently North Canterbury tourism experiences, key stake- subject to closures and had limited operating hours. holders stressed the need to better utilize local food The inland route impeded traffic flows, added travel networks and incorporate the range and diversity times and costs for freight, diverted visitors away of agrifood produced in the region, from com- from other attractions and small service communi- modity items to specialized artisanal products. For ties reliant on through-traffic, and affected collec- example, a representative of a tourism organization tion, processing, and distribution of agricultural based in Hanmer Springs commented on the lack of products including milk, meat, and wine. visibility for local produce in local restaurants, par- Since the Christchurch/Canterbury earthquakes ticularly beef and lamb, partly due to the perceived during 2010/2011, Christchurch & Canterbury cost of local meat products (cf. Everett & Slocum, Tourism (now Christchurch NZ) has pursued a 2013; Lee et al., 2015). This was echoed in com- regional dispersal strategy—including into North ments from Kaikōura. As one business owner said: Canterbury. Following the November 2016 earthquake, the central government through the Ministry we need to come together more and be pushing for Business, Innovation, and Employment invested it more with the restaurants about using the local NZ$1 million to promote and market Kaikōura products. (NZ$650,000) and Hurunui Districts (NZ$350,000). The funding was used to employ marketing staff, In Kaikōura there was also discussion regarding develop new marketing initiatives, and cultivate the absence of local seafood from menus, with a new tourism products. In particular, a significant range of suggestions about how local seafood could proportion of the funding earmarked for Hurunui feature more prominently in the positioning of the was spent developing the Alpine Pacific Touring town. As one café owner explained:

I would love to see a reinventing of something 2016 earthquakes added to the cumulative stress of around food and beverage that focuses more purely 3 years of drought in the region. For farmers, finan- on seafood. . . . I think there is great potential . . . cial resources were already strained, productivity we’ve got the coastal environment we could tie that in with some wonderful seafood, you know, was down due to feed shortages, and the earthquake that could be our point of difference. only exacerbated these issues. Problems with market access, a rise in transportation costs, and repairs Another Kaikōura stakeholder discussed the to farm infrastructure (fences, tracks, buildings) all appeal of buying fresh fish straight of the boats had an adverse effect on households (Stevenson et down at the wharf—something that had been avail- al., 2017). In Kaikōura district—where there is a able in the past but due to compliance issues and perceived disconnect between the urban and remote costs was not a current possibility. rural populations—greater focus on promoting In all of these discussions, there was an empha- agrifoods through trails, festivals, or farmer’s mar- sis on the need for food experiences in the region kets might strengthen the bonds between communi- to genuinely reflect local culture and local food ties and aid in recovery. As one council employee provenance. This was summarized best by one café explained: owner who said: Food brings rural and tourism together which is really important, because all the other tourism is Whatever you do in that space has to be credible, mainly based around the sea and the harbour and and it has to be authentic, and it has to be mean- everything else, so it is a way that our rural com- ingful. It has to deliver something, rather than just munity can actually contribute (see also Cradock- be lip service. . . . I think it is those things that Henry et al., 2018). stand out for tourists or the visitor. A number of respondents spoke of the way A food and wine producer similarly reflected on events surrounding the earthquake had brought the opportunities to tell stories of the relationship together North Canterbury’s dispersed town- between food and the people who have lived in the ships and communities. The shared experience region over history: from indigenous stories of food with adversity helped provide a touchpoint for trails used by Māori who passed through the region renewed communication and strengthening net- to stories of more recent settler heritage. In this works. In particular, the reliance on the inland way, experiencing local food and wine and other road—the only transport link between Kaikōura beverages at their point of production, while hear- and the south—was critical to fostering relation- ing the stories and traditions of the land, is a way ships between tourism businesses in Hanmer of becoming a part of a place, by symbolically, and Springs and Kaikōura. As one tourism marketing literally, consuming it (Bessière, 1998; Everett & stakeholder explained: Aitchison, 2008; Sidali et al., 2015; Sims, 2009). These reflections on a sense of place and history, everyone seems to have a connection now that is coupled with a growing awareness of the