sun, sea, sand and tsunami: examining disaster vulnerability in the tourism community of khao lak,...

Sun, sea, sand and tsunami: examiningdisaster vulnerability in the tourism

community of Khao Lak, Thailand

Emma Calgaro1 and Kate Lloyd2

1Department of Human Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia and Stockholm Environment

Institute – Asia Centre, Bangkok, Thailand2Department of Human Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Correspondence: Emma Calgaro (email: [email protected])

The impact of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami on coastal tourism communities highlights the

vulnerability of tourism destinations to external shocks. Based on fieldwork conducted in Thailand

in the wake of this disaster, this paper addresses one fundamental question: what sociopolitical and

environmental conditions contributed to the vulnerability of the affected tourism community of

Khao Lak in the southern Phang Nga Province. We argue that an understanding of the root causes

of destination vulnerability is vital not only for the successful implementation of regional recovery

plans, but also for building long-term resilience against future shocks. In the absence of an appro-

priate tourism vulnerability framework, this paper analyzes Khao Lak’s vulnerability through an

innovative theoretical framework comprised of the sustainability vulnerability framework, rela-

tional scale and place. The findings reveal that Khao Lak’s vulnerability is shaped by 13 interlinked

factors. These are the complex outcomes of social norms and developmental and dynamic gover-

nance processes driven by the competing agendas and scaled actions of key government and industry

stakeholders. The identification and understanding of the drivers of Khao Lak’s vulnerability and a

strong vulnerability framework have significant implications for the wider tourism community. First,

the empirical findings provide tourism communities with a blueprint for understanding the foun-

dations of their vulnerability to external shocks. Second, the tourism vulnerability framework

presented here provides destination communities and government stakeholders with an analytical

tool through which to analyze their unique sociopolitical conditions. Together, these empirical and

theoretical contributions bring us closer to securing sustainable livelihood futures for tourism

dependent communities.

Keywords: coastal hazards, place, relational scale, sustainable development, tourism, vulnerability

assessment

Introduction

The World Tourism Organization (WTO) and nongovernment organizations (NGOs)such as Tourism Concern and the Netherlands Development Programme have endorsedtourism as having the capacity to stimulate development, economic growth, new oppor-tunities for poverty alleviation and self-governance, particularly in regions that areresource-scarce and have limited livelihood options. (Ashley et al., 2000; WTO, 2005a).Such endorsements have enticed many developing countries to embrace tourism as aviable livelihood alternative where fragmented small economies, limited naturalresources (Wilkinson, 1989) and unequal terms of trade (Oliver-Smith, 1996; Bankoff,2003) limit livelihood options. This development trend has seen tourism eclipse tradi-tional subsistence-based livelihoods such as agriculture and fishing as the main sourceof revenue (Richter, 1993; UNEP, 2002).

Missing from the WTO’s advocacy of tourism’s developmental capabilities is anacknowledgement of the inherent vulnerability of host communities to shocks, as was

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.2008.00335.x

Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 29 (2008) 288–306

© 2008 The Authors

Journal compilation © 2008 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

mailto:[email protected]

powerfully demonstrated by the impacts of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. The reper-cussions of prior events such as the 1997–1998 Asian financial crises, the Bali bombingsof 2001 and 2005, the severe acute respiratory syndrome and bird flu epidemics of 2003and 2004 had already highlighted the sensitivity of destination communities to bothlocalized and remote events beyond their control (Ritchie, 2004).

In the light of this, we deem it essential to investigate how long-term benefits fromtourism can be sustained in the face of risk and vulnerability by incorporating anassessment of a host community’s vulnerability into all tourism development andmanagement strategies. Research on risk and sustainability supports this view: long-term resilience plans aimed at securing future sustainable livelihoods cannot be opera-tionalized without an understanding of the underlying sociopolitical processes andenvironmental linkages that underpin vulnerability (Clark et al., 2000; Cutter et al.,2000; Pelling, 2003; Turner et al., 2003; Thomalla et al., 2006).

The tourism literature identifies five factors that help to explain why somedestinations are vulnerable to shocks: the place-specific nature of tourist activity(Richter & Waugh, 1986, Sönmez et al., 1999), the fragility of destination imagesto negative perceptions of risk (Richter & Waugh, 1986; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998;Mansfeld, 1999; Huan et al., 2004), a high dependency on tourism as a primary live-lihood (Knox & Marston, 2004; Ritchie, 2004), a heavy reliance on the marketingstrategies of international tour operators (Knox & Marston, 2004), and high levels ofseasonality (Méheaux & Parker, 2006). These are common characteristics of tourismactivity in many developing country destinations including those affected by the 2004tsunami, in Thailand, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. The growing popularity of usingtourism as a development tool in resource-scarce regions will likely see this vulner-ability increase (Knox & Marston, 2004). Seasonal tourism flows and annual businessrevenue can easily be disrupted by shocks, causing simultaneous losses for household,community, regional and national actors. Losses further diminish investment confi-dence, lower rates of job creation, slow economic growth and reduce gross domesticproduct (GDP) (Sönmez et al., 1999; Gurtner, 2004). Richter and Waugh (1986)observe that if there is trouble in one area tourists simply choose alternate destina-tions, which demonstrates the most disempowering characteristic of tourism-dependence for destination households and communities. In contrast, internationaltour operators and national governments anxious to retain projected levels of GDPand foreign exchange can avoid this pitfall by diverting business to alternatein-country or regional destinations.

While the identification of these provide significant insights into the vulnerability oftourism communities, a systematic analysis of the place-specific environmental andsociopolitical causal factors underlying vulnerability in tourism destinations is missing.This research addresses this omission by focusing on the impacts of the 2004 tsunamion Khao Lak, Phang Nga Province, southern Thailand. By so doing, it provides thefoundational knowledge necessary for tourism community stakeholders, regional plan-ners and policy makers to formulate robust resilience building strategies that accountfor the root causes of destination vulnerability rather than the consequences of shocksalone.

Building a framework for analyzing tourism destination vulnerability

Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, vulnerability is recognized as a multidimen-sional product of the coupled human–environment system and defined as:

Examining disaster vulnerability, Thailand 289

The degree to which an exposure unit [human groups, ecosystems and communities] is

susceptible to harm due to exposure to a perturbation or stress, and the ability (or lack thereof)

of the exposure unit to cope, recover, or fundamentally adapt (become a new system or

become extinct) (Kasperson et al., 2002: 7).

The vulnerability of a community or group is determined by three dynamic and inter-connected dimensions: exposure, sensitivity, and resilience (Clark et al., 2000; Turneret al., 2003). Exposure, a product of physical location and the character of the built andnatural environment (Pelling, 2003: 48), is defined as the degree to which an exposureunit comes into contact with stressors or shocks (Clark et al., 2000: 2). Sensitivity isdefined as the degree to which an exposure unit is affected by any set of stresses (Clarket al., 2000) and reflects the capacity of individuals or groups to anticipate and with-stand the impacts of a hazard (Pelling, 2003: 48). Sensitivity is characterised predomi-nantly by preexisting conditions of the social system that may be improved orexacerbated by coping and adaptation strategies post-shock. Resilience is defined as theability of an exposure unit to absorb and adapt to recurrent external stresses withoutlosing its fundamental structure and function (Adger et al., 2002). Resilience is a directexpression of the strength of the coupled human–environment system reflecting its selforganization, learning, and adaptation capabilities in response to shocks (Carpenteret al., 2001).

