Tourism development from disaster capitalism (original) (raw)

Introduction

Major, recurring problems in post-disaster reconstruction indicate how rebuilding for residents is not necessarily the goal of all those who control the process (Cohen, 2011; Gould & Lewis, 2018; Rajasingham-Senanayake, 2005; Timms, 2011). The goal of reconstruction can instead be extractive, grabbing of resources and exploiting disaster-affected people. Klein, 2005, Klein, 2018 popularized the term “disaster capitalism” to refer to the affluent and powerful within society exploiting a disaster to consolidate and amplify their own power and resources, usually at the expense of the most disaster-affected people. Disaster capitalism occurs post-disaster in a disaster-affected location, as distinct from other expropriation and exploitation. The tourism industry is often complicit, helping the reconstruction industry to take land from people under the guise of providing post-disaster aid (Cohen, 2011; Timms, 2011). The homes and land of disaster-affected populations, such as those located on highly desirable coastal areas, can be transformed into lucrative tourism destinations (Cohen, 2011), illustrating tourism development from disaster capitalism (Fletcher, 2019).

Before any such transformation can occur, residents are often removed from the land or forced into inadequate accommodation and jobs, with Cohen (2011) outlining two forms of land grabbing for tourism development from disaster capitalism. First, predatory land grab involves private individuals or organizations who either buy the land immediately after a disaster, while those affected are still under duress, or else simply evict people from their land by registering, often fraudulently, land ownership claims. Second, strategic land grab involves the local or national government evicting residents from their land either by decree or under the guise of rehabilitation with the goal of tourism development. Based on these two forms, this research note outlines different situations of tourism development from disaster capitalism and then illustrates how shoddy and inequitable relief and reconstruction, including arbitrary relocation, creates recurring disasters and thus continuing disaster capitalism.

Case studies

Table 1 outlines some illustrative examples of tourism-relevant post-disaster land grabs.

Table 1.

Examples of tourism-relevant disaster capitalism through land grabbing.

A more recent example is from Barbuda, after Hurricane Irma in 2017 destroyed 90% of the island's infrastructure (Gould & Lewis, 2018). Two days after Irma hit, Prime Minister Gaston Browne ordered the mandatory evacuation of all 1800 residents, declaring the island uninhabitable (Gould & Lewis, 2018; Gruenbaum, 2018). Residents were transported to their country's other island, Antigua, and many Barbudans believed that the forced evacuation only served to hamper the process of rebuilding and presented an opportunity for the government and private tourism interests to engage in a massive land grab (Gould & Lewis, 2018; Gruenbaum, 2018). Despite the Barbuda Land Act of 2007 stating “All land in Barbuda shall be owned in common by the people of Barbuda” (p. 5) and “No land in Barbuda shall be sold” (p. 6), days after Irma, the Prime Minister, even before rolling out plans to rebuild, revised Barbuda's land tenure system (Gruenbaum, 2018). Barbudans have declared this move unconstitutional since the new system successfully passed in the country's legislative house before the public was even aware of it (Gould & Lewis, 2018; Gruenbaum, 2018).

Antigua and Barbuda's government has repeatedly denied accusations of disaster capitalism, but has engaged in such tactics by declaring damaged areas uninhabitable and refusing access to survivors while simultaneously supporting tourism development in those areas. Just days after the disaster, actor Robert De Niro promised to help the island rebuild by proposing a $200-million resort through his hospitality group, Nobu (Gould & Lewis, 2018; Gruenbaum, 2018). Though they claim building the resort is a noble effort on their part to help Barbudans rebuild post-Irma, they proposed the same development two years before Irma struck but were refused by the Barbudans (Gruenbaum, 2018). Many other private entities have a keen interest in buying plots of land in Barbuda for developing enclaves for tourists and expats, despite the government declaring the entire island uninhabitable and refusing entry to Barbudans (Gould & Lewis, 2018; Gruenbaum, 2018).

The emergence of tourism development from disaster capitalism based on the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic remains to be seen. Extensive numbers of small, locally owned tourism businesses are not expected to survive without assistance. Rather than loans or grants, forced purchase or post-bankruptcy auctions could be their fate, with larger and richer companies using the pandemic to take over them.

Tourism development moving beyond disaster capitalism

The case studies demonstrate for the tourism industry the long-standing disaster research conclusions that existing reconstruction and development approaches too often deepen existing inequities, leading to even more disasters (e.g. Davis & Alexander, 2015; Rajasingham-Senanayake, 2005). Similarly, disaster research from its beginnings evidenced how hazards rarely cause disasters, but long before recovery and reconstruction are needed, vulnerabilities do (Hewitt, 1983, Hewitt, 1997; Lewis, 1999; Wisner et al., 2004). Then, post-disaster human actions and inactions sometimes support disaster capitalism, so disaster-affected communities are made to be even more vulnerable through continuing poverty, inequity, and lack of opportunities. This perpetuates vulnerabilities and hence disasters.

