See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305693511

Tourism disaster resilience scorecard for destinations (TDRSD): the case of

Manta, Ecuador

Article · May 2016

DOI: 10.1108/IJTC-01-2016-0002

CITATION READS

1 129

2 authors, including:

Lori Pennington-Gray
University of Florida
6 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lori Pennington-Gray on 25 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Tourism Cities
Tourism disaster resilience scorecard for destinations (TDRSD): the case of Manta, Ecuador
Estefania Mercedes Basurto-Cedeño Lori Pennington-Gray
Article information:
To cite this document:
Estefania Mercedes Basurto-Cedeño Lori Pennington-Gray , (2016),"Tourism disaster resilience scorecard for destinations
(TDRSD): the case of Manta, Ecuador", International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 2 Iss 2 pp. 149 - 163
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-01-2016-0002
Downloaded on: 23 August 2016, At: 08:57 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 43 other documents.
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 12 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Smart tourism destinations: ecosystems for tourism destination competitiveness", International Journal of Tourism
Cities, Vol. 2 Iss 2 pp. 108-124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-12-2015-0032
(2016),"Application of smart tourism to cities", International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 2 Iss 2 pp. - http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-04-2016-0007
(2016),"Analyzing the influence of electronic word of mouth on visit intention: the mediating role of tourists’ attitude and city
image", International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 2 Iss 2 pp. 137-148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-12-2015-0031

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Tourism disaster resilience scorecard for
destinations (TDRSD): the case of
Manta, Ecuador
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)
Estefania Mercedes Basurto-Cedeño and Lori Pennington-Gray
Estefania Mercedes
Basurto-Cedeño is based at the
Department of Tourism,
Recreation and Sport
Management, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Lori Pennington-Gray is a
Professor at the Department of
Tourism, Recreation and Sport
Management, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Received 20 January 2016
Revised 18 February 2016
7 March 2016
Accepted 8 March 2016
© International Tourism Studies
Association
DOI 10.1108/IJTC-01-2016-0002
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop nine criteria for tourism disaster resilience scorecard for
destinations (TDRSD) by using the “disaster resilience scorecard for cities, based on UNISDR’s ten essentials”.
As a surrogate for the city, the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) is used at the destination level to manage
and oversee disasters within the perspective of a visitor. The initial section of the paper revises the scorecard to
adapt to the destination, while the second part of the paper applies the scorecard to a specific city destination.
The TDRSD scorecard for CVBs was used to evaluate the destination of Manta, Ecuador.
Design/methodology/approach – The approach included four stages. The first stage was to use a
Delphi technique to evaluate and adapt the UNIDSRR scorecard to a destination (tourism) context. The
second stage included conducting interviews with members of the Manta CVB and Mesa 5 (Emergency
Management Department of Manta). Consequently, each answer was paired with support for the item and
criteria score. Finally, the weak and strong scores were identified for each essential and match them up with
recommendations and trends available in literature.
Findings – This study set out to do three things: suggest that a similar scorecard is necessary for
destinations; adapt the UNIDSR scorecard to a destination focus; and apply the TDRSD to Manta, Ecuador.
Overall, these goals were met. But most interestingly, findings suggest some troubling outcomes.
Originality/value – The study allowed to undercover gaps in the current risk management plan of the
destination, while providing an evaluation of the engineering resilience of the tourism sector of Manta in case
of a disaster.
Keywords Disaster, Tourism, Resilience, Scorecard, Destination, City
Paper type Case study
Introduction
The concept of resilience has its origins in 1973 after Holling introduced it for the first time in the
ecological realm. For Holling, ecological resilience was defined as the time required for an
ecosystem to return to an equilibrium or steady state following a perturbation. The mentioned
conceptualization gave origin to the widely used concept of “engineering resilience.” Engineering
resilience focusses on the behavior of a system near a state of equilibrium, and it is about
resistance to disturbances and change in order to conserve what you have (Folke, 2006). In other
words, resilience is focussed on how quickly a destination can return to its previous condition
(a “normal” condition) after a shock. According to Brown and Williams (2015) the core of this
approach is to identify social or infrastructural vulnerabilities due to various hazards, and
therefore assessing risk is a major component of the engineering resilience framework.
When trying to reduce hazards, and build resilience after a disaster, the primary purpose is to
“get up and running” quickly. The research in this context tends to focus on the speed and
VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016, pp. 149-163, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-5607 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j PAGE 149
 efficiency with which a social entity can achieve this (Brown and Williams, 2015). For that reason
engineering resilience has been the preferred framework when trying to enhance disaster
resilience in cities. The standardized procedure to measure the construct is through aggregation
of numerous variables into an index, which help to define management alternatives for effective
manager’s decisions.

Many national organizations have adopted the concept of resilience as a foundation for disaster
management to deal with the increasing perturbation due to global climate change, war, political
unrest, environmental degradation, etc. Under that paradigm, the concept of tourism disaster
resilience has raised and starting to become a trend in the tourism sector. Researchers have
conceptualized and redeveloped the concept of tourism resilience. Some researchers
have defined it as the capacity of systems to deal with stressors by maintaining the stability of
a tourism-related regional economy; while others have extended the concept beyond to include
flexibility and innovation as components of dealing with stressors (e.g. Nelson et al., 2007;
Becken, 2013). For the present study, this paper adopts the first conceptualization of resilience,
because it is argued that the mentioned approach constitutes the first stage to achieve resilience
within the tourism sector. It is argued that the first step in a comprehensive resilience plan is to
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

archive engineering resilience. Only after obtaining engineering resilience of the destination can a
more holistic resilience framework be applied and adopted.