The ability to anticipate, withstand, and recover from shocks hinges upon people’saccess and entitlements to natural, economic, social and political capital. These, in turn,are determined by the strength and effectiveness of the governance systems and socialnetworks (Hewitt, 1997; Adger, 2003) that facilitate (or constrain) access to capital andthe competing agendas and ideologies driving them (Adger, 1999; Pelling, 2003; Wisneret al., 2004). These are expressed through formal government structures, political ide-ologies, ethnicity, class, religion and social norms determined by human agency andwider historically embedded and contemporary sociopolitical and economic processesoperating simultaneously at multiple scales of social organization (Kelly & Adger, 2000;Bankoff, 2003; Wisner et al., 2004). An awareness of the processes that drive the unevendistribution of power and resources within the social system is therefore crucial tounderstanding vulnerability.

Climate change, disaster management and food security research has providednumerous frameworks and methods for assessing vulnerability in risk prone locations(see Cannon et al., 2003), but none of these approaches have been adapted to assessvulnerability in tourism destinations. Nankervis (2000) does provide an industry specificvulnerability framework but its focus on all tourism business stakeholders operating atthe global to local scales leaves the framework lacking necessary detail at the commu-nity level. In the absence of a suitable framework, this paper presents a robust tourismvulnerability framework consisting of three complementary theoretical constructs:Turner et al.’s (2003) sustainability vulnerability framework, relational scale and place.Together, these theoretical tools create a strong framework for analyzing the multiplecausal factors and underlying power discourses that contribute to the vulnerability oftourism communities.

The sustainability vulnerability frameworkBorn out of the interdisciplinary systems approach to vulnerability analysis, Turner et al.(2003) present a framework that systematically identifies and maps the scaled inter-linked components and processes that heighten vulnerability within the human–

290 Emma Calgaro and Kate Lloyd

environment system. Turner et al.’s (2003) sustainability vulnerability framework waschosen to guide and structure the analysis of destination vulnerability based on itsinclusion of the multiple attributes of vulnerability. It captures the dynamic and differ-ential nature of vulnerability whereby populations, characteristics and driving forces ofvulnerability change over space and time (Vogel & O’Brien, 2004). The framework notonly recognises that an individual’s or group’s exposure, sensitivity and resilience toshocks is directly linked to access and entitlements to resources in a given location(Figure 1) but also places this experience within a wider context. The focus of theframework expands to show the way in which resource entitlements, distribution andusage is influenced by evolutionary (Cutter et al., 2000; Bankoff, 2003) sociopoliticaland environmental processes operating at multiple scales of social organisation(Figure 2). Further, the framework also shows that vulnerability is affected by multipleand compounding stressors and a population’s capacity to respond and adapt over timeand space (including consequences and risks of slow and poor recoveries) (Lewis, 1999;Cutter et al., 2000; Turner et al., 2003; Adger, 2006).

However, the sustainability vulnerability framework does not offer a forum foranalyzing how various social actors use scaled sociopolitical processes and structures toboth facilitate and constrain access to capital, which in turn influences an individual’s orcommunity’s vulnerability to external shocks. The geographical concepts of relationalscale and place fulfil these analytical requirements.

The dynamics of relational scaleStemming from geographical theory on spatial organization, relational scale recognizesscale as a fluid and dynamic sociopolitical construct that reflects the subjectivity ofhistorical and contemporary power processes. Through the deconstruction of ‘natural-ized’ scales of social organization (such as national, regional, local, and so on), relationalscale explores the way in which actors simultaneously use multiple scaled social pro-cesses and supporting structures to either reinforce the uneven balance of power withina given society or create new landscapes of power, recognition and opportunity (Howitt,1993; Ellem, 2002; Herod & Wright, 2002). The angle depends on the politicizedagendas or positionality of the actors involved. Put simply, knowing which politicalbuttons to press and at what scale is crucial in bringing about a favourable outcome.

Recognizing scale as an expression of power and control over capital, relational scaleadds depth and dynamism to Turner et al.’s (2003) vulnerability framework by exposingthe underlying sociopolitical processes and corresponding structures that perpetuatesocial inequality, and the agendas that drive them. This creates an invaluable mediumfor analyzing the vulnerability of tourism communities in three ways. First, its focus onstakeholder dynamics requires the identification of the various actors that influencedestination vulnerability. Second, it explores how these stakeholders position them-selves within the political arena to increase their access to capital. Finally, the identifi-cation of key stakeholders with vested interests in tourism development and themultiscaled structures they work through provide planners, policy makers and commu-nity members with a clear directive regarding the type of resilience strategies required,the target audience and the most appropriate scales for policy intervention.

Place: a sociopolitically charged landscapePlace provides a theoretical lens through which to define Khao Lak as the subjectof study and ‘situate’ it within the wider structures and processes that influenceits vulnerability. The concept of place is more than a physical location or politically


Vulnerability

Exposure Sensitivity Resilience

Adjustment andadaptation/response

(e.g. new programmes, policy,& autonomous options)

Impact/response(e.g. loss of life,

economic production,soil, ecosystemservice)

Coping/response(e.g. extantprogrammes,policy,

autonomousoptions)

Human conditionssocial/human capital & endowments(e.g. population, entitlements,institutions, economic structures)

Environmental conditionsnatural capital/biophysical

endowments(e.g. soil, water, climate,

minerals, ecosystem structure& function)

Components(e.g. individuals,households,classes, firms,states, flora/fauna,ecosystems)

Characteristics(e.g. frequency,magnitude,duration)

Figure 1. Interactive components of vulnerability within a given place from Turner et al. (2003: 8077,

Figure 4). Inset figure at the top left refers to the full vulnerability framework at Figure 2 below. (Copyright

(2003) National Academy of Sciences, USA; reproduced with permission.)

Adjustment &adaptation/response

Coping/response


Vulnerability

Characteristics& components

of exposure

Humanconditions

Environmentalconditions

Impact/response

Interactions of hazards(perturbations, stresses,

stressors)

Variability & changein human conditions

Variability & changein environmental

conditions

Environmental influences outside the placeState of biosphere, state of nature,

global environmental changes

Impact/responses

Adjustment &adaptation/response

Human influences outside the placeMacro political economy, institutions,

global trends and transitions

ConsequencesDrivers/causes

System operates at multiplespatial, functional and

temporal scales

WorldRegionPlace

DynamicsCross-scaleIn placeBeyond place

Figure 2. The sustainability vulnerability framework proposed by Turner et al. (2003: 8076, Figure 3).

