Resilience of the tourism sector in relation to flood risk in Zeeland – Municipality of Veere
MSc thesis by Wendy Cevallos P.
I
Wageningen University August, 2017
RESILIENCE OF THE TOURISM SECTOR IN RELATION TO FLOOD RISK IN ZEELAND – MUNICIPALITY OF VEERE
Author: Wendy Katherine Cevallos Piedra Student No. 910716156090 Contact: [email protected]
MSc Environmental Sciences MSc Thesis Disaster Studies
Thesis supervisors: Dr. Jeroen Warner – Wageningen University and Research (SDC Group) Dr. Anna Wesselink – IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
Examiner: Dr. Dik Roth – Wageningen University and Research (SDC Group)
August 14, 2017
II
Abstract
In the Dutch Delta Program, resilience is becoming a key concept for assessing the adaptation strategies in relation to flood risk management. In this study, the resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland is assessed by using an adjusted version of the Resilience Wheel conceptual framework. The high economic impact of the sector has transformed the living environment of the inhabitants in the municipality. However, the high uncertainties of climate change on the coast of the province of Zeeland do not allow a 100% guarantee of safety. The assessment aims to understand flood resilience in the tourism sector by addressing this topic in the community of Veere using 5 dimensions and 17 indicators. Results show that flood resilience can have different interpretations and assessments by the stakeholders involved in the tourism sector. Based on 14 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs, 94 questionnaires for tourists and 22 policy documents, the flood resilience of the sector is considered ‘medium’. However, when flood resilience is analysed separately for each group, it is assessed ‘high’ by the tourism entrepreneurs and ‘medium’ by the key stakeholders and from the document analysis. There is a feeling of safety in the tourists and tourism entrepreneurs in Veere that is created by the presence of flood barriers, embankments and the low probability of flooding. Flooding is not considered an issue for the tourism sector and it is not high on the list of priorities of the local entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the tourism sector has weaknesses in respect to resilience to flooding that should be tackled such as the low access to multi-lingual information, tourism cooperation, tourism participation and preparedness in relation to flood risk. The study shows that the contextualization of the Resilience Wheel indicators is needed when analysing flood resilience. The quantitative analysis of the conceptual framework is complex and inapplicable; therefore, the outcomes could not be used in an absolute sense. Nevertheless, the qualitative application of the Resilience Wheel was successful since it allowed the analysis of a large amount of information, generating discussion and sense of awareness about flood resilience within the participants of the study.
Keywords: Flood Resilience, Resilience Wheel, resilience interpretation, tourism sector, Veere, Zeeland
III
Acknowledgements
This thesis is the final assignment of my master Environmental Sciences at Wageningen University. I decided to investigate more the resilience of the tourism sector in relation to flood risk in the Municipality of Veere-Zeeland. The study has been an extraordinary learning experience that helped me to develop my scientific knowledge, writing skills and professional skills. It would not have been possible without the help of people to whom I would like to express my gratitude.
I would like to thank my supervisors, Anna Wesselink from IHE- Delft and Jeroen Warner from Wageningen University, for their guidance during this study. Both kept me motivated with their theoretical, practical and realistic advice that helped me to focus and improve my research. I would like to thank both for giving me the opportunity to elaborate my thesis in collaboration with Hydro-Social Deltas project. This collaboration allowed me to work with Anna as supervisor, and provided me financial support during my field work in Zeeland, for which I am very grateful. Furthermore, I would like to thank all the key stakeholders, tourism entrepreneurs and tourists that participated in this research for their knowledge and time. Their input provided valuable data for this thesis.
I want to thank my boyfriend, Hylco, for his advice and encouragement during this thesis. Thank you for helping me with the translations of Dutch documents. Finally, I would like to thank my family, Rocío, José, Gabriel and Sheidy, who always encourage me to follow my dreams and make them true. This thesis and all my achievements are dedicated to you.
Wendy Cevallos, Wageningen 2017
IV
Table of contents Abstract ...... iii
Acknowledgements ...... iv
List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables...... vii Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1
Chapter 2 Conceptual Framework ...... 4
2.1 Social – Ecological Systems ...... 4 2.2 Adaptive Capacity Wheel ...... 4 2.3 Resilience Wheel – Conceptual framework ...... 5 2.3.1 Dimensions and indicators ...... 7 2.3.2 Adjusted version of the Resilience Wheel ...... 8 2.3.3 Assessment and scoring ...... 9 Chapter 3 Case-study ...... 16
3.1 Tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland ...... 16 Chapter 4 Methodology ...... 18
4.1 Research design and scope of the case-study ...... 18 4.2 Data collection ...... 18 4.2.1 Semi-structured interviews ...... 18 4.2.2 Collection of documents ...... 23 4.2.3 Collection of questionnaire for tourists ...... 23 4.3 Data analysis ...... 25 Chapter 5 Results ...... 26
5.1 Relevance, (re)definition and assessment of the indicators of the Resilience Wheel per dimension ...... 26 5.1.1 Recovery ...... 26 5.1.1.1 Emergency management ...... 26 5.1.1.2 Resourcefulness ...... 27 5.1.1.3 Protection of critical infrastructure ...... 30 5.1.2 Resistance ...... 31 5.1.2.1 Flood barriers and embankments ...... 31 5.1.2.2 Strength of build environment ...... 32 5.1.2.3 Flood shelters ...... 33 5.1.3 Adaptability ...... 34 5.1.3.1 Building codes ...... 34
V
5.1.3.2 Self- organization ...... 36 5.1.3.3 Learning capacity ...... 37 5.1.3.4 Preparedness ...... 39 5.1.4 Vulnerability ...... 40 5.1.4.1 Tourism density ...... 40 5.1.4.2 Tourism composition ...... 41 5.1.4.3 Tourism assets ...... 41 5.1.5 Organizational Capacity ...... 42 5.1.5.1 Tourism cooperation ...... 43 5.1.5.2 Access to information ...... 44 5.1.5.3 Institutional capacity ...... 45 5.1.3.4 Tourism participation ...... 46 5.2 (Re) definition of Resilience Wheel’s indicators ...... 47 5.3 Flood Resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere ...... 49 5.4 Comparison of the Resilience Wheel results for different data sources ...... 50 Chapter 6 Discussion ...... 54
6.1 Synthesis of the findings ...... 54 6.2 Reflection on theory and conceptual framework ...... 55 6.3 Reflection on the research design and methodological limitations ...... 56 6.4 Recommendations for further research ...... 57 Chapter 7 Conclusion ...... 59
References ...... 61
Appendixes ...... 65
Appendix 1. Document list with number of reference ...... 65 Appendix 2. Questionnaire for key stakeholders ...... 66 Appendix 3. Questionnaire for tourism entrepreneurs ...... 70 Appendix 4. Questionnaire for tourists ...... 74 Appendix 5. Descriptive statistics of Questionnaire for tourists ...... 76
VI
List of Figures Figure 1 Multi-layer flood risk management approach ...... 1 Figure 2 Resilience Wheel Framework. Source: Haitsma (2016)...... 5 Figure 3 Adjusted Resilience Wheel ...... 9 Figure 4 Municipality of Veere and research locations. Source image: Province of Zeeland (2002) ...... 16 Figure 5 Number of insights related to the relevance of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators – key stakeholders 20 Figure 6 Number of insights related to the definition of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators – key stakeholders . 21 Figure 7 Number of insights related to the relevance of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators – tourism entrepreneurs ...... 22 Figure 8 Number of insights related to the definition of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators – tourism entrepreneurs ...... 23 Figure 9 Flood Resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere based on interviews, documents and questionnaires ...... 49 Figure 10 Resilience Wheel per group of stakeholders and data source (Note: white segments indicate no data, and grey segments indicate no assessed indicators) ...... 51
List of Tables Table 1 Traffic light system used to score the indicators of the Resilience Wheel ...... 9 Table 2 Interpretation of indicators related to the dimension ‘Recovery’ of the Resilience Wheel ...... 11 Table 3 Interpretation of indicators related to the resistance dimension of the Resilience Wheel ...... 12 Table 4 Interpretation of indicators related to the adaptability dimension of the Resilience Wheel ...... 13 Table 5 Interpretation of indicators related to the vulnerability dimension of the Resilience Wheel ...... 14 Table 6 Interpretation of indicators related to the organizational capacity dimension of the Resilience Wheel 15 Table 7 List of interviewees with reference number ...... 19 Table 8 Response rate of questionnaires for tourists ...... 24 Table 9 Assessment related to the emergency management indicator based on interviews ...... 27 Table 10 Assessment related to resourcefulness indicator based on interviews *SD standard deviation ...... 28 Table 11 Assessment of resourcefulness indicator based on questionnaires ...... 30 Table 12 Assessment of the indicator 'protection of critical infrastructure' based on interviews ...... 31 Table 13 Assessment of indicator 'protection of critical infrastructure' based on questionnaires ...... 31 Table 14 Assessment of indicator 'strength of build environment' based on interviews ...... 33 Table 15 Assessment of the indicator 'strength of build environment' based on questionnaires ...... 33 Table 16 Assessment of indicator 'flood shelters' based on interviews ...... 34 Table 17 Assessment of the indicator 'Flood shelters' based on questionnaires for tourists...... 34 Table 18 Assessment of the indicator 'building codes' based on interviews ...... 35 Table 19 Assessment of indicator 'self-organization' based on interviews ...... 36 Table 20 Assessment of the indicator 'self-organization' based on questionnaires for tourists ...... 37 Table 21 Assessment of indicator ' learning capacity' based on interviews ...... 38 Table 22 Assessment of indicator 'learning capacity' based on questionnaires for tourists ...... 38 Table 23 Assessment of indicator 'preparedness' based on questionnaires for tourists ...... 40 Table 24 Assessment of the indicator 'tourism assets' based on interviews ...... 42 Table 25 Assessment of the indicator 'tourism assets based on questionnaires for tourists ...... 42 Table 26 Assessment of the indicator ' tourism cooperation' based on interviews ...... 43 Table 27 Assessment of the indicator 'access to information' based on interviews ...... 44 Table 28 Assessment of the indicator 'access to information' based on questionnaires for tourists ...... 45 Table 29 Assessment of the indicator 'institutional capacity; based on interviews ...... 46 Table 30 Definitions of Resilience Wheel’s indicators ...... 47
VII
Chapter 1 Introduction
The Netherlands has a long history of facing flood risk (Correljé & Broekhans, 2015). Dutch water management is recognized worldwide for its technical and institutional abilities to guarantee safety against flooding (Van Der Brugge et al., 2005). However, the sense of safety created by the large infrastructure might cause a lack of awareness of the remaining risk of flooding in the country (Wesselink, 2007). The inflexible engineering approach also has its weaknesses in view of both climate change and societal change. It is argued that increasing rainfall and sea level rise, as well as growing population, require an adaptive delta management (Zegwaard et al., 2014). The main aims of the Delta Programme adopted in 2008 are “to protect the Netherlands against the effects of climate change and to make the country climate-proof over the long term” (van den Brink et al., 2011, p. 280). The Delta Programme entails a so-called multi-layer flood risk management approach. This includes new flood defence standards and a new flood management strategy combining three “layers”: 1) preventive measures, 2) spatial organization and planning, and 3) disaster management. This implies a sharing of responsibilities between public and private stakeholders (Delta Programme Commissioner, 2014). Despite, the Delta Programme (2008) settled as one of its priorities the collaboration with the private sector (Delta Programme, 2017). Collaboration with private stakeholders is only foreseen when their interests match the objectives of the national government (van den Brink et al., 2011). These substantial and procedural changes in the Dutch policy reflect a process towards resilience (Folke, 2006; Keessen et al., 2008). However, preventive measures are still considered the “core” of the Dutch safety policy. Measures to reduce flood vulnerability are hardly implemented (van den Brink et al., 2011) (See figure 1).
Figure 1 Multi-layer flood risk management approach
Resilience can be seen as a key concept in the Delta Programme. The ongoing work on updating the policies related to flood risk management, spatial organization and freshwater is part of the adaptive response that the Dutch government implemented to have “a safe and robust delta that is resilient enough to withstand the extremes of nature” (Delta Programme Commissioner, 2014, p. 150). The Delta Programme (2015) determined the urgent task to develop measures to recover from a disaster (Delta Programme Commissioner, 2014). The Delta Decisions, proposed by the Delta Commissioner in 2015, is presented as a normative framework which
1
suggests strategies and guidelines to implement measures for flood risk management, water availability, and climate-proof design until 2050 (Delta Programme Commissioner, 2014; Delta Programme, 2017). The Delta Programme is drawing up the “Delta Plan on Spatial Adaptation” to achieve the goal of “water resilience into policy and actions by 2020”(Delta Programme, 2017, p. 19). Furthermore, the Delta Programme Knowledge Agenda is part of the policy documents that define the research required for the implementation of preferential strategies and innovative pilot projects related to water and climate (Delta Programme Commissioner, 2014). In this agenda, water-resilient vital and vulnerable functions and infrastructure have been addressed to interconnect with climate-proof planning into processes at various scales (Delta Programme, 2017).
The use of the term resilience has clearly gone beyond its original area of scientific application into social and ecological systems related to adaptation, climate change, and the understanding of the concept of vulnerability (Cannon & Müller-Mahn, 2010; Folke, 2006). Resilience approach might present in a broader sense a concept which intersects multiple arenas (Folke, 2006). The use of resilience as a classic boundary concept can be interpreted as “‘an analytic concept of those scientific objects which both inhabit several intersecting social worlds . . . and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them. [. . .] They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. [. . .] They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation” (Star and Griesemer 1989, p. 393). This means that although resilience is used by many scholars and policy makers, its use opens up a space to ask questions such as ‘what is meant by resilience?’ and ‘whose resilience?’ (Grünewald & Warner, 2010).
According to Cutter et al. (2010), divergent views on community resilience exist from different perspectives (e.g. engineering or social sciences), and disagreements on whether resilience is an outcome or a process. The understanding and monitoring of resilience, therefore, varies greatly in different contexts (Haitsma, 2016). In addition, according to Grünewald & Warner (2010), the resilience of the “whole” does not mean the same as the resilience of the “parts” and vice versa which complicates any assessment of resilience even further, beyond the contextual and personal differences of interpretation already identified.
This thesis concentrates its efforts on the case-study of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere and its resilience in relation to flood risk. The Municipality of Veere is located in the Province of Zeeland, part of the Dutch South-West Delta. This case-study corresponds to a specific situation that can be analysed in detail (Creswell, 2014). In 1953, the storm surge on the North Sea left a scar in the memory of people living in the South-West Delta. It led to the construction of the infrastructure known as the Delta Works (Keessen et al., 2013; OECD, 2013; van den Brink et al., 2014). The Delta Works have reduced the flood risk and shortened the coastline. However, they have also caused problems pertaining to an algal bloom, loss of oxygen in the freshwater bodies, and sand demand in the Oosterschelde. These issues are intensified by the effects of climate change and must be addressed by new flood risk management and freshwater supply strategies (Delta Programme Commissioner, 2014). The Delta Decision on Spatial Adaptation calls for a shared responsibility between private parties and governmental organizations to devise and implement such strategies (Delta Programme Commissioner, 2014). Calls for a more adaptive, multi-layer flood risk management approach, as result of collaboration between private parties, are key to the selection of this study.
The tourism sector is one of the most important social and economic engines of the Municipality of Veere and Province of Zeeland. Around 4 million of tourists stayed during the night in the municipality in 2014. Furthermore, 30 % of the population works for this sector in the Municipality of Veere. The coast is considered the most important and permanent attraction, complemented by a range of cultural, and natural values that the Municipality offers to the guests (Province Zeeland, 2012). The interest to keep up a balance between safety, nature and recreation has been addressed within the Coast Vision of the Province of Zeeland (Province Zeeland, 2012). In the future, the increase of opportunities related to experience and entertainment offered to the tourists 2
could demand a more collaborative management which requires alliances, innovative infrastructures and participatory processes (Province Zeeland, 2012). Resilience was analysed in the Municipality with the HZ project on Delta Resilience developed by the HZ University of Applied Sciences. The university has conducted resilience workshops with key policy makers, citizens and volunteers. However, this project did not consider the tourism sector as part of the participants. However, a network of stakeholders who participated in local resilience education and improvement thereby emerged (Delta Academy, 2015).
The main aim of this study is to understand the interpretations of resilience tourism sector in relation to flood risk of the Municipality of Veere - Zeeland. This thesis uses the adjusted conceptual framework “Resilience Wheel”, which has 5 dimensions and 17 indicators to analyse this topic. The central question that the thesis addresses is:
How can flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere be assessed?
This main question addresses the following specific questions
1. How relevant are the indicators of the Resilience Wheel for the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere? 2. How can these indicators be assessed in that context? 3. What level of flood resilience does the tourism sector have using the Resilience Wheel conceptual framework in the Municipality of Veere?
Thesis outline
The conceptual framework is elaborated in more detail in the second chapter. In Chapter 3, the case description provides the context for the thesis. The next chapter, Chapter 4, describes the research methodology used in this study. The results of the case-study addressing the research questions will be presented in Chapter 5. In Chapter 6, the results are discussed and in the last chapter, Chapter 7, the conclusions of the thesis are given.
3
Chapter 2 Conceptual Framework
This chapter elaborates on the conceptual framework used for this thesis. The first section explains resilience concept within the theory ‘Social-ecological Systems (SES)’. The second section explains the Adaptive Capacity Wheel as described by Gupta et al., (2010) from which the Resilience Wheel derives its structure and form. The third section of this chapter discusses the Resilience Wheel framework used by Haitsma (2016). The comparison with similar studies, dimensions and indicators that form the conceptual framework is explained in this section. Finally, the fourth section discusses the assessment and scoring of the indicators of the Resilience Wheel.
2.1 Social – Ecological Systems The concept of ‘resilience’ can be seen as an outcome of the interdisciplinary work which attempts to analyse the dynamic and change of social-ecological systems (SES) (Cote & Nightingale, 2012; Folke et al., 2010). The social-ecological systems are “systems in which humans are part of nature and therefore cultural, political, social, economic, ecological and technological components interact” (Hodbod &Neil, 2014, p. 227). These systems involve uncertainties that are difficult to understand across a range of disciplines (Cote & Nightingale, 2012). Therefore, resilience has been studied and analysed from different perspectives over time. The term of ‘resilience’ was originally understood from an ecological perspective, which interpreted resilience by the capacity of the systems to persist a state of perturbation (Folke, 2006; Hollings, 1973). The systems could have attractor that causes shifts in ecosystems to different stability states (Folke et al., 2010; Carpenter, 2003). The emphasis in the “interactive dynamic between social and ecological systems” (Cote & Nightingale, 2012, p. 477) and their feedback permit to conceive both systems within a holistic approach rather than in isolation state (Cote & Nightingale, 2012). However, resilience needs to link with other concepts in order to understand those dynamics (Folke et al., 2010; Keessen et al., 2013). Furthermore, new components emerge when a system is ready to reconfigure its state, and, possible change in variables and scales often belong to the new system (Walker, Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004).
Resilience is defined, in this study, as “an adaptive approach to deal with the consequences of climate change” (Haitsma, 2016, p. 10). Empirical insights are much easier to get when we have answered this question: Resilience of what, and to what? ( Grünewald et al., 2010; Folke et al., 2010). This thesis focuses on the current situation of the tourism sector’s resilience in the community of the Municipality of Veere in relation to flood risk. The study does not deal with all possible scales and time frames of resilience. However, the recognition of specific resilience changes, the acquired knowledge and experience at a lower level might raise our understanding of the social- ecological systems to a higher level (Folke et al., 2010; Olsson et al., 2004).
2.2 Adaptive Capacity Wheel The Adaptive Capacity Wheel framework is elaborated by Gupta et al. (2010) and emphasizes in 6 dimensions (i.e. learning capacity, variety, leadership, resources, room for autonomous change and fair governance) and 22 indicators. The Wheel “can help academics and social actors to assess if institutions stimulate the adaptive capacity of society to respond to climate change, and to focus on whether and how institutions need to be redesigned” (Gupta et al., 2010. p. 459). In addition, this framework is a methodological framework that explains how to analyse the adaptive capacity of the institutions by using a systematic assessment framework (van den Brink., 2011). This framework has been also used to analyse “the strengths and weaknesses of institutions to adapt to climate change” (Grothmann et al., 2013, p.3382). However, the framework has some limitations. For example, the application of the framework, in practice, cannot be ‘objective’. It has the influence of expert interpretation (van den Brink et al., 2011). The Adaptive Capacity Wheel is important for this study because the framework served as inspiration for the development of the conceptual framework ‘Resilience Wheel’
4
elaborated by Haitsma (2016). The form and structure derived from the Adaptive Capacity Wheel were adopted by the resilience framework (Haitsma, 2016).
2.3 Resilience Wheel – Conceptual framework This conceptual framework was developed by Haitsma (2016) and constitutes his master thesis in Land Use Planning in Wageningen University in cooperation with Delta Alliance. The aim of this thesis was to identify the indicators that would enable researchers to monitor and operationalize resilience in relation to flood risk in delta cities (Haitsma, 2016). The Resilience Wheel conceptual framework has multiple advantages. First, the Wheel “gives a broad overview of how resilience can be understood” (Haitsma, 2016, p.9). Second, it allows diagnosing the strengths and weaknesses of the delta cities in relation to flood resilience. Third, the conceptual framework enables the researcher to “compress large amounts of information in a concise and communicative overview” (Haitsma, 2016, p.64).
Figure 2 Resilience Wheel Framework. Source: Haitsma (2016).
The Resilience Wheel has 5 dimensions and 19 indicators (Figure 2). The dimensions and indicators are different from those of the Adaptive Capacity Wheel due to the differing focuses of the conceptual frameworks. The Resilience Wheel focuses on the flood resilience in delta cities, particularly Rotterdam and Dhaka. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel focuses on the adaptive capacity of the institutional systems to climate change (Gupta et al., 2010, Haitsma, 2016).
Though the main topic of analysis differs between the conceptual frameworks, similar key aspects can be identified within them. First, both frameworks use a systematic coding system to define and select the indicators of the wheels in order to increase the transparency of the conceptual frameworks. The assessment of the Wheel’s indicators is a subject of expert interpretation (van den Brink & Meijerink, 2014; Gupta et al., 2010, Haitsma, 2016; Kool, 2017). According to Haitsma (2016), in the analysis of the Resilience Wheel conceptual framework, the interpretation of the indicators during their assessment also depends on the researcher’s interpretation. The researcher needs to analyse the document data collected for each indicator. The
5
transparency and objectivity of the study increased by a structured methodology that clearly explains how the data has been collected, processed, analysed and assessed (van den Brink & Meijerink, 2014; Gupta et al., 2010; Kool, 2017). Haitsma (2016) made and recommended for future studies an operational description of each indicator in order to increase the understanding of the indicators by people from different countries. These definitions have the aim of sharpening and clarifying their definitions. Additionally, the triangulation of data sources was applied with the purpose of strengthening the study: a literature review, surveys, interviews and workshops.
Second, the dimensions and indicators of the wheels incorporate tensions between them (van den Brink & Meijerink, 2014; Gupta et al., 2010; Haitsma, 2014). The dependency between criteria might cause the criteria to “overlap, contradict, weaken and reinforce each other” (Kool, 2017, p. 7). For example, the testing of the Resilience Wheel, in the city of Rotterdam, showed that the emphasis on resistance led to a less attention being paid to the recovery processes in the political agenda and spatial measures in the city. Therefore, the dimension ‘Recovery’ received the lowest assessment (Haitsma, 2016).
Third, the context dependency remains within the application of the conceptual frameworks (Gupta et al., 2010; Haitsma, 2016; Kool, 2017). The relevance of the indicators could differ according to the specific context (Gupta et al., 2010; Haitsma, 2016). Cultural differences can change the perspective and interpretation of the assessment of the indicators. For example, in the case-study of Dhaka, the context of the delta city provided insights that allowed the refinement of the indicators of the Resilience Wheel. In this study, the original indicators and the changes related to the refinement of the conceptual framework are taken into account for the contextualization of the conceptual framework in the tourism sector of the Municipality of Veere.