signifi- like a neighbour. . . . You are all going through the cance of social connectivity between individuals, same process at the same time. businesses, and communities, was raised repeat- edly in interviews. While informants discussed Based in Hanmer Springs, she spoke of driving the importance of diversification of distribution to Kaikōura after the 2016 earthquake to see how channels and tourism products, there was a strong the community was coping and offer them material sense that the creation of a local food network, sup- and emotional support. Similarly, a food producer ported by tourism activities, was an opportunity to in Amberley spoke of organizing a food relief mis- connect different groups in the community in the sion, which involved packing an inflatable dinghy postearthquake environment. A recurring theme with food and making a challenging journey around in the interview data was the strengthening of per- the coastline to get fresh produce to Kaikōura. This sonal relationships within the wider region as a experience strengthened her existing relationships result of the earthquakes. In North Canterbury, the with food producers in the coastal town and has led

to further discussions about how the two regions Well we’ve been through this, we can do anything. might continue to work more closely together. Nothing’s impossible. We’ve proven that we can Within Kaikōura, large enterprises with the finan- actually survive this, we’ve learnt a lot of stuff about ourselves, about each other, and about the cial resilience to absorb the earthquake’s impacts community. empathized with their smaller, more vulnerable counterparts. As one business operator explained, It is this attitude that has seen the establishment there was a new appreciation for the local tour- of new networks or the strengthening of existing ism ecosystem and of the symbiotic relationships networks—between communities, between tour- between operators. She said: ism operators, between food and wine producers— and which is resulting in a growing impetus for an before the earthquake many of the hospitality and retail businesses did not consider themselves part agrifood tourism network: of tourism—now they know they are part of tourism, and realise how important the industry is. It is about fostering relationships . . . it is about networking business-to-business. At the same time, a larger tourism operator developed greater appreciation for the smaller retail As one wine stakeholder summarized: businesses: Would it all have come together without the We were heartbroken through the earthquakes to earthquake? Probably, but the earthquake gave it think of some of our really unique small businesses an impetus, and more funding, and strengthened here having to face closure. What we really agreed our community’s reliance on each other—coming on was that the visitor experience is made up of so together to help each other. . . many facets. It’s not just about going on a tour to see wildlife, it’s about what they can find up the main Over the past 2 years a range of individual ini- street that takes their interest. It’s about the cus- tiatives and regional strategy documents have high- tomer experience like in the quirky little shop . . . and so for us to think that some of that thread, or lighted the potential of agrifood experiences to weaving, of the tourist experience was going to be enhance tourists’ experience and the branding of the compromised by closure was really concerning for North Canterbury region’s towns and districts. At us. And it has made us all realise that everyone has the same time, the earthquake has resulted in a rec- a voice, everyone has a part to play and that makes ognition that “we’re all in this together,” resulting in up the whole unique participation. businesses and organizations working more closely Based on her own earthquake experience, this together both within and between communities. informant suggested that any future agrifood trail brochure should include all food producers in the Conclusions region, with larger operators subsidizing the mem- While agriculture, food, and wine tourism have bership fees of the smallest producers, thereby been a part of the regional economy of North Can- overcoming one of the limitations of this type of terbury for some time, the postearthquake recovery trail (Fusté-Forné & Berno, 2016). While this may reinvigorated efforts at consolidating and promoting seem commercially naive, there is evidence that it is regional agrifood initiatives. The legacy of invest- already occurring in the funding arrangements for ment in a regional food guide and an established the Alpine Pacific Touring Route, with one large regional wine industry in the Waipara Valley has operator admitting they had disproportionately provided a strong foundation and a basis for tourism funded the website development on the basis that: and community stakeholders to realize this “win- we are all for seeing Kaikōura recover; it’s not just dow of opportunity” (Kingdon, 2003). The preferred about [our business], it’s about Kaikōura. alternatives for regional economic development were already in place; the earthquake and recovery Among the stakeholders we interviewed in North effort have helped to channel the focus and energy of Canterbury there appears to be a widely shared atti- affected businesses, local government, industry, and tude of inclusiveness. As one interviewee said: community members. With financial support from

