Orígenes y causas del cambio cultural del Shuar.

Various reports (AGO & DEH, 2005; Australian Government, 2007; COAG, 2007) have been commissioned to assist enterprises or communities adapt to climate change, however, only Simpson et al. (2008), Becken and Hay (2007) and Scott et al. (2006) have specifically considered adaptation in tourism. Research into how Australia’s regional tourism destinations can adapt has not been reported. Although reports, such as that written by the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) Independent Working Group (2007) do discuss regional impacts and adaptation, they are not tourism specific. Moreover, this PMSEIC report states that further research is required on regional level climate change impacts and vulnerability in key sectors, identification of the adaptation options and their likely effectiveness and analysis of potential direct and indirect effects of planned adaptation measures (PMSEIC, 2007, p. 45). It is acknowledged that the aforementioned frameworks for adaptation are relevant to this research; however, given the focus on tourism within this dissertation, the remainder of this section will focus on adaptation frameworks in this sector.

Recent frameworks for tourism adaptation to climate change impacts have been put forward by Simpson et al. (2008), Becken and Hay (2007) and Scott et al. (2006). Of these, the approach by Simpson et al. (2008, p. 35) is the most comprehensive, as it considers the sequence of events in adaptation as “an iterative cycle of problem definition, adaptation implementation and evaluation of outcomes” whilst providing lines for feedback between the various stages. This model is also the most comprehensible of all the models available; however it does not present information on the different types of adaptation available.

43

The process of adaptation as outlined by Simpson et al. (2008) involves seven steps. The first step involves engaging the relevant stakeholders. This is identified as “a vital aspect in determining the eventual success of the adaptation process…” (Simpson et al., 2008, p. 36). Although emphasising the importance of a participatory, multi-stakeholder approach, Simpson’s model does not consider the role of the tourist at any stage. Despite stating that “stakeholders should be sought, both those directly involved in the tourism sector or whose livelihoods are affected by tourism”, tourists themselves are not included amongst the plethora of suggested stakeholders (Simpson et al., 2008, p. 36). As tourists have been identified as having the greatest adaptive capacity of all the tourism stakeholders, it is suggested that it is important to understand how any implemented adaptation may impact on their perceptions of a destination, behaviour at the destination, or decision to visit a destination. However, neither Simpson’s model, nor any existing adaptation models incorporate the views of the tourist.

The second stage involves screening for vulnerability. This section discusses the process of identifying current and potential climate change risks, however, no discussion of opportunities is provided. Scott (2008) identifies that a risk in one area of the tourism system may be offset by an opportunity in another. Therefore, it is also important to consider any potential opportunities that may arise due to climate change (as identified in Section 2.7).

Stage three provided a description of how to assess adaptive capacity. This section focuses on the eight determinants of adaptive capacity as outlined by the IPCC (2001). It is unclear if the adaptation process is designed for application at the local or national level and this is important as adaptive capacity is scale-dependent and different indicators are required to capture various elements of adaptive capacity, dependent on the scale of adaptation (Adger & Vincent, 2005).

Stage four discusses the process of identifying adaptation options and creating a portfolio of preparatory and participatory activities (Simpson et al., 2008). This process incorporates a range of stakeholder views and may involve activities including field interviews, workshops, the development of an adaptation team, or Delphi techniques (Simpson et al., 2008).

44

Stage five of Simpson’s (2008) model involves an evaluation of the adaptation options identified in the previous stage. Evaluation matrices are provided which illustrate a range of criteria upon which adaptation options should be evaluated (e.g. cost, effectiveness, ease of implementation). Further evaluation criteria proposed include ‘Acceptability to local stakeholders’ and ‘Acceptability to financing agencies/ministries/donors’ Simpson et al. (2008, p. 45). However, despite proposing an adaptation process specifically for the tourism sector, ‘Acceptability to tourists’ is not mentioned in the list of evaluation criteria.

Stage six discusses the implementation process and identifies the roles of various stakeholders, the resources required, and the specific timeline for adaptation (Simpson et al., 2008). The specific components of the implementation plan are draw from a USAID report (USAID, 2007).

The seventh stage identifies the significance of monitoring and evaluating adaptations. Importantly, it is recognised that complete evaluation of adaptation may prove difficult “as the long-term risks posed by climate change that required the adaptation may not be realised for many years (even decades).”

The model presented by Becken and Hay (2007) differs from Simpson’s (2008) and Scott’s (2006), as it takes a risk science approach to adaptation. A risk science approach involves estimating the risk of various impacts, by determining the likelihood of exposure to various stressors and the magnitude of consequences to such exposure, in order to determine risk profiles (ACT Insurance, 2004; Australian Government, 2006). A risk science (or risk management) approach has been widely used when examining adaptation strategies (AGO & DEH, 2005; Australian Government, 2006; COAG, 2007), and any adaptation framework would benefit from incorporating such an approach. For example, a risk science element could be inserted into Step 2 of Simpson’s (2008) framework, “Define the problem”. By doing this, destination managers would receive a more comprehensive model for review, as well as enabling them to categorise and rank the risk of various stressors, and prioritise the types of adaptation to be implemented.

45

The report by Scott et al. (2006) provides a valuable investigation of the types of adaptation available in the tourism sector. However, rather than providing a detailed framework for adapting to climate change impacts, they provide a conceptual framework for considering adaptation to changes in climate. That is, rather than providing a representation of the stages involved in adaptation, they present a number of elements of tourism adaptation and attempt to clarify their relative variability, need for coping strategies and adaptive capacity. Furthermore, as outlined in Section 2.8, they also provide information on three basic forms of adaptation: behavioural, technical, and business management. This framework may assist individuals in understanding the relative importance of various types of adaptation in tourism. However, it does not provide policy-makers or destination managers with a tool to better understand the process of adaptation or the many stages involved.

As discussed throughout this chapter, there are also possible opportunities brought about by climate change, however the aforementioned models all focus on the risks. In order to provide a more holistic view of adaptation, both identifying and assessing these positive opportunities should also be incorporated into any model.