The delta cities selected by Haitsma (2016) with which to test the Resilience Wheel were Rotterdam and Dhaka. Rotterdam was chosen due to its experience in climate change adaptation, the availability of data documented in policy documents and statistical websites and its adaptive spatial planning (Haitsma, 2016). Dhaka was selected because of its priority for flood risk management, its vulnerability to flooding and the sea level rise concerns that the city is forced to deal with (Haitsma, 2016). The data sources used for the case-study of Dhaka were a workshop with experts, surveys, interviews and a document study. The workshop was the first step of the case-study which allowed the refinement of the conceptual framework including new indicators such as flood shelters and drainage systems. Furthermore, it facilitated the discussion related to the assessment of indicators. For example, the flood barriers indicator was changed to embankments to make it more practical and building codes were considered more of an institutional indicator that fitted better in the dimension ‘Adaptability’ (Haitsma, 2016). The change of the conceptual framework is based on the context of Dhaka. The application of the Resilience Wheel in the delta cities of Rotterdam and Dhaka also provided insights about the improvement of flood resilience in the delta cities. According to Haitsma (2016, p.9), “for Rotterdam in the financial funding for flooding and the self-organization of residents, for Dhaka in the institutional capacity, public participation and learning capacity”.
The “Collaborative Research Framework of Flood Resilience in Urban Areas (CORFU)’ project used a methodological approach known as Flood Resilience Index (FRI) based on urban flood resilience. The index shows resilience as the interconnection between the five “natural, physical, social, economic and institutional” dimensions (Gourbesville et al., 2014, p.5 ). This approach is an example that indicates that the Resilience Wheel is not the “first framework that presents resilience in different dimensions” (Haitsma, 2016, p. 27). According to Haitsma (2016), the FRI does not present the overview of resilience definition and it is more technical based on calculations of weights of the scores. The Resilience Wheel uses the same weight for all indicators because “they all represent resilience to the same extent” (Haitsma, 2016, p. 27). Overall, the Resilience Wheel is therefore a good choice for the present study.
6
2.3.1 Dimensions and indicators This section elaborates the dimensions and indicators of the Resilience Wheel conceptual framework. In the version used by Haitsma (2016), the framework is constituted by 5 dimensions and 19 indicators. The five dimensions of the Resilience Wheel are 1) recovery, 2) resistance, 3) adaptability, 4) organizational capacity, and 5) vulnerability. Each dimension in turn comprises 4-5 specific indicators. In this section, each of the indicators of the Resilience Wheel is contextualised to the case-study of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere.
Recovery This dimension is seen as the “ability to recover from stressors” (Adewole & Agbola, 2014, p. 201). During the recovery processes, disaster recovery might include emergency management responses that tie the community as an important engine (Aldrich et al., 2015). The attraction, provision and management of resources (e.g. financial, logistic, physical, and technological) might need a certain level of planning and coordination. For example, the protection of social infrastructures and rebuilding during this phase demand coordination, management, monitoring and evaluation (Joerin et al., 2014). However, those activities “present huge challenges in the aftermath of large-scale disasters” (Joerin et al., 2014, p. 20). The Resilience Wheel’s indicators that address the dimension ‘Recovery’ are 1) emergency management, 2) resourcefulness, 3) protection of critical infrastructure and 4) drainage systems. The interpretations of these indicators in the context of the tourism sector are explained in Table 2.
Resistance According to Walker et al. (2004), resistance is a crucial aspect of resilience. Resistance is defined as the “the ability of a community to absorb perturbation” (Adewole & Agbola, 2014, p. 201). The system which increases resistance enhances the reduction of changes in response to stress (Walker et al., 2002). The Resilience Wheel’s indicators related to resistance are 1) flood barriers, 2) absorption capacity, 3) strength of build environment, and 4) flood shelters. Further description and detailed explanation are provided in Table 3.
Adaptability This dimension refers to the capacity of actors to adjust to actual or expected changes (Blackmore & Plant, 2007; Walker et al., 2004). The adaptive capacity developed within the systems might indicate the ability to respond to perturbation or impacts (Blackmore & Plant, 2007). Self-organization and the dynamics of social-ecological systems are part of the characteristics dominated by the social systems. These systems are formed by actors who are able to change the threshold of the current state and manage the interactions within cross-levels (Walker et al., 2004). The indicators related to this dimension are 1) building codes, 2) self-organization, 3) learning capacity, and 4) preparedness. In Table 4, the detailed interpretation and relevance of the indicators are explained.
Vulnerability Vulnerability can be defined as the “susceptibility of a system to harm from climate change impacts” (Snover et al., 2007). The measure of the dimension allows the understanding of the significance of an unsatisfactory state within the systems (Loucks et al., 1982). According to Haitsma (2016), vulnerability of the sector could represent the lack of resilience in the social systems. The dimension does not have a strong focus on spatial planning. However, it helps to understand the resilience of the system (Haitsma, 2016). Additionally, the assessment of vulnerability might guide during the prioritization of possible actions addressing climate change impacts (Snover et al., 2007). The vulnerability of the tourism sector has specific indicators which are 1) tourism density, 2) tourism composition, 3) tourism assets, and 4) income level. Further explanation of the indicators related to resistance is described in Table 5.
7
Organizational capacity Organizational capacity refers to the interaction among stakeholders in relation to flood risk. The information, participation and networking from within the organization should survive while undergoing a disruption or change within the systems (Godschalk, 2003; Wardekker et al., 2010). According to Godschalk (2003), advance planning by public and private organizations would develop leaders capable of responding to disasters. The community networks, prepared with up-to-date information about the hazards, their vulnerability and the disaster resources, could experience working together in reducing flood risks and ineffective response to disasters (Godschalk, 2014). The indicators contextualized to the tourism sector related to the organizational capacity dimension are 1) stakeholder cooperation, 2) access to information, 3) institutional capacity, and 4) tourism participation. The detailed information related to these indicators can be found in Table 6. 2.3.2 Adjusted version of the Resilience Wheel The indicators of the Resilience Wheel were contextualised to be used in the case-study in two ways. During the preliminary phase, the indicators were interpreted by the author of this study to be applicable to the tourism sector. The study of Haitsma (2016) and the preliminary literature review were the data sources that helped to the first refinement of the definitions of the indicators and their selection. The selection of data (insights) for the refinement and change of the indicator’s definitions was based on these criteria 1) the information refers to one indicator of the Resilience Wheel, 2) the information is associated to the operationalisation of the indicator in practice, and 3) it refers to the tourism sector of the Municipality of Veere. As result, the indicators used for the analysis of flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere were 17 instead of 19, within the same 5 dimensions delineated by Haitsma (2016) (Figure 3). In case the indicators were not considered, the reasons are described in the column ‘Relevance’ of Tables 2-6. The indicators that were not part of the adjusted version of the Resilience Wheel were drainage systems, absorption capacity and income level. Instead, I included tourism assets indicator that was omitted in the case-study of Dhaka in order to have a complete overview of the vulnerability dimension. Additionally, I added ‘flood barriers’ to the indicator ‘embankments’ to analyse the infrastructural dikes and natural barriers that protect the tourism sector of the Municipality of Veere.
The essence of the original definitions developed by Haitsma (2016) remained with the adjusted definitions of almost all indicators. Resourcefulness, tourism composition and tourism assets were indicators that changed drastically. The indicator ‘Resourcefulness' focused on the ability to mobilize resources, instead of focusing on the availability of financial resources and backups in energy and water. The indicator ‘Tourism composition’ was interpreted as a number of tourism industries. The indicator ‘Tourism assets’ was redefined completely, in this study, the tourism assets are related to cultural heritage and natural values that are used by the tourism sector and influence their competitiveness.
8
Recovery Organizational capacity
Tourism assets Flood barriers Flood resilience Resistance Vulnerability Tourism composition
Adaptability
Learning capacity
Figure 3 Adjusted Resilience Wheel
2.3.3 Assessment and scoring In this study, the values of the indicators, dimensions and total score of the Resilience Wheel was assessed qualitatively based on the insights provided by interviews, questionnaires and document analysis. Each indicator was scored based on three data sets 1) interview’s insights, 2) tourists’ scoring, 3) document analysis, and 4) (see Chapter 5 for further details). The descriptions of the scales for each indicator are explained in Tables 2-6 (column ‘Assessment and score’). Furthermore, the scoring of the indicators is presented in a communicative way by using a traffic-light system (Table 1). This coloured scheme allows identifying where the lowest (1=red) and highest scores (5=green) are within the Resilience Wheel. The indicators that do not have information which supports their scoring have a white colour according to the scheme (=no data) (Gupta et al., 2010; Haitsma, 2016) (see Table 1). These indicators in further research can be analysed and refinement in case there is a need to change their operationalised definition.
Score Score range Description
1 1-1.5 Absent
2 1.51-2.5 Low
3 2.51-3.5 Medium
4 3.51-4.5 High
5 4.51-5 Very High
No data
Table 1 Traffic light system used to score the indicators of the Resilience Wheel 9
The scores of the indicators are calculated by taking the average of all the scores obtained for each indicator (i.e. scores of interviews, questionnaires and document analysis). Based on Gupta et al., (2010) and Haitsma (2016), the scores of the dimensions are determined by calculating the average of the respective dimensions’ scores for the indicators. The indicators that do not have data are not part of the average score.
10
of
s
the
, ,
Becken
(
The
)
). ).
his type of
2016
T
major user
, ,
.
). ).
For instance
. .
. .
roads
by governmental
, ,
A separate indicator
one of the
. .
study
-
Andrew et al
(
mainly
airports
. .
).
e
.
Relevance Relevance
i
(
2013
, ,
Ministry of Infrastructure and
. .
. .
)
e
.
i
(
2013
Hughey
, ,
& &
Hughey
Becken
( affected community by flooding could report high levels of organizational resilience The tourism sector constitutes crucial infrastructure Environment and Ministry of Economic Affairs disruption of the public and private infrastructure can The drainage systems in the Province of Zeeland are infrastructures that are considered in the protection of critical infrastructure indicator Emergency strategies could help tourism organizations to reduce negative impacts of flood disasters Tourism organizations that supplied resources to the infrastructure protectedis organizations generate negatives effects in the tourism sector & linked the to freshwater pilot projects drainage systems are tolinked the water critical related the to drainage systems is partnot of the Resilience Wheel in this case
, ,
, ,
, ,
= =
= =
3
3
, ,
, ,
high
= =
mobilization
4
, ,
high availability
high protection
low mobilization
= =
= =
low availability
= =
low protection
4
4
2
= =
, ,
= =
, ,
, ,
2
2
, ,
, ,
Very high
= =
5
protection
, ,
protection mobilization
Very high availability medium mobilization No No availability No Very high
======
Assessment and Assessment score 5 3 mobilization 1 ----- 1 medium availability 1 medium protection 5
, ,
, ,
health
Becken
(
, ,
, ,
, ,
roads
, ,
critical
specially aircrafts or
emergency
energy
( (
, ,
, ,
).
technological and human
, ,
)
2016
,
transport
).
, ,
water systems
2016
trained personal in emergency
. .
, ,
evacuation plans
: :
Haitsma
e
, ,
energy
.
; ;
i
, ,
(
IT equipment
: :
Operational interpretation interpretation Operational
2013
and personal relations
monetary resources
Haitsma
, ,
, ,
water and energy
processes
water
(
: :
(
: :
)
) )
Hughey
infrastructure
warning systems coordination protocols and emergency networks resources meet to the needs of tourism sector during the recovery Financial vessels Human resources Physical protection and strengthening of ----- Availability of emergency management procedures & The ability of tourism sector to mobilize financial physical Physical Technological insurance i airports
Indicator Indicator
Resourcefulness infrastructure Drainage systems Emergency management Protection of critical
Recovery Variable Variable
Table 2 Interpretation of indicators related to the dimension ‘Recovery’ of the Resilience Wheel
11
, ,
.
)
. .
e
.
, ,
i
(
2013
, ,
camping
. .
e
Bed and
energy
.
i
, ,
. .
(
the region is
B
g
.
including the
, ,
&
, ,
e
. .
Hughey
(
B
, ,
& &
this indicator
and dike
, ,
, ,
. .
In additionIn
particularly tourists
Becken
(
. .
, ,
) )
Buildings used by the
the high availability of
bungalows
, ,
However ,
). ).
The study of its strength and
Relevance Relevance
. . ).
personal
2016
, ,
, ,
The tourism sector does manage not the
The Delta Works constructed in the
. . apartments
. . Additionally
, ,
). ).
Haitsma
(
operators
sector in the Municipality of Veere
, ,
roads
, ,
tourism sector plays an important role in ensuring an
Flood barriers reduce the risk of flooding in the Municipality of Veere and its community tourism sector Netherlands part are of the historical and tourism assets that attract million of tourists situation focusses on the spatial dispersion of crucial infrastructures protection of this type of infrastructure water tourism infrastructure makes this indicator untraceable according the to scope of this case study There are different types of tourism beach houses The appropriate shelter people to exploring potential spatial projects improvements that will benefit to the tourism sector and the society in general Absorption capacity anis indicator related the to ability of a system operate to after a flood event indegraded a breakfasts and hotels safety levels can provide valuable information for the resilience of the tourism sector tourists
, ,
= =
= =
3
3
= =
= =
, ,
, ,
5
4
, ,
, ,
flood
low flood
low strength
high availability
Very high
= =
= =
= =
high strength
low availability
2
2
= =
4
, ,
= =
, ,
5 =
, ,
4
, ,
2
, ,
, ,
medium flood barriers
= =
strength
3
, ,
flood barriers
No No availability Very high availability
absence strength
= = = = =
Assessment and score Assessment 1 barriers high flood barriers 1 medium strength Very high 1 medium availability 5 barriers ------
,
, ,
; ;
For
2016
storm
, ,
Haitsma
operators
(
, ,
, ,
) )
dunes
, ,
Haitsma
(
2012
, ,
Albrito
(
related the to tourism sector
). ).
Operational interpretation interpretation Operational
2012
, ,
). ).
employees
Physical presence and height of dikes surge barriers and dams Construction materials and design of buildings tourism sector adapted flood to risk Albrito The availability of flood shelters for tourists and 2016 ------
Indicator Indicator
Flood barriers and Embankments Strength of build Flood shelters Absorption capacity environment
Resistance Resistance Variable Variable
Table 3 Interpretation of indicators related to the resistance dimension of the Resilience Wheel
12
and
. .
. .
)
I assumeI that
, ,
2010
, ,
.
be valuable to reduce the
Therefore
. .
Bird et al
(
interest and actions to
. .
, ,
organization of its sector and
. .
-
should
)
Relevance Relevance
standards and plans to be in
respond and recover from crisis or
organizations usually develop
, ,
, ,
Zeeland
-
flooding
I assumeI that the tourism sector plays an
uncertainties
.
. .
, , g
.
e
. .
(
regulations
ourism sector uses different types of buildings to
tourism sector
provide services theto guests those buildings need to follow set a of land use The connections with the community and interact directly important role in the self the stakeholders involved Insights provided by the tourism sector about their experiences environmental changes flood or events can taken be into the plans and regulations to adapt flood to risk sector anticipate to disasters The t building operation with tourists account as new information or past lessons learned in The knowledge and capacity developed by the tourism flood risk of Veere
= =
, ,
5
, ,
, ,
high
= = =
plans
3 5
= =
, ,
-
, , ,
4
and use
, ,
and use
, ,
, ,
plans and
and use of
, ,
, ,
-
building
low self
trainings
organization
= =
-
low building
2
educational
= =
, ,
plans and
2
, ,
, ,
educational
ery high
high
v
plans and adjustments
= =
= =
medium self high self
high trainings Very high
plans and adjustments
low
, ,
4
5
= = =
, ,
= = =
, ,
, ,
= =
organization
. .
3 4
4 5
-
2
, , ,
, , ,
and use of projections and use of projections
, ,
, , ,
organization
medium building codes
self educational campaigns
-
educational campaigns
= =
3
building codes educational campaigns self
, ,
o o o o
n no trainings n n low trainings medium trainings
======
ery high ery high
Assessment and score Assessment 1 codes organization organization 1 adjustments adjustments 1 medium of projections of projections codes building codes 1 v 2 3 and adjustments projections campaigns campaigns v
, ,
, ,
used
and
, ,
Haitsma
(
Andrew et
; ;
Haitsma
; ;
up and
-
reports
, ,
2016
) )
, ,
2010
use of future
, ,
, ,
.
2013
. .
Haitsma
(
plans and regulations
Bird et al
(
, ,
evaluation plans
Aerts et al
, ,
(
). ).
2012
, ,
Operational interpretation interpretation Operational
Liao
; ;
). ). )
2016
, ,
.
themselves and collaborate with the clean assistance after a flood event Availability of trainings institutional adjustments adapt to to flood risk projections in the planning and design of tourism infrastructure and services Tourism building standards to adapt flood to risk The ability of tourism organizations to organize al 2016 Availability of educational campaigns 2016
Indicator Indicator
organization
-
Building codes Learning capacity Self Preparedness
Adaptability Adaptability Variable Variable
Table 4 Interpretation of indicators related to the adaptability dimension of the Resilience Wheel
13
. .
Joerin
The
(
. .
system
sports
, ,
. .
Joerin et
(
in this case the
(
Zeeland
a varietya of
-
hospitality
, ,
related the to local and
has
the focus on tourism
or people can be
, ,
assets and employees that
/
Each of the industries has its
. .
, ,
)
his indicator not will be
). ).
t
catering
areas with higher
, ,
Ministry of Infrastructure and
. .
, ,
the population density was
(
.
e
. .
. .
, ,
industries
instead of population density
.
)
2014
i
Relevance Relevance
) )
(
cultural and natural assets
, ,
.
the correlation of income and
, ,
2011
tourism sector
knowledge
In thisIn thesis
, ,
, ,
Zeeland
may not follow the pattern same
). ).
-
)
and protection of the cultural heritage and
the
, ,
For instance
. .
related to
)
Kunte et al
2016
However
(
Veere
, ,
. .
)
2014
, ,
.
money transferred savingsinto can used be as funds
2014
,
.
Haitsma positive and negative
needed determine to the resilience of urban cities ( ( considered more vulnerable to flood risk or other disasters international tourism and recreation and culture can influence the resilience of Veere assumeI that attractions role in the competitiveness and attraction of the tourism sector in the Environment al finance and savings at individual level et al considered in the thesis In theIn Resilience Wheel sector entails the tourism density data as part of the indicators that can exert pressures to the delta According to Kunte et al concentration of tourists and The tourism sector has own experience identification natural values after flood a event can play an important The for flood risk reduction and action plans tourism sector
, ,
= =
= =
3
3
, ,
very
, ,
= =
5
Amount
, ,
low amount
= =
2
, ,
high density
high availability
= =
medium amount of high amount of Very high
= =
2
low availability
4
= = = = =
low density
, ,
, ,
3 4 5
= =
= =
, , , , ,
2
4
, ,
, ,
availability
tourism industries
very high density Very high No no availability
======
Assessment and Assessment score 1 tourism industries tourism industries of tourism industries 5 ------medium density low density 1 tourism industries 1 medium availability
in the
2 2
. .
)
. .
cultural
, ,
2014
, ,
.
Zeeland
-
. .
natural values
Kunte et al
(
; ;
2016
Zeeland
, ,
-
industries which belong the to
Haitsma
(
Operational interpretation interpretation Operational
in the Municipality of Veere
) )
Average tourists and tourism employees per km municipality Municipality of Veere Availability of tourism assets heritage Amount of tourism ------
omposition
Indicator Indicator
assets
Tourism c Income level Tourism density Tourism
Vulnerability of the tourism sector sector tourism the of Vulnerability Variable Variable
Table 5 Interpretation of indicators related to the vulnerability dimension of the Resilience Wheel
14
.
I I
). ).
to to
)
Becken
(
2012
, ,
, ,
This
The
2013
. .
, ,
operators
, ,
tourists and
, ,
, ,
tourists can be open
Hughey
, ,
& &
access information to
tourism businesses might
I considerI that the
or neighbours
, ,
, ,
/
. .
Province of Zeeland
Becken
(
(
information related to flood
to
It known is one as of the main
Relevance Relevance
The attention the to gap between
. .
. .
. .
community
In thisIn thesis
. .
On the other hand
argues that institutional capacity
. .
)
. .
) )
Zeeland
On the one hand
-
. .
diversification of industries and increase of
2013
, ,
2007
, ,
This linkages can reduce the weakness flood to
(
. .
economic activities
-
ourism sector might have interaction and
tourism sector plays an important role in
Hughey
formalized cooperation with risk managers governmental authorities and vulnerability to flood risk risk can differ from tourism entrepreneurs community to due provision of information related to receive more information on the potential flood risk and warning systems comprehensive approaches to tourism planning enhance more understanding about the gap mentioned Mathbor connection of the and organizations could enhance more bounds and interconnections within the sector and the stakeholders risk in Veere municipality of Veere social innovation tourists in the Municipality of Veere might require some policy processes The t interaction between stakeholders can to help reduce the The capacity access to and tourists fear the undermining of tourism industries in the natural hazards awareness and implementation calls more for & from tourism industries and tourist ais key indicator to depends on the development of social capital through the creation and improvement of the associativity and associativity of the tourism sector between its industries involved The assume that its influence in relation planning to level of participation with the community
, ,
= =
5
, ,
low
= =
2
high
, ,
= =
participation
amount of
4
access to
medium access
low
, ,
= =
low participation
= =
low amount of
3
2
= =
, ,
= =
, ,
2
2
, ,
, ,
high collaborations medium
high access to
ery high
ery high
ery high
=
v
= = = =
medium amount of v high amount of
v
4
4 3
= =
, ,
= = = = =
= =
, , , ,
5
3 5 4
5
, ,
, , , , ,
, ,
collaborations
collaborations participation
o o
No No access to information N medium participation No associations
======
ery high
Assessment and score Assessment 1 collaborations v 1 to information associations associations associations 1 3 collaborations access information to information information 1 associations participation
, ,
). ).
). ).
safety
2013
, ,
, ,
and
). ).
, ,
Stead
&
warning systems
Lu
, ,
, ,
businesses and
, ,
governments
)
) )
to to involve in decision
2016
, ,
. .
2016
local
(
, ,
, ,
scientific climate information
Haitsma
, ,
(
public and private organizations
Zeeland
citizen panels
-
, ,
Risk assessments
, ,
Haitsma
s
. .
communicational strategies
;
e
.
, ,
tourism sector
i
advice and service to the tourists and
, ,
) ( )
NGO
2014
, ,
, ,
Operational interpretation interpretation Operational
.
2016
, ,
advisory groups
ability of the
. .
g
.
Joerin et al Haitsma E
The amount of formal informal or collaborations organizations ( ( The amount of formal and informal associations related municipality of Veere making processes stakeholders involved ( between tourism industries Availability of information prepare to flood risk reduction emergency procedures to tourism sector that currently operate in the The giving response community dialogues and evaluation processes
Indicator Indicator
Tourism cooperation Access to information Public participation Institutional capacity
Organizational capacity capacity Organizational Variable Variable
Table 6 Interpretation of indicators related to the organizational capacity dimension of the Resilience Wheel
15
Chapter 3 Case-study
3.1 Tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland The Municipality of Veere is one of the small municipalities on the Walcheren Island in the Province of Zeeland. It has around 22.000 inhabitants distributed over 13 villages (see Figure 4). The most populated village is Koudekerke. The population of Veere is ageing, around one of five people in the municipality are 65 years or older. In addition, the young population of the municipality (0-25) is decreasing. Around 9% is from 2000-2010 (van Klinken et al., 2012). Tourism and agriculture are the main economic sectors in Veere. Around 30 % of the population of Veere works in the tourism sector. The total of overnight stays in the municipality of Veere is about 4.024.000 tourists per year (CBS, 2016), which produces an estimated total annual turnover of 150 million euros (Province of Zeeland, 2012).
The coastal villages are mainly used for tourists and bathers. For example, Vrowenpolder, Oostkapelle, Domburg, Westkapelle, and Veere (van Klinken et al., 2012). This coast consists of dunes, beach, dikes, forests and natural areas that offer a variety of recreational options to the tourists. The beach is the largest tourist attractor in the Municipality of Veere. Westkapelle and Vrowenpolder are visible by tourists who enjoy the sports activities. Along the coast, there are distributed beach houses, beach pavilions, and day cabins that give comfort to the tourists. Furthermore, the Waterland Neeltje Jans is the most popular visitor attraction of the municipality that informs about the Delta Works, the hydraulic engineering and construction of the storm surge barrier [Oosterschede Stormvloedkering]. The historic city of Veere attracts many tourists who enjoy history and culture (Province of Zeeland, 2002).