Tourism disaster resilience

Developing city resilience has been an international focus in the past decade. Most of this
attention is a result of the devastation from an increased number of large natural disasters,
tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes and cyclones. Since 2010, the United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) has championed the need to build resilient cities
through their Making Cities Resilience Campaign (Owusu-Sekyere, 2015). The primary goal is to
get cities ready to recover after disasters. The UNISDR campaign advocates for involvement of
governmental bodies as well as citizens, so that collaborative networks exist in the event of a
disaster. The campaign targets local governments to get them involved in urban risk reduction
and resilience building. The rationale under this approach is that local governments are the first to
respond to an emergency and therefore need to be efficient and resilience. Moreover, urban
settings are more vulnerable to natural hazards and their recovery can be longer and more
expensive when cities are not ready.
This framework uses a multi-hazard risk assessment approach to reduce risk and increase
engineering resilience, focussing mostly on the speed of recovery. The UNISDR ten essentials to
measure resilience in a quantitative way, include: institutional and administrative framework with
citizen participation; financing and resources; multi-hazard risk assessment; infrastructure
protection; protection of critical facilities (education and health); building regulation and land use
planning; training, education and public awareness in case of disaster; environmental protection
and strengthening of ecosystem; preparedness, early warning and responses; and recovery and
rebuilding communities.
These plans are typically applied at the city or state level and focus mostly on residents of the
city/state. Often these plans also focus on vulnerable populations, which include the elderly, disabled
and homeless. One specific vulnerable population, which has been mostly ignored is the visitor.
This population is typically vulnerable because they lack the requisite knowledge to function in the
destination. For example, a tourist does not know where shelters may be located or sometimes
even how to understand directions. In the case of an international tourist, sometimes they may not
even speak the local language. The main organization responsible for visitors to the destination is
the destination management organization (DMO). This organization is typically organized at the city
level and referred to as a Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB). The CVB can be managed under
various structures, some are government run, others are non-profit organizations and some are
private organizations. DMO’s responsibilities include, but are not limited to, enhancing the
destination well-being, offering a satisfactory and safe experience for the visitor as well as ensuring
an effective destination management program and stewardships (Bornhorst et al., 2010). Overall,
the main mission of the DMO is the management the destination for the visitor.

PAGE 150 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016

 In recent years, the management plan of DMOs have begun to recognize the importance of crisis
management planning. According to Blackman and Ritchie (2008) DMOs are vital to destination
crisis management because of their role in crisis communication and recovery marketing activities
on behalf of the tourism industry. Albeit, most DMOs still do not have tourist-focussed plans
(Pennington-Gray et al., 2014), many have started to include tourism crisis management planning
in their yearly strategic plan (Pennington-Gray et al., 2014) as a way to assess the risk that could
negatively affect the tourism industry of the destination. There are several cases of this trend
around the world; some examples are the DMOs in Florida, where some are planning in case of
disaster caused by hurricanes. Another example is the DMO of Venice, which has become
extremely aware of the importance of building resilience against floods, in order to protect their
resources as well as the visitors.

The destination typically has the same boundaries as the city or county the conceptual difference
between the city management (city commission or similar) and the DMO is that within the DMO
there is a focussed set of sectors and stakeholders related to tourism, travel, hospitality,
transportation, which sell or manage the main products and services used by the tourist.
In actuality many of the elements that the DMOs are the very same elements that the city/state
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

authorities manage. However, if the ratio of tourists to residents is out of balance, like in Florida
where there are five tourists for every one resident[1], the importance of the DMO is elevated.
Thus, having the DMO part of the planning process is important so as not to ignore this critically
important vulnerable population (Pennington-Gray et al., 2011). Moreover, it is argued that the
DMO should have its own specific document which is more focussed on the user, which happens
to be a tourist.
In the case of resilience, it is important that all tourism assets which could be affected by disasters
have a plan to address the resilience of the assets. Within tourism, the concept of resilience has
largely focussed on economic resilience, rather than cultural, or institutional. In fact, resilience
has more often than not been measured by “return of visitor numbers.” Scholars such as Ritchie
and Hudson (2009) and Hall et al. (2013) provide overviews of resilience but these tend to be
micro-or property-level foci to advance our knowledge of tourism resilience (Lew, 2014).
The UNIDSR scorecard is an established tool at the international level to measure the readiness of
a city or state in the event of a disaster or the preparedness for a better community (resilience). It is
mostly focussed on structural engineering resilience in urban settings while using an index that
includes detailed criteria for response time. Despite, the many positive outcomes of the tool,
we argue this framework constitutes the benchmark for resilience rather than the culminating
point for resilience. Nevertheless, the scorecard represents an extremely useful tool when trying
to diagnose the current state of resilience and the effectiveness of its crisis management plan.
This paper adapts the scorecard to the destination focus, where the tourist (visitor) is the focus of
attention rather than the local resident. The outcome of the scorecard is an index which can
be used as a benchmark for the destinations to compare itself both overtime as well as to other
destinations. This score is also a policy tool which can help to funnel funds to areas where
the destination may be more vulnerable if a disaster were to occur.

Purpose of study
The purpose of this study is to apply the tourism disaster resilience scorecard for destinations
(TDRSD) to Manta, Ecuador to test the scorecard as well as provide a benchmark for the DMO.
The resultant score along with the assessments at the item level allow for prioritization within the
organization (CVB) which in turn can help improve the destination’s ability to rebound from a
disaster. The main study question is: what is the overall score of Manta’s tourism resilience?

Plan analysis and methodology

To adapt the scorecard our approach included four stages. The first stage was to use a Delphi
technique to evaluate and adapt the UNIDSRR scorecard to a destination (tourism) context.
The technique was selected because it is a widely used and recognized instrument that provides

VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j PAGE 151

 a valuable contribution and has achieved high levels of reliability and validity in previous studies
(Landeta, 2006). Four experts were included in the process; they consisted of two faculty
specializing in disaster management and two experts in the field. Each participant has a deep
knowledge of both the resilience and tourism destination management concepts. The process
entailed evaluating each criteria with the associated items in each criteria for relevance to a DMO
context. Once the item was deemed appropriate the experts were asked to reword the item to
reflect a tourism context. Each item was compared for wording and context and one statement
was presented to the group. The group made the final decision on the wording.

