Trevor BurrowesGroup Admin Disaster Tourism:
ttps://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=DISASTER+TOURISM+%2B+IMAGES&fr=yhs-adk-adk_sbnt&hspart=adk&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthevelvetrocket.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F12%2Fdisaster-tourism.png#id=28&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Fdisaster-tourism-1223260941378158-9%2F95%2Fdisaster-tourism-0646599-5-728.jpg%3Fcb%3D1223235939&action=click
Could this be a model for St. Ann's Bay?
Managettps://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=DISASTER+TOURISM+%2B+IMAGES&fr=yhs-adk-adk_sbnt&hspart=adk&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthevelvetrocket.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F12%2Fdisaster-tourism.png#id=28&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Fdisaster-tourism-1223260941378158-9%2F95%2Fdisaster-tourism-0646599-5-728.jpg%3Fcb%3D1223235939&action=click
Could this be a model for St. Ann's Bay?
Trevor BurrowesGroup Admin Listed Negatives of Disaster Tourism: Takes advantage of people's misery, interferes with relief efforts, money could be spent elsewhere.
All these negatives could do well to be examined better.
1) Takes advantage of people's misery: It could, if there was no intention to do otherwise. Disaster tourism could look on the upside of environmental, social or economic disasters, and could be a way to address them more positively (while using their visual evidence as a caution and a guide for the future, like, say, a holocaust museum).
2) Interferes with relief efforts: They could, but that could be obviated by clarity as to what is to be relieved and what is not. Leaving a pile of rubble intact as evidence of war could hinder relief efforts of rescuing victims buried beneath it. But rescuing these victims would be a much greater priority when you realize they are buried there, than when you are clear this is no longer the case.
3) Money could be spent elsewhere. This is the hardest one to understand. Spent elsewhere to do what? What money? Disaster tourism seems to be a way to MAKE money based on what is there already, rather than a way to spend money.
All these negatives could do well to be examined better.
1) Takes advantage of people's misery: It could, if there was no intention to do otherwise. Disaster tourism could look on the upside of environmental, social or economic disasters, and could be a way to address them more positively (while using their visual evidence as a caution and a guide for the future, like, say, a holocaust museum).
2) Interferes with relief efforts: They could, but that could be obviated by clarity as to what is to be relieved and what is not. Leaving a pile of rubble intact as evidence of war could hinder relief efforts of rescuing victims buried beneath it. But rescuing these victims would be a much greater priority when you realize they are buried there, than when you are clear this is no longer the case.
3) Money could be spent elsewhere. This is the hardest one to understand. Spent elsewhere to do what? What money? Disaster tourism seems to be a way to MAKE money based on what is there already, rather than a way to spend money.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment