frameworks in tourism have generally been adapted from those in other disciplines (Cochrane, 2010). Irrespective of the frameworks, it is clear that pro-active tourism policymaking, planning and implementation of disaster risk reduction are likely to enhance the sector’s ability to recover from crises and disasters (Khazai et al., 2018). Understanding the vulnerability of a destination is the starting point for resilience building activities. Examples of destination vulnerability include limited disaster preparedness, access to resources, being ecologically sensitive and hazard prone and suffering from institutional inflexibility, among others (Calgaro et al., 2014). Amore et al. (2018) use a multilevel perspective to argue that destination planning frameworks, and hence destination resilience building, should encompass ecological, socioecological, sociopolitical, socioeconomic and sociotechnological dimensions that reflect the embeddedness of resilience among heterogeneous and potentially complementary destination stakeholders. They highlight that a resilience approach to destination planning offers destinations not only the possibility of coping with sudden changes such as disasters but also incremental changes, which is part of a business as usual approach. For example, participatory approaches in crafting a disaster management plan where stakeholders beyond the tourism industry understand and are willing to share resources, knowledge and information, can lead to quicker response following a disaster. Also, efforts to build organizational and community resilience can contribute to destination resilience and vice versa (Hall et al., 2018). As Cutter et al. (2013) suggest, disaster resilience is very much linked to collaborative engagement across organizations. Recovery, in particular, requires multi-agency partnerships and collaboration. Therefore, participatory approaches improve the chance that a disaster management plan has stakeholder buy in, which improves the likelihood of the plan working following a disaster. Several studies have highlighted how organizations can become limited within their silos or lack networked communication practices for sharing best practice (Seville, 2018), which impede not only emergency services as first responders after a disaster but also the tourism industry to initiate, for example, the evacuation of tourists (see Subadra, this volume).
In a resilient socioecological system, disturbance has the potential to create new opportunity for innovation and development (Folke, 2006). Appreciating the dynamic and cross-scale interplay between abrupt change and sources of resilience makes it apparent that the resilience of complex adaptive systems is not simply about resistance to change and conservation of existing structures. It is also about the opportunities that disturbance opens up in terms of the recombination of evolved structures and processes, system renewal and the emergence of new trajectories (Folke, 2006). It is not about returning to normality but about positively adapting to a changed reality. For example, the local economy in Kaikoura, following the 2016 earthquake was revitalized and regional resilience enhanced through diversification, capitalizing on the region’s natural, social and cultural capital (Cradock-Henry et al., 2018). In the case of Kaikoura, food security emerged as an important concern for the community post-quake. This led to greater levels of self-organization, in which individuals, households, businesses and rural and urban communities, harnessed local opportunities and connectivity to become food self-reliant (Cradock-Henry et al., 2018). This is an example of building community resilience by capitalizing on the new opportunities presented by the disaster and this is why the concept of resilience incorporates the ideas of adaptation, learning and self-organization in addition to the general ability to persist post-disturbance (Folke, 2006).
Calgaro et al. (2014) claim that a lack of understanding of the factors that build and affect destination resilience and vulnerability lead to an inability to effectively build community resilience. Similarly, Pizzo (2015) warns that the notion of resilience is becoming a buzzword and argues that after an unexpected event, not all communities have to be resilient nor should they be resilient to every unexpected event, nor should they be resilient in the same way as a previous similar event. Therefore, communities are not always looking for a new equilibrium, nor are they looking simply to bounce back to their pre-disaster state, especially if the state was less than desirable to begin with (Cowell, 2013). Community – and, hence, destination – resilience is, thus, not the sum of individuals and organizations being resilient (Cutter et al., 2014; Pizzo, 2015). Although these can help to build community and destination resilience (Prayag, 2018), the role of place or neighbourhood in developing social networks for a community’s disaster preparedness, response and resilience appears critical (Cox & Perry, 2011; Biggs et al., 2012, 2015; Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Masterson et al., 2017). The sense of connectedness to the new changed reality is important not only for individuals but also for the community as a whole. Hence, the importance of place attachment for disaster recovery has become increasingly emphasized (Guo et al., 2018). As an example, owneroperators of lifestyle tourism enterprises can develop emotional attachment to their businesses and the associated sense of place, making them more reluctant to abandon the business and the location in difficult times, thus strengthening their resilience in the face of disasters (Biggs et al., 2015).
Related to the above, the literature clearly pinpoints to social capital as an enabler of organizational and community resilience (Biggs et al., 2012, 2015; Hall et al., 2018; Chowdhury et al., 2019). Aldrich (2012) after an extensive review of disaster recovery related to, for example, the Kobe 1995 earthquakes, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and 2005 Hurricane Katrina argued that social capital serves as a core engine of disaster recovery. Social capital is the goodwill engendered by the fabric of social relations that can be mobilized to facilitate action (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Different forms of social capital such as bonding, bridging and linking emerge in the different disaster relief, rehabilitation and recovery phases and play different roles towards overall long term recovery (Blackman et al., 2017). Kinship networks encourage cohesion, connectedness, reassurance and stability in times of need. They also facilitate access to financial capital and power networks (Calgaro et al., 2014). Social sources of resilience such as social capital, which is grounded in trust and social networks and social memory (the experience of dealing with change) are essential for the capacity of socioecological systems to adapt and shape change (Folke et al., 2005). Disaster relief work should, therefore, provide instrumental, informational and emotional support to community members through facilitating them to seek out others and establish bonds with people they know and even strangers. This is the fundamental premise of social relationships postdisaster (Reich, 2006), and, hence the building of social capital. A resilient community or destination is an inter-connected community (Allenby & Fink, 2005). Opportunities to build capacity and capability though the acquisition of new skills, and knowledge sharing would therefore enhance community resilience (Cradock-Henry et al., 2018).
A resilient tourism organization adjusts its operations, management and marketing strategies to sustain under dramatically changing conditions (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015). In the case of the Canterbury earthquakes, Chowdhury et al. (2019) showed that different forms of social capital such as structural, relational and cognitive capital are important but only relational capital had a significant influence on adaptive resilience of tourism organizations. The importance of social capital can also be seen in its direct impact on the financial performance of tourism organizations (Prayag et al., 2018). Both social capital and resilience require trust from actors. If actors trust each other they are more likely to collaborate beyond the restrictions of hierarchical organizations and daily routines (Rogers et al., 2016). The ‘silo effect’ of inter and intra-organizations often negatively impacts their ability to effectively respond to disasters. The ability to find alternative resources is critical to the resilience of tourism organizations (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015) and communities. Organizational resilience has been described as the inherent characteristics of organizations that are able to respond more quickly, recover faster or develop more unusual ways of doing business under duress compared to others (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Therefore, tourism organizations need resources to bounce back but often these reside outside the boundaries of the community and require actors’ trust of each other and the political processes to share such resources. For business recovery following the Canterbury earthquakes, several national government led initiatives were put in place to support all businesses, including tourism. For example, the earthquake subsidy scheme was introduced by the government, available immediately