The second stage included conducting interviews with members of the Manta CVB and Mesa 5
(Emergency Management Department of Manta). A total of four individuals (two from each
organization) were asked to evaluate each item for the city of Manta. The four-participant were
invited to be part of the study because of their vast knowledge of the destination. All of them have
been born and raised in Manta and have an extensive experience in either tourism destination
management or crisis management. The members of the CVB had at least ten years of
experience in tourism, and are currently in charge of the city promotion, evaluation and
categorization of the tourism infrastructure. Because of the nature of their jobs the participants
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

have daily feedback about visitor’s perception of the destination, quality of the infrastructure and
tourism attractions. The members of Mesa 5 that participated in the study have been in charge of
the decisions for assessing risk and ensure safety of the destination for at least four years. They
are aware of the risk assessment initiatives taken from both the private and public sector, and
have access to crisis management plans and risk assessments that have not been yet socialize
with the citizens.
The participants selected the appropriate item’s scores in consensus and each score was used
to contribute to a criteria. Essentials were measured trough those criteria, and a total score was
computed across all nine essentials for the resultant benchmark score. Interviews were
conducted in Spanish by a native Spanish speaker. Interviews lasted approximately one hour.
The third stage was to pair each answer with support for the item and criteria score (reports,
plans, etc.). This approach allowed us to justify the resultant score and demonstrate that the item
was met by the DMOs’ plan.
The next stage was to identify the weak and strong scores for each essential and match them up
with recommendations and trends available in literature. The final stage allowed to undercover
gaps in the current risk management plan of the destination, while providing an evaluation of the
engineering resilience of the tourism sector of Manta in case of a disaster.

Findings: the resultant destination resilience scorecard

The scorecard was adapted based on the “disaster resilience scorecard for cities, based on
UNISDR’s ten essentials.” Ten criteria became the basis for the tourism disaster risk resilience
scorecard for destinations (TDRSD). After the Delphi technique was performed, nine of the ten
essentials, were catalogued and set to represent the destination resilience scorecard. Nine items
(1.1.8 coordination post event, 2.3.1 affordability of help with achieving safe housing, 2.3.2
domestic insurance coverage, 4.4 water sanitation, 4.5 gas system, 4.6 road system safety, 9.3
staffing needs, 9.53 staples goods for population, 9.54 fuel availability), were removed because
they were not applicable to the destination or the tourism context.
The resulting scorecard contained nine essentials (Table I). Each essential was measured through
a specific set of criteria based on the ones proposed by the UNSDR. The intrinsic characteristics
of the destination to be analyzed were taken into account as well when selecting the usability of
the criteria of the TDRSD. Each criteria was measured by a set of items that contributed to their
mean score. The total number of items became the score for the essential, i.e., essential 1 had a
total score of 9, essential 5 had a score of 2. The criteria was measured by items. Each item in the
TDRSD was measured on a five-point scale where values corresponded to: 0 ¼ no action has
been done with respect to the item; 1 ¼ no action has been done but is planned to do it in the near
future, 2 ¼ Initial steps taken, 3 ¼ item exists but with major omissions, 4 ¼ item exists but with
minor omissions, 5 ¼ item exists and fulfills all the requirements. For the assignation of a value for

PAGE 152 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016

 Table I Scorecard items
Item Item Criteria Essential Contribution to
Essential Subjects no. Description of item score score score the score in %

1 Organization and coordination 1 Pre-event actions 4 18 24 22.22

2 Event response 3
3 Participation 4
4 Contributions 0
5 Effectiveness of grassroots 3
6 Effectiveness of neighborhoods 4
7 Inclusion 0
Skill and experience 8 Skills 1 1
Tourism integration of disaster 9 Government proposals 5 5
resilience with other initiatives
2 Financial plan and budget 10 Adequacy of financial planning 2 7 14 12.96
11 Capital in budget 0
12 Operating funding 5
Contingency funds 13 Availability of contingency funds 0 0
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

Incentives and financing to 14 Incentives for tourism organizations 3 7

improve resilience
15 Incentives for non-profit organization 3
16 Insurance coverage for tourism sites and 1
heritage assets
3 Risk management 17 Knowledge of hazards 5 10 15 13.89
18 Knowledge of exposure and vulnerability 5
19 Update 5 5
4 Communication 20 Knowledge of number of assets to ensure 5 5 16 14.81
communication (satellite phones)
Electricity 21 Existence of backup generators 3 6
22 Knowledge of number of days of electricity 3
loss after disaster
23 Knowledge of cost, and number of days for 0
electricity restoration after disaster
Administrative operations CVB 24 Continuity 5 5
Computer system and data 25 Continuity 0 0
5 Tourism facilities 26 Structural safety 0 0 3 2.79
27 Number of days of loss of operation 3 3
7 Education and awareness 28 Number of tourists reached 1 3 17 15.74
29 Exposure per person 1
30 Effectiveness of education 1
Training 31 Availability of training 5 14
32 Percentage of population trained 5
33 Frequency of repeat training 4
Languages 34 Training in other languages 0 0
8 Ecosystem services 35 Awareness of ecosystem role 0 0 0 0
9 Early warning 36 Existence of warming system 3 3 19 17.59
37 Effectiveness in terms of percentages of the 0
population reached
Event management plan 38 Existence of plan 2 2
Equipment and relief supply 39 Needs of equipment 0 2
needs
40 Availability of equipment 2
Food, shelter, staple goods and 41 Number of days 3 3
fuel supply
Interoperability and interagency 42 Cooperation availability 4 7
compatibility
43 Emergency operation center 3
Drills 44 Annual suite of drills 1 2
45 Effectiveness of drills 1
10 Marketing post crisis 46 Plan existence 0 0 0
Total 108 100

VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j PAGE 153

 the item the participants selected the appropriate score in consensus (sat collectively and
decided on a score).
The overall scorecard could receive a maximum grade of 230 points. The score obtained after
analysis could provide an accurate diagnosis of the capacity of response of the destination when
facing a crisis and its capacity of recovery to return to its previous state. Consequently, the results
could also offer a clear identification of the destination engineering resilience while taking into
account the tourism sector. The TDRSD is therefore a valuable tool for the tourism private sector
and to the DMO thus provide an important information for improvement. Each essential and
criteria in the TDRSD is independent of each other, but in combination allows us to examine the
capacity of recovery and resilience of the destination.

