Comparative Destination Vulnerability Assessment for Thailand and Sri Lanka
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SEI - Africa Institute of Resource Assessment University of Dar es Salaam P. O. Box 35097, Dar es Salaam Tanzania Tel: +255-(0)766079061 SEI - Asia 15th Floor, Witthyakit Building 254 Chulalongkorn University Chulalongkorn Soi 64 Phyathai Road, Pathumwan Bangkok 10330 Thailand Tel+(66) 22514415 Stockholm Environment Institute, Project Report - 2009 SEI - Oxford Suite 193 266 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 7DL UK Tel+44 1865 426316 SEI - Stockholm Kräftriket 2B SE -106 91 Stockholm Sweden Tel+46 8 674 7070 SEI - Tallinn Lai 34, Box 160 EE-10502, Tallinn Estonia Tel+372 6 276 100 SEI - U.S. 11 Curtis Avenue Somerville, MA 02144 USA Tel+1 617 627-3786 SEI - York University of York Heslington York YO10 5DD UK Tel+44 1904 43 2897 The Stockholm Environment Institute Comparative Destination Vulnerability Assessment SEI is an independent, international research institute.It has been for Thailand and Sri Lanka engaged in environment and development issuesat local, national, regional and global policy levels for more than a quarterofacentury. Emma Calgaro and Janet Cochrane SEI supports decision making for sustainable development by bridging science and policy. sei-international.org Comparative Destination Vulnerability Assessment for Thailand and Sri Lanka Sustainable Recovery and Resilience Building in the Tsunami Affected Region Emma Calgaro(1) and Janet Cochrane(2) (1) Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney (2) International Centre for Responsible Tourism, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK Stockholm Environment Institute Kräftriket 2B SE 106 91 Stockholm Sweden Tel: +46 8 674 7070 Fax: +46 8 674 7020 Web: www.sei-international.org Head of Communications: Robert Watt Publications Manager: Erik Willis Layout: Richard Clay Cover Photo: © Hjálparstarf Kirkjunnar This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes, without special per- mission from the copyright holder(s) provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purpose, without the written permission of the copyright holder(s). The study presented in this report has been made possible through financial support provided by the Swedish International Develop- ment Cooperation Agency (Sida). However, Sida was not involved in the design of the study and does not necessarily support the views expressed in the report. Copyright © December 2009 by Stockholm Environment Institute CONTENTS Foreword and acknowledgements iv List of tables and figures iv 1. Introduction 1 1.1 The 2004 tsunami and tourism destinations 1 1.2 Project rationale and objectives 1 2 Research framework and design 2 2.1 Assessing destination vulnerability and resilience to shocks 2 2.2 Developing a destination vulnerability framework 4 2.3 Research methods 8 3 Case study areas and Impact of the tsunami 10 3.1 Profile of case study destinations - Thailand 10 3.2 Profile of case study destinations – Sri Lanka 12 3.3 Governance structures influencing tourism 14 3.4 The impact of the 2004 tsunami and Sri Lanka civil conflict 14 3.5 Post-tsunami recovery 15 4 Comparative assessment of destination vulnerability 17 4.1 Exposure 17 4.2 Sensitivity 17 4.3 Responses and system adaptation 27 5 Strategies for enhancing destination resilience 30 5.1 Factors of destination vulnerability and resilience 30 5.2 Tourism and resilience cycle stages 31 5.3 Creating resilient tourism systems 32 5.4 Action points for reducing vulnerability and building resilience 33 References 36 FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS his report is produced just over five years since This summary report is a compilation of two earlier, Tthe devastating Indian Ocean tsunami struck the detailed reports on the individual countries. The reports coastlines of eleven countries on December 26th, 2004. are available at www.sei-international.org. In addition to the loss of around 270,000 lives, the tourism industry in several countries was devastated We would like to thank all those who kindly participated for months. Two of the worst-affected countries in in the project by offering their time, insights and economic terms because of this were Sri Lanka and experiences, particularly the Thai communities of Thailand. In both places, the disaster revealed pre- Khao Lak, Patong Beach, and Phi Phi Don and the existing weaknesses in the tourism system which Hikkaduwa, Anuradhapura, and Kataragama in Sri increased vulnerability to the disaster and hampered Lanka . We would also like to extend our thanks to recovery. Sopon Naruchaikusol (at SEI) and Kannapa Pongponrat (at Mahidol University International College) for their In recognition of this, the Stockholm Environment sizable