the central government, tourism industry stakehold- contributing to more resilient and sustainable ers have capitalized on embryonic networks, good- futures, capitalizing on existing strengths, identi- will, and a new sense of regional identity and shared fying new opportunities, and looking ahead with a purpose to develop a strategy bringing together shared sense of responsibility and opportunity. diverse producers and product offerings. For other agrifood destinations, the value of It is our argument that the current focus on agri- diversification extends beyond the economic ben- food tourism in North Canterbury not only has efits and has implications for resilience. Fostering strategic importance for regional economic devel- connections between enterprises can help develop opment, but also has benefits for rural resilience new markets and tourism offerings, but it also more generally. By enhancing existing product builds social capital and enhances collaboration and offerings and creating new ones, new markets and cooperation—which can be of value prior to, and distribution channels for local agrifood products following, an emergency. By predefining potential are developed. In particular, by focusing greater recovery pathways prior to natural hazard events, attention on local outlets, producers reduce their rural communities may be better placed to realize vulnerability to future natural hazard events that opportunities for building resilience and to foster may disrupt access to markets via road closures or the capability and capacity for improved responses increased freight charges. At the same time, these to future emergencies. new agrifood products help strengthen regional provenance and enhance Kaikōura-Hurunui’s rep- Note utaton as a food destination for consumers, and 1Arguably the Waimakariri District and Selwyn District they also offer a more nuanced and richer sense of could be defined as part of North Canterbury also, but these regional identity for residents. In developing agri- districts abut the metropolitan Christchurch City Council, food tourism, new linkages are established between and both contain townships that act as dormitory suburbs for communities, and between different interest groups the city. Given the focus of the article on rural resilience, it within communities. For over a year, stretches of has been decided to exclude these districts from analysis. state highway were closed, forcing traffic inland. With the reopening of the state highway, however, References coastal and inland communities are anxious that Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are their renewed connection continue. Reviving and they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), refreshing the Alpine Pacific Touring Route, pro- 347–364. viding a mix of product offerings to visitors, and Aldrich, D. P. (2011). The power of people: Social capital’s role in recovery from the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Natural sharing the costs of promoting the region more Hazards, 56(3), 595–611. widely is helping forge and maintain new linkages Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and between communities and businesses. community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, Disasters can become catastrophes when house- 59(2), 254–269. holds, communities, or societies fail to successfully Anderies, J. M., Ryan, P., & Walker, B. H. (2006). Loss of resilience, crisis, and institutional change: Lessons from adapt to a challenge (Diamond, 2011). Resil- an intensive agricultural system in Southeastern Austra- ient societies are ones that are able to reflexively lia. Ecosystems, 9(6), 865–878. consider the sources of vulnerability and bring Andersson, T. D., Mossberg, L., & Therkelsen, A. (2017). resources to bear to mitigate the threat (Goldstein, Food and tourism synergies: Perspectives on consump- 2008). Disasters can become focusing events that tion, production and destination development. Scandina- vian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(1), 1–8. open windows of opportunity and lead to change Armstrong, E., & Ritchie, B. (2008). The heart recovery (Brundiers & Eakin, 2018; Cradock-Henry et al., marketing campaign. Journal of Travel & Tourism Mar- 2018; Farley et al., 2007). By mobilizing resources, keting, 23(2–4), 175–189. bringing together different stakeholders, and lever- Becken, S. (2013). Developing a framework for assessing aging existing expertise, capability, and capacity, resilience of tourism sub-systems to climatic factors. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 506–528. North Canterbury residents and communities are Becken, S., & Hughey, K. F. D. (2013). Linking tourism into building connectivity within the region. Through emergency management structures to enhance disaster the initiatives we have highlighted, they are actively risk reduction. Tourism Management, 36, 77–85.