Essential 1
Essential 1 was divided into three criteria: organization and coordination; skill and experience; and
tourism integration of disaster resilience with other initiatives.
A total of nine items were used to measure essential 1. Seven items contributed to criteria
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

“organization and coordination.” These seven items were: pre-event action: corresponds to
existence of coordination of all relevant pre-event planning and preparation activities, with rolls
and responsibilities assigned; event response: coordination of all relevant event response with
clarity of roles and responsibilities across all relevant organizations and tourism stakeholders;
participation: participation and coordination of all relevant organization included tourism
stakeholders with a clear policy established; contributions: economic or physical contributions
from public and private sectors; effectiveness of grassroots: grassroots in charge of protect
tourists, attractions, and heritage objects and sites; effectiveness of neighborhoods: availability of
organizations within the neighborhood to reach all tourists and citizens; inclusion: engagement of
vulnerable segments of the population, including tourists.
Criteria “skills and experience” was measured with one item: integration of tourism actors:
availability of skills and experience of tourism actors regarding disaster resilience, risk identification
and mitigation, planning, response and post event response, carried out in an inventory.
Criteria “tourism integration of disaster resilience with other initiatives” was measured through one
item: government proposals: extent to which any proposal in government that included policy
and budget for tourism resilience after disaster. The total score for essential 1 was 9 points.

Essential 2
Essential 2 was divided into three criteria: financial planning and budgeting; contingency funds;
and incentives and financing. A total of seven items were used to measure the three domains in
essential 2. Criteria “financial plan and budget” was measured with three items: adequacy of
financial planning: a plan exist for at least five years, where priorities and needs are identified
and responsible agencies are appointed; capital in budget: plans are totally funded and
protected and in coordination with scenarios in essential 3; operating funding: budget exists, its
adequate and is protected. Criteria “contingency funds” was measured with one item:
availability of contingency funds: contingency funds and insurances exists to rectify impacts,
and they are protected. Criteria “incentives and financing to improve resilience” was measured
with three items: incentives for tourism organizations: there are incentives for tourism
organizations to improve disaster resilience, and they are been achieved; incentives for
non-profit organization: there are incentives for non-profit tourism organizations to improve
disaster resilience, and they are been achieved, and insurance coverage for tourism sites and
heritage assets: there are insurance coverage for all heritage sites, and tourist attractions.
The total score for the essential was 7 points.

Essential 3
Essential 3 was divided into two criteria: risk management and update. A total of three items were
used to measure the two domains in essential 3. Criteria “risk management” was measured with
two items: the first item was knowledge of hazard: a comprehensive estimate of hazards exists,

PAGE 154 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016

 that is updated at least every three years and has been reviewed by a third party; the second item
is knowledge of exposure and vulnerability: comprehensive scenarios exist city – wide, for the
most probable and most severe incident of each hazards, and reviewed by a third party. Criteria
“update” was measured with one only item: update of scenarios covering: frequent and complete
update processes exist for scenarios covering, they are proven to work and are accepted by all
relevant agencies. The total score for essential 3 was 3 points.

Essential 4
Essential 4 was divided into four criteria: communication; electricity; administrative operation
CVB; and computer system and data. A total of six items were used to measure the four domains
in essential 4. Criteria “communication” was measured with one item: number of assets to ensure
communication (e.g. satellite phones): there are enough designate critical assets to avoid
communication loss in case of crisis, and there is not loss of service even from “most severe”
scenario. Criteria “electricity” was measured with three items: existence of backup generators:
there are enough backup generators in case of crisis, and there is not loss of electricity even from
“most severe” scenario; knowledge of number of days of electricity loss after disaster: no loss of
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

service even from most severe scenario; knowledge of cost and numbers of days for restoration
of electricity after disaster: there is no loss of service with cost of restoration included in annual
billed revenue. Criteria “administrative operations CVB” was measured with one item: continuity:
assurance of continuity of all critical administration functions with no disruption of services even
under most severe scenario. Criteria “computer system and data” was measured with one item:
continuity: assurance of continuity of computer systems and data critical to government
continuity with routine backup of all critical apps and data, and remote access from site known to
be invulnerable to events affecting the city. essential 4 had a total of 4 points.

Essential 5
Essential 5 has one criteria: tourism facilities. The criteria “tourism facilities” was measure with two
items: structural safety: knowledge of structural safety of public tourism facilities with no facilities
at risk even from “most severe” scenario; number of days of loss of operation: numbers of day of
loss of operation from most severe scenario are estimated and are less than 1 percent of annual
operational days.

Essential 6
Essential 6 was removed because it was considered unconnected when trying to measure the
tourism destination resilience of Manta. Originally, the scorecard proposed by UNISDR includes
essential 6 to measure risk awareness in planning, land use and building codes. However, in the
specific case of Manta the tourism attractions are based on nature resources, and the regulation
for buildings and land use are beyond the scope of the tourism sector.

