: Natural Disaster Tourism- A Blessing in disguise!

Abstract:
Natural disaster can become tourist hot spot zones for people to visit. Over the past years, climate change has created a lot of intense weather events. In some cases, natural disasters can increase tourism and can often be seen as a blessing in disguise. Everywhere in the world, destination will be definitely affected by these changes and it is up to people to decide if they want to be ''winners'' or ''losers'' in the tourism sector.

Keyword:
Natural disaster, death related attractions, climate change, Hurricane Katrina, dark tourism, consumer behaviour, tourism segments & motives

Discussion:
According to Foley & Lennon (2000), there is an increasingly number of death-related visitor attractions, where authorities are very often trading them under the disguise of remembrance, education and entertainment. These calamities cities fascinate people excitement to consume real death. Without a doubt, the exploitation of disaster tourism travel to sites of death, ruins of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans to enjoying the beach in the Louisiana coast where oil spillage occur or even visiting Mount Merapi closest village has become very popular. Thus the term dark tourism also known as thanatourism has become very popular. As Tarlow (2005, p48), stated that dark tourism is about 'visitations to places where tragedies or historically noteworthy death has occurred and that continue to impact our lives'.

Poor countries often exploit tourism as a means of economic salvation. Dark tourism literature is usually diverse and fragile and therefore, understanding disaster tourist regarding their consumption of the dark tourism is often very difficult. As stated by Seaton (1996), this tourism segment has not been questioned but only consumed. The essay demonstrated the consumer behaviour together with socio-cultural aspects of death; which will then lead to a better understanding of consumer motives within the dark tourism. As stated by Lennon & Foley (2000), people have become aware of the appearance of new trends in consumer behaviour for example the need for authenticity.

There are 3 main cases that have been discussed in the essay; one of them is the oil spillage in the gulf coast, as said by the American President Mr Obama, people need to visit if they want to help as there are still tourism opportunities. (BBC News June 2010). By motivating tourist to visit these places, the president is encouraging disaster tourism in order to boost the economy. Most of the time, this type of tourism is seen as bad, as it involve people to travel for pure curiosity without the aim to help local directly. Another, disaster tourism attractions which has been discussed in the essay is the ruins of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Natural disaster tourism first took place in Greater New Orleans after the Hurricane Katrina devasted the area, and has become famous since then. There has been both good and bad critics on the Katrina tours buses, some local find it unethical while others are happy to earn their living. (Slayton, S.L; Grief tourism 2006)

As said by (Salt 2003), authorities in countries affected by disaster find the disaster tourism very beneficial as it helps local people to re build their lives. By visiting these calamities places, tourists get an idea of the true reality about these affected areas. As per Ritchie (2004), disaster tourist can turned their visit into a positive life changing experience by not being a passive tourist but instead get down to business in improving affected people everyday life. By helping rescue team to rehabilitate locals, tourist will understand the importance of humanity and will take the best out of this experience

Disaster tourism is usually seen as an unforgivable voyeurism than a history lesson. It all depends on what tourists see and what they feel when showing up in disaster places where people are still suffering. Zhang et al (2002) Disaster tourism is not always directed towards dark motives, but instead can rebuild the country economic situation. In contrast, there is lot of motives why this tourism segment should not be encouraged, one of them is the voyeurism, and local may feel uncomfortable to see strangers staring at their tragedy (Lennon & Foley, 2000).

According to the World Tourism Organisation, climate change is due to global warming and this will bring key changes in the tourism industry. Global warming will therefore change the tourism industry forever. To conclude, the tourism industry is without doubt changing and it is up to authorities to bring positive impact from these changes. Many destinations could develop other types of tourism like disaster, grief or dark tourism. Solutions are always there as long as local people and authorities work together to overcome difficulties caused by climate change.

As a result of this tourism segment related with death at the centre point of the dark tourism concept, the essay described the consumer behaviour, which includes contemporary socio-cultural aspects of death. It is suggested by Sharpley (1999), that this will also lead to a better understanding of the consumer motives within the dark tourism.

REFERENCES

Lennon, J. & Foley, M. (2000) Dark Tourism - The Attraction of Death and Disaster.
London: Continuum.