Berkes, F., & Jolly, D. (2001). Adapting to climate change: Kaikōura, Aotearoa-New Zealand. Sustainability, 10, Social-ecological resilience in a Canadian Western Arc- 1952. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061952 tic community. Conservation Ecology, 5(2), 18. Diamond, J. (2011). Collapse: How societies choose to fail Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2013). Community resilience: or succeed (revised edition). Penguin Books. Toward an integrated approach. Society and Natural Duit, A., Galaz, V., Eckerberg, K., & Ebbesson, J. (2010). Resources, 26(1), 5–20. Governance, complexity, and resilience. Global Environ- Bessière, J. (1998). Local development and heritage: Tra- mental Change, 20(3), 363–368. ditional food and cuisine as tourist attractions in rural Eastham, J. F. (2003). Valorizing through tourism in rural areas. Sociologia Ruralis, 38(1), 21–34. areas: Moving towards regional partnerships. In C. Biggs, D. (2011). Understanding resilience in a vulnerable M. Hall, L. Sharples, R. Mitchell, N. Macionis, & B. industry: The case of reef tourism in Australia. Ecology Cambourne (Eds.), Food Tourism around the world: and Society, 16(1), Art. 30. Development, management and markets (pp. 228–248). Biggs, D., Hall, C. M., & Stoeckl, N. (2012). The resilience Butterworth-Heinemann. of formal and informal tourism enterprises to disasters: Espiner, S., & Becken, S. (2014). Tourist towns on the edge: Reef tourism in Phuket, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Conceptualising vulnerability and resilience in a pro- Tourism, 20, 645–665. tected area tourism system. Journal of Sustainable Tour- Boesen, M., Sundbo, D., & Sundbo, J. (2017). Local food ism, 22(4), 646–665. and tourism: An entrepreneurial network approach. Espiner, S., Orchiston, C., & Higham, J. (2017). Resil- Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(1), ience and sustainability: A complementary relationship? 76–91. Towards a practical conceptual model for the sustainabil- Boyne, S., Hall, D., & Williams, F. (2003). Policy, support ity–resilience nexus in tourism. Journal of Sustainable and promotion for food-related tourism initiatives. Jour- Tourism, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017. nal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 24(3–4), 131–154. 1281929 Briedenhann, J., & Wickens, E. (2004). Tourism routes as a Everett, S., & Aitchison, C. (2008). The role of food tourism tool for the economic development of rural areas—Vi- in sustaining regional identity: A case study of Cornwall, brant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management, South West England. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25, 71–79. 16(2), 150–167. Brundiers, K., & Eakin, H. C. (2018). Leveraging post- Everett, S., & Slocum, S. L. (2013). Food and tourism: An disaster windows of opportunities for change towards effective partnership? A UK based review. Journal of sustainability: A framework. Sustainability, 10, 1390. Sustainable Tourism, 21(6), 789–809. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051390 Farley, J., Baker, D., Batker, D., Koliba, C., Matteson, R., Calgaro, E., Lloyd, K., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2014). From Mills, R., & Pittman, J. (2007). Opening the policy win- vulnerability to transformation: A framework for assess- dow for ecological economics: Katrina as a focusing ing the vulnerability and resilience of tourism destina- event. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 344–354. tions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(3), 341–360. Faulkner, B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourism disas- Chelleri, L., Waters, J. J., Olazabal, M., & Minucci, G. ter management. Tourism Management, 22(2), 135–147. (2015). Resilience trade-offs: Addressing multiple scales Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A., Reyers, B., & Rockström, and temporal aspects of urban resilience. Environment J. (2016). Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based and Urbanization, 27(1), 181–198. sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 21(3), 41. Ciocco, L., & Michael, E. (2007). Hazard or disaster: Tour- Franklin, A., Newton, J., & McEntee, J. C. (2011). Moving ism management for the inevitable in Northeast Victoria. beyond the alternative: Sustainable communities, rural Tourism Management, 28, 1–11. resilience and the mainstreaming of local food. Local Corigliano, M. A. (2002). The route to quality: Italian gas- Environ: The International Journal of Justice and Sus- tronomy networks in operation. In A.-M. Hjalager & G. tainability, 16(8), 771–788. Richards (Eds.), Gastronomy and tourism (pp. 166–185). Fusté-Forné, F., & Berno, T. (2016). Food tourism in New Routledge. Zealand: Canterbury’s foodscapes. Journal of Gastron- Cox, M., Arnold, G., Tomás, S. V., et al. (2010). A review of omy and Tourism, 2, 71–86. design principles for community-based natural resource Glavovic, B. C., Saunders, W. S. A., & Becker, J. S. (2010). management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 38. Land-use planning for natural hazards in New Zealand: Cradock-Henry, N. A. (2017). New Zealand kiwifruit grow- The setting, barriers, ‘burning issues’ and priority actions. ers’ vulnerability to climate and other stressors. Regional Natural Hazards, 54(3), 679–706. Environmental Change, 17(1), 245–259. Goldstein, B. E. (2008). Skunkworks in the embers of the Cradock-Henry, N. A., Greenhalgh, S., Brown, P., & Sinner, cedar fire: Enhancing resilience in the aftermath of disas- J. (2017). Factors influencing successful collaboration ter. Human Ecology, 36(1), 15–28. for freshwater management in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Green, G. P., & Dougherty, M. L. (2008). Localizing link- Ecology and Society, 22(2), 14–32. ages for food and tourism: Culinary tourism as a com- Cradock-Henry, N. A., Fountain, J., & Buelow, F. (2018). munity development strategy. Community Development, Transformations for resilient rural futures: The case of 39(3), 148–158.

Hall, C. M. (2005). Rural wine and food tourism cluster and and the role of governance. International Journal of network development. In D. R. Hall, I. Kirkpatrick, & M. Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 82–95. Mitchell (Eds.), Rural tourism and sustainable business Matarrita-Cascante, D., & Trejos, B. (2013). Community resil- (pp. 149–164). Channel View. ience in resource-dependent communities: A comparative Hall, C. M., Mitchell, R., & Sharples, L. (2003). Consuming case study. Environment and Planning A, 45, 1387–1402. places: The role of food, wine and tourism in regional McManus, S., Seville, E., Vargo, J., & Brunsdon, D. (2008). development. In C. M. Hall, L. Sharples, R. Mitchell, N. Facilitated process for improving organizational resil- Macionis, & B. Cambourne (Eds.), Food Tourism around ience. Natural Hazards Review, 9(2), 81–90. the world: Development, management and markets (pp. Meyer-Cech, K. (2003). Regional cooperation in rural theme 25–59). Butterworth-Heinemann. trails. In D. R. Hall, I. Kirkpatrick, & M. Mitchell (Eds.), Hjalager, A.-M., & Richards, G. (Eds.). (2002). Gastronomy Rural tourism and sustainable business (pp. 137–148). and tourism. Routledge. Channel View. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecologi- Miller, M., Paton, D., & Johnston, D. (1999). Community cal systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vulnerability to volcanic hazard consequences. Disaster 4(1), 1–23. Prevention and Management: An International Journal, Hughey, K. F. D., & Becken, S. (2016). Value-engaged eval- 8(4), 255–260. uation of a tourism-specific disaster management plan. Mitchell, A., Glavovic, B. C., Hutchinson, B., MacDonald, Tourism Management Perspectives, 19(2016), 69–73. G., Roberts, M., & Goodland, J. (2010). Community- Hystad, P. W., & Keller, P. C. (2008). Towards a destination based civil defence emergency management planning. tourism disaster management framework: Long-term The Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Stud- lessons from a forest fire disaster. Tourism Management, ies, 2010–1. http://trauma.massey.ac.nz/issues/2010-1/ 29, 151–162. mitchell.htm Ibery, B., & Maye, D. (2005). Alternative (shorter) food Nguyen, D. N., Imamura, F., & Iuchi, K. (2017). Public- supply chains and specialist livestock products in the private collaboration for disaster risk management: A Scottish-English borders. Environment and Planning A, case study of hotels in Matsushima, Japan. Tourism Man- 37, 823–844. agement, 61, 129–140. Jakes, P. J., & Langer, E. R. (2012). The adaptive capacity Orchiston, C. (2013). Tourism business preparedness, resil- of New Zealand communities to wildfire. International ience and disaster planning in a region of high seismic Journal of Wildland Fire, 21(6), 764. risk: The case of the Southern Alps, New Zealand. Cur- Kapucu, N., Hawkins, C. V., & Rivera, F. I. (2013). Disaster rent Issues in Tourism, 16(5), 477–494. preparedness and resilience for rural communities. Risk, Orchiston, C., & Higham, J. E. S. (2016). Knowledge Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 4, 215–233. management and tourism recovery (de)marketing: The Kenny, G. (2011). Adaptation in agriculture: Lessons for Christchurch earthquakes 2010–2011. Current Issues in resilience from eastern regions of New Zealand. Climate Tourism, 19, 64–84. Change, 106, 441–462. Overton, J., & Murray, W. E. (2011). Playing the scales: Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public Regional transformations and the differentiation of rural policies (2nd ed.). Longman. space in the Chilean wine industry. Journal of Rural Lee, A. H. J., Wall, G., & Kovacs, J. F. (2015). Creative food Studies, 27, 63–72. clusters and rural development through place branding: Pain, A., & Levine, S. (2012). A conceptual analysis of Culinary tourism initiatives in Stratford and Muskoka, livelihoods and resilience: Addressing the ‘insecurity of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, 133–144. agency’ (HPG Working Paper) (p. 21). ODI. Lew, A. A. (2014). Scale, change and resilience in com- Paton, D. (2013). Disaster resilient communities: Develop- munity tourism planning. Tourism Geographies, 16(1), ing and testing an all-hazards theory. Journal of Inte- 14–22. grated Disaster Risk Management, 3(1), 1–17. Maclean, K., Cuthill, M., & Ross, H. (2014). Six attributes Paton, D., Millar, M., & Johnston, D. (2001). Community of social resilience. Journal of Environmental Planning resilience to volcanic hazard consequences. Natural and Management, 57(1), 144–156. Hazards, 24(2), 157–169. Magis, K. (2010). Community resilience: An indicator of Prideaux, B., Laws, E., & Faulkner, B. (2003). Events in social sustainability. Society and Natural Resources Indonesia: Exploring the limits to formal tourism trends 23(5), 401–416. forecasting methods in complex crisis situations. Tour- Mair, J., Ritchie, B. W., & Walters, G. (2016). Towards a ism Management, 24(4), 475–487. research agenda for post-disaster and post-crisis recov- Ritchie, B. W. (2004). Chaos, crises and disasters: A strate- ery strategies for tourist destinations: A narrative review. gic approach to crisis management in the tourism indus- Current Issues in Tourism, 19(1), 1–26. try. Tourism Management, 25, 669–683. Mamula-Seadon, L., & McLean, I. (2015). Response and Ritchie, B. (2008). Tourism disaster planning and manage- early recovery following 4 September 2010 and 22 Feb- ment: From response and recovery to reduction and read- ruary 2011 Canterbury earthquakes: Societal resilience iness. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(4), 315–348.

