Community sustainability and resilience

similarities, differences and indicators

Alan A Lew, Pin T Ng, Chin cheng (Nickel) Ni, Tsung chiung (Emily) Wu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Sustainability has been a core conceptual framework for community development since the approach was popularized in 1987, although in its essence it reflects a long history of environmental conservation reactions to industrialization. Resilience, as a framework for understanding and approaching community development, emerged more gradually out of ecological studies in the 1980s, but has only recently, since the mid-2000s, emerged as a focus of public interest as a way of responding and adapting to the planet's growing anthropogenic changes. For many, sustainability and resilience are slightly nuanced perspectives on the same phenomenon. For others, however, there are distinct differences between them, with sustainability's conservation goals being in opposition to the adaptation goals of resilience. Two major reasons for these confusions are (1) both concepts are defined and used in many different ways to achieve a variety of political goals that may not reflect their core definitions, and (2) both concepts share similar goals and some common approaches, such as a focus on climate change and seeking a balance between humans and nature. Returning to the core definitions of conservation and adaptation helps to clarify their similarities and differences, as well as to articulate indicators for understanding how each applies to community tourism development. Indicators from research in rural Taiwan tourism communities were therefore based on responses to the questions: What does the community want to conserve and how do they want to do it (sustainability)? What do they want to change and how do they want to do it (resilience)? Preliminary results suggest that the new ideal community is the one that is both sustainable and resilient.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)18-27
Number of pages10
JournalTourism Geographies
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

resilience
sustainability
conservation
community development
community
Tourism
political goal
tourism development
public interest
conceptual framework
industrialization
Taiwan
opposition
climate change
planet
tourism
indicator
Resilience
Sustainability
history

Keywords

  • community planning
  • Resilience
  • resilience indicators
  • rural tourism
  • sustainability
  • sustainability indicators
  • Taiwan
  • tourism planning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management

Cite this

Community sustainability and resilience : similarities, differences and indicators. / Lew, Alan A; Ng, Pin T; Ni, Chin cheng (Nickel); Wu, Tsung chiung (Emily).

In: Tourism Geographies, Vol. 18, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 18-27.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lew, Alan A ; Ng, Pin T ; Ni, Chin cheng (Nickel) ; Wu, Tsung chiung (Emily). / Community sustainability and resilience : similarities, differences and indicators. In: Tourism Geographies. 2016 ; Vol. 18, No. 1. pp. 18-27.
@article{df83f833732b44b8a0a59d0271c05164,
title = "Community sustainability and resilience: similarities, differences and indicators",
abstract = "Sustainability has been a core conceptual framework for community development since the approach was popularized in 1987, although in its essence it reflects a long history of environmental conservation reactions to industrialization. Resilience, as a framework for understanding and approaching community development, emerged more gradually out of ecological studies in the 1980s, but has only recently, since the mid-2000s, emerged as a focus of public interest as a way of responding and adapting to the planet's growing anthropogenic changes. For many, sustainability and resilience are slightly nuanced perspectives on the same phenomenon. For others, however, there are distinct differences between them, with sustainability's conservation goals being in opposition to the adaptation goals of resilience. Two major reasons for these confusions are (1) both concepts are defined and used in many different ways to achieve a variety of political goals that may not reflect their core definitions, and (2) both concepts share similar goals and some common approaches, such as a focus on climate change and seeking a balance between humans and nature. Returning to the core definitions of conservation and adaptation helps to clarify their similarities and differences, as well as to articulate indicators for understanding how each applies to community tourism development. Indicators from research in rural Taiwan tourism communities were therefore based on responses to the questions: What does the community want to conserve and how do they want to do it (sustainability)? What do they want to change and how do they want to do it (resilience)? Preliminary results suggest that the new ideal community is the one that is both sustainable and resilient.",
keywords = "community planning, Resilience, resilience indicators, rural tourism, sustainability, sustainability indicators, Taiwan, tourism planning",
author = "Lew, {Alan A} and Ng, {Pin T} and Ni, {Chin cheng (Nickel)} and Wu, {Tsung chiung (Emily)}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/14616688.2015.1122664",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "18--27",
journal = "Tourism Geographies",
issn = "1461-6688",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Community sustainability and resilience

T2 - similarities, differences and indicators

AU - Lew, Alan A

AU - Ng, Pin T

AU - Ni, Chin cheng (Nickel)

AU - Wu, Tsung chiung (Emily)

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Sustainability has been a core conceptual framework for community development since the approach was popularized in 1987, although in its essence it reflects a long history of environmental conservation reactions to industrialization. Resilience, as a framework for understanding and approaching community development, emerged more gradually out of ecological studies in the 1980s, but has only recently, since the mid-2000s, emerged as a focus of public interest as a way of responding and adapting to the planet's growing anthropogenic changes. For many, sustainability and resilience are slightly nuanced perspectives on the same phenomenon. For others, however, there are distinct differences between them, with sustainability's conservation goals being in opposition to the adaptation goals of resilience. Two major reasons for these confusions are (1) both concepts are defined and used in many different ways to achieve a variety of political goals that may not reflect their core definitions, and (2) both concepts share similar goals and some common approaches, such as a focus on climate change and seeking a balance between humans and nature. Returning to the core definitions of conservation and adaptation helps to clarify their similarities and differences, as well as to articulate indicators for understanding how each applies to community tourism development. Indicators from research in rural Taiwan tourism communities were therefore based on responses to the questions: What does the community want to conserve and how do they want to do it (sustainability)? What do they want to change and how do they want to do it (resilience)? Preliminary results suggest that the new ideal community is the one that is both sustainable and resilient.

AB - Sustainability has been a core conceptual framework for community development since the approach was popularized in 1987, although in its essence it reflects a long history of environmental conservation reactions to industrialization. Resilience, as a framework for understanding and approaching community development, emerged more gradually out of ecological studies in the 1980s, but has only recently, since the mid-2000s, emerged as a focus of public interest as a way of responding and adapting to the planet's growing anthropogenic changes. For many, sustainability and resilience are slightly nuanced perspectives on the same phenomenon. For others, however, there are distinct differences between them, with sustainability's conservation goals being in opposition to the adaptation goals of resilience. Two major reasons for these confusions are (1) both concepts are defined and used in many different ways to achieve a variety of political goals that may not reflect their core definitions, and (2) both concepts share similar goals and some common approaches, such as a focus on climate change and seeking a balance between humans and nature. Returning to the core definitions of conservation and adaptation helps to clarify their similarities and differences, as well as to articulate indicators for understanding how each applies to community tourism development. Indicators from research in rural Taiwan tourism communities were therefore based on responses to the questions: What does the community want to conserve and how do they want to do it (sustainability)? What do they want to change and how do they want to do it (resilience)? Preliminary results suggest that the new ideal community is the one that is both sustainable and resilient.

KW - community planning

KW - Resilience

KW - resilience indicators

KW - rural tourism

KW - sustainability

KW - sustainability indicators

KW - Taiwan

KW - tourism planning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84950980201&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84950980201&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/14616688.2015.1122664

DO - 10.1080/14616688.2015.1122664

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 18

EP - 27

JO - Tourism Geographies

JF - Tourism Geographies

SN - 1461-6688

IS - 1

ER -