Slayton,S.L. (2006) Hurrricane Kartrina: tear & grief tourism/grief tourism/ [online]. [Accessed 25 April 2011].available at : <http://www.grief-tourism.com/hurricane-katrina-fear-and-grief-tourism/>

Tarlow, P.E. (2005) Dark Tourism: the appealing 'dark' side of tourism and more. In
M.Novelli (ed) Niche Tourism - Contemporary Issues, Trends and Cases, Oxford: Elsevier:

It is interesting to read about natural disaster as a form of tourism. It is heard that people travel to the disaster areas because volunteers can help to rebuild lives, and that the visitors are a form of dark tourists, visiting areas that are surrounded with tragedy. As the author mentioned, this form of tourism fascinates people, seeing 'death and tragedy' first hand, giving a very different tourist experience.
It seems to be that the authorities of these countries use remembrance, education and entertainment to promote this form of tourism, in the bid to help bring in money which can be used to help re-build the homes and lives of the people affected. It is hard to believe that natural disaster tourism can be promoted as entertainment, as it has psychological risks and emotional turmoil, especially in natural disaster areas.
With the disaster of the oil spillage on the Gulf Coast, with President Obama trying to promote tourism to this area, as the tourists are travelling through pure curiosity, it is seen as bad and that poorer countries exploit tourism in these areas for economic gains. Do you believe that this form of tourism is bad? It can be taken that tourism is good, providing money to these areas that are in desperate need. However, taking another view and using Auschwitz as an example for another form of dark tourism, tourism is used in these cases to keep the understanding and remembrance alive, but in natural disaster areas, is it right to keep this kind of memory alive? It can be seen as re-opening wounds, that this form of disaster should not be remembered, but if tourism was stopped and people did not travel to these areas would there be any money to help the locals?
With this there can be conflict between the host and guests in these destinations, as you said that some locals would find it unethical to travel to where the disaster has taken place, while others are thankful for the help and can continue their earnings. With a divide in the local community, it is difficult for tourism to be promoted, as not everyone will be happy.
It can be taken that natural disaster tourism is beneficial to the destinations, locals and the tourists. As the experience is life changing for the tourists, they are helping other people and as you said learning the importance of humanity. It can be suggested that it is a personal self-fulfilment for the tourist, it can be thought of as more about the actual tourist than who they are 'helping'. However, the help and money that the locals receive from the tourists can help to re-build their lives from a disaster that destroyed everything they had.
The tourist's experience that they gain from visiting areas of natural disaster is mostly about what is being felt by the tourist, that they are moved enough to travel to the country and help. But is it the best time to go when people are still grieving for the fatalities?

I found this conference paper, as well as the previous comment to it, very interesting, especially in terms of the ´impacts´ of dark tourism. There certainly are a large number of these thana tourism destinations, and it clearly can be seen that this form of travelling will continue to be strongly present for a long time throughout the world. In addition, as mentioned in the paper, this, unfortunately is a very current issue, due to for example the Japan Tsunami, Haiti earthquake and as the author discussed, the oil spillage on the Gulf Coast etc.

My opinion is that the ethical questions that arise from promoting this tourism in certain regions should be considered very carefully, thinking beyond the possible economic benefits that this would bring. Despite this, I also take strongly the view that this issue should not by any means be generalised. This is because the general living conditions in these dark tourism destinations can be very different. For example the New Orleans hurricane and the Haiti earthquake had both extremely disastrous impacts on these areas, but other than that, these regions do not have a lot in common. One could argue that it is understandable for some people in the New Orleans area are against the regions dark tourism for ethical reasons. America is a wealthy and developed country, where many individuals, not to mention the state bodies, do not necessarily have to try and take all possible economical benefits from each available situation. On the other hand, countries like for example Haiti do not have that privilege to put ethics before economic gain in a situation like this. Haiti is a developing country, where prior to the earthquake, tourism existed only in certain areas, and it was relatively small scale. One reason for this almost non-existing tourism was the high crime rates that the country had suffered a long time of. The amount of foreign help and investments were a fraction of what they have been after the earthquake. This kind of extreme poverty is a global problem, but a major natural disaster is very rare. Ironically, many people that survived the quake, have probably better living conditions now, than what they would have had, if the quake would have not happened. As the author of this conference paper discussed, by helping in these communities tourists will often understand humanity in a different level. This raises the issue that possibly for many people, thana tourism is more ´educational tourism´.

In terms of promoting dark tourism, Haiti does it very heavily. The first words in the country´s official tourism website, http://www.haititourisme.com/, are "Help The Haitian Earthquake Victims!". This was a unique and very important opportunity for Haiti to try and make itself a more desirable tourism destination. Many other islands in the same region get most of their economic gains from tourism, and this is what Haiti should, and will strive to achieve. In a way, for Haiti choosing not to promote this dark tourism would have been more unethical than actually doing it.