To illustrate with Barbuda, the hurricane wrecked the island, not because of the wind speed or flooding, but because the infrastructure and society were not prepared to deal with known hazards. The disaster was the vulnerabilities preventing people from preparing for the hurricane and its impacts. Then, the disaster continued through excluding Barbudans from post-hurricane work, seeking to take control of their land, and reconstructing the island according to external, money-driven interests rather than helping the disaster-affected people. This latter part of the disaster, driven by the tourism industry and with the most long-term impacts, was not correlated to the hurricane parameters and was not caused by the environmental hazard.

Rather than supporting disaster capitalism, tourism decision-makers, researchers, and industries have the opportunity to prevent the creation and perpetuation of vulnerability (and hence disasters) from post-disaster exploitation. Yet immediate reconstruction in the same place in the same way as before is far from a post-disaster panacea, since it simply rebuilds the conditions which created the disaster in the first place (Davis & Alexander, 2015). Tourism development from disaster capitalism often worsens situations, forcing disaster-affected populations to lose their property, land, and livelihoods. Ripple effects might include increased dependency on tourism for livelihoods, profits leaving the local area, and placing tourists and tourism workers in harm's way.

Rather than supporting and promoting inequity through tourism, long-standing disaster-related research, policy, and practice can be applied in tourism development to ensure that recovery and reconstruction do not re-create the same conditions which led to the disaster—or even create new, even worse situations. Those involved in tourism should make themselves aware of previous disaster-related lessons to support reducing vulnerable conditions instead of policies that create and exacerbate vulnerabilities. Examples are protecting the land rights of citizens; promoting appropriate building, land use, and zoning regulations; and ensuring that people—including visitors to a location—understand the hazards they could experience and have the opportunities to deal with the hazards. These lessons could be applied now to avoid problems emerging as Covid-19-related lockdowns are eased, especially if health-related changes (e.g. fewer open buffets) are implemented as a consequence of the pandemic.

Predatory behaviour of tourism interests in disaster-affected areas should be challenged and stopped. Literature identifies inequities that disaster capitalism creates and exacerbates, but could better show how the tourism industry could avoid disaster capitalism creating disasters through tourism. Tourism researchers have roles in proposing, critiquing, and advocating how tourism might support disaster recovery and long-term disaster prevention; for instance, through respectful disaster tourism, disaster prevention tourism, or supporting local, self-owned businesses. Meanwhile, further research could develop disaster capitalism frameworks to identify, analyse, and call out tourism-related contributions. Such steps are necessary to counter disaster capitalism linked to harmful tourism development.

Associate editor: Kemperman Astrid

References

1. Brondo K.V. University of Arizona Press; Tucson: 2013. Land grab: Green neoliberalism, gender, and Garifuna resistance in Honduras. [Google Scholar]
2. Cohen E. Tourism and land grab in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. 2011;11(3):224–236. [Google Scholar]
3. Davis I., Alexander D. Routledge; Abingdon: 2015. Recovery from disaster. [Google Scholar]
4. Fletcher R. Ecotourism after nature: Anthropocene tourism as a new capitalist “fix”. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2019;27(4):522–535. [Google Scholar]
5. Gould K.A., Lewis T.L. Green gentrification and disaster capitalism in Barbuda: Barbuda has long exemplified an alternative to mainstream tourist development in the Caribbean. After Irma and Maria, that could change. NACLA Report on the Americas. 2018;50(2):148–153. [Google Scholar]
6. Gruenbaum O. Commonwealth update. The Round Table. 2018;107(1):1–7. [Google Scholar]
7. Hewitt K. 1st ed. Allen & Unwin; Boston: 1983. Interpretations of calamity from the viewpoint of human ecology. [Google Scholar]
8. Hewitt K. Longman; London: 1997. Regions of risk: A geographical introduction to disasters. [Google Scholar]
9. Klein N. Picador; New York: 2005. The rise of disaster capitalism. [Google Scholar]
10. Klein N. Haymarket Books; Chicago: 2018. The battle for paradise: Puerto Rico takes on the disaster capitalists. [Google Scholar]
11. Lewis J. Intermediate Technology Publications; London: 1999. Development in disaster-prone places: Studies of vulnerability. [Google Scholar]
12. Loperena C.A. Honduras is open for business: Extractivist tourism as sustainable development in the wake of disaster? Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2017;25(5):618–633. [Google Scholar]
13. Paz E.B. Tsunami aftermath: Recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. AU Journal of Technology. 2005;9(1):29–40. [Google Scholar]
14. Rajasingham-Senanayake D. Sri Lanka and the violence of reconstruction. Development. 2005;48(3):111–120. [Google Scholar]
15. Rice A., Haynes K. Tourism Concern; London: 2005. Post-tsunami reconstruction and tourism: A second disaster? [Google Scholar]
16. Robinson L., Jarvie J.K. Post-disaster community tourism recovery: The tsunami and Arugam Bay, Sri Lanka. Disasters. 2008;32(4):631–645. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01058.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Timms B.F. The (mis)use of disaster as opportunity: Coerced relocation from Celaque National Park, Honduras. Antipode. 2011;43(4):1357–1379. [Google Scholar]
18. Wisner B., Blaikie P., Cannon T., Davis I. 2nd ed. Routledge; London: 2004. At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. [Google Scholar]