Vrowenpolder
Oostkapelle Veere
Domburg
Westkapelle
Figure 4 Municipality of Veere and research locations. Source image: Province of Zeeland (2002)
The Province of Zeeland, including the Municipality of Veere, has experienced the North Sea Flood in 1953. This is considered the most devastating flood disaster of the century which caused the construction of the Delta Works, the project that aimed to guarantee the safety of the country (Province of Zeeland et al., 2013). Since then, the Delta Works constrained the coastline and increased the security of the delta. The dikes and flood 16
defences at the coastline of the Municipality of Veere comply with the Water Act (2017). The dikes at the coast of the municipality have the norms 1:3000 (dike 29-1) and 1:10000 (dike 29-2) (Waterschap Scheldtromen, 2016). There is a range of parties involved in the maintenance and protection of the beaches, dunes and dikes (Waterschap Scheldtromen, 2016). The Delta Programme (2017) has promoted the exploration and implementation projects with shared responsibilities by governmental organisations, private organised groups. In the Province of Zeeland, the project ‘Coastal Vision of Zeeland’ was initiated to turn on the coast challenges. This project is applied in the all the municipalities of the province, including the Municipality of Veere. The project has been created and prepared by municipalities, tourism organizations, environmental organizations, Rijkswaterstaat, ZLTO and water board. It focusses on the strengthening of the dikes, beaches, nature and landscape values and the recreation sector. Once it is approved and signed by the Zeeland authorities, the translation of the document into the new Environmental vision is scheduled for 2018 (Province of Zeeland, 2017).
17
Chapter 4 Methodology
The chapter starts with a brief description of the research design and the scoping of the research. The second section of the chapter focuses on the data collection phase. Finally, the chapter ends with the data analysis of interviews, documents and questionnaires.
4.1 Research design and scope of the case-study This thesis follows an exploratory case-study design. A case-study is used to explore a real ‘bounded system’ by place and time (Kumar, 2014). The scope of the study started with the selection of the main topic. A preliminary literature review facilitated the identification of the topic. Flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere- Zeeland was selected as the thesis topic. I focussed on the current situation of the tourism sector in relation to flood risk in order to understand more about the interpretation of flood resilience by the tourism sector and key stakeholders in the Municipality of Veere. Therefore, I contextualised the indicators of the Resilience Wheel according to the tourism sector study (see Section 2.3.2). Furthermore, I used a triangulation as a tool to strengthen the validity of the research (Creswell, 2014). I combined primary data collected through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and local tourism entrepreneurs, questionnaires for tourists, and secondary data from documents related to flood resilience and the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere. The interviews and questionnaires for tourists were held in English. The documents retrieved from websites related to flood resilience, tourism sector and statistical data were retrieved in English and Dutch. The documents in Dutch were partly translated, focussing on the parts of the documents that provide insights related to the indicators of the Resilience Wheel.
4.2 Data collection This section describes the data sources that were used in this study in order to find and analyse information about the flood resilience indicators: 1) interviews, 2) documents and 3) questionnaires. The data collection phase of this study was administrated between May and June 2017.
4.2.1 Semi-structured interviews The semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders and local tourism entrepreneurs in the Municipality of Veere. This type of interviews facilitated the interaction between interviewer and respondent. In this study, the order of the questions was free. I used the questionnaires as the guideline for asking open and closed questions elaborated in relation to the indicators of the Resilience Wheel. The first step for the collection of the interviews was the selection of interviewees. I did an overview of the institutions that deal with the tourism sector, flooding issues, safety and resilience in the Municipality of Veere. Academic institutions, governmental organizations, individual tourism entrepreneurs and representatives of entrepreneur’s associations were selected. The first contact with the key stakeholders was via email. The snowball sample technique was the method used to connect with more stakeholders that are relevant for this study. In this study, the selection of tourism entrepreneurs is focused on accommodation businesses. It was difficult to interview other tourism businesses due to time constraints. In addition to the snowball technique, I requested an interview to the tourism entrepreneurs directly in their own businesses. A total of 14 interviews were conducted with different stakeholders from the tourism sector (See Table 7).
18
Reference Type of Role description Date of interview number interviewee 1 Key stakeholder 1 Researcher in public administration and policy 3rd May 2017 studies focused on spatial planning, water issues, and resilience in relation to flood risk 2 Key stakeholder 2 Officer in the Municipality of Veere with large 19th May 2017 experience in safety, crisis and societal issues. 3 Key stakeholder 3 Researcher in coastal tourism in the Province of 9th May 2017 Zeeland. The research is on economic and social issues including the investment of the costumers and guests 4 Key stakeholder 4 Officer at the Safety Region of Zeeland with 3rd May 2017 experience on strategic policy advice, safety, flooding, nuclear crisis, impact analysis and production of measures in relation to flood and resilience. 5 Key stakeholder 5 Beach watcher in Ostkapelle, day by day 14th May 2017 experience with tourists and rescue boards. 6 Key stakeholder 6 Hotel owner in Zoutelande and chairman of 12th May 2017 Entrepreneur 1 hotel entrepreneur’s association in Zeeland 7 Key stakeholder 7 Chairman of entrepreneurs association with 4th May 2017 Entrepreneur 2 campgrounds and bungalow parks 8 Key stakeholder 8 Campsite owner in Vrowenpolder and member 13th May 2017 Entrepreneur 3 of the board of young people connected to the tourism sector in Veere and the entire country of the Netherlands (Campsite since 1960) 9 Entrepreneur 4 Hotel owner located in Domburg (32 years ) 4th May 2017 10 Entrepreneur 5 Minicamping owner with 25 places in 19th May 2017 Aagterkerke since 1982 11 Entrepreneur 6 Entrepreneur related to private holiday homes 19th May 2017 (renting) 12 Entrepreneur 7 Campground owner in Ostkapelle 7th June 2017 13 Entrepreneur 8 Hotel owner in Domburg 8th June 2017 14 Entrepreneur 9 Historical hotel manager in Ostkapelle 8th June 2017 Table 7 List of interviewees with reference number
Two questionnaires for the interviewees were elaborated, one for key stakeholders (i.e. governmental representatives and academia) and another one for the tourism entrepreneurs. Both questionnaires have three sections with a mixture of closed and open questions. For the elaboration of the questionnaires, I assumed that resilience concept is known more by the key stakeholders than the tourism entrepreneurs. Therefore, I requested direct information related to resilience of the key stakeholders. In the case of the tourism entrepreneurs, I used the concept of safety, which allowed me to connect flooding issues with the general safety issues that tourism entrepreneurs need to deal with in order to comply with regulations, and management of their businesses.
In the first section of the questionnaires, I requested information related to the experiences and roles of the interviewees and the organizations they work with. The questionnaire for key stakeholders focuses on the experience and role of the interviewees in relation to flooding. The questionnaire for tourism entrepreneurs focuses on flooding but also on tourist’s safety.
19
The second section of the questionnaires emphases on the collection of insights for the analysis of three criteria related to the Resilience Wheel indicators 1) relevance, 2) definition, and 3) assessment. The interviews took one hour. However, due to the extensive conceptual framework and the time constraints, I decided to shorten the questionnaire and select the indicators that required further insights from the interviewees. Information related to flood barriers, tourism density, tourism composition and tourism participation indicators was not requested to the interviewees. The document data is considered the main data source for the analysis of those indicators.
The questionnaires for key stakeholders were more extensive than the questionnaires for tourism entrepreneurs (See Appendix 2). In those questionnaires, I requested further elaboration of the answers related to the three criteria. Key stakeholders’ insights related to the indicator ‘Tourism cooperation’ were omitted because I decided to ask directly to the tourism entrepreneurs about this indicator. I assumed that they have more understanding of the indicator. Therefore, the key stakeholders rated 12 indicators of the Resilience Wheel and provided insights related to their (re)definition and relevance (See Figures 5 and 6). Figure 5 shows the number of the key stakeholders’ insights related to the relevance of the indicators. These insights are differentiated in four types of answers 1) relevant, 2) no relevant, 3) I don’t know and 4) the interviewee doesn’t answer. The response number 4 occurs when the interviewee does not feel capable of answering and prefers to skip the answer related to relevance. Figure 6 shows the number of key stakeholders’ insights related to the (re)definition of the indicators and the no answers from key stakeholders who do not feel capable of giving insights of the indicators. During the interviews, some key stakeholders also discussed the meaning of tourism density and tourism composition indicators. These indicators were included in Figure 6.
5
4
3 The interviewee doesn't answer 2 I don't know 1 No relevant 0
Relevant
Preparedness
Floodshelters
Buildingcodes
Tourismassets
Resourcefulness
Self-organization
Learningcapacity
Institutional capacity
Critical infrastructure
Accessto information Emergencymanagement
Strengthof build environment Figure 5 Number of insights related to the relevance of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators – key stakeholders
20
5
4
3
2
1 Interviewee doesn't answer 0
Insight
Preparedness
Floodshelters
Buildingcodes
Tourismassets
Tourismdensity
Resourcefulness
Self-organization
Learningcapacity
Institutional capacity
Tourismcomposition
Critical infrastructure
Accessto information
Emergency management Emergency Strengthof build environment
Figure 6 Number of insights related to the definition of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators – key stakeholders
Questionnaire for tourism entrepreneurs has different questions in comparison with key stakeholders’ questionnaires (See Appendix 3). In this case, the indicator ‘Tourism cooperation’ was included in the assessment of the indicators. I changed the formulation of the questions in order to facilitate the comprehension of the 13 selected indicators according to the three criteria mentioned in the questionnaires for key stakeholders (i.e. relevance, (re)definition, and assessment). The reformulation of the questions was based on the working experience of tourism entrepreneurs with tourists and the regulatory procedures that they need to follow in order to have guests.
The time required to interview tourism entrepreneurs was reduced to 45 minutes. During the request for interviews, most of the tourism entrepreneurs expressed their busy schedule. Therefore, I decided to reduce the number of indicators assessed by the tourists (i.e. 8 indicators). Furthermore, I requested insights related to the relevance of only four indicators (i.e. access to information, emergency management, tourism assets and building codes) due to time constraints. This information increases the understanding of the tourism sector’s role in the communication strategies, tourism assets, emergency management strategies and the building codes of the Municipality of Veere (See Figure 7). The interaction between interviewer and respondent during the semi- structured interviews facilitated the discussion related to the relevance of indicators that were not considered within the questionnaires for tourism entrepreneurs (i.e. resourcefulness, flood shelters, the strength of built environment, learning capacity, self-organization, and institutional capacity). The insights provided during those interactions are also shown in Figure 7. The number of insights related to the (re) definition of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators according to the tourism entrepreneurs are presented in Figure 8.
In the third section of the questionnaires for key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs, I requested the opinion and comments related to the relevance of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators and the assessment of the conceptual framework. The feedback allowed me to have an overview of the importance of the indicators discussed during the interviews with the key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs. The general insights related to relevance of the indicators provided at the end of the interviews indicate that most of the indicators are relevant for the tourist sector. However, the feeling of safety, that people has developed in the Municipality 21
of Veere, makes it hard to think about the risk of flooding 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13. Therefore, the importance of the indicators can change. There are other issues that are more present in the mind of the people, including the tourism sector. For example, the nuclear power station located in the Province, which could produce different reactions from tourists or tourism entrepreneurs that do not know about it6,13. In case I missed the inclusion of a relevant indicator during the interview, the last section gave the opportunity to interviewees to propose additional indicators to the conceptual framework and give their opinion about the ones that have been addressed.
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 The interviewee doesn't answer 1 I don't know 0 No relevant
Relevant
Floodshelters
Buildingcodes
Tourismassets
Resourcefulness
Self-organization
Learningcapacity
Institutional capacity
Accessto information
Emergencymanagement Strengthof build environment
Figure 7 Number of insights related to the relevance of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators – tourism entrepreneurs
22
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Interviewee doesn't answer 0
Insight
Preparedness
Floodshelters
Buildingcodes
Tourismassets
Resourcefulness
Self-organization
Learningcapacity
Tourismcooperation
Institutional capacity
Critical infrastructure
Accessto information Emergencymanagement
Strengthof build environment
Figure 8 Number of insights related to the definition of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators – tourism entrepreneurs
4.2.2 Collection of documents A total of 18 documents and 4 websites were used to find information related to the indicators of the Resilience Wheel. The documents were policy documents, regulations, plans, strategies, and statistical websites (See Appendix 1). Plans, and management guidelines were retrieved particularly from government websites and research institutes related to the tourism sector and flooding issues. Based on the data search method of Haitsma (2016), the documents are found by using a web search. In this case, these criteria are 1) the documents are related to one or more indicators of the Resilience Wheel, 2) the information is related to the Municipality of Veere and 3) the data is related to the concerns of the tourism sector (e.g. flooding). Almost all the documents used for the analysis of flood resilience were in Dutch. The preliminary understanding of the context facilitated the search for the indicators. The collection of data was developed in parallel. Therefore, during the interviews, I could ask extra information related to indicators that I found in the documents and needed more explanation. Documents elaborated by the Province of Zeeland and the National Government were included in the document data source in case those documents referred the tourism sector of the Municipality of Veere or the Province of Zeeland.
4.2.3 Collection of questionnaire for tourists A questionnaire was chosen as the third data collection method to obtain information related to the flood resilience of tourists (See Appendix 4). The questionnaire was no longer than two pages to maintain the respondent’s attention. The questionnaire was written in English. It is constituted of close questions with similar answering style for easy use. The questionnaire has four sections. The first section of the questionnaire focuses on the opinion of the tourists about the statements related to 8 indicators of the Resilience Wheel (i.e. protection of critical infrastructure, flood barriers, flood shelters, self-organization, access to information, preparedness, learning capacity, and resourcefulness). The second part of the questionnaire explored the preferences for sources of information. The selection of the sources was based on the context of the tourism sector in the
23
Municipality of Veere and the literature review (Becken & Hughey, 2013; Jeuring, 2011). The third part of the questionnaires has questions related to the degree of responsibility of the stakeholders involved in the tourism sector, flood resilience and community safety, including the tourists. The last section of the questionnaire has questions related to the type of tourists that the Municipality of Veere receives and the demographic information of the tourists. The descriptive statistics of the questionnaire for tourists can be found in Appendix 5.
The statements of the first section were framed according to the operationalised definition of the indicators described in the conceptual framework. For example, self-organization indicator is defined as the ability of tourism organizations to organize themselves and collaborate with the clean-up and assistance after a flood event (Haitsma, 2016; Andrew et al., 2016; Liao, 2012). Therefore, the statement related to this indicator has the statement ‘I am able to organize myself (and my companion) after a flood event in Veere’. The scoring of the level of agreement of the statement helped me to understand better the perceptions of the tourists in relation to their self-organization. The same elaboration and frame of the statements were developed for the other 8 indicators. Some indicators of the conceptual framework have various components. In this case, more than one statements were presented to the tourists in the questionnaire. For example, resourcefulness has different types: 1) financial resources, 2) human resources, 3) physical resources, 4) technological resources. However, making one general statement related to resources would lead to the loss of relevant information related to the tourists’ resources. Therefore, I selected three statements related to resources for the questionnaire 1) I have attended to a first-aid course (human resources), 2) I have a backup budget in some case some unexpected situation happens during my holiday (financial resources) and 3) I am prepared to any emergency management with a mobile phone and a working flash light (physical resources related to tourists).
The questionnaire for tourists was handed out to passers-by (domestic and international tourists) in the geographical area of Veere. The locations selected were 1) Domburg, 2) Westkapelle, 3) Oostkapelle, 3) Vrowenpolder and 4) Veere. These places were chosen, based on the reasoning that: 1) the locations have many potential respondents, 2) the locations have accommodations that could be damaged by floods, and 3) the proximity to the coast and the nature developed in the locations (i.e. dikes with walking paths) allows the approaching of tourists (See Figure 4). A total of 94 of tourists participated in the questionnaire. Generally, the tourists were willing to participate after a brief introduction of my thesis. During the approach, some tourists refused due to the language limitations. Tourists that could not answer in English were thanked and they did not participate in the questionnaire. The response rate of the questionnaires was 79.79% (See Table 8). Tourists that participated in the questionnaire were between 18 and 88 years old (Mean=45.65, SD=14.96). However, most of the tourists were older than 40 years old (64%). Sex was distributed with 52% female, 47% male and 1% other. From 94 tourists that participated in the questionnaire, 52 tourists are domestic tourists (from the Netherlands) and 41 are international tourists. Around 75% of the international tourists were from Germany, 24% from Belgium and 1% from Spain. The majority of the tourists visited the municipality with their family (around 75%) and preferred to spend their holiday doing ‘leisure’ (54 tourists) and ‘natural walks’ (49 tourists). 54 tourists stayed around one week in the municipality and 27 tourists from 1 to 2 weeks. See appendix 5 for the summary of the descriptive statistics of the questionnaires for tourists.
Locations Completed Incomplete Total Response rate (%) Domburg 32 5 37 86.49 Westkapelle 23 5 28 82.14 Oostkapelle 10 4 14 71.43 Vrowenpolder 5 3 8 62.50 Veere 5 2 7 71.43 Total 75 19 94 79.79 Table 8 Response rate of questionnaires for tourists 24
4.3 Data analysis
During the data analysis, I went through the interviews, documents and questionnaires. The semi-structured interviews provided information for the analysis of the three criteria mentioned in the methodology 1) relevance, 2) (re)definition and 3) assessment. Therefore, documents and questionnaires provide crucial information mainly for the assessment of the indicators.
I coded the interviews by analysing the answers per indicator and criteria mentioned. The software used for the coding was ATLAS. ti The insights related to the relevance of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators were ordered and analysed per group of stakeholders. The insights related to the (re)definition of the indicators were identified and considered in the refinement of the conceptual framework when they matched with these criteria 1) the insight provided by interviewees explains better the operationalisation of the indicators, 2) it is applicable to the tourism sector and the flooding issues, 3) the insight help to assess the indicator in practice.
Based on Haitsma (2016) and Gupta et al., (2010), the scoring of the indicators was calculated by taking the average of the scores provided by the interviewees. This case-study differs from the study of Haitsma (2016) and Gupta et al. (2010) because it shows the dispersion of the scores assigned per indicator by using the score ranges. However, the average of the scores is still used for presenting the average result of flood resilience related to the tourism sector by using the traffic-light system. This system assigns colours to the outcomes according to the Table 1.
The second step of the data analysis was the document analysis. It was required to make a general overview of the documents. Most of them were in Dutch. However, the partial translation of the documents allowed the identification of information which supports the assessment of the indicators. The information of documents provide insights that complement the assessment of the indicator. The relevance and definition of the indicators are not shaped by the document data. For the assessment of the information retrieved from documents, I scored the indicators by using the scale from 1 to 5 based on the methodology of Haitsma (2016) and Gupta et al. (2010). At least, two or more documents were required for the assessment of documents.
The information retrieved from the questionnaires complement the assessment of the indicators by providing the level of agreement of the tourists with the statements related to the indicators of the Resilience Wheel. They have a scale ranged from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). For the analysis of questionnaires, there are many statements that have the same range but the spread of the scores can vary. Therefore, the standard deviation is included in the assessment of the questionnaires. This statistical value shows the spread of the scores in relation to the mean obtained by scoring the statements. The selection and framing of the statements and indicators are based on the expert interpretation during the elaboration of the questionnaire and the tourists when they score the statements. With the aim to facilitate the interpretation of the findings, a short guide to interpreting the data is explained here: The statements have a positive answer when the scoring is >3 and negative when the scoring is <3. For example, if the statement says ‘I have attended to a first-aid course’, I considered that 56 tourists (15 tourists rated the statement with a 4 and 41 tourist with a 5), who represent the 60 % of the respondents, agreed with the statement. Therefore, I consider that they have some knowledge of first aid. I focused more on the positive answers than in negative or medium (3) answers. The descriptive statistics of the questions were carried out with SPSS Statistics 17.0.
25
Chapter 5 Results
This chapter elaborates on the results of the study based on the interviews with key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs, documents and questionnaires for tourists in the Municipality of Veere. The first section of the chapter describes the relevance, (re)definition and assessment of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators grouped per dimension. The second section focuses on the (re)definition of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators and their changes during the preliminary phase and after the analysis of the interviewee’s insights. In the third section, the results of the flood Resilience Wheel of the tourism sector is described. Finally, the chapter ends with the comparison of Resilience Wheel per group of stakeholder and data sources.
Through the reading of this chapter, there are references related to interviews and documents. The references of interviews are shown in the text next to the insights or quotes using super-scripted numbers. The quotes of interviewees are written between quotation marks, e.g. “not everybody is connected to an association”4. The reference number of each interview can be found in Table 7. The names of documents that provided information related to the indicators are written in parenthesis next to the insights or in the text when they are introduced by the author.
5.1 Relevance, (re)definition and assessment of the indicators of the Resilience Wheel per dimension
5.1.1 Recovery The dimension ‘Recovery’ has three indicators: 1) Emergency management, 2) Resourcefulness and 3) Protection of Critical infrastructure, which are described in this section.
5.1.1.1 Emergency management Relevance
According to the insights retrieved from the key stakeholders’ interviews, emergency management can be seen as a relevant indicator 1,4 for recovery phase, as well as, response phase of a disaster such as flooding1. Although, the importance of the indicator is susceptible to variations depending on the phase1.
(Re) definition The insights related to the indicator ‘Emergency management’ were aligned with my interpretation developed during the preliminary phase of the study. It was suggested to consider plans, strategies and guidelines that the tourism sector has in order to face an overcome a flood event1,3,14. One of the key aspects mentioned during the interviews was that the presence of an emergency management plan or strategy does not always decrease the flood risk in the tourism sector in case those guidelines are not updated, assimilated, and related to the flooding issue by the entrepreneurs7. For example, the chairman of tourism entrepreneurs related to campground and campsites explained that despite the emergency plans are relevant for the government and representatives of the entrepreneur’s associations. It is important to recognize how the entrepreneur uses them; “If the entrepreneur does not think it is important, then there is no use. So, it is not that important if you have the most beautiful guideline. It is more important that the people who have used it, know how to use it”7. Despite, the insight related to emergency management highlighted the importance to trace the use of emergency plans and procedures. This process is not considered for the refinement of the conceptual framework. The availability of emergency management plans and strategies offers the first step to assess this indicator. However, the
26
monitoring of the ‘good’ use of those plans, at the moment, is untraceable due to the lack of data related to the topic.
Assessment The assessment of key stakeholders related to emergency management has a range of 1 with scores from 3-4. The interviewees related to governmental organizations highlighted the availability of a general crisis management plan in the Municipality of Veere2,4. However, there is an absence of specific guidelines for the tourism sector related to flood issues2, 4. Local tourism entrepreneurs’ assessment has a range of 2, the scores of this group of stakeholders are from 3-5. Tourism entrepreneurs mentioned the availability of a basic emergency and scape plans for their businesses developed by themselves6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14. In addition, they explained that there is no big protocol that they should follow, confirming the absence of emergency management plans mentioned by key stakeholders. From 9 tourism entrepreneurs, 4 gave a score to the emergency management of the sector7, 11,12, 13. 3 entrepreneurs that did not scored the indicator explained that they do not know about emergency plans related to floods8,10,14, and 2 preferred not to give an assessment6,9 (See Table 9).
Emergency management Stakeholder's N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't No answer group know Key 4 3.25 0.5 1 3 4 0 1 stakeholders Tourism 4 4 1.56 2 3 5 3 2 entrepreneurs Total 8 3.63 0.92 - - - 3 3
Table 9 Assessment related to the emergency management indicator based on interviews
The Regional Crisis Plan of Zeeland (Regionaal Zeeuws Crisisplan, RCP), the Delta Works Contingency Plan (Incidentbestrijdingsplan Deltawateren, IBP DW) and the Water Management plan (Waterkeringenbeheerplan 2016-2020) are plans related to crisis and water management in the Province of Zeeland. They describe the competencies, tasks and responsibilities of the different stakeholders during a crisis in Zeeland. The emergency plans available in relation to flood do not explain the role of the tourism sector in the flood risk management. Despite, there is an annual review of the plans and a complete update each four years. The test of the plans in practice is low since flood hazards are not common in Municipality of Veere. A guideline generated by the European Federation of Camping site Organizations (EFCO-FICC Charter) related to the management of external risks on holiday, parks, caravan and camping sites is available online. Despite, the association RECRON related to this type of accommodations promotes the adoption of this guideline. The association cannot enforce it as an obligation within the businesses. The information related to emergency management is interpreted as ‘low’ with a score of 2. 5.1.1.2 Resourcefulness Relevance Five key stakeholders think that this indicator is relevant for the assessment of flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere1,2,3,4,7. Insights show how the focus on the importance of the indicator varies within key stakeholders. Some of them consider technical resources as a very important resource for the communication with tourist and tourism entrepreneurs4,7. Other key stakeholders prefer to focus the relevance of the indicator on the mobility issues, with a perspective in the future due to the new health and care strategies introduced in the municipality1. Furthermore, the financial resources are considered in the present highly important for the stakeholders involved with the protection and maintenance of the flood barriers2.