(Copyright (2003) National Academy of Sciences, USA; reproduced with permission.)


demarcated space. Place embodies a sociopolitically charged landscape infused withmultiple layers of meaning, collective identities, experiences and understandings devel-oped over time and space (Massey, 1993). Like vulnerability, place is an ever evolvingmultifaceted creation of social processes and human agency. The uniqueness of placederives from a distinct blend of localized and wider social interactions operating outsidea given place and a historical layering of events particular to that area (Massey, 1993).However, underlying the subjective construction of place is the power of definition(Cresswell, 1999).

Place as a sociopolitical product of multiple images, identities and interactions isembodied in the systematic creation of the tourism product. The product encapsulatedin the tourism destination is a blend of multilayered imaginations constructed anddefined by tour operators and key destination stakeholders in accordance with theperceived expectations and desires of the travelling public (Pritchard & Morgan, 2000;Young, 1999). In this sense, places are reinterpreted, reimagined, designed and mar-keted (Knox & Marston, 2004) as manufactured and ‘placed’ images that are sold totourists (Nijman, 1999). The identification of who carries out the reimaging and culturalpackaging and on what terms (Knox & Marston, 2004) are key to understandingimportant power dynamics that not only mould the tourism product, but may alsoinfluence the destination’s vulnerability.

Methodology

Considering the place-specific nature of vulnerability, case study analysis has come todominate vulnerability assessment based on its capacity to deconstruct complex andplace-based phenomena. Khao Lak was chosen as the case study because it was theworst affected tourism destination across Asia and Africa in terms of lives lost andproperty damage. Three qualitative methods were used to identify the factors andprocesses that contribute to Khao Lak’s vulnerability to shocks. An exploratory litera-ture review together with secondary document analysis (of newspaper reports, NGOrecovery reports and various official and government documents) identified preliminarycausal factors that heightened Khao Lak’s vulnerability to the tsunami, which in turn,shaped relevant questions for semistructured field interviews. Twenty-four interviewswith tourism stakeholders (8 in Bangkok, 1 in Phuket and 15 in Khao Lak) wereundertaken over a one-month period in mid-2005 to verify and build upon the factorsidentified from the secondary data, supplemented by ongoing updates. Interview par-ticipants included national, provincial, district and subdistrict government representa-tives, nongovernmental organization (NGO) representatives, environmental actiongroup members, research institute and media representatives, and tourism industryrepresentatives from small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Khao Lak. The Bangkokand Phuket participants were selected for their knowledge of the tourism industry andThai government structures, plus their involvement in the recovery process. Khao Lakparticipants were identified using snowballing techniques. As many interviews wereconducted on condition of anonymity, the names of some individuals quoted here arewithheld.

Khao Lak: beautiful and booming one day, gone the next

Khao Lak is a new coastal resort destination that had grown from 100 rooms in 1996 to5315 rooms by December 2004.1 Located on Thailand’s southwest Andaman Coast, inTakuapa District, Phang Nga Province, and bordered by Khao Lak-Lamru National Park,


the heart of the destination extends from Khao Lak Beach northwards to LaemPakarang (or Coral Cape) (Figure 3). Positioned within the competitive Thai tourismmarket as an alternative to its bustling neighbouring destination of Phuket(98 km to the south), Khao Lak is marketed as a peaceful haven for nature lovers whowant to relax. Tourists attracted to Khao Lak are predominantly German and Swedishfamilies and retirees escaping the European winter.

The service community that has grown with the destination mainly compriseslocally owned SMEs including resorts, restaurants, souvenir shops, tailoring andhealth spa facilities, taxi and guide services, and scuba diving companies. Khao Lak’s4- and 5-star resort developments, owned by both local investors and internationalchains, only appeared after 2000 but their numbers have increased since the tsunami,whereas many smaller businesses have lacked the financial and psychological strengthto rebuild. Strong tourist demand is generated through locally run accommodationwebsites, travel guidebooks and the promotions of European tour operators includingTUI AG (Touristik Union International Aktiengesellschaft) and Thomas Cook. Con-

0 10 20 30 40km

N

Phuket 98kmKrabi 171 km

Takuapa30km

BusStation

Market

InternationalTsunamiMuseum

Ton PlingWaterfall

Tap Lamu Pier

KHAO LAKBEACH

NANG THONGBEACH

BANG NIANGBEACH

KHUK KHAKBEACH

LAEMPAKARANG

ANDAMAN

SEA

Phetk

asem

Natio

nalH

ighw

ay

No.4

Khao Lak-LamruNational ParkOffice

KhaoLak-

LamruNational

Park

TsunamiMemorial

Penang

Banda Aceh

Sumatra(INDONESIA)

BANGKOK

Phuket

THAILAND

GULF

OF THAILAND

ANDAMAN

SEA

MALAYSIA

MYANMAR

STRAITOF MALACCA

Earthquakeepicentre PUTRAJAYA

Krabi

N

Study area ofKhao Lak

0 200km

Figure 3. Location map of Khao Lak in Phang Nga Province, southern Thailand; the dotted line approxi-

mates the tsunami-eroded beachfront.


stant demand fills the resorts to full capacity for six months between October andMarch, providing enough earnings to sustain the community through the wet lowseason (averaging 30 per cent capacity).

During the December 2004 tsunami, 10.6-m-high waves penetrated up to 2 kminland, destroying approximately 90 per cent of the hotel rooms available in Khao Lak(Bangkok Post, 2005). Seventy per cent of the 8212 deaths in Thailand occurred in PhangNga Province (ADPC, 2006). Estimates suggest that 358 of Khao Lak’s tourism employ-ees lost their lives along with 2229 foreigners (ADPC, 2006; director, Department ofLabour, Phang Nga Province, pers. comm., Phang Nga, 7 February 2007). Those workerswho survived were left with no jobs, no income and few livelihood alternatives tosupport a recovery.

Case study findings: the vulnerability of Khao Lak deconstructed

Disasters such as the 2004 tsunami dramatically expose the strengths and weaknesses ofthe affected community’s socioenvironmental system and thus its vulnerability toshocks (Pelling, 2003; Wisner et al., 2004). But disasters can also be catalysts for change(Oliver-Smith, 1996; Lewis, 1999). Reflecting the complex nature of vulnerability, thepresentation of the causal factors is neither simple nor linear; the factors feed into andoff each other. Accordingly, we use a conceptual structure based on Turner et al.’s (2003)framework to explore the causal factors that have contributed respectively to theexposure, sensitivity and resilience of the Khao Lak community to the tsunami. Woventhroughout the analysis are elucidations into how these factors are socially constructedand reinforced by economic development processes, uneven access to resources, weakgovernance and the competing agendas of key stakeholders. An overview of the 13three-dimensional factors that underlie Khao Lak’s vulnerability and the scales at whichthey are constructed is presented in Figure 4.

