I was commenting on the Victoria student’s post on flooding in Venice and then began to read Guelph students posts on authenticity.  It’s interesting to think about the connections between these two topics. I responded to the students’ blog, questioning whether it was ethical to ‘promote’ the negative effects of climate change as tourism attractions, as is the case in Venice.  Here’s part of what I wrote:

Venice’s flooding acting almost as an attraction in itself and becoming a ‘must see’ for tourists is quite ironic. It’s interesting to look at some of the ‘positives’ that may be arising for the tourism as a result of climate change. For example, in our class this morning we talked about how, although winter tourism in Canada is suffering, the summer tourism season has been lengthened, especially in the mountainous tourism areas and summer tourism is earning higher profits. It raises the question as to whether it is ethical for the tourism industry to take advantage of these supposed ‘benefits’ of global warming and to try to market problems like the flooding in Venice as a tourism attraction. Is it ethical for our industry to try to counter the negative effects of climate change by exploiting the effects and turning them into attractions?

But now, after reading about authenticity, I’m thinking how, though it may be unethical, perhaps it is authentic to be showing destinations as they are instead of trying to cover up the damage that has been done.  Is it more important to be authentic, or to be ethical?  What do you think?

In our TEFI course today, we listened to Christian’s lecture on Tourism and Climate Change. I think that this topic has been exhausted in a lot of classrooms (especially closer to when “An Inconvenient Truth” came out), but it was interesting to see a 100% tourism perspective. During the lecture, I was asking myself a lot of questions that I thought I would share on here. I would be extremely interested to see other students’ responses on one or more of the questions:

1. If rising sea levels are such a major, worldwide concern, why is tourism still focused on developing on the coasts? Shouldn’t we perhaps be making an effort to bring tourism more inland? Investing in properties may not be a sustainable business venture, considering that one day it may be underwater. Obviously there is an extremely high demand for beach vacations, but we’ve already established such strong infrastructure on the coast, does anyone think it may be time to move tourism focus further inland?
2. Why aren’t coastal resorts using sea/ocean water for landscaping and toilets? So much fresh water is wasted on things that we don’t necessarily need fresh water for. Is there a way that tourism destinations can reduce their fresh water usage, without compromising the luxuries travellers demand?
3. It seems that Canada may be experiencing some positive impacts from global warming. For instance, with this record-high temperature winter we’ve had, Canadians in southern Ontario have rarely needed to turn on the heat – this MUST mean some emissions have been reduced. Additionally, we have seen an increase in travel during our summer months due to our rising temperatures. There are things in Canada that, I can imagine, people want to see but are deterred from the cold weather we are stereotyped by. International students: are your regions experiencing any kind of tourism benefits from climate change?

Well, that’s all for now! I am looking forward to your responses

FoxGotham, K. (2007). Selling new orleans to new orleans : Tourism authenticity and the construction of community identity.Tourist Studies, 7(3), 317-339. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/61960035?accountid=11233

I found this article particularly interesting as it discusses the rise of New Orleans’ tourism industry through the 19th and 20th centuries. It first discusses tourism and authenticity as a general topic, stating that: “…a major trend in tourism is the replacement of real authenticity with a ‘staged’ authenticity, in which local cultures and traditions become commodified and manufactured for tourist consumption.” The author refers to John Urry’s (2002) concept of “the tourist gaze” which, incidentally, is also mentioned in my second article. This notion of “the tourist gaze” simply refers to what draws the attention of the tourist and keeps them captivated, and is entirely controlled by the tourism industry; that is, what the tourist sees is defined by the tourism leaders in a city or country.

The article then goes on to discuss the close of the 19th century, when tourism in New Orleans really started to pick up as there was a rise in hotels and transportation, and many campaigns stating that traveling was both a healthy and pleasurable activity. Furthermore, city officials saw the importance of there being a brand to New Orleans products, and aimed to encourage the locals, and by extension, the tourists, to buy products made in New Orleans using campaigns such as “Buy at Home” and “Made In New Orleans (MINO)” and later added “Boost New Orleans” and “Sell New Orleans to New Orleans.”. These campaigns enforced a sense of authenticity to the products (especially for tourists) since it promoted a very strong “New Orleanian culture.” These campaigns became regulated and a very standardized method of capitalization; their purpose was to take advantage of any and every opportunity for the city to become known for its commerce, industry and opportunities.

Wyile, H. (2008). Going out of their way: Tourism, authenticity, and resistance in contemporary atlantic-canadian literature.English Studies in Canada, 34(2), 159-180. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/205835502?accountid=11233

This article discusses themes of Tourism and Authenticity in Atlantic-Canadian Literature, and I found many of the arguments similar to those found in other articles. The main idea throughout this article is that tourism sites and cities are often forced to stage a situation that is different from the reality of that city, in order to give the tourist exactly what they are looking for. According to the article, the need for tourism in the first place is often due to financial duress rather than a desire to facilitate a tourist’s needs, and that as a result, the host cities may feel resentment towards the tourists. In fact, the article’s opening sentence quotes Edward Richie: “Tourism is a kind of pollution … [and is] something that one has to rely upon for economic survival, it is the last act of desperation.” This statement gives the idea that tourism is in fact staged, and a compelled act, rather than a path taken for the traveler’s sake.