27
(Re) definition
The insights mentioned by key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs in relation to this indicator coincided with the resourcefulness interpretation (operationalised definition) suggested in the preparatory phase of the study. There is no change in the definition of the indicator.
Assessment
All 14 interviewees participated in the qualitative assessment of resourcefulness. A total of 11 interviewees provided a score to this indicator. Key stakeholders rated the indicator with a range of 4 from 1 to 5. Tourism entrepreneurs assessed the indicator with a range of 2, with scores from 2 to 4. This group showed a high level of response (See Table 10). Resourcefulness Stakeholder's N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't No answer group know Key 3 3 4 1 5 0 2 stakeholders Tourism 8 3.13 2 2 4 0 1 entrepreneur Total 11 3.06 - - - 0 3
Table 10 Assessment related to resourcefulness indicator based on interviews *SD standard deviation
A variety of insights have been highlighted within the qualitative assessment based on interviews, which are explained below.
1) Financial resources are part of the resources that the tourism sector and the whole Municipality of Veere need in order to maintain their infrastructure, essential services, invest in tourism business, and educational programmes in relation to flooding risk4. According to the Safety Region, the main problem of the tourism sector after a flood event is the economic effect and the drop down of the quality of the tourism4. 2) Technological resources were mentioned with a high frequency. The communication related to flood risk is considered a key aspect in order to tackle the issue. Interviewees related to the academia and the tourism entrepreneurs highlighted the need to have a ‘good’ connection to the internet in order to communicate flood risk information3, 6, 7, 11, 12. The use of apps and websites developed by the entrepreneurs and governmental organizations have increased over time. However, sharing data is difficult when a flood shutdowns the network and the connectivity collapse8. At the current time, it is difficult to have a fair connection in crowded places, making it more difficult to reach tourists that are outside the installations of the campground and their campsites3, 14. 3) Transport resources present a high availability in the tourism sector. Almost all tourists and tourism entrepreneurs need an auto to mobilize themselves in the municipality12. However, the ability to mobilize tourists outside the Municipality of Veere can vary depending on the crisis situation and season. During summer, according to tourism entrepreneurs is very crowded. In case it is needed to evacuate all the tourists outside of Veere during this season, the main highway in Zeeland (A58) and secondary roads will collapse and it will turn difficult to achieve the mobilization of tourists out of the municipality 8, 12,14. 4) Physical resources such as water, energy, food, warm clothes and sheltering are also difficult to provide in case the flood event happens in summer. The supply of those resources is higher during winter season than in summer season. The reason is due to the high number of guests that the Municipality receive
28
during summer that cannot be afforded by the entrepreneurs in order to have emergency resources7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14. 5) Human resources are mainly the resource that most entrepreneurs are able to facilitate to the tourists in case a flood event happens, but in a limited number. The trained personnel that followed the first aid course from the tourism entrepreneurs is available in case a flood event happen11.
The document’s information led to a medium relative score. The provision of resources by the tourism sector are not considered within the main strategies, and plans considered by the government. The mobilization of the resources is not overarching within all the stakeholders involved.
1. Financial resources: according to Waarstaatjegemeente.nl, the costs incurred in the administration, public area and safety by the Municipality of Veere is about 307 euros per capita. The costs of education, culture and recreation are about 405 euros per capita. The document Kustvisie Provincie Zeeland (2012) estimates that the tourism sector has an annual turnover around € 150 million. 2. Transport resources: according to the Kustvisie Provincie Zeeland (2012), the government is working on increasing the flow and capacity of recreational transport between the A58 and the southern route with the route N288 between Zoutelande and Westkapelle. In addition, the extension of the summer schedule of the bus line 862 “Zomer bus Walcheren Oostkapelle – Vlissingen” facilitates the mobility in the municipality. 3. Technological resources: In 2017, the Municipality of Veere announced the opportunity to acquire a subsidy for the connection to the internet (‘Subsidieverordening voor aansluiting op breedband internet buitengebied’). The main objective of this decision was to improve the viability of optimizing the digital infrastructure in Veere, particularly the outdoor area. 4. Physical resources: Regarding the critical infrastructure related to water supply, the Delta Programme on Freshwater supply 2015-2021 will invest in climate adaptation pilot projects in Zeeland designed to tackle the shortage and salinization of freshwater (Delta Programme, 2017a). According to the Delta Programme (2017), the Ministry of Economic Affairs is working to ensure the power supply by 2050. However, there was no information related to a backup of energy in the Municipality of Veere. 5. Human resources: the Province of Zeeland has an operational and administrative plan during crisis and disasters, including flooding. The Gecoördineerde Regionale Incidentenbestrijdings Procedure (GRIP) (2011) elaborated by the Safety Region is a scheme that binds the thirteen municipalities and relief services organizations in order to undertake the risks in the province. Governmental organizations, emergency management professionals and communication teams are related to the human resources that the province and municipality have in case an emergency happens.
The questionnaires for tourists provided insights related to the resourcefulness of financial, physical and human resources. Technological and transport resources were not considered in the questionnaire.
1. Financial resources: around 50% of the tourists who participated in the questionnaire (47 tourists) have a backup budget in case unexpected situations happen during their holidays (e.g. flood). 2. Physical resources: 58% of the tourist’s participants in the questionnaire (55 tourists) consider themselves prepared to flood situations with a mobile phone and a working flash light. The use of those assets for communication and light source during a flood could vary according to the battery usage, energy supply and availability of internet connection in the area. 3. Human resources: from the 94 tourists’ questionnaires, around 56 of them (60%) agreed with the statement “I have attended to a first-aid course”. Furthermore, 52% of the tourists’ participants in the questionnaire believe that they can help with the assistance and clean up after a flood event. The availability of tourists who are prepared for basic emergency procedures and able to help after a flood event might increase the availability of the human resources in case a flood happens. However, the
29
mobility of those resources likely depends on how tourists, tourism entrepreneurs and governmental organizations coordinate the management of resources during and after a flood event.
The information provided by questionnaires related to the level of agreement with the statements related to resourcefulness led to different standards deviations which are described in Table 11. The availability of resources for the tourism sector is interpreted as medium-high (3.5). However, the ability to mobilize them depends on various factors such as density of tourists, and coordination between stakeholders which need to be investigated in future studies. For instance, the final score of the resourcefulness of the tourism sector is medium.
Type of Statement Range Minimum Maximum SD Average resources Financial 10. I have a backup budget in 4 1 5 1.45 3.34 case some unexpected situation happens during my holiday Physical 9. I am prepared to any 4 1 5 1.33 3.57 emergency with a mobile phone and a working flashlight Human 7. I have attended to a first-aid 4 1 5 1.59 3.55 course 5. I believe I can help with some 4 1 5 1.12 3.4 assistance and clean up after a flood in Veere Total 4 1 5 - 3.465
Table 11 Assessment of resourcefulness indicator based on questionnaires
5.1.1.3 Protection of critical infrastructure Relevance
According to the key stakeholders, the indicator ‘Protection of critical infrastructure’ is relevant for the resilience in relation to flood risk due to its importance and crucial role in the supply of energy, water, mobility during a disaster1,2,3.
Redefinition The respondents identified as critical infrastructures the roads, flood barriers, (fresh) water supply and electricity service in the Municipality of Veere1. This indicator belongs to the dimension ‘Resistance’. The definition of the indicator ‘Protection of critical infrastructure’ opens space to include the infrastructures that are important for the community and tourism sector in relation to flooding. Flood barriers play an important role in the protection and prevention of flood risk in the Municipality of Veere. Therefore, this type of infrastructure is included within the definition of the indicator.
Assessment The assessment of key stakeholders related to protection of critical infrastructure has a score range of 2 (3-5). However, a high number of key stakeholders did not give a score to the indicator. The tourism entrepreneurs has a score range of 1, with scores from 4 to 5 (See Table 12).Tourism entrepreneurs have a higher perception of protection of critical infrastructure than the key stakeholders. Both groups gave a high score to the indicator indicating the trust that they have on the constant maintenance of infrastructure developed by the government2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 . In relation to the protection and construction of roads in the municipality, the interviewees highlighted the possible traffic jam of the highway A58 as a critical issue in case a flood occurs, particularly in summer2,8,12. According to the Safety Region, electricity service and the intrusion of salt water are big issues that the tourism sector and the whole community will face during and after a flood event4. 30
Protection of critical Infrastructure Stakeholder's N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't No group know answer
Key stakeholders 2 4 1.41 2 3 5 0 3 Tourism entrepreneur 7 4.85 0.38 1 4 5 0 2 Total 9 4.43 - - - - 0 3 Table 12 Assessment of the indicator 'protection of critical infrastructure' based on interviews
According to the document analysis, the document Waterkeringenbeheerplan 2016-2020 indicates that Rijkswaterstaat and Waterschap Scheldestromen (water board) are responsible for the monitoring and management of surface and ground water. Aforementioned in the indicator ‘Resourcefulness’, the province and the municipality are working on special bus routes during summer and the projects to increase the flow of the highway A58 (Kustvisie Provincie Zeeland, 2012). There was no information related to back up of energy. The information described in policy documents about the protection of critical infrastructure led to a medium-high relative score (3.5). The protection of electricity, roads and water bodies can be improved.
Regarding the information provided by the questionnaires in relation to the statement, ‘I feel very high protection by the infrastructure of the Municipality of Veere ‘, around 75% of the tourists feel a high protection by the infrastructure (44 tourists gave a score of 4 and 27 scored with a 5). The score range of the statement is 4 with a standard deviation of 1.02. The relative assessment of this indicator based on questionnaires is high (Table 13).
Statement Range Minimum Maximum SD Average 1. I feel very high protection by the infrastructure of the Municipality of Veere 4 1 5 1.02 3.91 Table 13 Assessment of indicator 'protection of critical infrastructure' based on questionnaires
The final assessment of the indicator ‘Protection of critical infrastructure’ based on interviews, documents, and questionnaires has a high relative score.
5.1.2 Resistance The dimension ‘Resistance’ is constituted by three indicators: 1) Flood barriers, 2) Strength of build environment, and 3) Flood shelters. The insights related to the relevance and definition of the indicators are described below, followed by the assessment criteria.
5.1.2.1 Flood barriers and embankments Relevance
The relevance of flood barriers did not have insights from interviewees. The indicator is based on document analysis.
31
(Re) definition In this study, flood barriers are assessed in the indicator ‘Flood barriers and embankments’ and the indicator ‘Protection of critical infrastructure’. The reason for the double assessment of flood barriers is that the interpretations of the indicators about this aspect focus on two different aspects. On the one hand, ‘flood barriers and embankments’ emphasizes the physical presence of flood barriers. On the other hand, the ‘protection of critical infrastructure’ focuses on the protection and maintenance of the electricity networks, hospitals, roads and water infrastructures, including flood barriers. The assessment related to the perception of interviewees and tourists is only considered in the indicator ‘Protection of critical infrastructure’.
Assessment According to the document analysis, the coastline of the Municipality of Veere is protected particularly by dunes, and dikes. Dunes are protected by the water board “Waterschap Scheldestromen” while from the dune to the beach is managed by Rijswaterstaat. According to the Water Management Plan of the Waterschap Scheldestromen, the Water Act 2017 determined a change in the norm of the Dutch coastline. The Dike ring 29 (Dijkring 29), which protects the Municipality of Veere has two different norms. Dike 29-1 is 1:3.000 and dike 29-2 is 1:10.000, which means that the estimated probability of the coastline to withstand a flood is of 1 in every 3000 and 10000 years (“return period”) (Aerts et al., 2009). The information related to flood barriers led to a score of 5, the protection at the coastline is very high and it has a permanent monitoring.
5.1.2.2 Strength of build environment
Relevance According to the key stakeholders’ interviews, two of them considered the strength of build environment as a relevant indicator in order to assess the flood resilience of the tourism sector1,4. However, some of the interviewees related to the local government are not convinced about this. They do not know if the indicator is relevant when the tourists are the people who decide where to stay, whether it is in a mini-camping, hotel, bungalow or other type of accommodation2. The preferences of the tourists are difficult to define. Therefore, the relevance of the indicator in relation to flood resilience of the tourism sector is also difficult to determine2. During the interview with a tourism entrepreneur related to campgrounds, it was highlighted that this indicator is not relevant for the tourism12. There were interviewees that did not mention any insight related to the relevance of this indicator during the interviews.
(Re) definition
Interviewees highlighted that the type of building is a key element for the operationalization of the indicator ‘Strength of build environment’1, 2, 4, 5, 6. For example, the mini camping, campsites and campground have few buildings and more bungalows, campers and tents used by guests, which are not so strong in case an extreme event happens. Meanwhile, hotels, hostels, B&B and second houses are mainly buildings made of strong materials as concrete, hard stones and steel. Furthermore, the location of buildings was another key aspect mentioned during the interviews for the measuring of the indicator2, 4, 5, 6, 8. This aspect has been considered within the interpretation of the indicator ‘Building codes’ due to the current application of standards according to the location where buildings are located. The maintenance of the buildings is another key characteristic considered within this indicator which allows the building stand out for a long period of time and it is applicable to the historical buildings (cultural heritage)14.
Assessment According to the interviews, tourism entrepreneurs gave a higher score to the indicator than the key stakeholders. Key stakeholders gave mostly a low relative score to the indicator ‘strength of build environment’1, 32
2, 3, 4, 6. The score range of this group of stakeholders is 1 with scores from 2-3. They think that the construction of the buildings located inland does not have specific characteristics against floods2,4,6. According to tourism entrepreneurs, the buildings in the Netherlands are strong and well-constructed to withstand a flooding6, 7, 9, 12. The buildings located inland are stronger than buildings outside the dikes. According to the manager of a campsite and owner of beach houses located at the coast, the construction materials of the beach houses must be light and easy to disassemble8. The score range of the tourism entrepreneurs is 2 (See Table 8).
Strength of build environment
Stakeholder's N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't No group know answer Key 4 2.25 0.5 1 2 3 0 1 stakeholders Tourism 6 3.33 0.82 2 2 4 0 3 entrepreneur Total 10 2.79 - - - - 0 4 Table 14 Assessment of indicator 'strength of build environment' based on interviews
According to the document ‘Kustvisie Provincie Zeeland’ (2012), the concern to maintain the beach dry stands and the importance to match this fact with the use of the beach prevails in the Province of Zeeland. Further research related to safety and economic impact of this seasonal buildings will be investigated by the water board during the period 2016-2020(Waterkeringenbeheerplan 2016-2020). Based on the information of the policy documents ‘Waterverordening Zeeland’ and ‘Omgevingsplan Zeeland 2012-2018’, the average flood probability of a build-up area (bebouwing in Dutch) is 1:100, including recreational housing and permanent development areas. Additional information related to the design and build-up materials in the Municipality of Veere was not found in policy documents. Therefore, the information provided by documents led to a low score. Tourists’ perception related to the resistance to flooding was requested in the questionnaire. Around 57 % of the tourists participants believe that the buildings of the municipality used for tourism sector are very resistant to flooding. The scoring of the indicator “strength of build environment” based on tourist’s questionnaires has a range of 4 and a standard deviation of 1.08 (See Table 15). The final relative score of this indicator is medium, based on interviews, documents and questionnaires for tourists.
Statement Range Minimum Maximum SD Average
2. I believe the buildings used for tourists are 4 1 5 1.08 3.56 very resistant to flooding Table 15 Assessment of the indicator 'strength of build environment' based on questionnaires
5.1.2.3 Flood shelters Relevance According to the interviews, the majority of interviewees did not give an insight about the indicator and preferred to explain the possible flood shelters and the location where these shelters can be located (e.g. dunes). There is a lack of knowledge if the shelters of the municipality can be used during a flood2, 6, 7, 8. The Safety Region considers that this indicator should not be relevant for the tourism sector. Sheltering is not an option for the tourism sector and it is not necessary at the moment4. Despite, I did not request insight to the tourism
33
entrepreneurs about this indicator, during the interview some entrepreneurs highlighted that they do not know about shelters in relation to flood risk located in Veere6, 7, 14.
(Re) definition
According to interviewees, there is few knowledge about sheltering in the municipality. Some tourism entrepreneurs identify buildings and dunes as possible places where to go in case a flood happens. However, evacuation seems the easiest way to tackle a flooding6,8. There is no change in the interpretation of the indicator.
Assessment Only 4 interviewees were able to give a score to this indicator, 2 key stakeholders scored ‘low’ with a range score of 1 (2-3) and 2 tourism entrepreneurs scored the indicator ‘medium’ without any range. In the Municipality of Veere, the available shelters are not focused on flooding2. Furthermore, sheltering is not an option for the sector4 (See Table 16). Flood shelters Stakeholder's N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't know No answer group Key 2 2.5 0.7 1 2 3 0 3 stakeholders Tourism 2 3 0 0 3 3 3 4 (there was entrepreneur no request) Total 4 2.75 - - - - 3 7 Table 16 Assessment of indicator 'flood shelters' based on interviews
According to the document analysis, there was no information related to flood shelters that the tourism sector can use in case a flood event occurs. This indicator is not rated by document analysis due to the lack of information about this indicator. In relation to the information provided by tourists, around 47% of the tourists who participated in the questionnaire rated with 3 the statement, ‘I believe there are many flood shelters in Veere’, most of them do not know about shelters for flooding. The score range of the indicator ‘flood shelters’ based on questionnaires has a score range of 4 with a standard deviation of 0.98 (See Table 17). The information provided by interviews and questionnaires led to a medium relative score. There are uncertainties related to the location of the shelters mentioned by the municipality. There is a lack of knowledge if these shelters can be used for flooding. Therefore, the final score of this indicator is (re)interpreted as low (2).
Statement Range Minimum Maximum SD Average
3. I believe there are many flood shelters in Veere 4 1 5 0.98 3.19 Table 17 Assessment of the indicator 'Flood shelters' based on questionnaires for tourists
5.1.3 Adaptability This dimension has four indicators 1) Building codes, 2) Self-organization, 3) Learning capacity, and 4) Preparedness, which are explained below.
5.1.3.1 Building codes Relevance The majority of key stakeholders did not give an opinion about the relevance of the indicator2, 3, 5. Only one of the key stakeholders thinks that is relevant for the tourism sector and local environment1 and other does not know about the relevance of the indicator4. Similar behavior occurred with the tourism entrepreneurs, the
34
majority preferred not to answer about the relevance of the indicator7, 8, 9, 13. Instead, they answered this question with an explanation of how the building codes are applied by the tourism sector in The Netherlands. Still, two of the entrepreneurs think it is relevant6, 12.
(Re) definition
Interviewees suggested a differentiation of the indicator ‘building codes’ between inland infrastructure and coastal infrastructure. According to the interviews, there is a need to follow different regulations when the infrastructure is located outside the flood barriers2, 5, 6, 8, 9. The inland and coastal infrastructure differences can be influenced by the context of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere. Therefore, this insight was considered in the redefinition of the indicator.
Assessment A total of 10 interviewees participated in the assessment of this indicator. All the respondents provided qualitative assessments and 7 of them gave a score to the indicator. Key stakeholders rated the building codes with a low relative score in comparison to the score of tourism entrepreneurs who scored the indicator very high. Key stakeholders have a score range of 0.5, while tourism entrepreneurs have a score range of 0 because all the participants scored the indicator with 5. Key stakeholders recognized the high availability of regulations related to the construction of buildings. However, it was highlighted that flooding is not part of the building codes and there is no technical understanding of the effect of water in the buildings constructed following the normal rules3, 4, 6. The tourism entrepreneurs consider that there are high standards in the Netherlands for the buildings of the tourism sector and second homes, with exception of the beach houses (300 at the coast), beach restaurants and pavilions (26 located at the coast). They could identify special norms that the infrastructures at this areas need to follow. For example, during the winter season, it is required to take them out of the beach5, 8.
Building codes Stakeholder's N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't No group know answer Key stakeholders 3 2.17 0.29 0.5 2 2.5 0 2
Tourism 4 5 0 0 5 5 0 5 entrepreneur Total 7 3.59 - - - - 0 7
Table 18 Assessment of the indicator 'building codes' based on interviews
According to the policy document “Bestemmingsplan Veere, the building codes that were related to water, in general, are the ones which specify the distance of a camping building from the water courses ( around 12 meters) and the maximum height of a building in grounds that require the building permits. The buildings that are outside the embankment area have specific regulation according to the season and their type of construction. For instance, a beach house can stay at the coast during the period from April to October. The Water Management Plan of the water board “Waterschap Scheldestromen” explains that despite the manager of the beach is Rijkswaterstaat, the water board is who authorizes the placing of beach houses and pavilions on the beach. The information provided by the documents can be interpreted with a medium relative score. Despite there are high standards of the building codes, they are not particularly linked to flooding issues. In order to provide a permit of buildings outside the embankments, the water board requires an evaluation before it authorizes the construction.
35
5.1.3.2 Self- organization Relevance
Half of the interviewees consider self-organization as a relevant indicator1,2,3,4,8,11,13. Key stakeholders related to the academia and governmental organizations highlighted the importance of the indicator in the creation of awareness related to flood risk issues within the tourism sector1,2,3,4. However, there are uncertainties about the awareness of the tourism sector about flooding issues and the role that the sector has in the communication strategies when a flood event happens1, 2, 4. I did not request insights about the relevance of self-organization to the tourism entrepreneurs, some of them gave insights related to the indicator during the feedback of the interview and the discussion of the indicators. However, these were contradictory between them. From 4 respondents, two of them consider the indicator relevant8, 11 while other two stakeholders think it is not relevant at all6, 9. Moreover, a sense of working together in case a flood event happens was highlighted by some entrepreneurs 6, 9, 7. For example, a hotel entrepreneur in Domburg highlighted “Self-organization is contra- productive, I am more in favour of the awareness that helps to tackle the issue. The only way to do it well is together”9. Another entrepreneur located in Zoutelande agreed with the action of working together in order to manage the flood issue6.
(Re) definition
The connection between awareness and self-organization was mentioned by key stakeholders as an aspect for the (re) definition of the indicator. According to governmental key stakeholders, self-organization is difficult to measure in The Netherlands, it is a country where most of the population does not think about how to deal with floods4, 12, “we have told them that people are safe”4. In this study, awareness was not included within the operationalised definition of the indicator. The connection between awareness and self-organization needs further research because there is no way to prove that those indicators are related (connected) by using the information collected.
Assessment According to interview data, tourism entrepreneurs provided a higher score to the indicator than the key stakeholders. Despite, both groups of the tourism sector have the same score range of 2, the minimum and maximum scores vary. Tourism entrepreneurs have scores from 3 to 5, while key stakeholders have scores from 2 to 4. Interview’ insights highlighted that tourism associations are organized by themselves. Most of the tourism businesses comply the rules enforced by the government related with safety and fire6, 7, 8, 12, 14. However, information and strategies related to flood are not considered relevant. The absence of information about the sector’s role during a flood event makes it harder to assess the indicator. The assessment of the data provided by interviews gave a medium relative score to the indicator (See Table 19).
Self-organization
Stakeholder's group N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't No know answer Key stakeholders 3 3 1 2 2 4 0 2
Tourism entrepreneur 4 4 0.81 2 3 5 1 4
Total 7 3.50 - - - - 1 6
Table 19 Assessment of indicator 'self-organization' based on interviews
36
According to the policy document “Beleidsplan 2011 – 2015”, the Safety Region has been developing research related to the self-organization and risk perception in the province of Zeeland in cooperation with the HZ University Zeeland”. Both organizations plan to continue this investigation in the period 2016-2019. The project “Programma Veerkrachtig Zeeland” is part of these initiatives. So far, key stakeholders from the society and professionals have participated. In relation to the tourism sector, the Safety Region has focused more on safety related to fire and security. Therefore, the information collected about self-organization based on document analysis led to a low relative score due to the absence of self-organization projects, programmes related to flood issues focused on the tourism sector.
The information retrieved from the questionnaires for tourists shows that around 47% of tourists who participated in the questionnaire consider themselves able to organize and their companion after a flood event occurs in Veere. Aforementioned in the resourcefulness indicator, 52% of the tourists can also help in the cleanup and assistance after a flood. As result, both of the statements present a medium relative score. The score range of both statements are the same (score range 4) (See Table 20). The final assessment of self-organization based on interviews, documents and questionnaires led to a medium relative score.
