Tourism Mobility and War: South Korea and Cambodia
Author: Madeleine Hodges
2 Commentries
Tourism has been related to economic development within countries and some destinations rely on regular tourism expenditure in order to keep businesses up and running. Within the last few decades, people have started to realise the benefits from tourism however, there is countries that have had little or no benefits from tourism expenditure at all. This is mainly due to the destinations being affected by war and conflict (Butler & Suntikul: 2013). This study has focused on two destinations that have suffered with this, Cambodia and South Korea.
South Korean airlines began marketing to tourists after the foreign currency started to lose value post-war, claiming that tourists will make it more valuable. The country’s economic development relied on tourism to gain extra income and keep the country comfortably stable. Developing the destination into a ‘tourism destination’ would help to economically stable the country, although tourists have avoided it, due to the reputation according to Lee (2006). As of today, tourism is one of the newest growth sectors within South Korea. South Koreas neighbours, China and Japan, have influenced this growth due to cheaper international travel.
The pull factor for the tourists to visit South Korea is definitely the country’s cultural and natural assets which have helped develop the tourism industry within the country. The government has taken an active role within this in order to preserve not only the natural assets, but also the tourism. It is reasonably easy to travel in and out of the country, with no warning of terrorism and most visits being trouble free.
Cambodia has also been affected by war between the Thai and Vietnamese and also the end of the civil war resulted in 2 million deaths through genocide and starvation. In 2001, Cambodia was declared a ‘least developed country’ and currently, similar to South Korea, the focus of Cambodia is to stimulate development in the tourism industry (Ellis and Sheridan: 2014). Ecotourism is a strategy in which Cambodia has taken in order to gain further tourism, although most of the tourism visitors travel to see the ancient cultural history. Community Based Tourism has also been undertaken by Cambodia, this is a strategy which involved community engagement in sustainable tourism which enables the community to have a say in how to encourage further tourism.
Cambodia’s tourism arrivals have increased significantly to 4,210,165 in 2013. South Korea also had 12,175,550 in 2013 which is a 9.3% growth from the previous year. It is obvious that the tourism strategy has worked and will bring in further tourism however; there is always the fact that the countries have been affected by war and conflict thus preventing the maximum amount of tourists that could be interested in visiting the countries. The tourist arrivals for Cambodia are noticeably less than that of South Korea, apart from the difference in population; Cambodia has areas that the government would advise against travelling. This factor indicates that numerous people would avoid going for this reason if there is a risk that anything could happen, also, the travel advice advises that everyone that visits takes the highest holiday insurance (comprehensive).
In order to gain further information on the subject and to view different tourist’s perceptions, a small survey was conducted from 53 people to find out what they thought about the two destinations in question. From the outcomes, only 51 people had previously visited either of these countries, proving that they are not popular and well-advertised destinations. The two participants that had been to these destinations had volunteered to help people living in South Korea or Cambodia. This proves that the participants did not choose to go to in terms of a two week holiday with sun and sea, but to help people that are suffering in a consequence from war. All of the participants mentioned that the destinations are not advertised enough and their perceptions of the destinations are ‘war and poverty’, two factors that are not encouraging for a holiday.
Overall, it is clear that war and conflict in particular countries do affect the amount of tourists that visit. From the previous research that has been conducted, tourists have only recently started venturing out to countries that have once been affected by war. This is because the countries have realised that the tourism industry is a huge industry that can bring a mass amount of capital into the country. Cambodia and South Korea have both invested in numerous strategies in order to bring in tourism and from the statistics found, this has been proven to work. However, from the survey conducted, it is clear that both of the countries still have issues in which some people would choose not to go, some being a safety factor and another being that the countries are not advertised enough for a tourist to gain enough information about that destination.
Butler R & Suntikul W (2013). Tourism and War. Oxon: Routledge. 17-189.