The article continues in this tone, stating that because the tourists often have unrealistic and misguided assumptions and stereotypes of tourist cites, (especially if in developing countries) it is left up to the host city to go through the trouble of presenting themselves exactly how the tourist wishes to see it. Therefore the tourist does not get an authentic experience, but a performance; what Jean Baudrillard refers to as “substituting signs of the real for the real.”

I’d like to state as a final thought, a poem which is stated in the article, written by Jeanette Lynes called ‘Markings,’ because when I read it, short as it is, I thought to myself how it really does relate to tourism industries around the world. Read it for yourself, and tell me what you think:

“There’s an island where

lives, much of the world believes, an orphan

with red hair. She has never been home.

There’s a regal shore where fishermen dance,

women gather moss in contentment. No one

has ever found it. Perhaps no one

wants to.”

One article I came across spoke more on specific tourism sites, but with an overarching theme of authenticity. This publication stood out to me for the way the authors, Fawcett and Cormack, describe authenticity in the beginning. They state that:

“Authenticity is more than a simple idea underlying and animating touristic sites. What is authentic is formed partly by the personal commitments, bureaucratic mandates, and entrepreneurial interests/economic necessities that the site guardians face. …Authenticity involves a complex set of ideas and themes.”

(2001, p. 687)

This was the first article I came across (in a relatively shallow search) that supported the idea that authenticity is not a simple term – it is very subjective and its validity encompasses many factors.  I was then disappointed to find that the authors continued to entertain the idea that authenticity cannot be provided in the experiences of every day life – a notion that seems to be commonly supported by many other academics.

As Hung and Petrick quotes, MacCannell suggested “tourists travel to other destinations to seek authentic opportunities when their usual environments lack such an experience,” (2011). I find this notion alarming contradictory – what is more authentic than one’s own, natural environment? Isn’t that what some travelers travel to see – people in their natural environments? It only makes it entertaining for us because it is different than our own. Not to say that this kind of experience is inauthentic, but the idea of being in such of such an experience simply because you lack it in your own vicinity, makes no sense to me.

A common theme between many articles, and these two in particular, were the authors’ belief that authenticity cannot be found in one’s own everyday life. This really makes me question the validity of their standpoint on the matter of authenticity. The two articles I chose to focus on were written a decade apart, and yet the still share the same opinion on the subject. I think this may attest to the idea that this opinion may be a little outdated, and that an opposing side should be explored soon. Authenticity is a tricky topic, though, considering how subjective it is to each individual and destination.  I was baffled at my lack in finding an author with a similar opinion as mine, so I would be extremely intrigued if anyone else did.

References:

Hung, K. & Petrick, J. (2011). Why cruise? Exploring the motivations for

taking cruise holidays, and the construction of a cruising motivation

scale. Tourism Management. (31), 386-393.

Fawcett, C., Cormack, P. (2001). Guarding authenticity at literary tourism

sites. Annals of Tourism Research. (28)3, 686-704.

Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: Local food and the sustainable tourism  experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 321-336.

The article, Food, Place and Authenticity: Local Food and the Sustainable Tourism Experience, by Rebecca Sims, highlights relevant themes and concepts related to the role that local food can play in creating an authentic tourism experience.

The article begins by providing a useful literature review of theories and studies on food and its connection to place, trends toward local food and sustainable tourism, and how tourists seek authenticity through food consumption.  The author then goes on to describe a qualitative study of local food and perceived authenticity among tourists to two UK destinations: the Lake District and Exmoor. The purpose of the literature review, and the subsequent study, is to promote taking advantage of the connection between local food and authenticity in order to stimulate sustainable tourism in rural destinations.

Particularly important concepts discussed in the literature review include the proven benefits of local food consumption which foster a more sustainable tourism industry.  Promoting the consumption of local food benefits the local economy, has a lower environmental impact and provides a way for a destination to differentiate itself by developing a brand that is tied to its cuisine.  The term Integrated Rural Tourism (IRT) was noted and explained to focus ‘upon achieving all-round social, economic, and environmental benefits on the understanding that the best form of tourism would be one which achieves gains on all dimensions and for all groups’ (Sims, 2009, p. 323).  IRT will be of increasing importance to the tourism industry, as it emphasizes TEFI values of mutuality and stewardship.