Statement Range Minimum Maximum SD Average 4. I am able to organize myself (and my companion) 4 1 5 1.24 3.29 after a flood event in Veere 5. I believe I can help with some assistance and clean up 4 1 5 1.12 3.4 after a flood in Veere Total 4 1 5 -
Table 20 Assessment of the indicator 'self-organization' based on questionnaires for tourists
5.1.3.3 Learning capacity Relevance Learning capacity is considered a relevant indicator for 4 of the 5 key stakeholders who participated in the interviews1, 2, 3, 4. They consider important to know about the risk of a flood. However, there are some doubts related to the knowledge of the tourists and tourist entrepreneurs about this risk1, 2, 3, 4. From 5 tourism entrepreneur who provided insights during the interviews, 2 of them consider this indicator relevant6, 12. The ones who did not respond positively about the indicator, they think that flood issue has never been considered in their business plans and strategies9, 10, 13.
(Re) definition
For the Safety Region, there is a relation between learning capacity and the awareness related to flood risk4. Furthermore, the indicator was recognized difficult to operationalize1,2,4. The reactions of the tourism sector to a flood event are unpredictable due to the long period of time since they experienced a flood in 1953. The tourism entrepreneurs made a stronger relation between the training that they have received with the learning capacity that they have in relation to flood risk7, 9, 11, 12, 13. Awareness has been mentioned also in the measuring of self-organization indicator. However, this aspect was not considered in the definition of the indicator. The relation or connection between awareness and learning capacity require more investigation in order to be part of the definition. There is no change in the definition of the indicator.
37
Assessment The assessment of learning capacity had the participation of 8 interviewees for the qualitative assessment and 11 interviewees for the scoring of the indicator. Key stakeholders have a score range of 0.5. However, only 2 key stakeholders participated with the scores 2.5 and 3. Tourism entrepreneurs have a score range of 3 with scores from 2 to 5 (See Table 21). Around 60% of the tourism entrepreneurs gave a score to the indicator ‘learning capacity’. According to the key stakeholders, it is difficult to operationalize the indicator because there is a lack of knowledge related to the tourism sector’ risk perception and awareness1,2,4. Since the last flood event in 1953, there is no flooding in the Municipality of Veere. According to some key stakeholders, the learning capacity and awareness are difficult to develop when there is no experience with flooding long time ago2, 4. Some tourism entrepreneurs have some knowledge of basic aid training. Most of the entrepreneurs need to comply with the basic aid training called “bedrijfshulpverlener” (Arbeidsomstandighedenwet, 2016). However, it is not obligatory for all employees, only some of them are selected to attend the course. The owners of the business are satisfied with the training6,11,12.
Learning Capacity
Stakeholder's group N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't No know answer Key stakeholders 2 2.75 0.35 0.5 2.5 3 1 2
Tourism entrepreneur 6 3.83 1.33 3 2 5 0 3
Total 8 3.29 - - - - 1 5
Table 21 Assessment of indicator ' learning capacity' based on interviews
The policy document ‘Arbeidsomstandighedenwet’ (2016) determines the compliance that businesses need to follow in order to have expert employees in first aid. The employees can provide first aid in case of accidents, combat the fire, alert and evacuate employees and persons located at the companies. Tourism entrepreneurs need to comply with the legal requirement stated in the policy document mentioned. Furthermore, according to the document “Beleidsplan 2011 – 2015, the Safety Region has an operational plan related to fire ‘Natuurbrand? Natuurlijk niet!’ within the programme “Vakantie veleig Zeeland”. This is the main campaign and research focused on the tourism sector in relation to safety. The information provided by documents led to a ‘low’ relative score.
According to the information retrieved from questionnaires for tourists, around 60% of the tourists who participated in the questionnaire attended a first-aid course. The information has been mentioned also in the indicator ‘resourcefulness’. The learning capacity developed by those tourist taking this course could play a role in the emergency management, as well as in the adaptive capacity of tourists and the people around them. The relative score obtained by the analysis of the questionnaires is medium (See Table 22). The final score of the learning capacity indicator based on the documents, interviews and questionnaires is medium.
Statement Range Minimum Maximum SD Average
7. I have attended to a first-aid course 4 1 5 1.59 3.55
Table 22 Assessment of indicator 'learning capacity' based on questionnaires for tourists
38
5.1.3.4 Preparedness Relevance
The data provided by interviews is focused more on the (re)definition of the indicator, instead of the criteria ‘relevance’ and ‘assessment’.
(Re) definition
According to some key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs, the preparedness of the tourism sector in relation to flood risk is difficult to define when you do not recognized to what to prepare for in case a flood occurs1, 8, 11, 12, 14. Some suggestions about how to operationalize the definition of this indicator were highlighted by the interviewees related to the academia and tourism entrepreneurs. The insights related to flooding issues, tourism sector and resilience are 1) preparation based on information and communication related to flood risk1,10,11, 2) preparation of the tourism sector with physical resources such as food, water and energy6, 9, 12, and 3) strengthening of infrastructure to flooding in the Municipality of Veere2,3,8.
Assessment According to the interviews, the main information shared to the tourists by the tourism entrepreneurs is related to the history and culture of flood past events, such as the flood of 1953, but not about the current issues and future projections of climate change or flood risk scenarios2,8. The Safety Region is the organization who has developed campaigns related to flooding in cooperation with the local government. However, the campaigns related to flooding, self-organization or resilience are not a focused on the tourism sector2,4,8. Some insights referred to the lack of relevant information about the indicator. For example, an interviewee from the government highlighted “you are looking in an empty box, preparedness is not there and we do not think it is a big issue”4. Other tourism entrepreneurs highlighted the difficulty in preparing for flooding “I think it is difficult to prepare when you don’t know what to prepare for. It is very important that people realize that we are living in a low country. We can try everything, we can do try everything to make us safe as possible. But we can never have 100% guarantee. Something can always happen, and that something we should accept, I think”8 and “It is difficult. You need to know what are you doing and what can you do in this issue”12. An assessment of this indicator was not possible to make based on 2 scores and contradictory answers of the interviewees.
According to the document ‘Raising Flood Awareness and Self-Efficacy’, elaborated for the project ‘Interreg 2 Seas project: Flood Aware’ in 2013 (Province of Zeeland, 2013), the regional website launched by the Safety Region Zeeland (www.zeelandveilig.nl) is identified as one of the main channels to distribute information about regional risks. This report identifies the availability of some multi-lingual information and leaflets developed by the organization with a focus on action perspective and self-preparatory measures. However, it also mentioned a low impact of this platform on the flood prevention of the public, highlighting that there is no formal evaluation performed about the campaigns developed by the Safety Region. Currently, the Safety Region has more focus on fire preparedness and safety when the campaigns are related to the tourism sector (See: Learning capacity section). The little information retrieved from documents about preparedness led to a low relative score.
Questionnaires for tourists focussed on flood preparedness related to the resources that tourists are able to have or prepare before and during a flood event and the information that tourist search or request in order to prepare themselves for a natural disasters, such as flooding. Regarding the resources that the tourists prepare in advance a flood event occurs, around 58% of the tourists who responded the questionnaire have a mobile phone and a working flashlight, 50% of the respondents have a backup budget for unexpected situations and 22% of the tourists who participated have an insurance against natural disasters before coming to Veere. In relation to the 39
information requested by the tourists, 8.5% of the tourists asked information about how to protect themselves in case a flood occurs and around 38% of the tourists checked the availability of any weather warning for the place where they planned to stay (See Table 23). The information retrieved from the questionnaires related to the preparedness of tourists led to a medium relative score of the indicator. Based on the documents and questionnaires the score related to the preparedness of the tourism sector is low.
Statement Range Minimum Maximum SD Average 9. I am prepared to any emergency with a mobile 4 1 5 1.33 3.57 phone and a working flashlight 10. I have a backup budget in case some unexpected 4 1 5 1.45 3.34 situation happens during my holiday 11. I purchased an insurance against natural disasters 4 1 5 1.47 2.10 before coming to Veere-Zeeland 15. I asked someone (tourist assistant, accommodation 4 1 5 0.98 1.67 owner, local government, civil defense, tourism information office, etc.) information about what I could do to protect myself in case of an emergency (flood or other natural hazard) 17. I have checked if there is any weather warning for 4 1 5 1.51 2.91 the place I planned to stay during my holiday Total 4 1 5 2.71
Table 23 Assessment of indicator 'preparedness' based on questionnaires for tourists
5.1.4 Vulnerability The dimension ‘Vulnerability’ is constituted by three indicators, which are 1) Tourism density, 2) Tourism composition, and 3) Tourism assets. The three indicators are described below.
5.1.4.1 Tourism density Assessment According to the CBS [Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek] and the document Kerncijfers Vrijetijdseconomie Zeeland 2015, a total of 4.024.000 of tourists spent one or more nights in the Municipality of Veere in 2014. Based on the number of overnight stays and the number of Km2 (land) of the municipality (133.13 Km2) (investinzeeland.nl), the density of tourists is on average 83 tourists per Km2 (approx. per day). Regarding the number of jobs related to the tourism sector, a total of 221 people (between 15-64 years old) per 1000 inhabitants work for the recreational and tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere (Waarstaatjegemeente.nl). Therefore, the density of tourism employees is approximately 23 per Km2. However, this number has to be put into perspective by comparison with other tourist hot spots in order to assess whether it is high, low or in between.
The coastal area is the most developed area of the municipality in relation to tourism facilities, accommodation and activities. According to the document “Trendrapport toerisme, recreatie en vrije tijd 2016”, the province of North-Holland is the densest province of The Netherlands. It has around 26,3 overnight stays per day per Km2 (2015). The second densest province is Zeeland with around 15,2 overnight stays per day per Km2. Gronningen is considered the least dense province with 1.8 overnight stays per day per Km2. If the density of tourists is seen as the number of overnight stays per day per 100 inhabitants. The province of Noth-Holland is fourth on the list, being the densest province ‘Zeeland’ with 7,1 overnight stays per day per Km2.
40
The density of Veere in comparison with the density of the province is very high. On average without considering the changes during summer or winter seasons, per day, the tourism sector of the Municipality of Veere has a tourism density of 106 people per Km2 (approx. including tourists and employees). In addition, the municipality is located on the coast, part of the Island of Walcheren that is the most visited by tourists and has most of the attractions. Therefore, according to the information of documents and the calculations of tourism density in the Municipality of Veere, the assessment of the indicator ‘tourism density’ led to a very high density. This density according to the scale of the conceptual framework has a ‘very low’ relative score.
5.1.4.2 Tourism composition Assessment The tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere has a variety of industries which are organized according to their main economic activity. Hospitality, catering, transport and storage, and recreation activities (e.g. culture, sports, recreation) are industries that supply goods and services to the guests. All those industries are present in Veere. According to the document Ruimte voor recreatie op het strand (2011), 209 companies are related to the Horeca (hotel-restaurant-café) businesses and 30 beach pavilions receive most of the beach visitors. In the policy document Kustvisie Provincie Zeeland (2012), the information about the accommodation business of Veere indicates that hospitality industry consists of approximately 18.560 units (campings, hotel rooms, summer houses, bungalows) and its concentration is mainly at the coastal zone. In addition, the development of the water sports industry is considered a key element in the tourism sector of the municipality. Vrowenpolder, Veerse Meer, Westkapelle and the coastline of the Neelte Jans attract windsurfers, kite surfers and boats every year. The last initiative promoted by the Municipality of Veere in cooperation with its partners (Kenniscentrum Kusttoersime and Impulse), Stimuleringsprogramma gezondheidstoerisme Veere, 2016-2018, is related to the wellness tourism strategy, which is stimulated in Rondom Domburg, Vrowenpolder, and Santé Veere by the tourism sector and the Municipality of Veere. The analysis of this indicator based on the document data led to a high relative score.
5.1.4.3 Tourism assets Relevance Twelve interviewees considered ‘Tourism assets’ as an important indicator of the competitiveness of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere, 5 key stakeholders2, 3, 4, 5,7 and 7 tourism entrepreneurs7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. The tourism assets related to natural values and cultural heritage are considered the main reason why tourists come to the Municipality of Veere.
(Re) definition
The interviewees highlighted the wide range of tourism assets that the municipality possesses. The seaside resort status of Domburg, and the walking and bicycle routes along the municipality were included in the operationalised definition of the indicator2, 10.
Assessment The availability of tourism assets in the Municipality of Veere is considered ‘high’ by the interviewees. Key stakeholders have a score range of 1 with scores from 3 to 4 and tourism entrepreneurs have a range of 2 (3-5). According to some key stakeholders, the protection of the cultural heritage such as historical buildings, and museums are not considered a priority at the moment3,4. Regarding the natural values, the Ministry of Environment and Infrastructure (Rijswaterstaat), Waterschap Scheldestromen, and the Municipality of Veere work together in the protection of natural values such as dunes, beaches, forests and embankments2,3,4 (See Table 24).
41
Tourism assets Stakeholder's N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't No group know answer Key 3 3.67 0.58 1 3 4 0 2 stakeholders Tourism 8 4.18 0.75 2 3 5 0 1 entrepreneur Total 11 3.93 - - - - 0 3 Table 24 Assessment of the indicator 'tourism assets' based on interviews
According to the Delta Programme (2017), the Heritage and Spatial Planning Vision of the national government (Visie Erfgoed en Ruimte) aims to take into account cultural heritage values in the development of planning strategies and implementation of measures. This programme has been extended for two more years (2017 and 2018) until the introduction of the National Environmental Vision (Omgevingswet) in 2019. The Municipality of Veere has around 250 national monuments registered by the state, which according to the municipality, they are preserved and maintained (Gemeente Veere). However, there were no specific data related to the protocols of protection related to those monuments. Regarding natural values, according to the document Kustvisie Provincie Zeeland (2012), the coast of the province is part of the ecological structure (EHS). The reinforcement of dunes and dikes should keep aligned to the maintenance of natural values. The Natura 2000, Deltawateren 2016 - 2022 is a legislation that determines which activities are allowed to develop in the Municipality of Veere. Some of these activities require a permit under the regulation “Natuurbeschermingswet 1998 (Nb-wet)”. In Veere, the legislation applies to ‘de Manteling’ located between Domburg and Ostkapelle and all the beaches in the municipality. The Oranjezon in Vrowenpolder is also part of the zones considered within the law and it is considered as a dynamic area for dune management. The high availability of monuments and coastline natural values including the bicycle and walking routes present a high dynamic with the activities developed in the municipality. Those assets have a strategic role in the planning and management of the coastline (mainly) and inland areas. For instance, the indicator has a high relative score based on document analysis.
According to the information retrieved from questionnaires for tourists, around 75% of the tourists, who participated in the questionnaire, considered the protection of natural values and cultural heritage as a key aspect in the competitiveness of the tourism sector. However, the tourists did not assess the indicator. The questionnaire did not have a statement related to the availability of tourism assets in the municipality. Therefore, the indicator ‘Tourism assets’ based on interview, and document data has a high relative score (See Table 25).
Statement Range Minimum Maximum SD Average 12. I believe the protection of natural values and cultural heritage is a key aspect in the competitiveness 4 1 5 0.95 4.09 of tourism sector Table 25 Assessment of the indicator 'tourism assets based on questionnaires for tourists
5.1.5 Organizational Capacity This dimension has four indicators which are 1) Tourism cooperation, 2) Access to information, 3) Institutional capacity, and 4) Tourism participation. The indicators are explained in this section.
42
5.1.5.1 Tourism cooperation Tourism cooperation indicator was assessed mainly by tourism entrepreneurs who participated with their insights. The key stakeholders did not participate in this analysis. The tourism entrepreneurs did not participate giving the insights related to the criteria relevance.
(Re) definition The interviews provided insights related to the different types of cooperation that the tourism sector has been developed in the Municipality of Veere between governmental and non-governmental organizations. These types of cooperation highlighted are considered in the interpretation of the indicator. They can be differentiated into four types: 1) financial cooperation related to the funding from the government and tourism businesses to organize and plan the cleaning, beach watching, tourist information points, maintenance of the bicycle and walking routes. The tourism taxes and their benefits are considered in this type of cooperation, 2) the cooperation related to safety includes the activities that tourism entrepreneurs and government organise in order to protect, prevent and tackle different risks and crisis situations, such as fire, flood and security, 3) the educational cooperation is interpreted as the interactions of the associations and organizations promoting the flood risk awareness, and the 4) tourism operational cooperation, which includes the coordination and flow of information related to the promotion benefits, reviews and feedback.
Assessment Tourism entrepreneurs in the Municipality of Veere have associations where they can share memberships, promotion, financial benefits, advice and inspiration6,7. The transference of data is related to operational and security issues6,8. They usually play an important role in the communication of information for tourists, especially about the history of the Netherlands in relation to flooding6, 8, 9, 14. Most of them have trained personnel in first- aid courses and collaborate with the local government in the planning of projects related to the tourism sector. They are financed in most of the cases by the tourism taxes collected in the municipality7,12. The local government and the tourism information office (VVV Zeeland) are the main stakeholders with whom they cooperate. For instance, the municipality is considered a key actor and nexus between the Safety Region and the tourism associations7, 9, 11, 12. Although the tourism businesses have to develop emergency plans and they are connected to the alarm of the Municipality of Veere in case an emergency happens, flooding not being a key issue within their interests7,9,14. Fire is the main natural risk in their emergency and escape plans. All entrepreneurs consider that the cooperation between the associations and governmental organizations can be improved. The score range of the indicator ‘tourism cooperation’ is 4 (1-5) with a standard deviation f 1.41. The relative score of the indicator is medium (See Table 26).
Tourism cooperation Stakeholder's group N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't No know answer Tourism 7 3.00 1.41 4 1 5 0 2 entrepreneur Total 7 3.00 - - - - 0 3
Table 26 Assessment of the indicator ' tourism cooperation' based on interviews
There were no documents which describe the cooperation between tourism businesses and associations. The cooperation between the local government and the tourism entrepreneurs is more visible than other types of cooperation. The document Stimuleringsprogramma gezondheidstoerisme Veere 2016-2018 shows a programme promoted by the Municipality Veere which stimulates the wellness tourism, by providing opportunities for tourists and residents to enjoy a tourism based on care and economy [Veerse zorgeconomie]. This programme facilitates the cooperation and connection between sectors. Aforementioned, the Safety Region 43
has developed campaigns related to fire in cooperation with the tourism entrepreneurs. The cooperation between governmental organizations and the tourism sector is clearer than the cooperation between tourism entrepreneurs and other sectors. The indicator ‘Tourism cooperation’ has a ‘low’ relative score based on documents. There is some cooperation between government and businesses. However, there is no information that proves the cooperation between businesses. The information provided by interviews and documents led to the ‘low’ relative score.
5.1.5.2 Access to information Relevance The interviews revealed that access to information is considered a relevant indicator for 2 key stakeholders2, 3 and 5 tourism entrepreneurs6, 7, 11, 12, 14. Some key stakeholders highlighted the importance to inform about flooding to the tourism sector2, 3, 6, 7. However, the currently available information for tourists and tourism entrepreneurs about this issue does not differ from the information that is provided to a ‘normal’ inhabitant in the Municipality of Veere4. In addition, an interviewee from the local government thinks that the communication of flooding issues could cause fear in the tourists2. Half of the tourism entrepreneurs think that information to the tourists about natural hazards such as flooding is important6,7,11,12,14. However, only one entrepreneur related to the renting business of second houses and homes felt responsible to inform about the risk that the tourists face during their stay in Veere11. The entrepreneurs who think this indicator is ‘no relevant’ consider that there is no need to inform about the topic to the tourists because flooding is not an issue for their businesses9, 10, 13.
(Re) definition The availability of information in different languages (i.e. German and English) was suggested as a key aspect for the (re) definition of the indicator. This aspect was considered in the study.
Assessment Based on the interviews, a total of 9 interviewees responded to the assessment of the indicator. Key stakeholders have a score range of 2 (2-4). This range was smaller than tourism entrepreneurs, who obtained a score range of 3 (1-4). Around 75% percent of the tourism entrepreneurs provided a score to the indicator. A different situation occurred with key stakeholders who only had two respondents, the majority decided not to score the indicator (See Table 27). Despite the local government highlighted the different channels used to give and find information, such as social media, SMS, official letters and governmental websites2. The tourism entrepreneurs indicated that information is available only in case they look for it. Furthermore, flooding not being an issue which enhances the search of information within the sector10, 12, 13, 14. The Safety Region indicates that the information related to flooding issues provided by the government focus on the general public instead of the tourism sector4.
Access to information Stakeholder's N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't No group know answer Key 2 3 1.41 2 2 4 0 3 stakeholders Tourism 7 2.71 1.38 3 1 4 0 2 entrepreneur Total 9 2.86 - - - - 0 5 Table 27 Assessment of the indicator 'access to information' based on interviews
44
The tourism sector can use the different channels to find information about flooding. However, there is no multi- lingual information. According to the document ‘Raising Flood Awareness and Self‐Efficacy’, the platform www.zeelandveilig.nl is considered the primary source for information about risks and disasters in the Province of Zeeland. This website informs to the public in general about safety and preparation for possible crisis. The document ‘Risicoweijzer Zeeland Weet wat u moet doen!’ developed by the Safety Region indicates the multiple types of warning systems available in the province. The main channels are: 1) sirens, 2) radio Omroep Zeeland frequency FM 98.4 MHz, 3) television channel 199 from Omroep Zeeland, 4) websites from the national government (i.e. www.crisis.nl), the safety region’ website mentioned above and the website from the municipality, 5) NL-Alert via mobile phones, and 6) a formal letter from the government delivered to homes. However, these channels used to provide information via social media and websites are mainly in Dutch without a translation in other languages. Furthermore, there was no information addressing the tourism sector context. The assessment based on documents is interpreted as low.
According to the information provided by questionnaires for tourists, there is little information about flood issues for the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere. This information provided by questionnaires led to a low relative score. Around 75% of the tourists who participated in the questionnaire did not receive information related to flood preparedness during their holidays. For instance, only 28% of the respondents felt satisfied with the amount of information about how to protect themselves in case there is a flood during their holidays in Veere. Around 46% of the same set of tourists would like to receive information related to how to protect and prepare themselves in case a flood occurs. However, around 60% of the respondents do not think that they are expected to seek information related to their protection against flooding when a flood occurs during their holidays (See Table 28). The final score of the indicator based on documents, interviews and questionnaires is low.
Statement Range Minimum Maximum SD Average 13. I am satisfied with the amount of information I have about how to protect myself in case there is a 4 1 5 1.08 2.87 flood during my stay in Veere 14. I have received information related to flood 4 1 5 1.03 1.78 preparedness during my holidays 16. It is expected of me that during my holiday I seek information about how to protect myself in case a 4 1 5 1.73 2.26 flood occurs Total 4 1 5 -
Table 28 Assessment of the indicator 'access to information' based on questionnaires for tourists
5.1.5.3 Institutional capacity Relevance Five interviewees considered relevant the indicator ‘institutional capacity’, 2 key stakeholders1, 2 and 3 tourism entrepreneurs7, 10, 14. However, the insights related to the relevance did not explain clearly why this is relevant.
(Re) definition
The governmental organizations and the academia suggested the inclusion of the aspect ‘availability of projects related to flooding and climate change issues developed by the sector’1,4. The availability of associations can work for different issues, and flooding can be one of them. If there is no projects or programmes related to this issue. Therefore, the institutional capacity in relation to flood issues is not yet developed.
45
Assessment The tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere has a variety of associations. According to the interviewees, the most relevant associations in the Municipality of Veere are: 1) RECRON related to campground and bungalow parks, 2) Koninklijke Horeca Nederland (KHN) similar association of hotels including restaurants and café keepers, 3) VeKaBo, association of mini- camping's, 4) tourism entrepreneurs related to commercial enterprises are members of Federatie van Ondernemersverenigingen in de Gemeente Veere (FOV), and 5) Holland Marine Industry HISWA which represents the water sports companies. According to the Safety Region “not everybody is connected to an association”4. For example, the second houses owners or businesses related to the renting of second houses and holiday houses do not belong to an association11. The entrepreneurs associated have the benefits to communicate between each other and to participate in meetings according to their interests annually or biannually10, 12, 13, 14. Within this associations, flooding issue is not considered as an important topic on their list of interests7, 8, 10, 12, 14. However, the role of the formal associations in the communication of flooding issues to the tourists and tourism entrepreneurs is considered as the key element in the communication of the risks4. Based on the assessment of 7 interviewees, the relative score of the indicator is medium.