Essential 7
A total of seven items were used to measure essential 7. Criteria “education and awareness” was
measured with three items: number of tourists reached after disaster by CVB: CVB has data of all
tourists in hotels in the city with information to reach them by social media or through the hotel
personnel in case of emergency and are able to reach at least 90 percent of visitors in hotels.
exposure per person: all visitors in hotels are informed during check in about emergency contacts
and procedure in case of crisis through brochures, and CVB has data and feedback from hotels;
effectiveness of education: most probable scenario, and applicable response and preparation
appears to be generally known by at least 90 percent of visitors as verified by opinion poll. Criteria
“training” was measured with three items: (1) availability of training: full training curriculum is
available for all population including tourist; (2) percentage of population trained: this item was
measured a little different than others where 0 ¼ no training, 1 ¼ at least 0.5 percent in all
neighborhoods, 2 ¼ 0.5-1 percent in all neighborhoods, 3 ¼ 1-2.5 percent in all neighborhoods,
4 ¼ 2.5-5 percent in all neighborhoods, 5 ¼ more than 5 percent in all neighborhoods. The last
item of this criteria was (3) frequency of repeat training: trainings are conducted in all

VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j PAGE 155

 neighborhoods a least twice per year. Criteria “languages” was measured with one item training in
other languages. This item was measured on a five-point scale where: 0 ¼ training in English not
available, 1 ¼ training in English available but only for 25 percent or less of the cases, 2 ¼ training
in English available but only for 25-50 percent of the cases, 3 ¼ training in English available but
only for 50-75 percent of the cases, 4 ¼ training in English available but only for 75-95 percent of
the cases, 5 ¼ 100 percent training in English available.

Essential 8
Essential 8 focussed on one criteria: (1) ecosystem services, which was measured by one item
awareness of the role of the ecosystem in the destination: critical ecosystem services are
identified and monitored annually on a defined set of key health/performance indicators.

Essential 9
Essential 9 focussed on six criteria: early warning; event management plan; equipment and relief
supply needs; food, shelter, staple goods and fuel supply; interoperability and interagency
compatibility; and drills. Each criteria was measured through a set of items. Items were measured
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

in a five-point scale were values correspond to: 0 ¼ no action has been done with respect to the
item; 1 ¼ no action has been done but is planned to do it in the near future, 2 ¼ initial steps taken,
3 ¼ item exists but with major omissions, 4 ¼ item exists but with minor omissions, 5 ¼ item exist
and fulfill all the requirements. Criteria “early warning” was measured with two items: existence of
warming systems: warnings system exists for all hazards known to be relevant in the city, and will
allow time for reaction; effectiveness in terms of percentages of the population reach. This item
was measured a little different from other ones. The measures for item “effectiveness in terms of
percentages of the population reach” were: 0 ¼ less than 50 percent reached, 1 ¼ 50-70 percent
reached; 2 ¼ 70-80 percent reached; 3 ¼ 80-90 percent reached, 4 ¼ 90-100 percent reached;
and 5 ¼ 100 percent reached. Criteria “event management plan” was measured with one only
item existence of plan: complete plan exist, keyed to scenarios referenced in essential. Criteria
“equipment and relief supply need” was measured with two items: need for equipment: need
defined, keyed to scenarios of essential 3, and take into account work of volunteers; availability of
equipment: equipment known to be available in line with defined needs for most severe scenario.
Criteria “food, shelter, staple goods and fuel supply” was measured with one item numbers of days
that city can feed after a disaster: available food exceeds estimated days’ disruption to regular supply.
Criteria “interoperability and interagency compatibility” was measured with two items:
cooperation availability: proven interoperability with neighboring cities of all key system and
procedures; and emergency operation center: emergency operation center exists, it is functional
and can monitor all city. Criteria “drills” was measured with two items annual drills including
tourism sector: at least one drill per year validated by professionals to be realistic representation
of most severe and most probable scenarios. Effectiveness of drills and trainings: all professional
and public participants in drills show strong evidence of having absorbed training.

Essential 10
Finally, essential 10 was measured by one criteria: marketing post crisis, and the criteria was
measured with one item: plan existence: full comprehensive marketing plan exists to address at least
90 percent of people staying in hotels, include use of mass media and social media, and responsible
actors. Each item in the TDRSD has been selected taking into account the resilience scorecard
proposed by the UNISDR, but adapted a little, so it could be able to measure the tourism destination
resilience as primary focus of interest. The particular characteristics of the destination were taken into
account as well in the elaboration process. One of the participants of the Delphi study was born and
raised in the destination and had first-hand information of the particularities of Manta.

Findings: an application of the scorecard to Manta, Ecuador

Manta is a city located along the coastline of Ecuador in the province of Manabí (Figure 1). Due to
its tourism attractions and strategic geographical location, Manta receives local and international

PAGE 156 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016

 Figure 1 Manta, Ecuador
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

tourists daily. Most international tourists are from countries where English is the first language,
and they are not familiar with Spanish, which is the language spoken in Ecuador. Manta is located
in front of the Pacific Ocean and it is susceptible to natural disasters, like tropical storms, floods,
tsunamis and earthquakes.
The main attractions of the city of Manta are the beaches, Pacoche forest, and the intangible
cultural manifestations of the cholo and montuvio culture. Most of the natural attractions of the
destination are located in the rural area, as well as a considerable number of intangible
manifestations. Due to the geographical location of the attractions (apart from the urban
settlement) both the tourism sector and the tourists are more susceptible of been overseeing
when planning crisis response, recover strategies and resilience actions. The TDRSD allows
planners to identify if the tourism sector and the tourists have been taken into account in the risk
management plans, and permits to determine if the tourism attractions, infrastructures, public
organizations, and private tourism sector are resilience enough to face a disaster. A deeper
analysis about the efficiency of the tourism sector and about the path of the tourism
development of the destination are beyond the scope of the present study, but need to be
explored in further research.
In the present study we are assuming that the tourism sector and tourism attractions of the city of
Manta are in the most favorable state and therefore need to be preserved. For that reason, efforts
need to be taken in order to build engineering resilience in the destination. The TDRSD addresses
that necessity with the identification of the capacity of response of the destination when facing
external drivers that could provoke it to cross a point of no return.
The DMO in Manta is the Department of Tourism. The Department of Tourism is in charge of
monitoring the supply side of the tourism sector to assure high quality of services and products as
well as marketing and promoting the city to potential and past tourists. Manta’s CVB is in charge
of organizing different events and providing information to tourists about their tourism’s
superstructure, activities, events, attractions, infrastructure of the city, etc. However, tourism
safety is not currently its principal concern. This is not uncommon; in fact, a small majority of
destinations invest in strategic tourism crisis management plan. Members of Manta CVB are part
of a tourism area response network (TARN) (Pennington-Gray et al., 2014), called the “Mesa 5,”
which is an organization represented by members of several organizations that supervise tourism
events. The members of Mesa 5 are the Safety Department, Hygiene Department, Environment
Department, Tourism Department, and the Department of Risk Management of Manta. The CVB
of Manta is interested in developing new strategies to achieve sustainability and tourism resilience
in order to ensure the safety of citizens, tourists, and visitors.

VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j PAGE 157

 Results of the plan analysis applied to Manta, Ecuador
The overall resilience score for Manta was 108 points out of 230 total points (46 items with a
maximum score of five for a total of 230). Data suggests that the city is in its first steps to reach
resilience, achieving a score of 46.96 percent. Nine essentials were used to measure Manta’s
destination resilience, using 46 items. Each essential contributed to the total score with a specific
percentage (Table I).
Essential 1 contributed 22.22 percent of the overall resilience score, essential 2 contributed 12.96
percent, essential 3 contributed 13.89 percent, essential 4 contributed 14.81 percent, essential
5 contributed 2.78 percent, essential 7 contributed 15.74 percent, essential 9 contributed
17.59 percent, and essentials 8 and 10 did not contributed to the total score because
they received a score of 0.
Descriptive statistics revealed the following results (Table II). Scores ranged between 0 and 5,
where 0 was the lowest and 5 was the highest. Scores of 0 were found on 11 items, contributing
23.91 percent of the total resilience score; seven items ranked 1 on a five-point scale and
contributed 15.22 percent to the total; three items ranked 2 on a five point scale and contributed
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

6.52 percent to the total; 11 items ranked 3 on a five-point scale and contributed 23.91 percent to
the total; five items were ranked 4 on a five point scale and contributed 10.87 percent to the total;
and nine items were ranked 5 on the five point scale and contributed 19.57 percent to the total.

Essential 1
The score was 24/45. The items measured were organization and coordination, skill and
experience, and tourism integration of disaster resilience with other initiatives. The outcomes
indicated that under the subject of organization and coordination, scores were remarkably
low for contributions and inclusion. This finding is consistent with the findings presented by
Komino in 2014, where active participation of community members and donations from people
(not only government), are not highly planned for, yet these acts are necessary to increase
resilience capacity.
With regard to “skills and experience” low scores were found. This might be attributed to the
novelty of this type of initiative in South-American countries such as Ecuador. Finally, with regard
to the item on tourism integration, the resultant scores were relatively high.

Essential 2
The score was 14/35. The issues within this essential included: financial plan and budget,
contingency funds, and incentives and financing. According to the data, the risk management
department confirmed that only an operating budget exists. There is not a contingency fund in the
case of a crisis. Unfortunately, this requires government requests to appropriate money for
disaster relief and recovery post crisis, which can lead to slow recovery (Komino, 2014).

Table II Distribution frequency and percentage for essentials

Essentials
Items Scores Contribution to the total scores Valid % Cumulative %

Essential 1 9 24 22.22 22.22 22.22

Essential 2 7 14 12.96 12.96 35.18
Essential 3 3 15 13.89 13.89 49.07
Essential 4 6 16 14.81 14.81 63.88
Essential 5 2 3 2.79 2.79 66.67
Essential 7 7 17 15.74 15.74 82.40
Essential 8 1 0 0 0 82.40
Essential 9 10 19 17.59 17.59 100.00
Essential 10 1 0 0 0 100.00
Total 46 108 100.0 100.0

PAGE 158 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016

 Essential 3
Essential 3 has no variance, with each item ranking 5 for a total score of 15. The issues measured
were risk management and updates. Results showed that the risk management department is
aware of the importance of having knowledge of hazards, vulnerability, and updating scenarios.
This is a positive finding.

Essential 4
The score was 16/30. The issues measured were communications, electricity, administrative
operations (CVB), and computer systems and data. Low scores were obtained for electricity
recovery. Communication restoration and recovery of the systems and data are concerns as well;
most information is backed up in physical location that could be susceptible in case of a crisis.
However, continuity of operation of the CVB received a high score, which means tourists could be
able to reach administrative personal after an event.

Essential 5
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

The score was 3/10 for this essential. This essential measured tourism facility. The results
indicated that there is not data about structural safety of tourism facilities, and estimations of
number of days without operation are uncertain.

Essential 7
The score was 17/35 for essential 7. The criteria measured were education and awareness,
training, and languages. According to the results, several representative groups of citizens have
been trained to assist tourists in case of emergency. However, the trainings have been completely
in Spanish and they have not included tourists or tourism facilities. It is imperative to start a
multi-language training, because many tourists might not speak Spanish and this could lead to
misunderstanding of safe instructions in case of emergency. In addition, is important to increase
awareness among tourists and public to improve resilience (Kotzee and Reyers, 2016).

Essential 8
The score for essential 8 was 0/5. The criteria measured as ecosystem services. There is no awareness
of ecosystem role regarding resilience. The biological diversity of ecosystem is crucial to recovery
because it appears to enhance resilience (Elmqvist et al., 2003). Furthermore, ecosystems provide
natural capital for recovery. However, Manta has not considered this in their resilience plan as of yet.

Essential 9
The score was 19/50 points. The criteria measured were early warming; event management plan;
equipment and relief supply needs; food, shelter, staple goods and fuel supply; interoperability
and interagency compatibility; and drills. Findings demonstrated that warning systems were
insufficient and do not reach all populations. There is some availability of resources (shelter, food,
supplies) for couple days after a crisis, and cooperation initiatives are in place but if tourists are
considered there is not enough. There is need for drills and procedures to measure assessment.