The literature review also provides valuable insight on the definitions of ‘local’ and ‘authentic,’ pointing to the necessity of understanding, both as tourists and as service providers, the meaning of these terms, as they can often be quite ambiguous.  Drawing on insights from various researchers, Sims provides a helpful classification of authenticity, suggesting that it falls into one of three categories:

1. Objective (whether something can be proved)

2. Constructive (how tourism operators can ‘stage’ authenticity, as described by Pine and Gilmore)

3. Existential (concerned with the tourist’s response to an experience) (Sims, 2009, p. 324-325).

Having an understanding of which of these kinds of authenticity tourism professionals wish to achieve is important as it will affect the design and implementation of a tourism product or service.

Sims explains that, though there is much literature on the subjects of food, place and authenticity, there have been few studies to support some of the observations made.   The results of her study have thus, made a valuable contribution in substantiating the ideas proposed in the literature.  The study took place in the Lake District and Exmoor in the UK in 2005 and 2006 and consisted of interviews with tourists and café, pub, restaurant owners and producers in the regions.  The results of the study indicated that tourists seek authenticity through consuming local food because it enables them to connect more with the local culture and people.  There is a deep (and often personal) meaning that accompanies food, one which can be drawn out in order to create authenticity (whether real or perceived) in a tourism experience. Effective destination marketing plans can create a brand image based on the meaning and traditions around a destination’s cuisine.

Certain weakness of the research should be considered, before generalizing the results to the entire tourism industry.  For example, the study was conducted in two rural destinations in the same country.  It would be beneficial to conduct a similar survey in rural destinations having different characteristics and types of tourists.  Also, when gathering information through interviews, there is potential for interviewer bias that might skew the results.

Overall, the article discusses some important themes related to the role that local food and sustainability can play in authenticity.  The research findings presented are valuable for tourism services providers to consider when attempting to develop and market authentic products or services.

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The article Re-enactment Events and Tourism: Meaning, Authenticity and Identity, by Elizabeth Carnegie and Scott McCabe discusses authenticity in heritage festivals and re-enactments. The authors provide a thorough review of literature from past decades from an interdisciplinary approach.  Anthropological, sociological, management and marketing perspectives are presented. This comprehensive literature review provides a useful summary of debates and criticism of authenticity (or lack thereof) in reenactments and historical representations.

Similarly to the first article (Food, Place and Authenticity: Local Food and the Sustainable Tourism Experience), an important part of this literature review is the concept of existential authenticity. The focus is not on how the tourism service provider stages authenticity, but rather, on how a tourism experience becomes meaningful to a tourist him/herself, based on his/her own interpretation of the event.  An interesting example presented is the use of objects and materials in re-enactments; they have no meaning on their own, and require human activity and interpretation to make them significant (Carnegie & McCabe, 2008, p. 357).  It is important for tourism professionals to understand existential authenticity and how it limits the control we have over tourism products or services.  We must attempt to create authentic experiences, but it is ultimately the tourists’ own understanding that will determine the authenticity of the experience.

The article also presents research findings from surveys with re-enactors, an analysis of printed and web-based material of re-enactment groups and societies, discussions in academic settings, and a case study of the UK Annual Festival of History.  The wide variety of sources contributes to the validity of the findings and the respondents’ views represent international perspectives (many respondents were from the UK, but also participants from Australia, New Zealand, United States, France and Italy) (Carnegie & McCabe, 2008, p. 351). Hearing perspectives directly from those involved in re-enacting heritage events is beneficial for those in the tourism industry to understand the subjective term ‘authenticity.’ One respondent’s comment provided valuable insight in that, ‘authenticity is a process, not an absolute, because it cannot be achieved’ (Carnegie & McCabe, 2008, p. 356).  This reminds us that creating authentic experiences is not merely an objective that can be placed in a strategic plan; it requires ongoing efforts which will change with time and shifting tourist demands.

The case study on the English Festival of History also revealed an interesting perspective to consider. Much of the literature in this area emphasizes how tourists seek authenticity, and the tourism industry must be accurate in how it represents events and experiences.  Findings from this case study contrast this belief, and suggest that tourists want entertainment.  When it comes to representing historical events, people care less about the historical accuracy and more about the show.  They are willing (and even eager, as suggested by the results of the study) to suspend their disbelief in order to be entertained (Carnegie & McCabe, 2008, p. 363).  This is an interesting suggestion, and its validity likely depends on the tourism context. Perhaps in smaller scale heritage events, there is less of a desire for a production. Nonetheless, this shows that assessing the target market’s desire for authenticity versus entertainment is an important step when planning individual heritage experiences.

The two articles I have chosen are Reconceptualizing Object Authenticity by Yvette Reisinger, and Carol Steiner, and Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience by Ning Wang.