Institutional Capacity Stakeholder's N Average SD Range Minimum Maximum Don't No group know answer Key 3 3.33 0.58 1 3 4 0 2 stakeholders Tourism 4 3.25 1.71 4 1 5 0 5 entrepreneur Total 7 3.29 - - - - 0 7 Table 29 Assessment of the indicator 'institutional capacity; based on interviews
According to the Municipality of Veere there are many entrepreneurs’ associations. The association of businesses (FOV) in the municipality is mentioned as an umbrella platform. Normally, around 8 local business associations are affiliated with the FOV. Addressing the branch organizations related to the recreational industry of hospitality and catering in the Municipality of Veere, the associations RECRON and KHN are the main associations (Veere.nl). The information retrieved from the website of the Municipality of Veere shows the high availability of associations. However, there is no more information related to the projects or programmes that these institutions are involved in relation to flood risk. The information from documents led to a ‘medium’ assessment. There is a high availability of associations that could cooperate in projects related to flood risk. However, there is still room for improvement. The assessment of the indicator based on interviews and documents has a medium relative score.
5.1.3.4 Tourism participation There are no insights in relation to the relevance and (re)definition of this indicator provided by the interviewees.
Assessment
According to key stakeholders related to the local government and safety organization, the tourism entrepreneurs would participate more than the tourists in case the government requires their help. However, this is not an indicator which has been measured in the Municipality2,4. The tourism sector and the government have not think about the role of the tourism sector in the issue of flooding. It is an issue that has not been spoken off because the economic value of this issue has never been part of the discussions3,4. Despite the tourism sector is organized. Aforementioned in the indicator ‘self-organization’, the awareness of the sector to flood risk issues is not known and neither their participation in the communication systems1,2,4. In addition, the campaigns and 46
research on flood risk management developed in the Municipality of Veere by Zeeland Safety Region in collaboration with the local government and partners do not include the tourism sector. According to the Safety Region, as mentioned before in the indicator ‘institutional capacity’, the formal tourism associations are the best channel to communicate tourists about risks4. However, there were no plans or strategies that indicate how the tourism sector participated in the preparedness, reduction and recovery to flooding situations. The information provided by interviews related to the indicator ‘tourism participation’ led to a very low relative score. The assessment based on documents was not done due to the absence of information about this indicator.
5.2 (Re) definition of Resilience Wheel’s indicators The analysis of interview insights allowed the further contextualization of 7 indicators of the Resilience Wheel (See Table 30). These changes were additional aspects that allowed a better understanding of the indicators within the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere. For example, the building codes and strength of build environment are indicators that have a different outcome if they are analysed inland or outside the flood barriers. Therefore, the aspect related to the location of the buildings and infrastructure were included. The insights provided by the interviews related to the change of the indicators’ definition were explained in the last section (Section5.1). In table 30, the original definition, and the operational definitions during the preliminary phase and after the analysis of interviews are described. The changes of the definitions are highlighted in bold.
Table 30 Definitions of Resilience Wheel’s indicators
Indicator Definition based on Haitsma Operational definition (preliminary phase) Operational definition ( interview (2016, p. 28) insights)
Emergency “Availability of warning systems, Availability of emergency management procedures, No change management evacuation plans and aid warning systems, evacuation plans, emergency coordination procedures coordination protocols and emergency networks (Hamilton 2009)”. (Becken & Hughey, 2013; Haitsma, 2016).
Resourcefulness “The budgeted financial reserves The ability of tourism sector to mobilize financial, No change and backups in water & energy physical (water and energy), technological and (Andrew et al. 2016).” human resources to meet the needs of tourism
sector during the recovery processes
1) Financial: monetary resources; 2) physical: water, energy, transport (especially aircrafts or vessels), 3) Technological: IT equipment, 4) human resources: trained personal in emergency, health, insurance, and personal relations.
Protection of “Physical protection or elevation Physical protection and strengthening of critical Physical protection and strengthening of critical of energy network, traffic routs, infrastructure (i.e. water systems, energy, roads, critical infrastructure (i.e. water systems, infrastructure water supply, airports (Aerts et al. airports) (Haitsma, 2016; Aerts et al. 2013). energy, roads, airports and flood barriers 2013)”. (Haitsma, 2016).
Flood barriers “Physical presence of dikes and Physical presence and height of dikes, dunes, storm No change and mangrove forests (Albrito 2012)”. surge barriers and dams (Albrito, 2012). Embankments
Strength of build “Physical material and design of Construction materials and design of buildings of Construction materials, design and environment buildings adapted to flood risk tourism sector adapted to flood risk (Haitsma, 2016; frequency of maintenance of tourism (Albrito 2012)”. Albrito, 2012). sector’ buildings adapted to flood risk located inland and/or outside the flood barriers.
Flood shelters “The availability of flood shelters The availability of flood shelters for tourists, No change (Haitsma, 2016, (widened stretches of embanked operators, and employees related to the tourism p.45) roads or roofs of schools, shops or sector (Haitsma, 2016, De Bruijn, 2005). restaurants) (De Bruijn 2005)”.
47
Building codes “Building plans and building Tourism building standards, plans and regulations Tourism building standards (located regulations adapted to flood risk used to adapt to flood risk (Aerts et al. 2013). inland and outside flood barriers), plans (Aerts et al. 2013)”. and regulations used to adapt to flood
risk (Aerts et al. 2013)
Self-organization “The ability of residents to The ability of tourism organizations to organize No change organize themselves in fixing themselves and collaborate with the clean-up and damage and cleaning up after a assistance after a flood event (Haitsma, 2016; Andrew flood (Liao 2012). Measurable in et al., 2016; Liao, 2012). flood reports”.
Learning capacity “Education plans and institutional Availability of trainings, evaluation plans, reports, No change adjustments to adapt to flooding and institutional adjustments to adapt to flood risk (Liao 2012)”. (Haitsma, 2016; Liao, 2012).
Preparedness The use of future projections in Availability of educational campaigns, and use of Availability of campaigns, resources policy and design plans of flood future projections in the planning and design of (explained in resourcefulness) and use barriers. tourism infrastructure and services (Bird et al., 2010; of future projections in the planning and Haitsma, 2016). design of tourism infrastructure and services (Bird et al., 2010; Haitsma, 2016).
Tourism density “Average residents/km2 in the Average tourists and tourism employees per km2 in No change city (Farhan&Lim 2011)”. the municipality (Haitsma, 2016; Kunte et al., 2014).
Tourism “Proportion of the city population Amount of the tourism industries which belong to No change composition above the age of 65 and below the Municipality of Veere- Zeeland. the age of 14 as percentage of the total population in the city (Joerin et al. 2014)”. Tourism assets “Percentage of the city population Availability of tourism assets (natural values, cultural Availability of tourism assets (related to owning a radio, mobile phone and heritage) in the Municipality of Veere-Zeeland. natural values, cultural heritage, resorts, car (Siebeneck 2015)”. walking and bicycle routes) in the Municipality of Veere-Zeeland.
Tourism “The amount of established The amount of formal or informal collaborations The availability of collaborations cooperation collaborations between between tourism industries, (local) governments, between tourism industries, tourists, policymakers and (local) safety organizations, NGO’s, public and private government, safety organizations, NGO’s governments, safety organizations (Joerin et al., 2014; Haitsma, 2016) (Joerin et al., 2014; Haitsma, 2016) organisations, engineers and NGO’s (Joerin et al. 2014”). 1) Financial cooperation, 2) Cooperation related to safety , 3) Cooperation related to awareness, 4) Operational cooperation
Access to “Availability of information Availability of information to prepare flood risk Availability of multilingual information information (scientific climate information & reduction (Haitsma, 2016) (i.e. Risk assessments, related to flood risk reduction (Haitsma, risk assessments) to prepare risk warning systems, emergency procedures, scientific 2016) (i.e. Risk assessments, warning reduction (Moench 2014)”. climate information). systems, emergency procedures,
scientific climate information).
Institutional “The amount of formal and The amount of formal and informal associations The amount of formal and informal capacity informal associations that related to tourism sector that currently operate in the associations related to tourism sector currently operate in the city: municipality of Veere-Zeeland. that currently operate in the municipality schools, organizations, task forces of Veere-Zeeland which work and (Godschalk 2003; Joerin et al. develop projects, programmes related 2014)”. to flooding and climate change issues(Haitsma, 2016; Joerin et al, 2014).
Tourism “The extent of public participation The ability of the tourism sector to involve in decision No change participation in flood risk reduction policy and making processes, communication strategies, and measures (Lu&Stead 2013). This giving response, advice and service to the tourists and can be measured in amount of stakeholders involved (Haitsma, 2016, Lu&Stead, citizen panels, advisory groups and other participation methods 2013). (E.g. advisory groups, citizen panels, businesses in the city”. and community dialogues and evaluation processes).
48
5.3 Flood Resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere The overall assessment of the Resilience Wheel was scored by analysing the qualitative information of the interviews, documents and questionnaires. First, the interviewees gave a score to the indicator based on their arguments. The scale used for this scoring was from 1 to 5, 1 represents the absence of the indicator and 5 represents the very high availability of the indicator (Gupta et al., 2010; Haitsma, 2016). The second possibility to score the indicators was by asking the tourists to score their level of agreement with the statements linked to the indicators of the Resilience Wheel. These statements, elaborated by the researcher, were based on the operationalised definition of the indicators. The scale used for the questionnaire for tourists is also from 1 to 5 (1= low level of agreement and 5= high level of agreement). The third source is the document analysis based on the occurrence of the indicator within the documents and the interpretation of information by the researcher. The indicator ‘Tourism density’ is scored based on statistical data. Despite, the indicator has quantitative information that supports its assessment. This information is translated to the same scale from 1 to 5 used for other indicators.
Based on the analysis of the three data sources, the tourism sector of the municipality of Veere has a ‘medium’ flood resilience (Figure 9). In addition, the average scores of all data sources (i.e. interviews, documents and questionnaires) were calculated with the aim to show in a communicative way the flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere. Based on Haitsma (2016) and Gupta et al. (2010), I interpreted the information of documents and gave a score to the indicators. This interpretation of documents shows how the information of flood resilience related to the tourism sector can shape the overall outcome and give relevant insights for further analysis related to flood resilience of the tourism sector. The interpretations of interviewees were given during the interviews. The interviewees gave their opinion and rated the indicators. Insights from questionnaires of tourists were also included in this analysis by considering their level of agreement with the statements that are linked to the indicators of the Resilience Wheel. The three sources support the final outcome of this conceptual framework. The indicators were analysed and coded by colours using the traffic light system adopted by Gupta et al, (2010) and Haitsma (2016) (See Figure 9). The outer circle of Figure 9 has the indicators that were assessed with empirical data and documents. The inner circle represents the five dimensions of the Resilience Wheel. These dimensions were calculated by taking the average of the indicators. The centre of Figure 9, represents the final outcome of the Resilience Wheel, which was calculated by taking the average of the dimensions.
Recovery Organizational capacity
Tourism assets Flood barriers Flood resilience Resistance Vulnerability Tourism composition
Adaptability
Learning capacity
Figure 9 Flood Resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere based on interviews, documents and questionnaires 49
Figure 9 shows the differences between dimensions. The dimensions ‘Resistance’ has the highest score due to the influence of the indicator ‘Flood barriers and Embankments’, which is rated ‘very high’. This assessment shows the feeling of safety created in the Municipality of Veere by the dikes, dunes and all the flood barriers of the country. There is still room for improvement for the ‘Strength of build environment’ and ‘Flood shelters’ according to the information. The dimension ‘Organisation capacity is rated as the lowest dimension of the Resilience Wheel. The ‘low’ tourism participation, cooperation and access to information contribute to this assessment. There is no multilingual information about flooding for the tourists, neither for tourism entrepreneurs. Although the associations of the tourism sector are organised, they do not talk and collaborate in relation to flood risk. The dimensions ‘Recovery’ and ‘Adaptability’ were assessed with a ‘medium’ score. Most of the indicators of these dimensions have the same assessment (medium) with exception of preparedness, and protection of critical infrastructure. Preparedness is assessed ‘low’ due to the absence of campaigns related to flood risk and the low amount of information about future projections related to floods used by the tourism sector in their planning. The protection of critical infrastructure is ‘high’ and it shows the high trust on the government by the tourism sector and the population of Veere. The sector considers the maintenance and protection of the infrastructure related to water, energy and roads ‘high’. The dimension ‘Vulnerability’ is also assessed as ‘medium’. The ‘very low’ assessment of the indicator ‘Tourism density’ influenced the final score of the dimension. The other indicators ‘Tourism assets and tourism composition’ are considered high in the Municipality. Therefore, they can be seen as strengths of the Municipality.
An important outcome of this study is that the ‘medium’ flood resilience of the tourism sector can change depending on the interpretations, insights, analysis and scoring of the stakeholders who assessed the indicators and the expert who interpreted the documents. In section 5.4, these differences are explained per group of stakeholder and data source.
5.4 Comparison of the Resilience Wheel results for different data sources Looking at the Resilience Wheel per group of stakeholder (i.e. key stakeholder, tourism entrepreneurs and tourists) and data source (i.e. document analysis interpreted by the author of this thesis), there are some similarities and differences between groups. In this section, the outcomes for the Resilience Wheels for each data source are explained. Second, the similarities and differences per dimension are described.
General overview
The number of indicators assessed per group of stakeholders and data source differs from each other. There are two reasons behind this outcome. The first reason is related to the preliminary selection of the indicators by the expert during the elaboration of the questionnaires. This selection determined that 13 indicators are assessed by key stakeholders, 15 indicators by tourism entrepreneurs, 17 indicators by document analysis and 8 indicators by tourists. The second reason responds to the lack of information on the indicators. This lack of information varies between data sources. Key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs did not provide clear information related to the indicator ‘Preparedness’. The document analysis did not find information about ‘Flood shelters’ and ‘Tourism participation’. The tourists assessed all 8 indicators without skipping any of them. The indicators that were particularly assessed by document analysis and not by other methods were 1) flood barriers, 2) tourism density, and 3) tourism composition.
50
Recovery Organizational Recovery Organizational capacity capacity
Tourism assets Tourism assets Flood barriers Flood barriers Flood Flood resilience resilience Resistance Resistance Vulnerability Tourism Vulnerability Tourism composition composition
Adaptability Adaptability
Learning
capacity
Learning capacity
Key stakeholders Tourism entrepreneurs
Recovery Organizational Recovery Organizational capacity capacity
Tourism assets Tourism assets Flood barriers Flood Flood barriers Flood resilience resilience Resistance Vulnerability Tourism Resistance Vulnerability Tourism composition composition
Adaptability Adaptability
Learning
capacity
Learning capacity
Documents Questionnaires for tourists Figure 10 Resilience Wheel per group of stakeholders and data source (Note: white segments indicate no data, and grey segments indicate no assessed indicators)
Figure 10 shows that flood resilience was assessed differently. The knowledge of stakeholders about the different indicators varies depending on the background of the stakeholder, their level of interest and their current role in the Municipality. Flood resilience is interpreted as ‘high’ by the group of tourism entrepreneurs. I think it is possible that the ‘good’ image that they want to show to their guests can be reflected in the assessment of the conceptual framework. They assessed the adaptability and recovery of the sector ‘high’ for when a flood occurs, and they consider that the low vulnerability of the sector supports the high resilience assessment. On the other hand, key stakeholders, tourists and researcher assessed as ‘medium’ the flood resilience of the tourism sector. These assessments show the room of improvement in all the dimensions. The specific differences and similarities between groups of stakeholder and data sources identified in Figure 10 are explained below:
1) Recovery
The dimension is assessed as 'medium' by key stakeholders and document analysis. Tourism entrepreneurs and tourists gave a ‘high’ assessment to the dimension. The indicator ‘Resourcefulness’ has a medium assessment by all groups of stakeholders and data sources. According to the interviewees, the availability of resources is ‘high’. However, the ability to mobilize them requires more coordination between stakeholders, planning strategies and
51
improvement. The indicator ‘Protection of critical infrastructure’ is assessed ‘very high’ by tourism entrepreneurs and ‘high’ by tourists and key stakeholders. The high trust on the governmental protection and maintenance of the infrastructure by tourism entrepreneurs, key stakeholders and tourists can be reflected in this assessment. However, the document analysis suggests further improvement for this indicator, particularly for the infrastructure related to freshwater and roads. There were few plans related to the emergency management of the tourism sector in relation to flood risk. However, the tourism entrepreneurs assessed this indicator with a ‘high’ score. They trust on the planning and procedures of the government in case a flood occurs. Although, they do not know about a big plan that guides them during and after a flood. Tourists did not assess the indicator emergency management.
2) Resistance
Tourism entrepreneurs and tourists assessed this dimension with a ‘medium’ score. Key stakeholders assessed the dimension ‘low’ and the document analysis assessed it as ‘high’. The indicator ‘Flood barriers and embankments’ has a positive influence on the assessment of the dimension. However, it was only assessed by the document analysis, which scored the indicator ‘very high’. Therefore, the key stakeholders, tourism entrepreneurs and tourists assessed two indicators ‘Strength of build environment’ and ‘Flood shelters’. The different assessment of ‘Strength of build environment’ responds to the knowledge of interviewees related to the indicators. The key stakeholders do not know about the effect of a flooding in the buildings of the tourism sector. For that reason, they assessed the indicator with a ‘low’ score. Most of the tourism entrepreneurs think that their businesses are resistant to flooding. However, they recognize still room for improvement and adjustment because they have never experienced this natural disaster assessing the indicator with a ‘medium’ score. In the case of tourists, they think that the buildings of the tourism sector are strong enough in case a flooding happens. Therefore, they assessed the indicator ‘high’. The indicator ‘Flood shelters’ are also assessed with a ‘low’ score by the key stakeholders. They know there are some shelters. However, there is no information if these shelters are useful in case a flood occurs. The tourists and tourism entrepreneurs assessed this indicator as ‘medium’ because they do not know if there is a shelter for flooding. Although, they trust on the decision of the government and its planning, including sheltering, in case a flood event occurs. The document analysis did not have information that supports any assessment of this indicator.
3) Adaptability
This dimension shows a clear difference between interpretations of groups of stakeholders and document analysis. The highest assessment of this dimension was from the tourism entrepreneurs, who consider ‘very high’ the availability of ‘Building codes’ and ‘high’ their ‘Self-organization’ and ‘Learning capacity’. They consider themselves capable to organize in case a flood occurs. The document analysis led to the lowest assessment due to the ‘low’ ‘Preparedness’, ‘Learning capacity’ and ‘Self-organization’ of the tourism sector identified in policy documents. Tourists consider themselves capable of self-organize and prepare with some financial and physical resources in case there is a flooding. In addition, they assessed ‘very high’ their learning capacity in first-aid courses.
4) Vulnerability
This dimension is assessed by the key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs ‘high’. These stakeholders assessed only one indicator ‘Tourism assets’. The other two indicators ‘Tourism composition’ and ‘Tourism density’ were mainly assessed by document analysis. Tourists did not participate assessing the dimension vulnerability. The validity of this dimension decreases when the assessment is analysed separately. As mentioned in the methodology, the triangulation of the data sources increases the validity of the assessment. Therefore, the analysis of only one indicator does not show the vulnerability of the tourism sector. The document analysis interpretation shows how the tourism sector is highly dense in the Municipality. This characteristic might
52
decrease the vulnerability of the sector. Despite, there are many tourism industries that work together for the benefits of the sector and the stakeholders involved.
5) Organizational capacity
All groups of stakeholders and data sources agreed with the assessment of the dimension. The ‘Organizational capacity’ of the tourism sector is assessed ‘low’. The ‘very low’ tourism participation in relation to flooding issues. The document analysis found few data related to the tourism cooperation and information. Despite, there are channels that can be used for the communication of flood resilience topics, this issue is almost never spoken off within the sector. This does not mean that they do not think about it. However, they do not consider flooding being high in the priorities of the sector. According to the document analysis, there is a lack of multilingual information for tourists and tourism entrepreneurs in relation to flood risk. Tourism cooperation within the tourism sector is also considered ‘low’. There are few projects of the Municipality of Veere that include the tourism sector as a key partner or actor. However, there is no cooperation in relation to flood risk management.
53
Chapter 6 Discussion
This chapter discusses the results, conceptual framework, and methodology of this thesis. The aim of the study is to understand the interpretations of flood resilience by the tourism sector and key stakeholders involved in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland by using an adjusted version of the Resilience Wheel. In order to address this aim, interviews were conducted with key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs, a document analysis was developed, and questionnaires for tourists were handed out. The purpose of the interviews was to analyse the relevance, (re)definition and the assessment of the indicators of the Resilience Wheel. The analysis of documents and questionnaires complement the assessment of the indicators. The chapter ends with the suggestions for further research.
6.1 Synthesis of the findings This study addresses three specific questions, which are synthesized in this section.
1. How relevant are the indicators of the Resilience Wheel for the tourism sector and the key stakeholders involved in the Municipality of Veere?
The results of this study show that the selection of indicators and the elaboration of the questionnaires during the preliminary phase influenced the relevance analysis of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators. I could not make a complete comparison of the criteria ‘relevance’ of Resilience Wheel’s indicators between key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs due to the different number of indicators analysed by the interviewees. From the 12 indicators analysed by the key stakeholders, the indicators ‘Resourcefulness’, ‘Learning capacity’, ‘Self- organization’ and ‘Tourism assets’ are relevant for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere. Tourism entrepreneurs, who analysed 4 indicators with more detail, agreed that the indicator ‘Tourism assets’ is highly relevant for the tourism sector. Although the questions about the relevance of the indicator were formulated during the interviews with key stakeholders particularly, and to some extent with tourism entrepreneurs, the indicators that have fewer number of insights related to their relevance are the ones which also have the lowest number of answers. For example, 60% of interviewees did not answer about ‘Building codes’, ‘Flood shelters’ and ‘Preparedness’, while more than 75% of interviewees did not give any insight about the relevance of ‘Emergency management’ or ‘Building codes’. The indicator ‘Access to information’ is considered ‘no relevant’ by half of the tourism entrepreneurs, while the key stakeholders did not have a strong opinion about the indicator. According to the general insights provided at the end of interviews, key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs attributed the possible changes in the importance of the indicators of the Resilience Wheel to the feeling of safety developed by the people in the Municipality of Veere, including the tourism sector. For instance, fire, social security and the nuclear power station issues have a higher level of importance than flooding issues for the tourists and tourism entrepreneurs in the Municipality of Veere.
2. How can these indicators be assessed in that context?
The definitions of the indicators were interpreted and operationalised by the researcher and the interviewees (i.e. key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs). This analysis helped determine the meaning of the indicators for the tourism sector, and to recognize which of them can be assed in that context. The researcher conducted the first adjustment of the operationalised definitions of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators based on the study of Haitsma (2016) and a preliminary literature review. The outcome of this (re)definition generated changes in the interpretation of the indicators. Most of these changes were related to the referencing of the tourism sector within the definition. The definitions of the indicators ‘Resourcefulness’, ‘Tourism composition’, and ‘Tourism assets’ changed completely with the purpose of making them possible to assess in the context. The second review and (re)definition of the indicators were done by the key stakeholders and tourism entrepreneurs, who provided insights during the interviews. As result, 7 indicators have an adjusted definition (i.e. protection of critical
54
infrastructure, strength of build environment, preparedness, tourism assets, tourism cooperation, access to information and institutional capacity). The participatory process of (re)defining the indicators resulted in the application of 17 indicators to the tourism sector.
3. What level of flood resilience does the tourism sector have using the Resilience Wheel conceptual framework in the Municipality of Veere?
The analysis of interviews, documents and questionnaires by using the Resilience Wheel conceptual framework indicates that the flood resilience of the tourism sector is ‘medium’. This result was obtained by taking the average of the scores of the indicators and dimensions. However, this study also showed that this assessment might vary depending on the interpretations of the different group of stakeholders and the document analysis (re)defined by the researcher. By analysing the data separately for each group of stakeholders and data source, the similarities and differences between their interpretations and assessments can be identified. Therefore, the tourism entrepreneurs of the Municipality of Veere consider the flood resilience of the tourism sector ‘high’, while key stakeholders, tourists and the data analysis developed by the researcher consider flood resilience as ‘medium’.
6.2 Reflection on theory and conceptual framework The conceptual framework ‘Resilience Wheel’ was used for the analysis of resilience of the tourism sector in relation to flood risk in the Municipality of Veere. Although the focus of this study is the tourism sector of a local community (i.e. Municipality of Veere), flood resilience is an issue which intersects different scales and requires information from the local, provincial and national levels. Indeed, the data used in this study was provided by different groups of stakeholders that belong to the tourism sector, such as the tourists and tourism entrepreneurs, but also key stakeholders that are part of the main governmental organizations, such as the Municipality of Veere, the Province of Zeeland and academia. Furthermore, the documents used in the study were not only elaborated by the local government or sector; some of them were elaborated by the Province of Zeeland and the National Government.