ExposureAn examination of Khao Lak’s natural and developmental characteristics revealed twointerlinked factors that heightened the primarily coastal-based community’s exposure tothe tsunami: flat coastal terrain lacking environmental defences and inappropriatecoastal development.

Nature of the physical terrain. The nature of the coastal terrain where much tourismdevelopment is found (Murphy & Bayley, 1989) is a key contributor to Khao Lak’sexposure to coastal hazards (senior Thai researcher, Thailand Institute of Scientific AndTechnological Research, pers. comm., Bangkok, 29 June 2005). Khao Lak’s tourismfacilities are concentrated along a strip of flat land that extends 2 km inland to the footof an escarpment. This, along with the clearing of the original deep-rooted forest,grasslands and rubber plantations, heightened the coastline’s susceptibility to erosionand left the built environment with no buffer against the force of the waves (Thaienvironmentalist, Toward Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliance (TERRA), pers.comm., Bangkok, 29 June 2005). Developments on higher ground in the hills frontingKhao Lak Beach sustained little damage.

Placement and type of development. Jeff McNeely, chief scientist of the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), attributed the enormous loss of life fromthe 2004 tsunami to the human intrusion on natural shorelines typified by the


inappropriate developments that line the Indian Ocean coastal rim (Bangkok Post, 2004).In Khao Lak, the proximity of many resorts to the flat exposed beach – sited to capitalizeon the foreshore terrain and beach views – coupled with the types of structures built,clearly heightened the physical exposure to coastal hazards.

Provincial building regulations stipulated a 30-m setback from the natural vegeta-tion line but did not include structural codes (government officer, Khuk Khak Sub-district, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 8 July 2005). Smaller structures (mainly bungalowclusters) were largely built out of wood while many larger resorts were constructed fromconcrete. The pattern of destruction caused by the tsunami indicates the unsuitability ofthe beach-facing developments in Khao Lak. Entering the buildings through the largesea-fronting windows, the tsunami waves demolished the wooden structures and guttedthe concrete structures. Concrete buildings constructed perpendicular to the shoreline,however, remained structurally intact. Ensuring that safety standards are not compro-mised to fulfil tourist demands for water views is a continuing challenge for Thaitourism communities and planners.

Sensitivity

According to Adger (2003) and Hewitt (1997), a system’s ability to absorb externalshocks and recover rests with the robustness and effectiveness of preexisting governancesystems and social networks that control a community’s access to resources. Findingsconfirm that Khao Lak’s sensitivity was heightened by factors relating to the localprivate sector’s differential access to resources, the aptitude of governance structuresand agendas of stakeholders who work through these structures, as well as the desti-nation’s dependency on highly seasonal tourism flows.


Key

International

National

Regional

Local

Human Conditions

Limited livelihood options

Access to economic capitaland insurance

Pre-existing weakness ofgovernment structure and

processes

Unpreparedness for naturalhazards

Human conditions

Vulnerability of Khao Lak to the 2004 tsunami

Components

Natural terrain

Developmentstyle

Adjustment andadaptation/response

Early warning system

Post-tsunami tourism strategy

Natural resource management

Resilient market base

Robust marketing strategies

Impact/response

Government-led financialassistance

Coping/response

Strong localrepresentation

Figure 4. Scaled causal factors contributing to Khao Lak’s vulnerability following Turner et al.’s (2003)

vulnerability framework.


Limited livelihood options and seasonality. Livelihood diversification is a key strategy inreducing vulnerability against multiple shocks (Moser et al., 2001). Prior to the com-mencement of tourism development in 1988, the greater Khao Lak area was charac-terized by sparsely populated villages that derived livelihoods from rubber and fruitplantations, and subsistence fishing. Tourism created new opportunities for people tostart up businesses that provided hundreds of jobs (Khao Lak SME Group representa-tive, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 9 July 2005). However, the rapid development of lucrativetourism options along the narrow coastal strip dramatically reduced the attraction andprospects of traditional livelihoods, leaving little land for plantations. Only a minority oflocal operators concurrently engage in alternate businesses in the neighbouring town ofTakuapa or plantations nearby (MK, restaurant and bungalow owner, pers. comm.,Khao Lak, 13 July 2005).

Khao Lak’s vulnerability is further exacerbated by being dependent on highlyseasonal tourism business accruing from a ‘pristine’ environmental image, one that wasshattered by the tsunami. Occuring at the height of the tourism season, this greatlydiminished the community’s annual earnings (Thai environmentalist, TERRA, pers.comm., Bangkok, 29 June 2005). The Thai government’s decision to divert all remain-ing business to unaffected destinations across the country compounded Khao Lak’sfinancial losses. While this strategy helped to stabilize national tourism numbers andretain high levels of GDP, Khao Lak business owners believed that it marginalized themfurther.

Uneven access to economic capital and insurance. Khao Lak’s tourism boom saw manypeople in the greater Takuapa District invest all their accessible financial capital fromsavings, land sales or previous business ventures into small tourism ventures,re-investing the profits to expand these over time (Phang Nga Tourism Associationrepresentative, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 9 July 2005). This strategy left many smallerbusiness owners with limited savings and a reduced capacity for recovery, while largerinvestors with preexisting bank loans were left with no immediate means to meetrepayments (Khao Lak SME Group representative, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 9 July2005). Compounding business recovery efforts further was the typical lack of insurancecoverage, purportedly seen by most entrepreneurs as an unnecessary business cost.Larger resorts with access to outside financial backing and the benefit of insurancepolicies still experienced economic shortfalls; payouts were insufficient to cover therebuilding costs (PY, resort owner, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 11 July 2005). But thehardest hit were the industry employees who were left with no jobs, no land to sell orrebuild on and few other local livelihood options (SO, tour operator, pers. comm., KhaoLak, 12 July 2005). While officially registered employees qualify for social securitycompensation entitlements, many in the tourism sector, including Burmese construc-tion workers and those in the lowest paying jobs, are undocumented (United NationsEnvironment Programme representative, pers. comm., Bangkok, 5 July 2005).

Weaknesses in governance structures and processes. The contingent basis of policy formula-tion and implementation in Thailand were a major contributing factor to Khao Lak’svulnerability. While the Ministry of Tourism and Sports oversees the direction oftourism policy at the national level, the decentralization of tourism planning strategiesin 2003 allows provincial and local governments to implement strategies suited tolocalized needs and resources (Brickshawana, 2003; The Nation, 2005a). Though apositive step towards localized empowerment, the necessary logistical support for this is


lacking. Phang Nga provincial officials have limited capacity to oversee the local imple-mentation of tourism planning strategies while subdistrict-level authorities lack theexpertise, power and often political will to implement and enforce these strategies (TheNation, 2005a; Tourism Authority of Thailand representative, pers. comm., PhuketTown, 7 July 2005). Such shortcomings undermined the enforcement of planningregulations on beachfront developments prior to the tsunami.