Both of these articles further our knowledge of the term authenticity. However, the first article by Reisinger and Steiner argue that the term authenticity in MacCannell and Cohen’s perspective needs to be replaced. They claim that the way MacCannell and Cohen interpret the term is too narrow. However, MacCannell and Cohen argue that tourist’s perceptions of authenticity are not important nor does it prove actual authenticity. They believe that a product or an experience cannot be authentic unless it is an “original”. However, Reisinger and Steiner explain that it is up to the tourist to determine what is authentic or not. If a consumer believes their experience to be authentic, then why is it necessarily up to tourism experts to decide what experiences are and aren’t authentic?

The second article by Ning Wang is similar to the first, seeing as it also argues that there is more to authenticity than what MacCannell and Cohen state. However, this article concentrates on explaining a different type of authenticity – existential authenticity. Wang suggests that both objective and constructive authenticity have limited range when applied to tourism experiences, however existential authenticity allows for tourism experiences such as visiting family, shopping, or fishing.

The first article is extremely useful in examining the negative aspects of both Cohen and MacCannell’s work. It also incorporates tourist’s feelings and perspectives when it comes to authenticity in tourism, which I believe that MacCannell and Cohen were missing. It argues that tourism products and experiences are only authentic when a tourist believes them to be. If a tourist does not believe their experience was authentic then obviously it was not, or they did not receive any of the emotional benefits that authenticity can give and the experience needs to be altered anyways.

However, the article does not cover some important aspects of authenticity either. First, the article explains that most of the work on authenticity is done only from an American perspective. In their article they criticize MacCannell and Cohen for this aspect, yet they themselves never examine authenticity from any other viewpoint other than the American. They also argue in the article that the term authenticity needs to be abandoned because the definition isn’t strong enough to explain what authenticity truly is nor does it explain that after a period of time things that were considered fake can then be considered as authentic. However, I believe that the term authenticity still extremely important in tourism. Sure, it does not encompass all tourism experiences however it does give a basic idea of what constitutes and experience being real or fake.

The second article is very good at explaining the different possible definitions of authenticity as well as makes a good attempt at considering all different ways authenticity can be interpreted. For example, it suggests that both objective and constructive authenticity still exist however also explains about existential authenticity or in other words how authentic people PERCEIVE a tourist attraction to be. It is also very useful in explaining that all tourists do not necessarily need object authenticity to enjoy the experience. For example, hunting, hiking, and fishing are not typically experiences people have that are seen as either authentic or unauthentic. However, trying to determine this is actually irrelevant. Wang explains that these activities are authentic in themselves because people it is the just “getting out of the house” and enjoying themselves that people find authentic.

However, as the article states more research and tests need to be conducted to further develop the argument of existential authenticity,  and deepen the discussion of the true definition of authenticity.

Sources

Reisinger, Y., Steiner, C.J. (January 2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1): 65-86.

Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2): 349-370.

Personal Experiences with Leisure Motivation and Behaviour

            My own experience with leisure travel is rather limited. Although one instance that comes to mind is a camping trip I took with my friends in high school after prom. Trust me when I say there was absolutely no business or educational motivators here. The purpose of the trip was the spend time with friends before we all embarked on our post-secondary adventures, and I can’t exactly say that the beverage of choice that weekend was pop.

Finland

            Unlike my fellow classmates, I know absolutely nothing about Finland. I would be cheating if I said I thought of it as a cold place with an abundance of snow sports, because I didn’t know that until I read the other posts here on Innotour. I suppose this doesn’t say much regarding my impression on Finnish stereotypes. Although, I think it reflects on their tourism marketing efforts. When thinking of places to travel, Finland is extremely far from my radar, considering as I have no idea what to expect, and definitely do not think of it as a tourism destination.

New York City

I’m ignoring our instructions here and focusing on a state, rather than a country. To briefly justify, New York City holds roughly the same population as a small country in Asia, and is just as diverse.

Unlike Finland, I think it is safe to say that New York City is a destination on everyone’s travel bucket list. NYC is also a place of stereotypes – theatre, celebrities, crime, and fashion are just a few things that one typically thinks of. Having travelled to NYC twice, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that most of the stereotypes of NYC are accurate, and the locals know it. Unlike Finland, NYC does not really need to invest too much money in travel marketing, as this is a destination that has been continuously hyped up by the media. Although, it is curious why they haven’t attempted to shed their more negative stereotypes through marketing. Maybe they deem it far too gone and inevitable?

Ethics (a TEFI value)

Going back to my own leisure travel experience, it is difficult to comment on the “ethics” of it. Underage drinking, while common, is frowned upon by older generations, not to mention illegal. Many might say that high school students partaking in such activities lack moral principles. Looking back, do any of us regret the decisions we made at our prom and after-prom adventures? Will we allow our kids to make similar decisions? What does this say about the parents – do they lack “moral principles” for allowing such camping trips to happen at the ripe age of 16?