Rouse, H. L., Bell, R. G., Lundquist, C. J., Blackett, P. E., Timothy, D. J., & Ron, A. S. (2013). Heritage cuisines, Hicks, D. M., & King, D. N. (2016). Coastal adaptation regional identity and sustainable tourism. In C. M. Hall to climate change in Aotearoa-New Zealand. New Zea- & S. Gossling (Eds.), Sustainable culinary systems: land Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 51(2), Local foods, innovation, tourism and hospitality (pp. 1–40. 275–290). Routledge. Sanders, D., Laing, J., & Frost, W. (2015). Exploring the role Thornley, L., Ball, J., Signal, L., Lawson-Te Aho, K., & Raw- and importance of post-disaster events in rural communi- son, E. (2015). Building community resilience: Learning ties. Journal of Rural Studies, 41, 82–94. from the Canterbury earthquakes. Ko’tuitui: New Zealand Scott, M. (2013). Resilience: A conceptual lens for rural Journal of Social Sciences Online, 10(1), 23–35. studies? Geography Compass, 7(9), 597–610. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduc- Scott, N., & Laws, E. (2005). Tourism crises and disasters: tion. (2009). 2009 UNISDR terminology on disaster risk Enhancing understanding of system effects. Journal of reduction. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/7817_ Travel and Tourism Marketing, 19(2–3), 149–158. UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf Scott, N., Laws, E., & Prideaux, B. (2008). Tourism crises Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. and marketing recovery strategies. Journal of Travel and (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4), 1–13. social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. Sidali, K. L., Kastenholz, E., & Bianchi, R. (2015). Food Wallendorf, M., & Belk, R. W. (1989). Assessing trustwor- tourism, niche markets and products in rural tourism: thiness in naturalistic consumer research. Interpretive Combining the intimacy model and the experience econ- Consumer Research 1989, 149–175. omy as a rural development strategy. Journal of Sustain- Walters, G., & Mair, J. (2012). The effectiveness of post- able Tourism, 23(8–9), 1179–1197. disaster recovery marketing messages—The case of the Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: Local food Australian 2009 bushfires. Journal of Travel and Tour- and the sustainable tourism experience. Journal of Sus- ism Marketing, 29(1), 87–103. tainable Tourism, 17(3), 321–336. Walters, G., Mair, J., & Lim, J. (2016). Sensationalist media Skerratt, S. (2013). Enhancing the analysis of rural commu- reporting of disastrous events: Implications for tourism. nity resilience: Evidence from community land owner- Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 28, ship. Journal of Rural Studies, 31, 36–46. 3–10. Stevenson, J. R., Becker, J., Cradock-Henry, N., Johal, S., Wang, C., & Blackmore, J. M. (2009). Resilience concepts Johnston, D., & Seville, E. (2017). Economic and social for water resource systems. Journal of Water Resources reconnaissance: Kaikōura earthquake 2016. Bulletin of Planning and Management, 135(6), 528–536. the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Wang, J., & Ritchie, B. W. (2012). Understanding accom- 50(2), 343–351. modation managers’ crisis planning intention: An appli- Stewart, E. J., Wilson, J., Espiner, S., Purdie, H., Lemieux cation of the theory of planned behaviour. Tourism C., & Dawson, J. (2016). Implications of climate Management, 33, 1057–1067. change for glacier tourism. Tourism Geographies, 18(4), Wilson, G. (2010). Multifunctional “quality” and rural com- 377–398. munity resilience. Transactions of the Institute of British Strickland-Munro, J. K., Allison, H. E., & Moore, S. A. Geographers, 35(3), 364–381. (2010). Using resilience concepts to investigate the Wilson, J., & Simmons, D. (2017, Nov.). Building resil- impacts of protected area tourism on communities. ience in transient rural communities—a post-earth- Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2), 499–519. quake regional study: Scoping report. RNC Report: Tanner, T., Lewis, D., Wrathall, D., Bronen, R., Cradock- RNC032:04.01. Henry, N., Huq, S., et al. (2015). Livelihood resilience Woods, M. (2007). Engaging the global countryside: Glo- in the face of climate change. Nature Climate Change, balization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. 5(1), 23–26. Progress in Human Geography, 31(4), 485–507. Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2014). Tourism and trails: Zurick, D. N. (1992). Adventure travel and sustainable tour- Cultural, ecological and management issues. Channel ism in the peripheral economy of Nepal. Annals of the View Publications. Association of American Geographers, 82(4), 608–628.