Essential 10
The final score was 0/5. The criteria measured was marketing post crisis. The idea of marketing
post crisis to reach further number of tourists in case of a crisis has not been discussed in the risk
management department.

Conclusions
Resilience is an important trend adopted recently by the United Nations to encourage cities to get
ready for disasters. In response to this attention, an instrument has been developed and
distributed called the “disaster resilience scorecard for cities, based on UNISDR’s ten essentials.”

VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j PAGE 159

 This study set out to do three things: suggest that a similar scorecard is necessary for
destinations; adapt the UNIDSR scorecard to a destination focus; and apply the TDRSD to
Manta, Ecuador. Overall, these goals were met. But most interestingly, findings suggest some
troubling outcomes. First, for a city which is focussed verbally on resilience and safety of tourists,
the results suggest that Manta needs to have their policies and practices catch up with their
verbal commitments. Overall the city had average resilience scores. Utilizing the TDRSD, Manta
obtained a total score of 108, this can be interpreted as about a score of 46.96 percent (Table III)
Zero scores were found on the following items: contribution among stakeholders; developed skills
for managing crisis; capital budget; availability of contingency funds; knowledge of the time required
to recover electricity after disaster; continuity of computer system and data; knowledge of structural
safety of tourism facilities; awareness of ecosystem roles in recovery; early warming effectiveness in
terms of percentages; knowledge of the equipment needed; and post marketing plan.
Results have shown that the destination of Manta has started a resilience plan; however, the
tourism sector, heritage assets, ecosystems are not yet included in this resilience plan. The poor
inclusion and awareness of the tourism sector in the risk management plan and the resilience
actions seems contradictory to verbal commitments which were revealed in the qualitative in-depth
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

interviews. This is disappointing given that tourism is the second contributor to the city’s GDP.
The scorecard also revealed that the tourism department does not have available funds for
recovery. In addition, the zero score on contingency funds, is a critical concern for tourism and
the industry. If a major disaster were to strike, the tourism industry would be significantly
impacted due to the lack of funds set aside to build the industry back better.
Manta CVB and Department of Risk Management should work more in sync regarding safety of
visitors and tourist. One way is to ensure the inclusion of most stakeholders in the tourism industry
is to create a more integrated crisis partnership. A large concern revealed by the TDRSD is the low
levels of integration among different sectors and the low levels of awareness about the desirability of
the current state of the tourism attractions and infrastructure. This could be addressed by the
proposed TARN. Pennington-Gray et al. (2014) have suggested a TARN, which includes many
stakeholders both inside and out of the tourism sector, can help mitigate response time during the
recovery period of a disaster. Participation by private sector is recommended to achieve awareness
among tourists, visitors and other people related to tourism.
Another surprising outcome is the lack of knowledge about the state of the destination
ecosystems and their capacity to recover after a crisis. The current actions seem to be focussed
mostly on the elaboration of a plan and the identification of possible risks generated for external
drivers rather than what to do if the ecosystem is impacted by a disaster.
The TDRSD provided important and valuable outcomes that allow Manta’s DMO to have a clearer
picture of the state of resilience with regards to a natural disaster. The TDRSD is useful when
measuring risk awareness, recovery capability and engineering resilience of a tourism destination.
It also allows a DMO to undercover flaws in the crisis management plan of the destination as well
as provide an unbiased diagnostic of the strength and weaknesses in policies and resources in
times of crises. For those reasons, the relevance and usability of the developed tool is
acknowledged. However, further studies to test the instrument in other destinations is needed to
confirm the reliability of the TDRSD.

Table III Distribution of resilience scores

Valid Frequency % Valid % Cumulative %

0.00 11 23.91 23.91 23.91

1.00 7 15.22 15.22 39.13
2.00 3 6.52 6.52 45.65
3.00 11 23.91 23.91 69.56
4.00 5 10.87 10.87 80.43
5.00 9 19.57 19.57 100.0
Total 45 100.0 100.0

PAGE 160 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016

 Suggestions for future research
The results of the present study are limited to the city of Manta. Future research should test the
instrument with a larger sample, including other organizations that could be involved in the tourism
sector, local people, and tourists. Another limitation is that this tool mostly addresses the capacity of
response to external drivers without consideration for the impact of slow drivers of crises in a tourism
destination (e.g. litter, increased crime, etc.). Internal destination factors such as problems in the
sewage system or with water quality in the city can have an emerging impact on the destination and
the image of the destination. Including criteria which measure and track the impact of water quality on
the destination can aid in determining the relationship between tourist arrivals and internal slow drivers
of resilience. Monitoring and measuring other slow drivers of crises, such as immigration policies,
crime, and political unrest are important criteria to include in the scorecard in the future. The developed
TDRSD allowed us to have a better understanding of the current resilience condition of one tourism
destination. This study, however, only represents the first stage or benchmark to determine the
destinations’ level of resilience. The purpose was to act as a diagnostic tool which identifies needs for
a destination so the CVB can identify and invest in areas necessary for effective resilience and recovery.
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

Note
1. Florida has a population of 19.9 M in 2014 according to the Census, and almost 100 M visitors visit the
state each year according to Visit Florida.

References
Becken, S. (2013), “Developing a framework for assessing resilience of tourism sub-systems to climatic
factors”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 43, pp. 506-28.
Blackman, D. and Ritchie, B.W. (2008), “Tourism crisis management and organizational learning: the role of
reflection in developing effective DMO crisis strategies”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 23
Nos 2-4, pp. 45-57.
Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, J.B. and Sheehan, L. (2010), “Determinants of tourism success for DMOs & destinations:
an empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 572-89.
Brown, E.D. and Williams, B.K. (2015), “Resilience and resource management”, Environmental Management,
Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 1416-27.
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B. and Norberg, J. (2003),
“Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 1
No. 9, pp. 488-94.
Folke, C. (2006), “Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses”, Global
Environmental Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 253-67.