Haitsma (2016, p. 59) considers the Resilience Wheel as “example of application of indicators to translate an abstract concept into an operational term”. In this study, this assessment was confirmed. The Resilience Wheel is a useful tool for the qualitative assessment of flood resilience in practice. The framework allowed the analysis and assessment of flood resilience in a comprehensive and communicative way by using the coloured traffic light. The conceptual framework not only provides empirical information about the studied issue but also encourages discussion of the indicators and dimensions at the local level and in a broader perspective (e.g. provincial level). Despite, the flooding issue not being high in the interests of the tourism sector, the use of the conceptual framework in practice generated discussion and awareness about flood resilience with the people who participated in the study. However, the quantitative assessment of the Resilience Wheel is complex and inapplicable in this study. An absolute value of flood resilience cannot be calculated in this study. The variable answers related to the assessment of indicators were presented with the score ranges and standard deviations. This conceptual framework with a high amount of indicators (17) and dimensions (5) can be adjusted according to the context.
The analysis of flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere showed that there are varying interpretations and assessments of flood resilience within a system. Haitsma (2016) presented the flood resilience assessments of the cities ‘Rotterdam’ and ‘Dhaka’ as a derived from a literature review, expert knowledge, workshops and interviews. I did a specific analysis of the different group of stakeholders and the documents by using the Resilience Wheel. The separate analysis of flood resilience was shown to be a useful tool for presenting the different interpretations of flood resilience between sources and stakeholders. For example, tourism entrepreneurs were the group of stakeholders with the highest assessment of flood resilience. This might imply that there are different point of views and interests according to the key stakeholders, tourists and
55
information provided by documents. These results could be considered for further discussions and investigation. Policy makers and the tourism sector may wish to analyse the tensions and disagreements between groups in order to avoid undermining the possible alliances in relation to coastal management and flood risk.
Another application of the Resilience Wheel is “to monitor flood resilience since it is known which indicators should be measured to get an insight in the flood resilience” (Haitsma, 2016, p.64). This study can be considered a first base line study to monitoring the flood resilience understanding of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere. Moreover, “the Resilience Wheel further offers a comprehensive diagnostic tool enabling to compress large amounts of information in a concise and communicative overview” (Haitsma 2016, p. 64). The presentation of the results by using the traffic light system complements the qualitative assessment of the indicators and it also helped to understand the similarities and differences between groups of stakeholders with different colours in a communicative way. This representation of the results might generate further awareness about flood resilience and discussion related to the strengths and weaknesses of the tourism sector in relation to the topic.
6.3 Reflection on the research design and methodological limitations In this thesis, there are methodological pro and cons that have been identified during its elaboration and can be considered in future investigations. First, the selection and interpretation of the indicators by the researcher was used to operationalise the concept of flood resilience. It allowed the identification of the indicators during the application in practice of the conceptual framework with the interviewees who further contextualized the indicators according to their knowledge and experience. However, the selection and interpretation of the indicators during the thesis developed by the researcher and the interviewees will have some influence on the outcomes of the study. For future research, even if a researcher follows the same methods of this study, the outcome of the study might differ due to the influence of the researcher and stakeholders who participate in the study, the context and the information provided during the investigation. This would compromise the possibility to use the same framework for the long term monitoring proposed above.
Second, the collection of data sources was undertaken during the months of May and early June 2017 when the summer tourist season was just starting. Tourism entrepreneurs were busy with business activities and had limited availability to participate in this study. The seasonality present in the Municipality of Veere might have influenced the outcome of interviews and questionnaires applied in the study. For example, the tourism entrepreneurs and tourists that participated in the interviews and questionnaires might differ from the ones who work or visit the municipality during winter months or August, which is the densest month of the year in Zeeland. Therefore, the answers or point of view about flooding and the indicators of the Resilience Wheel might change. The need to review and contextualize the conceptual framework to the situation is always present for further research. The information of this case-study can be used for the understanding of flood resilience in the specific context.
Third, the methods used can also influence the findings. For example, the semi-structured interviews allowed the interaction between the researcher and interviewee. However, this method was not structured enough to have a complete overview of the criteria ‘relevance’ of the indicators. Also, although the questionnaires allowed to retrieve information from the tourists with closed questions, the method did not permit the discussion of the answers related to the conceptual framework.
Fourth, during the data collection phase, my limited knowledge of the Dutch language was a limitation that might have influenced the data interpretation and definition of the researcher, as well as the interviewees and respondents of questionnaires. English is the second language for all respondents. Although a partial translation of the policy documents was made in collaboration with a Dutch-speaking person, some translations could slightly change the original meaning of the indicators. Regarding the conducting of interviews, some tourism entrepreneurs did not consent to an interview because it was formulated in English, especially entrepreneurs related to mini-camping. A similar situation occurred with the tourists who could not understand the brief 56
presentation of my thesis and the purpose of the questionnaires during the first contact. Despite the constraints presented, I decided to reach tourism entrepreneurs personally at their own place of work. This activity allowed me to give an explanation of my study in case they requested it. In addition, I had the opportunity to meet the person and show my interest and flexibility in meeting according to their schedule and location. Additionally, I prepared a brief introduction in Dutch and English related to the topic of the thesis. I found the first contact to be critical for the respondents. I found it easier to approach Dutch entrepreneurs and tourists by presenting myself in Dutch and explaining the thesis purpose in English afterwards.
Fifth, the assessment of the indicators is based on Haitsma’s (2016) method. He uses a scoring procedure, which assesses the indicators by taking the average of the scores. This scoring does not show the variety of answers collected during fieldwork. These answers almost always are not the same. Therefore, it was decided to present the assessment of the indicators by using the score range of the answers related to the interviews instead of the average. This range showed the minimum and maximum scores that limit the answers. In addition, the standard deviations complemented the score range of the questionnaires.
6.4 Recommendations for further research
During the elaboration of this study, several further research suggestions came up by interviewees and the reflection of the researcher. In this section, six recommendations for further research are elaborated in more detail.
First, the analysis of flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere is part of the studies that aim to operationalize resilience into practice by using the conceptual framework Resilience Wheel. However, there is still the need to continue the analysis of resilience within other sectors such as agriculture, which is also a social-economic engine in the municipality. Further research related to the flood resilience of local, regional and national systems might be considered as key analysis for the Delta Programme (2014), who aims to have a robust and resilient delta.
Second, the analysis of flood resilience does not include the last updates of policy regulations or decisions in relation to the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere. Further monitoring processes of the developments adopted by the tourism sector and the stakeholders involved is recommended to update and review the information of this study with the aim to identify the changes over time. For example, during the data analysis phase of the study, the last version of the Coast Vision of Zeeland was published on the website of the Province of Zeeland (i.e. Zeeuwse Kustvisie). This document shows the latest updates of the goals and decisions related to the coastal economic activities, including the tourism sector, such as the prohibition of construction of future recreational infrastructure near the coast. This decision in the last version of the Vision is still being researched. The update of this document shows that the studied system adjusts over time and identification of these changes might be required for future planning and decision-making processes by policy makers or tourism business owners. In addition, this study shows the empirical results of the current situation until early June. The monitoring of flood resilience can be done during different seasons of the year to analyse if there is change on the outcomes and interpretation of flood resilience.
Third, the inclusion of the criteria relevance, definition and assessment in the interviews helped to understand the importance, assessment and interpretation of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators and the flood resilience assessment and provided enough insights for the (re)definition and assessment of the indicators. However, the relevance of the indicators could not be compared per group of stakeholders who participated in the study. An in-depth analysis of the criteria ‘relevance’ might require further research by using a more systematic method.
57
Fourth, in this research, the focus on the analysis of the indicators of the Resilience Wheel did not allow changes or inclusion of new dimensions, although suggestions for this were discussed with the interviewees. Further investigation related to the interpretation and role of the dimension’s role within the conceptual framework will be useful for a refinement of the Resilience Wheel.
Fifth, one such new indicator that was mentioned by interviewees is flood risk awareness of the tourism sector, which is not included in the present version of the Resilience Wheel. The connection of awareness with self- organization and/or learning capacity was suggested as a key element for the measuring and operationalization of flood resilience by interviewees. Therefore, further research about awareness may explain if there is a connection with the indicators mentioned or if it should be included (or not) in the Resilience Wheel as a new indicator or dimension.
Finally, research on enforcement and update of plans and protocols might be useful to identify the effectiveness of emergency management tools. According to some interviewees, there is a lack of knowledge related to the use or application of plans and protocols related to flooding by tourism entrepreneurs. Although there is some monitoring by the government about the regulations related to safety (especially fire) in the Municipality of Veere, there is little knowledge on the application of emergency plans related to flooding and/or general safety protocols by tourism businesses. Related to this issue, and maybe fortunately, there is no data about the adaptive strategies applied by the tourism entrepreneurs in case a natural disaster occurs – which has not happened since 1953.
58
Chapter 7 Conclusion
This study analysed the influence of the tourism sector in the flood resilience of the Municipality of Veere by using the conceptual framework “Resilience Wheel”. The adjusted Resilience Wheel has 17 indicators framed in 5 dimensions, which were assessed qualitatively based on three criteria 1) relevance, 2) (re)definition and 3) assessment. The study shows that the tourism sector has a ‘medium’ flood resilience of the Municipality of Veere based on the average of relative scores provided by interviews, document analysis and questionnaires. However, it also shows that flood resilience can be interpreted and assessed differently by the group of stakeholders who participated in the study and by the analysis of the documents developed by the author. The variety of interpretations responds to the variety of understandings, interests and knowledge related to the topic. Therefore, while the tourism sector’s flood resilience of the Municipality is assessed with a ‘high’ score by the tourism entrepreneurs. Tourists, key stakeholders and the document analysis coincide in their assessments, considering the flood resilience of the tourism sector ‘medium’.
The insights related to the relevance of the indicators show that the importance of the Resilience Wheel’s indicators is also context dependent. The contextualization of the indicators allowed the adjustment of the Resilience Wheel framework. The operationalised definitions of the indicators permitted to identify crucial information, and relevant insights for the assessment of the indicators. The adjusted framework showed to be a useful tool for the assessment of the indicators in practice. However, it is difficult to compare the relevance of the indicators when they are influenced by the selection and interpretation of the stakeholders involved and the researcher. Moreover, the discussion of the operationalised definitions of the indicators increased the validity of the conceptual framework in the context.
The results of the study show that flooding is not considered an issue for the tourism sector. The tourism sector feels a high level of protection from the critical infrastructure. The feeling of safety of the tourists and tourism entrepreneurs is created particularly by the protection of flood barriers and the low probability of flooding in the Municipality of Veere. Furthermore, the sector has a medium vulnerability to flooding due to the high availability of tourism assets that increases their competitiveness, the diversity of tourism industries and the very low assessment related to the tourism density in the municipality. The weaknesses of the tourism sector are more related to the organizational capacity of the sector and its adaptability to flood risk. The sector has a low access to information, tourism cooperation, and tourism participation. The availability of information about flooding for tourists is scarce. Although there are different channels of information in the Municipality of Veere, the information provided about flood risk is not multilingual and focusses mainly on the general public. Tourism associations are organized, but they are not informed and do not cooperate in projects related to flood risk. The main cooperation between businesses and the government is related to the improvement of the tourism sector in relation to wellness tourism and safety against fire. The preparedness of the tourism sector is assessed as being low due to the few campaigns that have been developed in the Municipality of Veere, which generated information that can be used mainly by the Dutch tourists and tourism entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the tourism sector does not use projections related to climate change in the planning of its investments and projects.
For further research, it is recommended to investigate the flood resilience of other sectors that belong to the municipality, such as the agricultural and industrial sectors. The investigation related to the monitoring of flood resilience in the Municipality of Veere and province of Zeeland is recommended for the updating and reviewing of the developments and changes over time of the sector in relation to flood risk. In this study, I focussed on the assessment of the indicators. Therefore, further investigation and discussion about the dimensions of the framework could play an important role in the refinement of the Resilience Wheel. Despite, the complexity of the conceptual framework, with many indicators and dimensions to analyse, the interviewees suggested the 59
inclusion of flood risk awareness and measures related to the enforcement of indicators. However, it must be investigated whether these criteria could be part of the conceptual framework.
To conclude, the Resilience Wheel was a useful framework to analyse the interpretations of flood resilience within the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere. The study showed how the contextualization of the indicators is needed when analysing flood resilience in different settings. The quantitative assessment of the conceptual framework is complex and inapplicable. It requires more understanding of the variation between scores because the results cannot be used as absolute values. Nevertheless, the Resilience Wheel has a successful qualitative application. It allowed the analysis of a large amount of data and generated discussion about the indicators of the conceptual framework. These discussions might help to increase the sense of awareness about flood resilience within the tourism sector and the Municipality of Veere, particularly by presenting the results with the traffic light system as a communicative tool.
60
References
Adewole, I. F., & Agbola, S. B. (2014). Building resilience to climate change impacts after the 2011 flood disaster at the University of Ibadan , Nigeria, 27(5), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247814547679
Albrito, P. (2012). Making cities resilient: Increasing resilience to disasters at the local level. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 5(4), pp. 291-297.
Aldrich, D. P. (2015). Resilience and Recovery in Asian Disasters.Springer, 10(1-2), pp. 1-355. https://doi10.1007/978-4-431-55022-8
Aerts, J.; Major, D.C.; Bowman, M.J.; Dircke, P. & Aris Marfai, M. (2009). Connecting delta cities part 1: coastal cities, flood risk management and adaptation to climate change. VU University Press: [s.l.]. ISBN 978-90-86593-63-7. 91
Aerts, J.C., Botzen, W. W., De Moel, H. & Bowman, M. (2013). "Cost Estimates for Flood Resilience and Protection Strategies In New York City". Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1294.1. pp. 1-104.
Andrew, S., Arlikatti, S., Siebeneck, L., Pongponrat, K., & Jaikampan, K. (2016). Sources of organisational resiliency during the Thailand floods of 2011: A test of the bonding and bridging hypotheses. Disasters, 40(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12136
Becken, S., & Hughey, K. F. D. (2013). Linking tourism into emergency management structures to enhance disaster risk reduction. Tourism Management, 36, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.006
Bird, D. K., Gisladottir, G., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2010). Volcanic risk and tourism in southern Iceland: Implications for hazard, risk and emergency response education and training. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 189(1–2), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.09.020
Carpenter, S.R. (2003). Regime shifts in lake ecosystems: pattern and variation. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany.
Cannon, T., & Müller-Mahn, D. (2010). Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate change. Natural Hazards, 55(3), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9499-4 CBS (2016). Statistiek Logiesaccommodaties. Geraadpleegd via statline.cbs.nl
Correljé, A., & Broekhans, B. (2015). Flood risk management in the Netherlands after the 1953 flood: A competition between the public value(s) of water. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 8(2), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12087 Cote, M., & Nightingale, A. J. (2012). Resilience thinking meets social theory : Situating social change in socio-ecological systems ( SES ) research, 36(4), 475–489.
Creswell, J.W., (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Fourth Edition Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1732 Bruijn, K. de. (2005). Resilience and flood risk management: a systems approach applied to lowland rivers, Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology. 6645 Delta Academy Applied Research Centre. (2015). Resilient Delta’s, RAAK Publiek. HZ University of Applied University. 1-32 Delta Programme. (2017). Knowledge Agenda: Progress. https://english.deltacommissaris.nl/delta- programme/documents/publications/2016/09/20/dp2017-e-delta-programme-knowledge-agenda 61
Delta Programme Commissioner. (2014). Delta Programme 2015 - Working on the delta - The decisions to keep the Netherlands safe and liveable. Farhan, A. & Lim, S. (2011). Resilience assessment on coastline changes and urban settlements: A case study in Seribu Islands, Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(5), pp. 391-400 Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2011.191 Grothmann, T., Grecksch, K., Winges, M., & Siebenhüner, B. (2013). Assessing institutional capacities to adapt to climate change: integrating psychological dimensions in the Adaptive Capacity Wheel. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13(12), 3369-3384. Godschalk, D. R. (2003). "Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities". Natural Hazards Review 4.3, pp. 136-143. Godschalk, D. R. (2014). Urban Hazard Mitigation : Creating Resilient Cities Urban Hazard Mitigation : Creating Resilient Cities, 6988(April). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4
Gourbesville, P. (2014). Flood Resilience Index - Methodology And Application.
Grünewald, F. & Warner, J. (2010). Resilience : buzz word or critical strategic concept?. Disaster Risk Reduction and Poverty, 1–7. Gunderson, L.H., (2001). Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island press.
Gupta, J., Termeer, C., Klostermann, J., Meijerink, S., van den Brink, M., Jong, P., Nooteboom, S. & Bergsma, E. (2010). The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(6), pp. 459-471. Hadbod, J., Neil, W. (2014). Integrating social-ecological dynamics and resilience into energy systems research. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, pp. 226-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.001
Hamilton, W. A. H. (2009): "Resilience and The City: The Water Sector". Proceedings of the ICE - Urban Design and Planning 162.3, pp. 109-121.
Haitsma, R. (2016). Flood Resilience in Delta Cities. Master Thesis. Wageningen University. http://edepot.wur.nl/390189 Holling, C.S. (1973). “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, pp. 1–24. Kool, E. (2017).The influence of institutions on the adaptive capacity of winegrowers, Master thesis. Wageningen University
Jeuring. J.H.G. (2011). Intentions to seek severe weather information among travelers in New Zealand. Wageningen University. http://edepot.wur.nl/168046
Joerin, J., Shaw, R., Takeuchi, Y., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2014). The adoption of a climate disaster resilience index in Chennai, India. Disasters, 38(3), 540–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12058
Keessen, A. M., Hamer, J. M., van Rijswick, H. F. M. W., & Wiering, M. (2013). The concept of resilience from a normative perspective: Examples from Dutch adaptation strategies. Ecology and Society, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05526-180245 Kunte, P. D., Jauhari, N., Mehrotra, U., Kotha, M., Hursthouse, A. S., & Gagnon, A. S. (2014). Multi-hazards coastal vulnerability assessment of Goa, India, using geospatial techniques. Ocean and Coastal Management, 95, 264–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.04.024
62
Kumar, R. (2014). Research Methodology, a step-by-step guide for beginners. London: SAGE
Liao, K.H. (2012). "A Theory On Urban Resilience To Floods-A Basis For Alternative Planning Practices". Ecology and Society 17.4.
Loucks, P. (1982). Reliability, Resiliency, and Vulnerability Criteria, 18(1), 14–20.
Lu, P. Stead. D. (2013). "Understanding The Notion Of Resilience In Spatial Planning: A Case Study Of Rotterdam, The Netherlands". Cities 35, pp. 200-212.
Mathbor, G. (2007). Enhancement of community preparedness for natural disasters. International Social Work, 50(3), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872807076049
Ministry of infrastructure and the environment. (2011). Summary National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning, 24. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/roabcn/Downloads/summary- national-policy-strategy-for-infrastructure-and-spatial-planning.pdf
Moench, M. (2014). Development in Practice Experiences applying the climate resilience framework : linking theory with practice. Development in Practice, 24(4), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2014.909385
OECD. (2013). Demographic Change in the Netherlands: Strategies for Resilient labour markets. http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/demo_change_netherlands.pdf Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hahn, T. (2004). Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.01.001
Province of Zeeland. (2002). Everything you should know about Zeeland. Colophon. ISBN: 90-71565-68-8
Province of Zeeland. (2012). Kustvisie Province Zeeland. https://www.zeeland.nl/digitaalarchief/zee1300264
Province of Zeeland, Coastal Division, Somerset County Council. (2013). Flood Awareness. InterregYa: Croosborder cooperation programme 2007-2013. pp. 89.
Province of Zeeland. (2017). Zeeuwse Kustvisie. https://www.zeeland.nl/ruimte/zeeuwse-kustvisie.
Siebeneck, L., Sudha, A. & Simon A. (2015). "Using Provincial Baseline Indicators To Model Geographic Variations Of Disaster Resilience In Thailand". Nat Hazards 79.2, pp. 955-975.
Snover, A.K., Binder, L.W., Lopez, J., Wilmott, E., Kay, J., Howell, D. & Simmonds, J. (2007). Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional and State Governments. In association with and published by ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability, Oakland, CA.
Star S L, Griesemer J R (1989) Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 Social Studies of Science, 19(3) 387-420. van den Brink, M., Termeer, C., & Meijerink, S. (2011). Are dutch water safety institutions prepared for climate change? Journal of Water and Climate Change, 2(4), 272–287. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2011.044 van der Brink, M., & Meijerink, S. (2014). Climate-proof planning for flood-prone areas : assessing the adaptive capacity of planning institutions in the Netherlands, 981–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113- 012-0401-7
63
Van Der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2005). The transition in Dutch water management. Regional Environmental Change, 5(4), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-004-0086-7 van Klinken P.C; Weterings K.C.P. (2012). Lokaal rapport, Gemeente Veere
Volbeda, F. (2016). Governance & Building with Nature. http://edepot.wur.nl/406100 Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., … Pritchard, R. (2002). Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach resilience management in social-ecological systems. Conservation Ecology, 6(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- 00356-060114
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience , Adaptability and Transformability in Social – ecological Systems, 9(2).
Wardekker, J. A., de Jong, A., Knoop, J. M., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2010). Operationalising a resilience approach to adapting an urban delta to uncertain climate changes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(6), 987–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.11.005 Waterschap Scheldestromen. (2016). Waterkeringenbeheerplan 2016-2020. http://edepot.wur.nl/411122 Wesselink, A.J., (2007). Flood safety in the Netherlands: the Dutch political response to Hurricane Katrina. Technology in Society 29 (2), 239–247 Zegwaard, A., Petersen, A. C., & Wester, P. (2014). Climate change and ontological politics in the Dutch Delta. Climatic Change, 132(3), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1259-0
64
Appendixes
Appendix 1. Document list with number of reference No. Author Title Year Source 1 Veiligheidsregio Zeeland Regionaal Zeeuws Crisisplan 2011-2015 2011 http://www.zeelandveilig.nl/veilighe idsregio- zeeland/publicaties/documentatie/r egionaal-zeeuws-crisisplan-2011- 2 Veiligheidsregio Zeeland, Incidentbestrijdingsplan Deltawateren versie 1.0 – 2013 2013 https://www.zeelandveilig.nl/resour Veiligheidsregio Rotterdam- ces/documenten/veiligheidsregio/d Rijnmond en ownloads/2013-04- Veiligheidsregio Midden- en 18%20IBP%20Deltawateren%20defi West-Brabant nitief%20versie%201.0.pdf 4 Province of Zeeland Kustvisie Provincie Zeeland 2012 https://www.zeeland.nl/ruimte/zeeu wse-kustvisie 5 Delta Programme Delta Programme 2017, Work on the delta - Linking 2017 https://deltaprogramma2017.deltac taskings, on track together ommissaris.nl/viewer/publication/1 /1-delta-programme- 6 Veiligheidsregio Zeeland Zeeuwse GRIP 2011, Gecoördineerde Regionale 2011 http://www.zeelandveilig.nl/sites/de IncidentenbestrijdingsProcedure fault/files/downloads/20110928_gr ip_2011_vrzeeland_v3.0.pdf?27032 7 Waterschap Waterkeringenbeheerplan 2016-2020 2016 https://scheldestromen.nl/sites/sch Scheldestromen eldestromen.nl/files/documenten/W aterkeringenbeheerplan%202016- 8 De Minister van Justitie Water act 2017 2017 http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR000 2629/2017-03-10 9 Provinciale Staten van Omgevingsplan Zeeland 2012-2018 2012 https://www.zeeland.nl/digitaalarch Zeeland ief/zee1201358 10 Province of Zeeland Waterverordening Zeeland, 2014 2014 http://decentrale.regelgeving.overhe id.nl/cvdr/xhtmloutput/Historie/Zee land/CVDR63814/CVDR63814_3.htm l 11 Ministerie van Infrastuctuur Bestemmingsplan Veere 2015 http://www.ruimtelijkeplannen.nl/w en Milieu, kadaster, eb- GEOBOVUM, Gemeente roo/roo/bestemmingsplannen?dossi Veere erid=NL.IMRO.0717.0032BPVeere 12 Veiligheidsregio Zeeland Beleidsplan 2011-2015 2015 http://www.zeelandveilig.nl/sites/de fault/files/downloads/04%20downl oad%208%20Beleidsplan%202012- 2015.pdf?17092014= 13 De Minister van Justitie Arbeidsomstandighedenwet 2016 http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR001 0346/2017-07-01 14 : Province of Zeeland (the Interreg 2 Seas project: Flood Aware 2013 http://www.flood-aware.com/ Netherlands), Somerset County Council (UK) and the Agency for Maritime and Coastal Services - Coastal Division 15 Kenniscentrum kusttoerisme Kerncijfers vrijetijdseconomie Zeeland 2015 2016 http://www.kenniscentrumtoerisme. nl/l/library/download/19180 16 NRIT Media, NBTC Holland Trendrapport toerisme, recreatie en vrije tijd 2016 https://www.cbs.nl/nl- Marketing, CELTH (Centre of nl/achtergrond/2016/48/trendrapp Expertise Leisure, Toerisme ort-toerisme-recreatie-en-vrije-tijd- & Hospitality) en CBS 2016 17 DECISIO Ruimte voor recreatie op het strand, Eindrapportage 2011 (hoofdrapport) 18 Gemeente Veere Stimuleringsprogramma gezondheidstoerisme Veere 2016- 2011 http://www.decisio.nl/wp- 2018 content/uploads/2014/11/Recreatie basiskustlijn-Hoofdrapport.pdf 19 Gemeente Veere Rijksmonumenten 2017 https://www.veere.nl/inwoners/vrije- tijd_47839/item/rijksmonumenten_ 74614.html 20 Gemeente Veere Veere statistics 2017 Waarstaatjegemeente.nl 21 Invest in Zeeland Invest in Zeeland, Veere 2017 www.investinzeeland.nl/vestigi ngslocaties-in- zeeland/veere.htm 22 Gemeente Veere Subsidieverordening voor aansluiting op breedband 2017 https://www.veere.nl/bestuur/regelg internet buitengebied eving_47657/item/subsidieverorden ing-voor-aansluiting-op-breedband- internet-buitengebied-gemeente- veere-2017_1561.html
65
Appendix 2. Questionnaire for key stakeholders QUESTIONNAIRE FOR KEY STAKEHOLDERS
Introduction - Introduce myself - Introduce the thesis topic - Explain what I am going to do
Thanks for you receiving me. My name is Wendy Cevallos, I’m a Master Student in Wageningen University and Research in The Netherlands and I am conducting my minor thesis investigation on Resilience of the tourism sector in relation to flood risk in Zeeland - Municipality of Veere in collaboration with IHE Delft Institute for Water Education. I am very much interested in your opinion since you have an expertise and important role in flood risk management and/or the flood resilience, and with your knowledge, I will have the insights about the issue of surface freshwater use that i need to include in my investigation.