Having an “ethical” perspective on Finland is difficult, considering my true lack of knowledge about the country. I’ll even go as far as to shamefully admit that I don’t even know where Finland is without Googling it. I really can’t think of a way to connect my lack of knowledge on Finland to any sort of ethical discussion.

NYC is a little easier to discuss in this regard when going back to the question I posed earlier. Again, NYC has many stereotypes that to me seem very authentic. To a degree, I think all stereotypes are authentic – they must have derived from something, right? But what about all of the negative stereotypes NYC has earned for itself? Would it be ethical for tourism marketing initiatives to try and hide such stereotypes (ie: crime and rude locals)? Or is it ethical that NYC doesn’t seem to invest in tourism marketing at all, given the destination’s natural and unavoidable media hype?

Though I live in Canada now, I was not raised here, and only visited every couple of years during the summer. Despite my summer vacations to Canada, when it’s hot as ever, my initial perception of this country was still that it is freezing cold for most of the year. Living here now, I see that there are many more elements to this country other than its being cold.

My idea of Finland, a country that I have never traveled to, is very similar to the one I had in regards to Canada before my migrating here: freezing cold for most of the year. In terms of the tourism industry, I cannot personally say that I have every seen a tourism campaign for Finland, so naturally I don’t consider it an area with a very strong tourism industry. I can imagine however, that someone visiting the country may be interested in doing a lot of winter sports like skiing or snowboarding, along with a lot of nature activities like hiking and ice fishing. In terms of stewardship, it is important for those who have established tourism sites, as well as those who visit the country, to ensure that the facility and the environment are preserved and allowed to survive for a long time so that others may visit.

New Zealand, on the other hand, I can confidently say I actually know nothing about, except that it is very far away. The only thing that comes to mind is camping (I’m really not sure why I thought of this). If this is an accurate perception, then I can imagine tourists who visit New Zealand may be interested in the harshness and ruggedness of the camping life as well as the natural beauty that may come along with it. Assuming that there is camping in New Zealand, then I would have to think that stewardship is also an important value here, since the environment and facility would need to be preserved in order to last.

In the same way that my perceptions of Canada have changed, I’m sure that my perceptions of Finland and New Zealand will change too, if I ever get the chance to travel there. One thing is for sure though, because of my preconceptions of Finland and New Zealand, regardless of how  inaccurate they are, I will probably still be carrying my parka or hiking sneakers, respectively.

New Zealand is a country that I associate with sunny weather, beaches and outdoor adventures.  I think of surfing and scuba diving as popular tourism experiences of the country.  My stereotype of New Zealanders is that they are ‘outdoorsy’ and adventurous, eager for a good time, risk takers who seek an adrenaline rush.  I stereotype them as a welcoming people as well – an inclusive group who invites other cultures to experience what they have to offer.  Similarly to my perception of the Finnish and how their connection with nature makes them value human relationships and respect other cultures, I typecast New Zealanders as valuing mutuality as well.  Open-mindedness and friendly behaviours and attitudes would be what I would expect to experience if I were to travel to New Zealand.

Stereotyping is basically opposite of everything that the TEFI value of mutuality stands for.  Stereotyping tends to be narrow-minded and ignorant.  As tourism professionals, we need to avoid (well, let’s say limit, since I think a certain amount of stereotyping is inevitable for us humans) our stereotyping of other cultures.  It usually does not promote mutual respect and inclusiveness, and instead of encouraging diversity, it creates divides between groups of people.  Stereotyping emphasizes ‘otherness’ rather than inclusion, and is usually based on unfair presumptions.  I think there is a fine line somewhere between expectations and stereotypes, and we must learn to recognize the difference.

What are some Stereotypes of Finland?

If I were asked, what are the first things that come to mind when you think of Finland, I would say it is very  cold and dark,  it is located really far north, that everyone has blonde hair and blue eyes, and everyone dresses exceptionally well.  It is obvious that these stereotypes are not true of everyone in Finland, however many Canadians including myself lack the knowledge to know any different. Yet, if this same question was reversed and I was asked about Canada, I could easily go into a half hour speech about it and I’m sure Finnish citizens could do the same for Finland. Perceptions are key to tourism and that is the reason why it is so important to examine stereotypes and how people look at each other.

Stereotypes & Professionalism

I think that most stereotypes of Finland show that the country lacks professionalism, not necessarily because their tourism advertising is inappropriate or controversial but because Finland as a whole doesn’t exert many of the values of professionalism. These values include leadership, relevance, and practicality. Finland isn’t stereotyped in my opinion as a practical or relevant place to visit; it is seen as cold, far and out of the way. Even though it is located near other popular countries in Europe, I don’t associate Finland with them nor do I believe that it is easy accessible from these popular countries.

Now if we look at New Zealand, I think that the stereotypes there are much different. When I think of New Zealand, I think of warm weather, sandy beaches, beautiful landscapes, and surfing. I also automatically associate it with Australia, whatever stereotypes of I have of Australia I immediately apply them to New Zealand.