Discussions with national and local stakeholders alike confirmed that widespreadcorruption at the local level compounded these governance shortcomings. Stakeholderswith money and political connections successfully ‘secured’ approvals for developmentscontravening planning regulations – most conspicuously, the unabated construction ofhotels within the 30-metre setback line (government official, Khuk Khak Subdistrict,pers. comm., Khao Lak, 8 July 2005; PY, resort owner, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 11 July2005). Corruption frequently includes government officials who belong to the localelite; they not only benefit financially from unofficial ‘additional’ payments, but also usetheir positions to partake in illegal development (WK, tour operator, pers. comm., KhaoLak, 10 July 2005; PY, resort owner, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 11 July 2005). The fear ofnegative political consequences that collectively discourages challenges to well con-nected stakeholders works to strengthen this alternate governance system and heightenvulnerability.

Lack of disaster awareness and preparedness. Cassedy (1991) and Murphy and Bayley(1989) state that tourism businesses and industry organizations are often ill-prepared fordisaster situations, particularly in high risk areas where potential impacts of hazards areregularly played down for marketing purposes. This was the case for Khao Lak. Com-munity members interviewed remained largely unaware of the threat natural hazardsposed to the Andaman Coast, an ignorance fostered by the routine suppression orofficial denials of hazard predications and warnings. For example, a warning issued in1998 by the Meteorological Department detailing the likely threat tsunamis posed to theAndaman Coast was reported in the local Phuket and Phang Nga newspapers (WK, touroperator, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 10 July 2005; RB, tour guide, pers. comm., Khao Lak,19 July 2005). However this was immediately refuted by the Thai government becausethe potential ramifications upon tourism flows to Phuket and the surrounding destina-tions were considered too costly (The Nation, 2005a). This same reason was cited for thefailure of the Meteorological Department to issue an immediate tsunami warning earlyon the morning of 26 December 2004 (The Nation, 2005b). In this case, economic andpolitically loaded decisions to withhold vital information on coastal risks not onlycontributed greatly to the number of lives lost, but, with hindsight, also incurred farmore costly socioeconomic ramifications. This demonstrates the extent to which theagendas of the ruling national elite directly influenced hazard vulnerability at the localscale.

Resilience

Resilience is a direct expression of the strength of the coupled human–environmentsystem reflecting its self-organization, learning and adaptive capabilities (Carpenteret al., 2001). As Khao Lak recovers from the impacts of the tsunami, the importance ofstrong governance, self-organization and adaptation has become clear. The Thai gov-ernment played a crucial role in distributing financial capital to aid recovery by formu-lating resilience-building strategies and campaigning hard to restore tourist confidence.


However, these actions were undermined by the preexisting deficiencies in and prefer-ences of Thai governance structures that perpetuated unequal resource distribution.Faced with these deficiencies, the Khao Lak community mobilized strong communityaction aimed at regional, national and international stakeholders in a bid to restoreKhao Lak as an international tourism destination.

Strong national tourism recovery policies. Following the 2004 tsunami, the central Thaigovernment introduced the Andaman Tourism Recovery Plan (phaen maebot feunfukangthongthieo Andaman), a product of multiple stakeholder input aimed at stimulat-ing rapid and sustainable tourism recovery in the six southern tsunami-affected prov-inces – Ranong, Phang Nga, Phuket, Krabi, Trang and Satun (Prof Suraches Chetamas,Khao Lak Andaman Tourism Recovery Plan project manager, pers. comm., Bangkok, 4July 2005). Three key strategies were propounded: formulating an integrated tourismdevelopment strategy, facilitating a strong private sector recovery by offering financialsupport and launching multiple marketing drives (TAT, 2005). While the plan offersstrong guidelines for the affected communities, successful implementation is provingdifficult due to deficiencies in governance structures and conflicting interests operatingat various scales of social organization.

The post-tsunami tourism planning strategy includes the introduction of strictzoning regulations and building codes and an integrated road evacuation system. Thenew zoning restrictions and building codes include a 30-m development setback, mul-tiple graded density zones and structural codes. However, the subdistrict and districtgovernments lack the financial and human resources required to oversee their enforce-ment (Thawee Haomhuam, civil engineer, Department of Public Works and Town andCountry Planning, Phuket, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 12 July 2005). Consequent viola-tions continue to perpetuate the exposure of built structures and their inhabitants tofuture coastal hazards. No obvious steps have been taken to address these contraven-tions in governance (Prof. Suraches Chetamas, Khao Lak Andaman Tourism RecoveryPlan project manager, pers. comm. Bangkok, 4 July 2005). The completion of the roadevacuation system was stalled and finally halted by two factors: bureaucratic obstaclescreated by local opposition from multiple stakeholders and the Thai government’sinability to finance the repossession of prime development land (Prof. Suraches Cheta-mas, Khao Lak Andaman Tourism Recovery Plan project manager, pers. comm.,Bangkok, 4 July 2005). Local stakeholders adamantly resisted changes seen to nega-tively alter the appeal of Khao Lak’s beachfront and lower market share. Without localsupport the central government is unable to implement action plans, placing recoveryplans in doubt.

The second component of the recovery plan involved substantial government-ledfinancial assistance to promote a strong recovery. In early 2005, the Thai governmentendorsed the establishment of three financial assistance measures for private sectorstakeholders: (i) initial emergency payments supported by the Ministry of the Interior,(ii) a Tsunami Recovery Fund (kongthun feunfu sunami) supported by the Thai Gov-ernment Venture Capital Fund, aimed at assisting larger businesses, and (iii) soft loanprovisions under a Bank Of Thailand ‘Lending to entrepreneurs affected by the tsunamiin six provinces’ programme (kanhai nguen kuyeum samrap phu prakobkan tii dai rappholkratob chaak sunami nai 6 krongkarn radab changwat), which catered to smallbusiness interests (BOT, 2005; 2006; UN 2005; WTO 2005b). While these measures haveassisted the recovery of some businesses, application delays, bureaucratic obstacles andcorrupt practices hindered their effectiveness.


The distribution of emergency payments placed under the jurisdiction of local villageleaders often disproportionately benefited friends and relatives (PJ, restaurant owner,pers. comm., Khao Lak, 8 July 2005). Claims from larger businesses exceeded the capitalmade available through the Tsunami Recovery Fund and were subject to long delays(PY, resort owner, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 11 July 2005). Soft loan provisions weremade available through the Government Savings Bank (GSB, 2005; 2006) and the SMEBank’s Tsunami SME Fund (kongthun chuayleua visahakij kanad klang lae kanadyomtii dai rap pholkratob chaak sunami). Yet many small businesses were unable to securefunding because they lacked the required documentation (business registration papers,proof of assets and so on), either because it was swept away or because prior to thetsunami, they were not required to register (Khao Lak SME Group representative, pers.comm., Khao Lak, 9 July 2005). Furthermore, claim limits of THB 500 000 (USD14 650) and THB 300 000 (USD 8780) (from the SME Fund and Government SavingsBank respectively) were too low to make a substantial difference to the recovery ofsuccessful small business claimants (CR, restaurant and bungalow owner, pers. comm.,Khao Lak, 13 July 2005).