contributions to the fieldwork in Thailand and Institute (SEI) set up a programme to determine the analysis and Matthew Chadwick at SEI for providing principal causes of tourism system vulnerability in cases invaluable support in the final writing and editing of shock or perturbation, and also the factors of system stages of the report. resilience. The study was designed as a comparative vulnerability assessment, using representative In Sri Lanka, we would like to thank Professor destinations in each country as case studies. Lakshman Dissanayake, Dr. D.A.C. Silva from University of Colombo and Claire Eldridge for their The study ran from 2005-2009 and was funded by essential contributions through fieldwork to the study. the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). Researchers came from SEI-Asia Any queries should be directed to: (Bangkok), Leeds Metropolitan University (UK), Macquarie University, Sydney, and the University of Emma Calgaro: [email protected] Colombo (Sri Lanka). Janet Cochrane: [email protected] LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1: The resilience cycle (the ‘Holling Loop’) 2 Figure 2: Destination sustainability framework 5 Figure 3: Map of Thailand showing case study areas 10 Figure 4: Map of Thailand showing case study areas 13 Figure 5: The sphere of tourism resilience 32 iv STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE 2004 TSUNAMI AND TOURISM • to identify the drivers of vulnerability in the DESTINatiONS affected communities by understanding the socio- political processes and environmental linkages On 26 December 2004 a devastating tsunami struck that lead to vulnerability coastal communities in 11 countries bordering the Indian Ocean, killing over 270,000 people, including • to recommend strategies for securing future an estimated 35,000 in Sri Lanka and 8,212 in Thailand. sustainable livelihoods by building capacity and The affected areas included several popular tourism enhancing decision-making processes in the destinations, especially in Sri Lanka, the Maldives and coastal zone. Thailand, and amongst the dead were 2,448 foreigners from 37 countries (UN, 2005). The death toll was The study formed one component (Sub-Project 4) of a particularly high amongst tourists because it was peak wider SIDA-funded programme entitled “Sustainable season. Recovery and Resilience Building in the Tsunami Affected Region” which supported post-tsunami The tourism industry was badly impacted in other recovery in Sri Lanka and Thailand through the ways, with significant loss of skilled personnel, and generation of knowledge and capacity building. 25 per cent of the hotel stock in affected destinations destroyed or badly damaged. Tourist arrivals in the In order to identify the factors of vulnerability in a affected provinces in Thailand decreased by 53 per cent range of situations, three tsunami-affected destination in the 6-month period following the disaster and in Sri communities were selected for Thailand, namely Lanka dried up almost completely for a few months. Khao Lak, Patong and Phi Phi Don, all of which are Around 120,000 tourism-related jobs were lost and on Thailand’s Andaman Coast. Three contrasting incomes significantly reduced. There was an estimated destinations were selected in Sri Lanka: Hikkaduwa infrastructural loss of USD 341 million in Thailand (south-west coast), Anuradhapura (a World Heritage (UN, 2005), while in Sri Lanka projected output losses Site in the north) and Kataragama (a pilgrimage site were estimated at US$130 million for the two years in the south-east). The two inland sites were chosen following the tsunami (Robinson and Jarvie, 2008). because the long-running civil conflict in Sri Lanka gave the opportunity of determining more general insights into the factors of vulnerability and resilience 1.2 PROJECT ratiONALE AND OBJECTIVES by offering a comparison between destinations affected by different kinds of crisis. Given the significance of tourism to the Thai and Sri Lankan coastal communities, as well as the This report develops a Destination Vulnerability overall national economies, a revival of the sector Framework and presents the collective findings from was vital. In the aftermath of the disaster, provision the Destination Vulnerability Assessments (DVA) of of immediate emergency relief, restoration of basic the six case studies, draws conclusions as to the causes services and rebuilding of damaged infrastructure of vulnerability and the factors of resilience, presents were of paramount importance, with subsequent a model for creating more resilient tourism systems, attention focused on longer-term strategies that aimed and presents specific recommendations for enhancing to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience to future destination resilience. shocks