In my opinion, New Zealand is practically located, and a much more relevant country to my life, and probably to most Canadian’s lives. New Zealand is a dream destination that many people would love to travel to, but typically Finland is not. The positive stereotypes associated with New Zealand make it a popular place to travel, however the slightly more negative stereotypes of Finland make it less likely for people to want to travel there.

I have very limited knowledge of tourism experiences offered in Finland, but I would assume that many revolve around exploring the beautiful landscape. I picture Nordic tour guides leading adventurous tourists along mountain trails with breathtaking scenery.  Though I have only met one Finnish person in my life, I picture the Finnish as friendly and welcoming people. ‘Down to Earth’ is a phrase that comes to mind when I think of what I would expect a Finnish person to be like.  People who value ‘natural living,’ organic food, quality products and who are focused on sustainable living. When it comes to the value of mutuality, I would expect the Finnish to esteem many of these qualities of diversity, inclusion, equity, humility and collaboration. I suppose that I group Finnish people into my stereotype of Scandinavians in general, and assume them to be a group that is warm and amiable and would not exclude visitors from their way of life. I think that people who are more connected with the land and nature tend to be more open, and are humbly aware of their insignificance in the grand scheme of things.  I feel that they are more inclusive and exhibit mutuality, as they value story sharing, both as tellers and listeners of other people’s experiences.  When I imagine visiting Finland, I would expect a trip that involves less touring to famous, crowded attractions, and more visiting with locals and actually ‘experiencing’ their way of life.  I wonder if there is any validity to these stereotypes, or if I have a completely wrong idea of what tourism in Finland is like…

When I think of a country like France, on the other hand (also one which I have never visited), my stereotype of them is very different than that of the Finnish.  From my knowledge and perceptions of the French, I would not describe them as a people who value mutuality. Rather than being inclusive, valuing diversity, equity and humility, I see them as a proud group of people, who views their own language and culture as the best.  I recall stories that I have heard of French people being offended when tourists do not speak their language, yet also offended if tourists attempt to speak French but make grammatical or mispronunciation errors.  I think of a tourism experience like Disneyland France, where there were many challenges because the French clung so tightly to their own culture and resisted the imposition of anything contrary to their own values and ways of doing things.  Disneyland France had to make changes in order to accommodate the demands of the French, otherwise the business would have failed.  Unlike with my stereotype of the Finnish, where I imagine more reciprocity in interactions with tourists, I presume that the French want tourists to see their history, their museums, their distinguished fashions, their cuisine, etc. (This sounds like a very negative stereotype of the French. I should counter it by saying that I have met many great French people and I do not categorize all French people as being proud and rude.)

Dark Tourism can be defined in Stone and Sharpley’s article as ‘the presentation and consumption by visitors of real and commodified death and disaster sites.” Dark tourism sites typically involve locations where mass amounts of people have suffered, or celebrities have died.

So where does Stewardship come into play?

Stewardship is defined by Pauline Sheldon as the “responsibility to care for something, or someone, and the accountability to exercise responsibility.” We must ask ourselves questions about the responsibility that not only we as tourism enthusiasts but also the responsibility that destination officials have towards a dark tourism site. Is it our responsibility to preserve these sites so that they can be sustainable or is it our responsibility to fight against dark tourism in order to stop exploitation? But who is to say what the correct answer is and how do we decide who we owe the ultimate responsibility to?

Personally, I believe that it is the responsibility of all stakeholders to preserve a dark tourism site. Although dark tourism destinations do cause some red flags ethically, there are many benefits to them as well. Many of them provide memorials of those who suffered, and allow tourists to share their sentiments towards those who were lost. They also can become a significant source of income for areas that did not have large amounts of existing tourism before. Furthermore, it is extremely important for other types tourism destinations across the world to be preserved such as the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, and the ruins in the Mayan Riviera; so why should dark tourism sites be any different? These sites are equally as important compared to other destinations and provide many of the same benefits. Dark tourism destinations provide people with cherished memories and knowledge of their history that should never be forgotten.

Another distinct aspect to stewardship is community service. So another question we must ask ourselves is it the responsibility of the community to get involved in a dark tourism site? Should they be willing to establish volunteer programs for these sites? Once, again I believe the correct answer is yes. Community members typically have direct ties with the tragedies that have occurred and should be part of the sharing process.

However, on the other side it is completely rational for community members to be opposed to the complete commercialization of dark tourism destinations. I think all stakeholders have the responsibility to ensure that the main purpose of a dark tourism site is to allow people to learn about these tragedies and share their memories, not to earn money.

Overall, dark tourism is a type of tourism that will never die. Death will always be an unknown for the living and people will constantly be looking for ways to integrate it into life. Therefore it is extremely important for all stakeholders to take responsibility to preserve and advocate for these sites so that they can have a longer life span and can be part of dark tourism forever.