Hall, C.M., Scott, D. and Gössling, S. (2013), “The primacy of climate change for sustainable international
tourism”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 112-21.
Holling, C.S. (1973), “Resilience and stability of ecological systems”, Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, Vol. 4, pp. 1-23.
Komino, T. (2014), “Community resilience”, The Ecumenical Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 324-9.
Kotzee, I. and Reyers, B. (2016), “Piloting a social-ecological index for measuring flood resilience: a composite
index approach”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 60, pp. 45-53.

Landeta, J. (2006), “Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 467-82.

Lew, A.A. (2014), “Scale, change and resilience in community tourism planning”, Tourism Geographies,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 14-22.
Nelson, D.R., Adger, W.N. and Brown, K. (2007), “Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a
resilience framework”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 395.
Owusu-Sekyere, E. (2015), “Scavenging for wealth or death? Exploring the health risk associated with waste
scavenging in Kumasi, Ghana”, Ghana Journal of Geography, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 63-80.

VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j PAGE 161

 Pennington-Gray, L., Schroeder, A. and Gale, T. (2014), “Co-management as a framework for the
development of a tourism area response network in the rural community of Curanipe, Maule Region, Chile”,
Tourism Planning & Development, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 292-304.
Pennington-Gray, L., Thapa, B., Kaplanidou, K., Cahyanto, I. and McLaughlin, E. (2011), “Crisis planning and
preparedness in the United States tourism industry”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 312-20.
Ritchie, J.R. and Hudson, S. (2009), “Understanding and meeting the challenges of consumer/tourist
experience research”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 111-26.

Further reading
Aldrich, D.P. and Meyer, M.A. (2015), “Social capital and community resilience”, American Behavioral
Scientist, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 254-69.
Amir, A.F., Ghapar, A.A., Jamal, S.A. and Ahmad, K.N. (2015), “Sustainable tourism development: a study on
community resilience for rural tourism in Malaysia”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 168, January,
pp. 116-22, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18770428/168/supp/C
Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (Eds) (2002), Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

for Complexity and Change, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M. and Schoon, M.L. (Eds) (2015), Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem
Services in Social-Ecological Systems, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
De la Torre, C. and Striffler, S. (2008), The Ecuador Reader: History, Culture, Politics, Duke University Press,
Durham.
du Cross, H. and McKercher, B. (2015), Cultural Tourism, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Gallopín, G.C. (2006), “Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity”, Global
Environmental Change, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 293-303.
Holladay, P.J. and Powell, R.B. (2013), “Resident perceptions of social-ecological resilience and the
sustainability of community-based tourism development in the commonwealth of Dominica”, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 1188-211.
Holling, C.S. and Gunderson, L.H. (2002), “Resilience and adaptive cycles”, Panarchy: Understanding
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, Island Press, Washington, DC, Covelo, CA and London,
pp. 25-62.
Hussein Moustafa, L. (2015), “Endangers culture heritage: a survey of disaster management planning in
Middle East libraries and archives”, Library Management, Vol. 36 Nos 6-7, pp. 476-94.
Jigyasu, R. (2014), “Fostering resilience: towards reducing disaster risks to world heritage”, World Heritage
Review, No. 74, pp. 4-13.
Johnson, C. and Blackburn, S. (2014), “Advocacy for urban resilience: UNISDR’s Making Cities Resilient
campaign”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 29-52.
Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (2006), Managing World Heritage Sites, Butterworth: Heinemann, Burlington, MA.
Liao, K.H. (2012), “A theory on urban resilience to floods – a basis for alternative planning practices”, Ecology
and Society, Vol. 17 No. 4, p. 48.
Luthe, T. and Wyss, R. (2014), “Assessing and planning resilience in tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 44,
pp. 161-3.
Nelson, D.R. (2011), “Adaptation and resilience: responding to a changing climate”, Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Climate Change, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 113-20.
O’Brien, G., O’Keefe, P., Jayawickrama, J. and Jigyasu, R. (2015), “Developing a model for building resilience
to climate risks for cultural heritage”, Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 99-114.
Oteng-Ababio, M., Sarfo, K.O. and Owusu-Sekyere, E. (2015), “Exploring the realities of resilience: case study of
Kantamanto Market fire in Accra, Ghana”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 12, pp. 311-8.
Pennington-Gray, L., Schroeder, A., Wu, B., Donohoe, H. and Cahyanto, I. (2013), “Travelers’ perceptions of
crisis preparedness certification in the United States”, Journal of Travel Research, doi: 10.1177/
0047287513496470.

PAGE 162 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016

 Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Biran, A. (2006), “Heritage site management – motivations and expectations”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 162-78. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2005.08.001.
Ruiz-Ballesteros, E. (2011), “Social-ecological resilience and community-based tourism: an approach from
Agua Blanca, Ecuador”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 655-66.
Sherrieb, K., Norris, F.H. and Galea, S. (2010), “Measuring capacities for community resilience”, Social
Indicators Research, Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 227-47.
Timothy, D.J. (2011), Cultural Heritage and Tourism, Channel View Publications.
Turner, N.J., Davidson-Hunt, I.J. and O’Flaherty, M. (2003), “Living on the edge: ecological and cultural edges
as sources of diversity for social-ecological resilience”, Human Ecology, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 439-61.
Walker, B., Salt, D. and Reid, W. (2006), Resilience Thinking: Sustaining People and Ecosystems in a
Changing World.
Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R. and Kinzig, A. (2004), “Resilience, adaptability and transformability
in social-ecological systems”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 5.

Corresponding author
Downloaded by University of Florida, Mrs ESTEFANIA BASURTO At 08:57 23 August 2016 (PT)

Estefania Mercedes Basurto-Cedeño can be contacted at: ebasurto@ufl.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

VOL. 2 NO. 2 2016 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM CITIES j PAGE 163

View publication stats