The only other financial resources available for reconstruction were via commercialbank loans, family support and alternate livelihood sources. Preexisting loans held bysome of the larger business owners coupled with doubts regarding Khao Lak’s futurefinancial viability limited the success of new applications (Phang Nga Tourism Associationrepresentative, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 9 July 2005). This reluctance to reinvest andfinance rebuilding negatively affects Khao Lak’s image as a tourist destination. Whilethose with multiple businesses or livelihood sources were more able to aid their own re-covery, the majority had to turn to family and friends families for support where possible.

The final component of the Andaman Tourism Recovery Plan concerned the resto-ration of consumer confidence and tourism flows to pre-tsunami levels. The TourismAuthority of Thailand was responsible for restoring consumer confidence on behalf of allthe affected destinations by hosting familiarization trips for international and Thai touroperators and travel agents to affected areas, running aggressive promotional campaignsand offering discount packages (TAT, 2005). These promotions did prove effective forPhuket and Krabi (about 171 km south of Khao Lak). Khao Lak, however, was notincluded as, given the extent of damage sustained, recovery was thought unlikely(Tourism Authority of Thailand representative, pers. comm., Phuket, 7 July 2005). Thesepreferences based on economic reasonings have resulted in the uneven distribution offinancial and political support among affected communities, stimulating recovery inestablished destinations while heightening vulnerability levels in others – most notablyKhao Lak.

Strong local representation. Disaster outcomes can also create opportunities for politicalreorganisation, solidarity and activism, and social transformation (Oliver-Smith, 1996).Much of Khao Lak’s resilience is based on the strength, self-organization and adaptivecapabilities of local groups. The Phang Nga Tourism Association (samakhom kan-thongthieo changwat Phang Nga) and the Khao Lak SME Group were instrumental inpetitioning the central government for more funding to hasten the rebuilding process,influencing development plans and accessing core markets to restore confidence andbusiness. The skilful use of multiscaled actions by both parties in securing more capitalresonates strongly with relational scale theory: recognizing scale as a fluid expression ofpower creates multiple opportunities for social transformation (Ellem, 2002; Herod &Wright, 2002; Howitt, 2003).


The Phang Nga Tourism Association (representative, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 9 July2005) used its weekly meetings with the provincial governor to air grievances overdelays and the uneven distribution of financial resources and used its close connectionswith the local parliamentary member (a former president of the association) to voiceopinions regarding the future planning strategy for Khao Lak at the national level. Setup by a locally resident German business owner in direct response to the tsunami, theKhao Lak SME Group (representative, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 9 July 2005) successfullysourced additional funding from key markets including Germany through a Khao Lakaccommodation website (http://www.khaolak.de) and distributed this equally amongits members. The establishment of this group brought stability to many small businessowners who lost everything and, by creating new landscapes of power and opportunity,heightened the community’s adaptive capacity and resilience.

To restore consumer confidence, Phang Nga Tourism Association representativessuccessfully gained marketing support, particularly international brochure exposure,through long-established European partnerships that had facilitated Khao Lak’s pre-tsunami boom – for example, although business for 2005 was diverted to other Thaidestinations, Thomas Cook featured medium and large resorts in Khao Lak for the 2006season (PY, resort owner, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 11 July 2005). Small resort owners con-tinue to reach their market – the independent traveller – through locally controlled web-sites and guidebook exposure (WK, tour operator, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 10 July 2005).As the founder of the Khao Lak SME Group (Richard Doring, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 30August 2005) pointed out, smaller resorts had greater control over their marketing toolsand strategies and were more resilient in this respect than their larger counterparts.

Resilient markets and clientele. The resilience of Khao Lak’s tourism community is notsolely based on its capacity to access sociopolitical and economic resources but also onthe resilience and loyalty of their European market base. The business community’sfocus on building close relationships with clients has created a strong repeat client base,ranging from 20 per cent for larger resorts to 80 per cent for some smaller resorts. Loyalclientele, returning with family and friends, have proved instrumental in Khao Lak’srecovery (Khao Lak SME Group representative, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 9 July 2005).Access to this type of social capital further strengthens the community’s resilienceagainst external shocks.

Early warning system: a key component of tourism’s recovery plan. The establishment of theUNESCO-led Indian Ocean Early Warning System was heralded by the government andtsunami affected communities as a crucial tool for increasing preparedness againstfuture shocks, and helping to reassure tourists and hasten recovery (UN, 2005). InThailand, the Department for Disaster Mitigation And Prevention and Ministry ofInterior had oversight of its implementation in the six affected southern provinces.Functioning towers were erected in Phuket and Krabi by July 2005, but not untilDecember 2005 in Khao Lak, well into the high season. No explanation was given forthe delay, which caused some anger and frustration in the community and, among thoseinterviewed, reinforced the government’s perceived preference for restoring touristconfidence in the more lucrative neighbouring destinations. Some interviewees alsoattributed this to the ineffectiveness of the subdistrict and district authorities in com-municating the concerns of the community to the national level. Whatever the reason-ing, installation delays left the community vulnerable to possible tsunami threats andhindered their efforts in attracting tourism business back to Khao Lak.


http://www.khaolak.de

Natural resource management. Adger et al. (2005) stress the need to complement socio-political measures with strategies that enhance the capacity of ecosystems to regenerateand adapt to hazardous conditions, particularly in sensitive coastal zones where 23 percent of the world’s population live. To counteract the physical exposure of the openterrain and buffer the built environment against future wave surges, the replanting ofnative trees and grasses along Khao Lak’s eroded beaches was undertaken by theDepartment of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMCR representative, pers. comm.,Takuapa, 8 July 2005). Casuarina and Pandanaceae trees were chosen because their rootsystems prevent further erosion and their presence creates a natural barrier againststorm surges or tsunami impacts. As a major driver of change in coastal areas, tourismironically has the capacity to decrease resilience through the destruction of the ecologi-cal resource base that it relies upon for its success. Increasing the biophysical resiliencealso underpins the sustainability of tourism development and livelihoods.

Conclusions

The findings presented in this paper answer one fundamental question: what sociopo-litical and environmental conditions contributed to the vulnerability of Khao Lak’stourism community to the impacts of the 2004 tsunami? In line with other tourismresearch (Richter & Waugh, 1986; Sönmez et al., 1999; Knox & Marston, 2004; Ritchie,2004; Méheaux & Parker, 2006), findings from Khao Lak confirm that its vulnerabilitystems from a high reliance on place-based and seasonal tourism. The tsunami ruinedKhao Lak’s highly marketable image as a peaceful haven for European winter travellers.The heavy reliance on the marketing strategies of international tour operators leavesmany medium and larger businesses with little control over the recovery of theirmarket; small businesses that access their market base through locally controlled web-sites and guidebooks retain more control. That said, the findings categorically showthat the causes underlying the vulnerability of tourism communities are much morecomplex than the tourism literature acknowledges.