As Stone and Sharpley observe, dark tourism is, among other things, a means for society to socially neutralize death. Due to the nature of death, that is its being inevitable yet impossible to really know about, society has cultivated a taboo and fear around it. This in turn however, creates a mutually high feeling of intrigue surrounding the topic among members of society.

Furthermore, due to the ambiguousness of what happens to us after death, we all have a yearning to know more and more about it. This is another reason why we flock to sites of dark tourism – we hope to catch some sort of glimpse into the after-world; to see how those who are inflicted cope; and to remind ourselves that death is a natural part of our lives.

Tercier notes that due to images of death and tragedy seen in movies, games, etc., that “We see death, but do not touch it.” Here, Tercier refers to the idea that we are aware of death, even though we do not personally feel it since we see less and less of it with the advancement of medicine and technology. This awareness of death urges us to make trips to dark tourism sites, so that we may attempt to “touch” death in some way.

There are of course other reasons that a person may want to visit a site of dark tourism that Gretzel mentions. These include going for thrill, to show gratefulness, for spiritual reasons, or even for malicious intentions. Others may go to places that they have a personal connection to, to pay their grievance respects or perhaps to observe areas that may be under threat (doomsday tourism). However it seems that the society’s mutual curiosity when it comes to death may be the greatest motivator.

These are feelings that people in our society share since none of us know what may happen once the Grim Reaper knocks on our door. Our curiosity and wanting to know what may happen to us in our lives after death, however, are mainly what draw us to these morbid sites of dark tourism.

Those known as professionals in the Dark Tourism Industry have to be aware of this mutuality, in fact they must share these feelings also. This awareness, along with a wanting to make a profit, is the reason this industry exists and expands as tragedies occur in our society.

As a complex and increasingly popular type of travel over the past century, dark tourism has been receiving more attention from tourism researchers.  Stone and Sharpley’s article describes this type of tourism as involving visits to sites and areas related to death and suffering.  Tourism researchers have suggested a variety of reasons for engaging in dark tourism, ranging from fascination with death and morbid curiosity, to nostalgia and seeking ‘spiritual’ experiences that give a person meaning and a way of coping with the notion of mortality.

The TEFI value of knowledge raises certain considerations, as it relates to the phenomenon of dark tourism. Preserving the sacredness of dark tourism sites is one of the foremost challenges, as it is difficult for tourism businesses to prevent the commoditization of dark tourism experiences. Tour operators are required to address this challenge with innovation and creativity.  They must find ways to ‘create a space’ in which numerous individuals can, simultaneously, have a reflective experience as they dwell on the reality of death.  It is important to ensure an authentic representation of events or sites and to prevent the overcrowding of an attraction, in order preserve the sacredness of dark tourism sites.

Creativity and innovation are also required as tour operators must develop ways in which their site or attraction will stimulate the imaginations of tourists who were not alive when the grievous event took place. This is especially true for purposefully constructed dark tourism sites, such as war museums.  At such attractions, tour operators must represent an event in authentic way, to the point that the tourist almost feels as if he or she has experienced the dark event in history.  This can be achieved through effective visuals or architectural design that aids in the experience. For example, the architecture of the Holocaust Museum Houston facilitates the dark tourism experience, as is explained in the following description from the museum’s homepage (http://www.hmh.org/au_architecture.shtml):

The new wing is wedge-shaped, with a sloping concrete surface, out of which rises a dark and looming cylinder. The top surface of the wedge is treated as a field of names, commemorating the destroyed Jewish communities of Europe. The cylinder references the chimneys of the crematoria used by the Nazis to burn the bodies of their victims in their killing centers and concentration camps…

At the front of the entrance stands six steel columns that recall the 6 million murdered Jews. A series of steel trestles evokes the railroad tracks on which thousands were carried to their deaths. Austere finishes-dark steel plates and beams combine with gray concrete to remind visitors of the faceless architecture of the death camps and the industrialization of mass murder.

…The gallery ceiling starts high above the exhibition, then descends, just as the specter of death closed in on victims of the Holocaust as time passed.

The museum also has a space for reflection which incorporates a collection of tiles called, the ‘Wall of Tears,’ a sacred area to encourage remembrance and contemplation.

Given the complexity of dark tourism and the motivations for engaging in it, tour operators will also require a high degree of critical thinking.  Dark tourism can involve diverse elements including entertainment, fear, nostalgia, and spirituality and tour operators must recognize the depth of thinking and planning required in this type of tourism. This critical thinking could include, for example, determining at what point on Stone’s Dark Tourism Spectrum (2006) an attraction lies. At each of the six identified levels of dark tourism, a different planning approach is necessary from tourism professionals.  Since one cannot predict the reactions that an individual will have to a dark tourism site or experience, it is important for tour operators to realize the intensity of dark tourism and to treat their planning and management in this field as profound.