Ellis S and Sheridan LM. (2014). The legacy of war for community-based tourism development: learnings from Cambodia. Community Development Journal. 49 (1), 129-142.
Lee YS. (2006). The Korean War and tourism: legacy of the war on the development of the tourism industry in South Korea.. International Journal of Tourism Research. 8 (3), 157-170.
South Korean airlines began marketing to tourists after the foreign currency started to lose value post-war, claiming that tourists will make it more valuable. The country’s economic development relied on tourism to gain extra income and keep the country comfortably stable. Developing the destination into a ‘tourism destination’ would help to economically stable the country, although tourists have avoided it, due to the reputation according to Lee (2006). As of today, tourism is one of the newest growth sectors within South Korea. South Koreas neighbours, China and Japan, have influenced this growth due to cheaper international travel.
The pull factor for the tourists to visit South Korea is definitely the country’s cultural and natural assets which have helped develop the tourism industry within the country. The government has taken an active role within this in order to preserve not only the natural assets, but also the tourism. It is reasonably easy to travel in and out of the country, with no warning of terrorism and most visits being trouble free.
Cambodia has also been affected by war between the Thai and Vietnamese and also the end of the civil war resulted in 2 million deaths through genocide and starvation. In 2001, Cambodia was declared a ‘least developed country’ and currently, similar to South Korea, the focus of Cambodia is to stimulate development in the tourism industry (Ellis and Sheridan: 2014). Ecotourism is a strategy in which Cambodia has taken in order to gain further tourism, although most of the tourism visitors travel to see the ancient cultural history. Community Based Tourism has also been undertaken by Cambodia, this is a strategy which involved community engagement in sustainable tourism which enables the community to have a say in how to encourage further tourism.
Cambodia’s tourism arrivals have increased significantly to 4,210,165 in 2013. South Korea also had 12,175,550 in 2013 which is a 9.3% growth from the previous year. It is obvious that the tourism strategy has worked and will bring in further tourism however; there is always the fact that the countries have been affected by war and conflict thus preventing the maximum amount of tourists that could be interested in visiting the countries. The tourist arrivals for Cambodia are noticeably less than that of South Korea, apart from the difference in population; Cambodia has areas that the government would advise against travelling. This factor indicates that numerous people would avoid going for this reason if there is a risk that anything could happen, also, the travel advice advises that everyone that visits takes the highest holiday insurance (comprehensive).
In order to gain further information on the subject and to view different tourist’s perceptions, a small survey was conducted from 53 people to find out what they thought about the two destinations in question. From the outcomes, only 51 people had previously visited either of these countries, proving that they are not popular and well-advertised destinations. The two participants that had been to these destinations had volunteered to help people living in South Korea or Cambodia. This proves that the participants did not choose to go to in terms of a two week holiday with sun and sea, but to help people that are suffering in a consequence from war. All of the participants mentioned that the destinations are not advertised enough and their perceptions of the destinations are ‘war and poverty’, two factors that are not encouraging for a holiday.
Overall, it is clear that war and conflict in particular countries do affect the amount of tourists that visit. From the previous research that has been conducted, tourists have only recently started venturing out to countries that have once been affected by war. This is because the countries have realised that the tourism industry is a huge industry that can bring a mass amount of capital into the country. Cambodia and South Korea have both invested in numerous strategies in order to bring in tourism and from the statistics found, this has been proven to work. However, from the survey conducted, it is clear that both of the countries still have issues in which some people would choose not to go, some being a safety factor and another being that the countries are not advertised enough for a tourist to gain enough information about that destination.
Butler R & Suntikul W (2013). Tourism and War. Oxon: Routledge. 17-189.
Ellis S and Sheridan LM. (2014). The legacy of war for community-based tourism development: learnings from Cambodia. Community Development Journal. 49 (1), 129-142.
Lee YS. (2006). The Korean War and tourism: legacy of the war on the development of the tourism industry in South Korea.. International Journal of Tourism Research. 8 (3), 157-170.