Analyzed through the theoretical lens of the sustainability vulnerability framework(Turner et al., 2003), relational scale and place, Khao Lak’s vulnerability can be traced to13 environmental and sociopolitical factors that collectively contribute to the exposure,sensitivity and resilience of the community. These factors are complex outcomes ofinextricably linked social norms and developmental and governance processes that haveevolved over space and time. Underlying these processes are the competing and politi-cally charged agendas and scaled actions of government and industry stakeholders.

An examination of the Thai government’s Andaman Tourism Recovery Plan andcommunity responses clearly demonstrate the role that power distribution and politicalpreferences play in influencing the uneven distribution of resources and vulnerability.While the plan is designed to benefit the six affected provinces equally, preexistingweaknesses in governance structures and processes coupled with national and subdis-trict governmental preferences simultaneously strengthened some communities whilemarginalizing others. The failure to acknowledge and address these governance weak-nesses not only compounds Khao Lak’s vulnerability to future stresses, but also inhibitsthe long-term sustainability goals of the regional recovery plan. Four years after thetsunami, corruption along with limited governmental capacity and financial constraintsat the subdistrict level are compromising the implementation and enforcement ofredevelopment regulations designed to decrease physical exposure to tsunamis andstorm surges. Limited access to credit continues to hinder full redevelopment while


compounding debt and lower tourist earnings have forced some business closures(Calgaro et al., forthcoming). Given the limited success of government interventions, theKhao Lak community drew support from the strong and multiscaled actions of provin-cial and local tourism organizations. Instigated at the local level, these actions permeatedthrough to the regional, national and international level to create a network of socio-political and financial supports that, in turn, strengthened the community’s adaptivecapacity and resilience. This demonstrates the importance of community-driven actionsthat both respond to immediate needs and create new landscapes of power, recognitionand opportunity.

A deeper awareness of the underlying causes of Khao Lak’s vulnerability togetherwith the formulation of a tourism vulnerability framework has implications for bothKhao Lak and the wider tourism community. First, an improved understanding canbetter inform the design and facilitate the implementation of appropriate resiliencebuilding actions that are aimed at addressing the root causes of destination vulnerability.Second, the scaled causal factors presented in Figure 4 provide a blueprint for under-standing the vulnerability of other tourism communities facing similar livelihoodrestrictions. Third, the tourism vulnerability framework presented in this paper providestourism communities with an analytical tool for analyzing their unique sociopoliticalconditions. But given the exploratory nature of this work, more research is required tofurther develop, evaluate and refine the framework and substantiate the drivers ofvulnerability in tourism communities.

With this in mind, it is recommended that a full-scale vulnerability assessment ofthe affected destinations covered by the Andaman Tourism Recovery Plan be under-taken. The advantages of such an assessment are threefold. First, it adds longitudinaldepth to the analysis of vulnerable tourism communities. Second, it facilitates theidentification of commonalities and place-specific differences that influence differentpatterns of vulnerability in the Andaman region. Finally, it creates an opportunity forreevaluating and refining the theoretical framework and enables broader conclusionsto be made regarding the drivers that underlie the vulnerability of tourism commu-nities. Tourism does have the potential to create economic growth and alleviatepoverty in regions facing resource scarcity. Incorporating vulnerability assessment intotourism development strategies will ensure that these are achieved in a more sustain-able way.

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper builds on the fieldwork conducted by the lead author (Calgaro,

2005) as part of a BA honours thesis. We gratefully acknowledge constructive feedback on an

earlier draft from Dale Dominey-Howes (University of New South Wales) and Robert Fagan

(Macquarie University) as well as Frank Thomalla (Stockholm Environment Institute) and Fiona

Miller (University of Melbourne), and that of the anonymous SJTG reviewers.

Endnote

1 As of April 2008, room capacity had increased to 3225 (Phang Nga Tourism Association

representative, pers. comm., Khao Lak, 5 May 2008).

References

Adger WN (1999) Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam. World

Development 27 (2), 249–69.


Adger WN (2003) Building resilience to promote sustainability: An agenda for coping with

globalisation and promoting justice. IHDP Update 02/2003, 1–3. Available from http://

www.ihdp.uni-bonn.de/html/publications/update/pdf-files/IHDPUpdateResilience2_2003.pdf

(accessed 25 March 2005).

Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16 (3), 268–81.

Adger WN, Kelly PM, Winkels A, Huy LQ, Locke C (2002) Migration, remittances, livelihood

tranjectories, and social resilience. Ambio 31 (4), 358–66.

Adger WN, Hughes, TP, Folke, C et al. (2005) Social ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science

309, 1036–39.

Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC) (2006) The Economic Impact of the 26 December 2004

Earthquake & Indian Ocean Tsunami in Thailand. ADPC, Pathumthani.

Ashley C, Boyd C, Goodwin H (2000) Pro-poor tourism: putting poverty at the heart of the tourism

agenda. Natural Resources Perspectives No. 51. Overseas Development Institute, London.

Bangkok Post (2004) Things need not have been so bad. Kowit Sanandang, 29 December.

Bangkok Post (2005) Fresh start. Kanana Katharangsiporn, 27 June.

Bank of Thailand (BOT) (2005) Annual Report 2005. BOT, Bangkok.

Bank of Thailand (BOT) (2006) Annual Report 2006. BOT, Bangkok.

Bankoff G (2003) Vulnerability as a measure of change in society. International Journal of Mass

Emergencies and Disasters 21 (2), 5–30.

Brickshawana A (2003) Tourism policy in Thailand. Paper presented on behalf of the Ministry of

Tourism and Sports at the seminar on Location and Attractiveness Studies in Tourism: Sup-

porting Tools for Tourism Policy, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 2 December. Available at

http://talay.psu.ac.th/classes/itsp/TPT06.doc (accessed 20 April 2005).

Calgaro E (2005) Paradise in Tatters: Analysis of the Vulnerability of the Tourism Community in

Khao Lak, Thailand to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. Honours thesis, Department of Human

Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Calgaro E, Kannapa Pongponrat, Sopon Naruchaikusol (forthcoming) Sustainable recovery and

resilience building in tsunami affected tourism destination communities: insights from Khao

Lak, Thailand. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm.

Cannon T, Twigg J, Rowell J (2003) Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods and Disasters. Depart-

ment for International Development, London.

Carpenter SR, Walker B, Anderies JM, Abel N (2001) From metaphor to measurement: resilience

of what to what. Ecosystems 4 (8), 765–81.

Cassedy K (1991) Crisis Management Planning in the Travel and Tourism Industry: A Study of Three

Destinations and a Crisis Planning Manual. Pacific Asia Travel Association, San Francisco.

Clark G, Jaeger J, Corell R et al. (2000) Assessing vulnerability to global environmental risks. Belfer

Center for Science and International Affairs Discussion Paper 2000–12. Environment and Natural

Resources Program, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge. MA.

Available at http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/sust.nsf/pubs/pub1/$File/2000-12.pdf

(accessed 26 March 2005).