General Reflection

A broad question I find asking myself regarding Dark Tourism is: “Is it peoples’ individual motivations that determine the level of morbidity of a dark tourism venture? Or is it what the specific destination entails or has to offer the public?” Stone and Sharpley seem to support both sides of this argument, in that they quote Dann’s (1998) 8 major influences of the individual, but also his accepting notion that the influences are related to the destination itself (for instance, a destination’s level of “darkness” on Stone’s Dark Tourism Spectrum, seen below). Perhaps there isn’t a definitive answer to my question, other than that it really depends on both the individual, and the destination itself.

Stone’s Dark Tourism Spectrum (2006)

Doomsday Tourism

The sub-sector of Dark Tourism that particularly interests me is “Doomsday Tourism”. According to Gretzel’s presentation, Doomsday Tourism can be described as “visiting places that are under threat, usually due to environmental problems but not always (ie: Yangtze River valley before Three Gorges Dam)”. Some examples of Doomsday Tourism would be visiting places like the Galapagos Islands or the Great Barrier Reef, or embarking on a Polar Bear Cruise. The reason that this sub-sector interests me is because I find it rather contradictory. As much as I would love to see the Great Barrier Reef before it no longer exists, the main reason I have refrained from doing so is because it is acts such as tourism that are contributing to it’s inevitable end. It troubles me that others have not recognized this ethically obvious point, and continue to partake in such ignorant, curiosity-settling activities.

Professionalism (a TEFI value)

Considering the factors that encompass the term “Professionalism”, some questions we might ask ourselves regarding Dark Tourism are:

• Who has taken it upon themselves to be leaders in this phenomenon?
• What is the relevance of Dark Tourism in regards to both personal fulfillment and also as a tourism activity?
• Where has teamwork taken place in order to ensure that Dark Tourism remains a practical and ethical venture?
• When is it an opportune or timely moment to classify a certain site as a tourist attraction?
• Why have certain services been allowed to make profit off of other peoples’ misery?

Let’s attempt to answer these questions in order, shall we?

Death is not only an inevitable outcome for us all, but now is also considered an “industry”. Outside of death-related tourism, there are also funeral homes and hospices, where people have capitalized on death and turned it into a profession – a brutal notion, but seemingly necessary in today’s society. Leaders on the tourism side of this death-industry can be viewed as insensitive, money-seeking merchants who have seen a profitable venture and grabbed a hold of it, or, alternatively, as people who are merely trying to preserve some of the more impacting moments in history.

Regarding the relevance of Dark Tourism and personal fulfillment, there are indeed many proven motivating factors for one to engage in Dark Tourism activities. As previously mentioned, Stone and Sharpley (2008) quote Dann’s (1998) eight major influences for pursuing Dark Tourism. They include: “the fear of phantoms (i.e. overcoming childlike fears); the search for novelty; nostalgia; the celebration of crime or deviance; basic bloodlust; and, at a more practical level, ‘dicing with death’ – that is, undertaking journeys, or ‘holidays in hell’, that challenge tourists or heighten their sense or mortality,” (page 576). Although seemingly relevant in meeting our personal needs, Dark Tourism as a sought-after tourism activity can be seen as morbid, unethical, and impractical.

In order for Dark Tourism to remain practical, it must be suitable for it’s specific purpose; one purpose being meeting people’s needs and their motivations listed above. One might continue to justify the practicality of Dark Tourism by quoting Berger (1967), in that “to neglect death is to ignore one of the few universal parameters in which both the collective and individual self is constructed,” (Stone & Sharpley, 2008). In order to avoid speculation, people must collaborate in creating an atmosphere at these destinations that meet the needs and expectations of their visitors.

Along with his spectrum, Stone also provides criteria to make Dark Tourism attractions easily classifiable. One of the criteria involves the amount of time that has passed since the death-related event. The amount of time passed is one of the defining factors for just how dark a tourism destination is. The question then remains, how soon is too soon? A lot of these places have a deep-rooted personal meaning to a lot of people, and offending them would be detrimental to the destination’s reputation, likely creating unwanted publicity, and thus hindering it’s success as a “tourism destination”.

Dark Tourism is hardly a new phenomenon, especially considering that the first alleged tour in England was via train to witness a public hanging (Stone & Sharpley, 2008). Death-themed entertainment has been an integral part of popular culture (Bryant & Shoemaker, 1997:2), consistently dominating the media. To ignore it as a reasonable means for travel might be almost as insensitive as the idea of people capitalizing on it. Profiting off of death poses many ethical questions, but from a professional standpoint, it is undeniable that Dark Tourism is a means for successful business ventures.

There are obviously hundreds of questions that can be posed against Dark Tourism and professional values. But hopefully these have been just as thought provoking for you as they were for me.