I have planned this interview for an hour. During the interview, I will take some notes, and record them. It is important to mention that our conversation is confidential (In case there is the reluctance to make the interview, I can explain about the anonymity of the interviewees). The information will be used to write my thesis for academic purposes. Do you have any remark or question before we begin?
Background information:
1. Could you describe what is your experience addressing the issue of flood events in Veere-Zeeland? 2. What is your role and/or the organization where you work addressing this issue?
The next section of the interview consists in the assessment of the indicators that I am using to operationalize resilience of the tourism sector Zeeland – Municipality of Veere. Please select the option that you consider is the best according to your knowledge and experience. Some questions are open and they need more time to be answered. Please do not hesitate to ask me if you consider needed.
Recovery
3. Emergency management: In your opinion do you agree that emergency management is a relevant indicator for the assessment of flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland? * Emergency management in terms of availability of emergency management procedures, warning systems, evacuation plans, emergency coordination protocols and emergency networks
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it?
Very low Low Medium High Very High
4. Resourcefulness. Do you agree that resourcefulness known as the ability of tourism sector to mobilize financial, physical, and technological and human resources is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it?
66
Very low Low Medium High Very High
5. Protection of critical infrastructures. Do you agree that protection of critical infrastructure is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
Resistance
6. Strength of build environment: Do you agree that the strength of build environment in terms of Construction materials and design of buildings of tourism sector is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
7. Flood shelters: Do you agree that the availability of flood shelters for the tourists, operators, employees, community related to the tourism businesses is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
Adaptability
8. Building codes: Do you agree that building codes in terms of tourism building standards, plans and regulations is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? Very low Low Medium High Very High
9. Self-organization: Do you agree that the ability of tourism organizations to organize themselves and collaborate with the clean-up and assistance after a flood event is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it ? Very low Low Medium High Very High
67
10. Learning capacity: Do you agree that the availability of trainings, evaluation plans and reports, and institutional adjustments to adapt to flood risk is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
11. Preparedness: Do you agree that the availability of educational campaigns, and use of future projections in the planning and design of tourism infrastructure and services is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
Vulnerability of the tourism sector
12. Tourism density: Do you agree that the tourism density in terms of average tourists and tourism employees per km2 is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
13. Tourism composition: Do you agree that the density of tourism industries is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
14. Tourism assets: Do you agree that the availability of tourism assets (natural values, cultural heritage) is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
68
15. Tourism assets: Do you agree that the availability of tourism assets (natural values, cultural heritage) is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
Organizational capacity
16. Access to information: Do you agree that the availability of information to prepare flood risk reduction is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
17. Institutional capacity: Do you agree that the institutional capacity in terms of the amount of formal and informal associations related to tourism sector that are currently in operation is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
18. Tourism participation: Do you agree that the tourism participation is a relevant indicator for assessing flood resilience of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you asses it? Very low Low Medium High Very High
19. What are in your opinion other key indicators required to analyse the flood safety of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere? Do you think the indicators that I have chosen are relevant for the analysis of flood safety of the tourism sector? Can you elaborate more on your answer?
20. What do you think about the type of assessment done during the interview?
Thank you very much!
69
Appendix 3. Questionnaire for tourism entrepreneurs QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TOURISM ENTREPRENEURS
Introduction - Introduce myself - Introduce the thesis topic - Explain what I am going to do
Thanks for you receiving me. My name is Wendy Cevallos, I’m a Master Student at Wageningen University and Research in The Netherlands and I am conducting my minor thesis investigation on Safety of the tourism sector in relation to flood risk in Zeeland - Municipality of Veere in collaboration with IHE Delft Institute for Water Education. I am very much interested in your opinion since you have experience and an important role in the tourism sector.
I have planned this interview for an hour. During the interview, I will take some notes, and record them. It is important to mention that our conversation is confidential (In case there is the reluctance to make the interview, I can explain about the anonymity of the interviewees). The information will be used to write my thesis for academic purposes. Do you have any remark or question before we begin?
Background information:
21. Could you describe what your experience in the tourism sector is? Has your business experienced any flood event (s) during its operation? 22. What do you think is the role of you and your business addressing the issue of safety of tourists?
The next section of the interview consists of the identification and assessment of the indicators that I am using to operationalize flood resilience (resilience, safety) of the tourism sector in Zeeland – Municipality of Veere. Please select the option that you consider is the best according to your knowledge and experience. Some questions are open and they need more time to be answered. Please do not hesitate to ask me if you consider needed.
Organizational capacity
23. Tourism cooperation: How do the tourism entrepreneurs cooperate within tourism businesses and other organizations in the Municipality of Veere?
How would you assess the tourism cooperation in the Municipality of Veere? Very low Low Medium High Very High
24. Access to information: Do you agree that the availability of information to prepare flood risk reduction is a relevant indicator for assessing organizational capacity of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why How can it be measured? How would you assess the access to information in relation to the preparedness of the tourism sector on flood reduction in the Municipality of Veere?
Very low Low Medium High Very High
70
25. Access to information: What do you want to know about flood risk?
26. How would you prefer to receive that information? 1
27. Institutional capacity: Are you part of any association and/or advisory group related to the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere?
Yes/No Why How would you assess the institutional capacity in terms of amount of formal and informal associations of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere?
Very low Low Medium High Very High
Recovery
28. Emergency management: Are there any emergency plan, procedures, warming alerts that your business needs to follow in case a natural hazard or flood occurs in the Municipality of Veere? Can you elaborate more on your answer?
29. Do you think you the emergency management in terms of use of emergency plans, procedures warming alerts is a key indicator for the recovery of the Municipality of Veere after a flood event?
Yes/No Why ? How would you assess the emergency management of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere? Very low Low Medium High Very High
30. Resourcefulness. Do you think your business has the ability to mobilize resources (such as trained personnel, transport, IT equipment or shelters) during a flood event in the Municipality of Veere?
Yes/No How? How would you assess the resourcefulness of the tourism sector in the municipality of Veere? Very low Low Medium High Very High
31. Protection of critical infrastructures. How do you think the infrastructure of your business is protected in case a flood event happens? Yes/No Why How would you assess the protection of tourism infrastructure in the Municipality of Veere?
Very low Low Medium High Very High
Resistance
32. Strength of build environment: How would you assess the strength of build environment related to the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere? Can you elaborate more on your answer?
1 Flood aware, 2013 71
Very low Low Medium High Very High
33. Flood shelters: Do you know where the (flood) shelters in the Municipality of Veere are?
Yes/No How would you assess the flood shelters related to the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere?
Very low Low Medium High Very High
Adaptability
34. Building codes: Do you agree that building codes in terms of tourism building standards, plans and regulations is a relevant indicator for assessing flood safety of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland?
Yes/No Why What are the building codes that your business need to follow and consider them in the business strategy/plan? How would you assess the strength of building codes related to the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere?
Very low Low Medium High Very High
35. Self-organization: Do you think your business can organize itself and the tourists that stay at your accommodation place after a flood event in the Municipality of Veere? Yes/No Why? How would you assess the self-organization of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere? Very low Low Medium High Very High
36. Self- organization: Do you think you and the personal of your business is able to help with some assistance and clean up after a flood event in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland? Yes/No Why?
37. Learning capacity: Have you considered in your business strategy/plan any training related to risk of flooding? Yes/No Why? How would you assess the learning capacity of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere? Very low Low Medium High Very High
38. Preparedness: Have you received any educational campaign related to the safety of the tourism sector and/or flood risk? Yes/No How was your experience? What type of educational campaigns would you like to receive related to the issue of flood risk and safety?
39. How would you measure the preparedness of the tourism sector to a flood event in the Municipality of Veere? How would you assess that preparedness of the tourism sector in Veere? Very low Low Medium High Very High
72
Vulnerability of the tourism sector
40. Tourism assets: Do you agree that the availability of tourism assets (natural values, cultural heritage) is a relevant indicator for the competitiveness of the tourism sector? Yes/No Why? How can it be measured? How would you assess the availability of tourism assets in the Municipality of Veere? Very low Low Medium High Very High
41. According to you, to what extent are the following people/organizations responsible for making sure that tourists in Veere-Zeeland stay safe in case of flooding? Not at all Extremely
Municipality of Veere 1 2 3 4 5 Government of Zeeland 1 2 3 4 5 National government 1 2 3 4 5 My travel agency 1 2 3 4 5 Tourist info centre (VVV Zeeland) 1 2 3 4 5 The police and/or other emergency professionals 1 2 3 4 5
As a tourism entrepreneur, I am responsible of the tourists who stay at 1 2 3 4 5
my business
As tourists, they are responsible of themselves 1 2 3 4 5
Other
42. What are in your opinion other key indicators required to analyse the flood safety of the tourism sector in the Municipality of Veere? Do you think the indicators that I have chosen are relevant for the analysis of flood safety of the tourism sector? Can you elaborate more on your answer?
43. What do you think about the type of assessment done during the interview?
Thank you very much!
73
Appendix 4. Questionnaire for tourists SAFETY OF TOURISTS IN VEERE-ZEELAND
I am a master student from Wageningen University, conducting a study on tourism safety in Veere- Zeeland. I would like to ask you some questions regarding this topic, your help would be very much appreciated. Please note that your responses will be kept anonymous. Please read them carefully before answering the questions. Filling out the survey will take five minutes approximately.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation!
I am interested in your opinion about safety of tourists during your holiday in the Municipality of Veere – Zeeland. To be more specific, the questions often ask about “flood safety”. In this study, flood refers to the temporary presence of water that covers land which normally is not covered by water.
Suppose you are enjoying your holidays in Veere and the flood happens. Please, indicate your opinion about the following statements using the scale below Totally Totally disagree agree 1. I feel very high protection by the infrastructure of the Municipality of Veere 1 2 3 4 5 2. I believe the buildings used for tourists are very resistant to flooding 1 2 3 4 5 3. I believe there are many flood shelters in Veere 1 2 3 4 5 4. I am able to organize myself (and my companion) after a flood event in Veere 1 2 3 4 5 5. I believe I can help with some assistance and clean up after a flood in Veere 1 2 3 4 5 6. I would like to receive information related to how to protect myself and be prepared 1 2 3 4 5 when a flood event happen during my holidays 7. I have attended to a first-aid course 1 2 3 4 5 8. I keep an available list of emergency phone numbers 1 2 3 4 5 9. I am prepared to any emergency with a mobile phone and a working flashlight 1 2 3 4 5
10. I have a backup budget in case some unexpected situation happens during my holiday 1 2 3 4 5 11. I purchased an insurance against natural disasters before coming to Veere-Zeeland 1 2 3 4 5 12. I believe the protection of natural values and cultural heritage is a key aspect in the 1 2 3 4 5 competitiveness of tourism sector 13. I am satisfied with the amount of information I have about how to protect myself in 1 2 3 4 5 case there is a flood during my stay in Veere 14. I have received information related to flood preparedness during my holidays 1 2 3 4 5 15. I asked someone (tourist assistant, accommodation owner, local government, civil 1 2 3 4 5 defence, tourism information office, etc.) information about what I could do to protect myself in case of an emergency (flood or other natural hazard) 16. It is expected of me that during my holiday I seek information about how to protect 1 2 3 4 5 myself in case a flood occurs 17. I have checked if there is any weather warning for the place I planned to stay during 1 2 3 4 5 my holiday 18. I feel worried to flood events in the Municipality of Veere 1 2 3 4 5 19. I feel safe when I am in Veere-Zeeland enjoying my holidays 1 2 3 4 5
74
20. Where do you prefer to seek information about flooding and possible risks that might occur during your holiday? (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE) My tourist guide book Family and friends Owner of my Newspaper Tourism information centre accommodation place Policy (VVV Zeeland) My travel agent Locals Tourism information website Other ………………… Local governments (VVV Zeeland) Television Other tourists Radio
21. According to you, to what extent are the following people/organizations responsible for making sure that tourists in Veere-Zeeland stay safe in case of flooding? Not at all Extremely
Municipality of Veere 1 2 3 4 5 Government of Zeeland 1 2 3 4 5 National government 1 2 3 4 5 My travel agency 1 2 3 4 5 Tourist info centre (VVV Zeeland) 1 2 3 4 5 The police and emergency professionals 1 2 3 4 5
Owner of my accommodation place 1 2 3 4 5
As a tourist, I am responsible myself 1 2 3 4 5
Other
22. How long will your holiday last? Less than 1 week 2 to 4 weeks 1 to 2 weeks More than one month
23. With whom do you visit and/or stay in the Municipality of Veere? Alone Children Friends Family Group trip (organized by Colleagues Friends travel agency) Other(s) ……..
24. Why do you visit or/stay in Veere- Zeeland? (Multiple answers) Leisure For work Cultural attraction Nature Walks Sports Specific event ………………
25. What type of accommodation do you use mostly during this holiday? Camping in tent Hotel/hostel/B&B Other ……………………. Camping in campervan Bungalow
26. Are you in the Municipality of Veere as a: Domestic Tourist International Tourist Other ……………………..
27. What is your gender? Female Male Other ……………………..
75
28. What is your nationality? Country ……………………… 29. What is your age? ……………… years Home town ………………
Thank you very much!
Appendix 5. Descriptive statistics of Questionnaire for tourists
1. Descriptive statistics of the 19 statements related to indicators
No % Indicator Statements of indicator 1 2 3 4 5 N Mean Range SD answer Response
Protection of 1. I feel very high protection by critical the infrastructure of the 3 3 16 44 27 1 94 99% 3.91 5 1.02 infrastructure Municipality of Veere Strength of 2. I believe the buildings used for build tourists are very resistant to 3 10 26 36 18 1 94 99% 3.56 5 1.08 environment flooding 3. I believe there are many flood Flood shelters 3 14 44 23 9 1 94 99% 3.19 5 0.99 shelters in Veere 4. I am able to organize myself Self- (and my companion) after a 6 20 23 26 18 1 94 99% 3.29 5 1.24 organization flood event in Veere Human 5. I believe I can help with some resources, assistance and clean up after a 6 14 25 34 15 0 94 100% 3.4 4 1.12 self- flood in Veere organization 6. I would like to receive information related to how to Access to protect myself and be prepared 11 16 25 30 11 1 94 99% 3.150 4 1.19 information when a flood event happen during my holidays Human resources, 7. I have attended to a first-aid 20 5 13 15 41 0 94 100% 3.55 4 1.59 learning course capacity 8. I keep an available list of Preparedness 21 27 13 18 15 0 94 100% 2.78 4 1.41 emergency phone numbers Physical 9. I am prepared to any resources, emergency with a mobile phone 8 16 15 24 31 0 94 100% 3.57 4 1.33 preparedness and a working flashlight Financial 10. I have a backup budget in resources, case some unexpected situation 13 14 19 19 28 1 94 99% 3.34 5 1.45 preparedness happens during my holiday 11. I purchased an insurance Preparedness against natural disasters before 51 11 10 11 10 1 94 99% 2.1 5 1.46 coming to Veere-Zeeland 12. I believe the protection of natural values and cultural Tourism heritage is a key aspect in the 2 3 17 35 37 0 94 100% 4.09 4 0.95 assets competitiveness of tourism sector 13. I am satisfied with the amount of information I have Access to about how to protect myself in 10 25 32 21 6 0 94 100% 2.87 4 1.08 information case there is a flood during my stay in Veere 14. I have received information Access to related to flood preparedness 49 27 11 4 3 0 94 100% 1.78 4 1.03 information during my holidays
76
15. I asked someone (tourist assistant, accommodation owner, local government, civil defence, tourism information Preparedness 55 24 7 7 1 0 94 100% 1.67 4 0.98 office, etc.) information about what I could do to protect myself in case of an emergency (flood or other natural hazard) 16. It is expected of me that during my holiday I seek Access to information about how to 32 24 25 8 5 0 94 100% 2.26 4 1.17 information protect myself in case a flood occurs 17. I have checked if there is any weather warning for the place I Preparedness 23 15 18 19 18 1 94 99% 2.91 5 1.51 planned to stay during my holiday 18. I feel worried to flood events Extra 49 21 12 8 4 0 94 100% 1.9 4 1.17 in the Municipality of Veere 19. I feel safe when I am in Extra Veere-Zeeland enjoying my 7 2 1 25 59 0 94 100% 4.35 4 1.13 holidays
2. Descriptive statistics related to information sources
No. Information sources #Positive response 1 Tourism information website 42 (VVV Zeeland) 2 Tourism information Centre 38 (VVV Zeeland) 3 Owner of my accommodation 32 place 4 Television 27 5 My tourist guide book 25 6 Radio 22 7 Locals 19 8 Local governments 18 9 Newspaper 17 10 Internet (extra info) 15 11 Policy 12 12 Family and friends 11 13 Other tourists 6 14 My travel agent 4
77
3. Degree of responsibility according to the tourists
Stakeholder or organization 1 2 3 4 5 No N SD Mean answer 21b. Government of Zeeland 1 3 9 28 48 5 89 1.30 4.11 21a. Municipality of Veere 0 2 12 26 47 7 87 1.39 4.03 21f. The police and emergency 3 3 13 30 40 5 89 1.36 3.91 professionals 21c. National Government 4 3 24 29 29 5 89 1.35 3.65 21h. As a tourist, I am 3 3 22 35 25 6 88 1.35 3.62 responsible myself 21g. Owner of my 11 16 31 21 9 6 88 1.34 2.82 accommodation place 21e. Tourist info Centre (VVV 14 10 24 23 13 10 84 1.56 2.80 Zeeland) 21d. My travel agency 23 21 24 13 2 11 83 2.00 2.12
Level of Responsibility
0 20 40 60 80 100
21b. Government of Zeeland
21a. Municipality of Veere
21f. The police and emergency professionals
21c. National Government
21h. As a tourist, I am responsibe myself
21g. Owner of my accomodation place
21e. Tourist info centre (VVV Zeeland)
21d. My travel agency
1 Totally disagree 2 3 4 5 totally agree No answer
78
4. Descriptive statistics related to the third part of the questionnaire for tourists – type of tourists and demographic information
23. With whom do you visit 22. Length of stays and/or stay in the Municipality Options N % of Veere? (Multiple answers) Less than one week 54 57 Alone 7
1 to 2 weeks 27 29 Family 70 2 to 4 weeks 3 3 Friends 8 More than one month 4 4 Children 12
No answer 6 6 Group trip 5 Total 94 100 Colleagues 0 Other(s) 6
24. Why do you visit or stay in Veere-Zeeland? (Multiple 25. What type of accommodation do
answers) you use mostly during this holiday? Leisure 54 (Multiple answers) Nature Walks 49 Camping in tent 6 For work 5 Camping in campervan 17
Sports 10 Hotel/hostel/B&B 30 Cultural attraction 10 Bungalow 34 Specific event 12 Other 12
26. Are you in the Municipality as a: 27. What is your gender? Type of tourist N % Gender N % Domestic Tourist 52 55 Female 49 52 International Tourist 41 44 Male 44 47 No answer 1 1 Other 1 1 Total 94 100 Total 94 100
28. What is your nationality? 29 Age of tourists Country N % Age N % Netherlands 50 53 range Germany 31 33 <25 7 7 Belgium 10 11 26-40 25 27 Spain 2 2 41-55 39 41 No answer 1 1 >56 22 23 Total 94 100 No 1 1 answer Total 94 100
79
Q28B – Town of the tourists
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 9 9.6 9.6 9.6
0 3 3.2 3.2 12.8
Aachen 2 2.1 2.1 14.9
Alfer 1 1.1 1.1 16.0
Almere 1 1.1 1.1 17.0
Amsterdam 1 1.1 1.1 18.1
Antwerp 1 1.1 1.1 19.1
Appeldoorn 1 1.1 1.1 20.2
Asturias 1 1.1 1.1 21.3
Baarn 1 1.1 1.1 22.3
Barcelona 1 1.1 1.1 23.4
Bergem op Zoom 1 1.1 1.1 24.5
Bremen 1 1.1 1.1 25.5
Brussels 3 3.2 3.2 28.7
Cologne 11 11.7 11.7 40.4
Drunen 1 1.1 1.1 41.5
Dusseldorf 4 4.3 4.3 45.7
Ede 1 1.1 1.1 46.8
Eindhoven 1 1.1 1.1 47.9
Etten-Leur 2 2.1 2.1 50.0
Gauda 1 1.1 1.1 51.1
Geldermalsen 1 1.1 1.1 52.1
Grave 1 1.1 1.1 53.2
Haarsteeg 1 1.1 1.1 54.3
Haps 1 1.1 1.1 55.3
Hilversum 2 2.1 2.1 57.4
Hoeven 1 1.1 1.1 58.5
Hoogorheide 1 1.1 1.1 59.6
Inden 1 1.1 1.1 60.6
80
Kerknade 1 1.1 1.1 61.7
Kessell 1 1.1 1.1 62.8
Klere 1 1.1 1.1 63.8
Klundert CNB 1 1.1 1.1 64.9
Koblew 1 1.1 1.1 66.0
Lahnan 1 1.1 1.1 67.0
Loon Op land 1 1.1 1.1 68.1
Malden 1 1.1 1.1 69.1
Mebeken 1 1.1 1.1 70.2
Meierlo 1 1.1 1.1 71.3
Meinerzhegen 1 1.1 1.1 72.3
Middelburg 3 3.2 3.2 75.5
Neunkirchen 1 1.1 1.1 76.6
Raamsdonksveer 1 1.1 1.1 77.7
Restdde 1 1.1 1.1 78.7
Rotterdam 1 1.1 1.1 79.8
S' Hertogenbosch 3 3.2 3.2 83.0
Soest 1 1.1 1.1 84.0
Tilburg 2 2.1 2.1 86.2
Utrecht 3 3.2 3.2 89.4
Vlissingen 1 1.1 1.1 90.4
Vught 3 3.2 3.2 93.6
Waalwijk 1 1.1 1.1 94.7
Westkapelle 2 2.1 2.1 96.8
Wilhelminadorp 1 1.1 1.1 97.9
Zellih 1 1.1 1.1 98.9
Zwolle 1 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 94 100.0 100.0
81