Cresswell T (1999) Place. In Cloke D, Crang P, Goodwin M (eds) Introducing Human Geographies,

226–33. Arnold, London.

Cutter SL, Mitchell JK, Scott MS (2000) Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case

study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(4), 713–37.

Ellem B (2002) Power, place and scale: Union recognition in the Pilbara. Labour & Industry 13 (2),67–90.

Government Savings Bank (GSB) (2005) Annual Report 2005. GSB, Bangkok.

Government Savings Bank (GSB) (2006) Annual Report 2006. GSB, Bangkok.

Gurtner Y (2004) After the Bali bombing – the long road to recovery. The Australian Journal of

Emergency of Management 19 (4), 56–66.

Herod A, Wright MW (2002) Placing scale: an introduction. In Herod A, Wright MW (eds)

Geographies of Power: Placing Scale, 1–14. Blackwell, Melbourne.


http://www.ihdp.uni-bonn.de/html/publications/update/pdf-files/IHDPUpdateResilience2_2003.pdf

http://www.ihdp.uni-bonn.de/html/publications/update/pdf-files/IHDPUpdateResilience2_2003.pdf

http://talay.psu.ac.th/classes/itsp/TPT06.doc

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/sust.nsf/pubs/pub1/$File/2000-12.pdf

Hewitt K (1997) Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Longman, Harlow.

Howitt R (1993) A world in a grain of sand: towards a reconceptualisation of scale. Australian

Geographer 24 (1), 33–43.

Howitt R (2003) Scale. In Agnew J, Mitchell K, Toal G (eds) A Companion to Political Geography,

138–47. Blackwell, Melbourne.

Huan TC, Beaman J and Shelby L (2004) No-escape natural disaster: mitigating impacts on tourism.

Annals of Tourism Research 31 (2), 255–73.

Kasperson RE, Turner BL, Schiller A, Hsieh W-H (2002) Research and assessment systems for

sustainability: framework for vulnerability. Paper presented at the AIACC Project Development

Workshop on Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation, Trieste, Italy, 3–14 June.

Kelly PM, Adger WN (2000) Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change in

facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change 47, 325–52.

Knox PL, Marston SA (2004) Places and Regions in Global Context: Human Geography. Pearson Edu-

cation, New Jersey.

Lewis J (1999) Development in disaster-prone places. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Mansfeld Y (1999) Cycles of war, terror, and peace: determinants and management of crisis and

recovery of the Israeli tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research 38 (1), 30–6.

Massey D (1993) Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place. In Bird J, Curtis B, Putnam T,

Robertson G, Tickner L (eds) Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change, 59–69. Rout-

ledge, London.

Méheaux K, Parker E (2006) Tourist sector perceptions of natural hazards in Vanuatu and the

implications for a small island developing state. Tourism Management 27 (1), 69–85.

Moser CO, Norton A, Conway T, Ferguson C, Vizard P (2001) To Claim our Rights: Livelihood Security,

Human Rights and Sustainable Development. Overseas Development Institute, London.

Murphy PE, Bayley R (1989) Tourism and disaster planning. Geographical Review 79 (1), 36–

46.

Nankervis A (2000) Dreams and realities: vulnerability and the tourism industry in Southeast

Asia: a framework for analyzing and adapting tourism management toward 2000. In

Chon KS (ed) Tourism in Southeast Asia: A New Direction, 49–64. The Haworth Hospitality Press,

London.

The Nation (2005a) Thailand’s tourism development: past, present and future. Pradech Phay-

akvichien, 27 April.

The Nation (2005b) The Asian tsunami: why there were no warnings. Symonds P, 3 January.

Nijman J (1999) Cultural globalization and the identity of place: the reconstruction of Amsterdam.

Ecumene 6 (2), 146–64.

Oliver-Smith A (1996) Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annual Review of Anthro-

pology 25, 303–28.

Pelling M (2003) The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. Earthscan, London.

Pritchard A, Morgan NJ (2000) Constructing tourism landscapes – gender, sexuality and space.

Tourism Geographies 2 (2), 115–39.

Richter LK (1993) Tourism policy-making in Southeast Asia. In Hitchcock M, King VT, Parnwell

MJC (eds) Tourism in Southeast Asia, 179–99. Routledge, London.

Richter LK, Waugh WL (1986) Terrorism and tourism as logical companions. Tourism Management

7 (4), 230–38.

Ritchie BW (2004) Chaos, crises and disasters: a strategic approach to crisis management in the

tourism industry. Tourism Management 25, 669–83.

Sönmez SF, Graefe AR (1998) Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of

Tourism Research 25 (1), 112–44.

Sönmez SF, Apostopoulos Y, Tarlow P (1999) Tourism in crisis: managing the effects of terrorism.

Journal of Travel Research 38 (1), 3–8.

Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) (2005) Crisis Communication Centre Updates – Andaman

Tourism Recovery Plan 2005. Available at http://tatnews.org/ccc/2408.asp (accessed 19 May

2005).


http://tatnews.org/ccc/2408.asp

Thomalla F, Downing TE, Spanger-Siegfried E, Han G, Rockström J (2006) Reducing hazard

vulnerability: towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate adap-

tation. Disasters 30 (1), 39–48.

Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA et al. (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in

sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 100 (4),8074–079. Available at http://www.pnas.org/content/100/14/8074.full.pdf?ck=nck (accessed 2

February 2005).

United Nations (UN) (2005) Tsunami Thailand One Year Later: National Responses and Contribu-

tion of International Partners. UN, Bangkok.

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (2002) Sustainable tourism – turning the tide.

Towards Earth Summit 2002 Economic Briefing No. 4. Available from http://www.earthsummit

2002.org/es/issues/tourism/tourism.rtf (accessed 26 March 2005).

Wilkinson PF (1989) Strategies for tourism in island microstates. Annals of Tourism Research 16,153–77.

Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples, Vulnerability and

Disasters. Routledge, London.

World Tourism Organisation (WTO) (2005a) About the World Tourism Organisation. Available

from: http://www.world-tourism.org/aboutwto/eng/menu.html (accessed 11 June 2005).

World Tourism Organisation (WTO) (2005b) Tsunami, one year on: a summary of the implemen-

tation of the Phuket Action Plan. Madrid, WTO.

Vogel C, O’Brien K (2004) Vulnerability and global environmental change: rhetoric and reality.

AVISO – Informational Bulletin on Global Environmental Change and Human Security 13 (March),1–8. Available from http://www.gechs.org/aviso/13/ (accessed 2 February 2005).

Young M (1999) The social construction of tourist places. Australian Geographer 30 (3), 373–89.


http://www.pnas.org/content/100/14/8074.full.pdf?ck=nck

http://www.earthsummit

http://www.world-tourism.org/aboutwto/eng/menu.html

http://www.gechs.org/aviso/13

sun, sea, sand and tsunami: examining disaster vulnerability in the tourism community of khao lak,...

Documents