Network Governance and Regional Resilience to Climate Change: Empirical Evidence from Mountain Tourism Communities in the Swiss Gotthard Region
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by RERO DOC Digital Library Reg Environ Change (2012) 12:839–854 DOI 10.1007/s10113-012-0294-5 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Network governance and regional resilience to climate change: empirical evidence from mountain tourism communities in the Swiss Gotthard region Tobias Luthe • Romano Wyss • Markus Schuckert Received: 18 November 2011 / Accepted: 22 February 2012 / Published online: 15 March 2012 Ó Springer-Verlag 2012 Abstract Mountain regions and peripheral communities, Keywords Social network analysis Á Vulnerability Á which often depend on few economic sectors, are among Adaptive capacity Á Mountain communities Á the most exposed and sensitive to climate change. Gover- Regional environmental change nance of such socio-economic-ecological networks plays a strong role in determining their resilience. Social processes of governance, such as collaboration between communi- A resilience framework for vulnerable communities ties, can be systematically assessed through the existence and strength of connections between actors and their The resilience of an ecological system is defined by three embeddedness in the broader socio-economic network by characteristics: (1) the capacity of the system to withstand a social network analysis (SNA). This paper examines how disturbance while maintaining its basic functions, (2) the network governance of the tourism industry–dependent ability to self-organize, and (3) the ability to increase its Swiss Gotthard region relates to resilience to climate capacity to learn and adapt (Janssen 2007; Walker and Salt change by SNA. The paper argues that economic diversi- 2006). A simple reapplication of the ecological resilience fication and a network structure supporting stability, flex- concept to socio-ecological systems will lead to normative ibility, and innovation increase regional resilience to and conceptual difficulties (Adger 2000; Duit and Galaz climate change. The Gotthard network has a high diversi- 2008). Existing ecological resilience models, such as the fication capability due to high cohesion and close collab- adaptive cycles model (Gunderson and Holling 2002), have oration, limited innovative capacity by the existence of been discussed mostly in the context of unexpected, only two subgroups, and considerable flexibility through adverse conditions such as large-scale disturbances or the centralized structure. Main weaknesses are a low den- accumulated minor disruptions (Vogus and Sutcliffe 2007). sity, uneven distribution of power, and a lack of integration Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010) discuss resilience from of some supply chain sectors into the overall network. an organizational angle and extend the model of adaptive cycles to a business context (Linnenluecke and Griffiths 2010), though there have been other scholars exploring Electronic supplementary material The online version of this organizational resilience (Vogus and Sutcliffe 2007; Weick article (doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0294-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. et al. 1999; Weick and Roberts 1993). The main aspects of organizational resilience are ‘‘the continuing capacity to T. Luthe (&) Á R. Wyss recover from disturbances as well as the capacity to Institute for Tourism and Leisure Research, rebound from adversity in a strengthened and more University of Applied Sciences HTW Chur, Comercialstrasse 22, 7000 Chur, Switzerland resourceful way’’ (Linnenluecke et al. 2012). Current e-mail: [email protected] models and frameworks of organizational resilience are not sufficiently equipped for practical and research purpose M. Schuckert (Vogus and Sutcliffe 2007) and not suitable to understand School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Suite 711, resilience in light of significant shifts in climate and 17 Science Museum Road, TST East, Kowloon, Hong Kong weather patterns. Gradual changes like climate change can 123 840 T. Luthe et al. as well exceed thresholds and prompt abrupt and severe structure in the realm of resilience is built to meet two changes (Linnenluecke et al. 2012; Linnenluecke and fundamental criteria derived from the literature on adaptive Griffiths 2010). comanagement and adaptive governance (Folke et al. Organizations often tend to focus on short-term eco- 2005): (1) Preparing for disturbance by creating and nomic goals as opposed to prepare for longer-term changes maintaining diversity and (2) responding to disturbance by such as climate change (Starik and Rands 1995). In addi- creating and maintaining flexibility. A resilient network tion to further strategic capabilities (like identifying future governance structure should be able to quickly switch vulnerabilities in a system’s understanding or diversifying between the two modes defined by these criteria in order production activities, e.g., Wilbanks et al. 2007), organi- ‘‘to prepare to change (by enhancing decentralized pro- zations need to develop new partnerships, better knowledge cesses of social learning) and respond to change (by more integration, and spread risks across networks (Wilbanks centralized collective action)’’ (Ernstson et al. 2010). et al. 2007). The legal framework has to allow for such Diversification and innovation in a community devel- developments as well, and governments have to provide opment context are strongly linked to the structure of the third-party support to vulnerable organizations and eco- local economy, as well as to the dependency on single nomic sectors. industry sectors. It is argued that the diversification of a Up to a certain degree of impact emanating from an community’s economy, the communities’ positions, and outside force, the system can cope with the stress by their communication flows within the governance network enforcing the activity pattern that has shown to be suc- have a strong influence on the overall adaptive capacity cessful in the past by investing in the given infrastructure, (Ingold et al. 2010; Hirschi 2010). In general, social net- and putting more financial or labor-resources into certain works take an important role in governing and managing activities (Folke 2006)—in our case of tourism in alpine adaptation, since adaptation requires different forms of areas investments in snow-making capacities to maintain collaboration, such as learning, information sharing, con- skiing activities, or increased marketing efforts. flict resolution, or simply coordination (Newig et al. 2010; When a certain threshold hast past, the mere insisting on Bodin and Crona 2009; Manring 2007; Folke et al. 2005). given patterns of actions and routines becomes to be Such collaborations depend on the existence and strength obsolete (e.g., since customers no longer demand the of social connections or ties between actors. product or the product can longer be produced due to Social relations may not only lead to collaboration, they substantial disruptions from the outside), and the whole may also enhance development of knowledge through the system—as well as the individual actors that make up the exposure to new ideas and the availability of more infor- system—must adapt by shifting to another production mation (Bodin and Crona 2009). The correlation of net- regime (Hassink 2010; Ruiz-Ballesteros 2011). work density and collaboration is not continuously increasing though but might decrease from a certain den- Network governance in the context of resilience sity threshold on. Very high density reduces a network’s collective abilities (Oh et al. 2004) and can lead to In vulnerable communities, spreading the risks and the homogenization of information and knowledge, resulting in exposure on a diversified economic system is one strategy reduced adaptive capacities (Little and McDonald 2007; of community adaptation (Kelman and Lewis 2005; Kelly Bodin and Norberg 2005). Highly centralized networks and Adger 2000). It requires the sectoral and cross-sectoral have advantages with collective action in resource gover- participation of stakeholders, despite internal or external nance mainly due to enhancing central actors’ abilities to barriers, in order to maintain and further develop the whole coordinate and prioritize (Sandstro¨m and Carlsson 2008), supply chain of the economic system at stake, as well as to but disadvantages through uneven distribution of power govern the broader socio-ecological system successfully. and influence (Ernstson et al. 2008), making such networks Network governance in this context is understood as ‘‘the inappropriate for solving complex problems. structures and processes by which collective action among The structure of a governance network and internal a diversity of social actors is coordinated toward upholding influences within a community can be analyzed by looking certain publicly held values and resources’’ (Ernstson et al. at the structure of its social network, in a quantitative and a 2010; Lebel et al. 2006; Stoker 1998). qualitative way. Characterizing how vertical (Davis and A network perspective on organizations might provide Marquis 2005; Granberg and Elander 2007) and horizontal more insights into understanding resilience—and more (Kern and Bulkeley 2009; Young and Lipton 2006) inte- specifically resilient network structures—since organiza- gration of decision-making complement each other is par- tions are complex networks consisting of various actors and ticularly relevant to how communities adapt to change, information flows (Webb and Bodin 2008).