BootsnAll Travel Community

Natural disasters are horrific and obviously everything must be done to help a country in their time of need.

Tourism will stop until survivors are safe, order is restored, the roads are patched, the water is back on, etc.

But when should tourism resume?

After the tsunami in Thailand, the shopkeepers eventually cleaned up most of the damage and opened their doors to business again. Tourists stayed away in droves.

After the earthquake in Izmit, Turkey tourism dropped dramatically even though the damage was confined to one small area in an enormous country.

The final death toll from the earthquake in Peru is still unknown. Pisco, Ica and Chincha are in reportedly ruins. Lima & Cusco are relatively untouched.

Many businesses depend upon tourism to pay their rent and feed their families.

I have a ticket to Lima for next month that I bought months ago. Reading the Peru forum at another popular travel website makes me feel guilty about even thinking of going there.

The shopkeeper who hopes to sell me an Alpaca sweater may not agree.

Where is the line drawn?

Go and invest in the local economy. That's what it needs. Seriously, how will staying away benifit anyone? Just be respectful (likely), kind (likely) and help go cheer those people up.

Maybe you can even spend some time helping out with relief? Good luck on your choice.

I also have a ticket to Peru in my pocket...leaving in only 11 days. My friend and I were debating the moral, financial and safety issues of going through with our trip. But I agree with Prisa...who benefits if I stay home? Although it feels unsympathetic to skip through Lima and Cusco on vacation while families are grieving horrible losses, a cancellation doesn't seem like the best decision.

For us, we want to travel sensitively. Express support for the Peruvian people. Support their family businesses. Enjoy our trip, but be mindful of the lives tragically affected by this disaster.

Difficult balances for travelers...but staying home, in most cases, just isn't the best option.

i've been having mixed feelings about this-- i'm going to peru over xmas/nye. i feel guilty about wondering how this'll affect my trip. shouldn't i stay away? or wait.. should i..? i'm not going for another four months. maybe things will have gone back to normal by that time. maybe the losses of the hundreds of families affected will still be very clear. where is the line drawn? :\

Peru is a country (like Thailand) that depends heavily on tourism. The drop in tourism will affect the locals who make their living on the industry. I say go. Even though the earthquake was not in the heart of tourism in Peru, it will affect people decisions whether they should go or not.

It is a horrible and tragic event that happened there. You could always seek out a volunteer opportunity to help out or help rebuild...

There is a reason they clean up tourist areas quickly...they need people to come back and put money into the local economy.

You didn't list Hurricane Katrina...but if you recall when that hit, officials said one of the best things we could do, once order had been restored, is go put money back into New Orleans. Many places depend on tourism, and without it, they would crumble even further.

And, I say this as someone from an area just waiting for a natural disaster to hit, and I know how much that is going to affect our tourism industry, on which we depend greatly.

I felt that earthquake. I was a few hours away in Lima. My mom arrived the very next day for a trip she planned months ago. I'm glad she came and all the Peruvian people I work with were delighted she came. They realize how heavily they rely on tourism but more than that they are incredibly proud of their country, telling just about everyone about the three distinct regions.

Oh, and for people who mentioned volunteering in the affected areas; at the moment it's near impossible to get there with the ruined roads but it should be ok again soon.

Most people who travel to Peru plan to visit Cuzco and Machu Picchu, which are not even near the earthquake epicenter (it is at the Pacfic Coast south of Lima). So you shouldn't worry too much about the safety issues, unless you plan to travel overland to see the Nazca Lines (which is close to Ica, the epicenter).

I really think they do need our money, both tourism money and charity donation. Peru is a wonderful place and has a lot to see. I do think we should continue to support their tourism industry.

Just beware of possible aftershock....

Call it bad luck, bad karma or whatever -- I was living in Istanbul when the big quake hit and on vacation in Penang, Malaysia at the time of the tsunami. I didn't really have the option of leaving immediately after either tragedy, so I stuck around -- two months in the first case (I had given notice even before the quake) and ten days in the latter (until my return flight to Japan left). In both cases, I feel the locals were happy I was there as the presence of foreigners is part of normal life in both places and their sudden disappearance in the wake of the disasters just added to the disruption. What people want after catastrophes is a return to normalcy, as quickly as possible. In Istanbul, I served the cause by continuing to teach English, helping to distract some people from the tragedy and giving others an opportunity to talk about their feelings in a foreign language, something some had trouble doing in Turkish. In Malaysia, I got out of the immediate destruction zone in Penang and headed north to Langkawi, a place I never would have gone under normal conditions simply because of the crowds. The hotels, restaurants, etc that were open were very pleased to have some money coming in and often literally thanked me for not running home right after the tsunami.

Obviously some degree of discretion is necessary, as is not getting in the way of rescue workers, police, soldiers, etc, but the people in these areas that rely heavily on tourism need people to come and stay, both to re-establish some sense of normality and to provide much-needed money to fund the recovery process.

Haci, what's your upcoming travel schedule?

I am happy to report I am continuing on with my journey all over SA no matter what - nuclear warfare though would make me reconsider. I want to help - with the local economy, with whatever needs to be done - and of course will check in with local authorities before I jump right in. I always end up travelling to a destination post-disaster of some kind or end up leaving right before something happens. Either way, boosting the economy and showing them you want to help is a step, I believe, in a good direction.

Its interesting how the train of thought in this thread is that these countries depend on tourist dollars and we shouldn't hesitate to fly there (if that is the route you're going) after a natural disaster, etc, while in another thread people are saying we should curtail long haul flights because of environmental impact.

But the long haul flight debate has been an "environmental" issue for a long time. Environmentalists debate that air travel in general is bad for the environment due to exhaust and fuel pollution, especially the potential increase of it by the pending low-cost Atlantic flights to London. If we abided by their recommendations, Boots forums would be about travelling via foot, bike, and snowshoe.

I've been considering this issue, since I also have a ticket to Peru in a few weeks. I don't think there really is a "right" answer; we all just have to make the best choices we can in light of the information we have and in light of our own ethical codes. IMO, the Peruvian people need both humanitarian aid and tourism dollars, as well as (ultimately) *space* to properly and respectfully mourn their dead without reporters or other outsiders gawking at them. It's a delicate balance.

My trip is only for 2wks; however, I know that it will not be guilt free if it is simply "selfish tourism" - and yet there's not a lot that can be done in that time period beyond selfish tourism, particularly as the infrastructure has been so heavily damaged in the impacted region. And, yet, since such a disaster will have lasting ripple effects, perhaps even selfish tourism might not be so selfish...

I had forgotten to include the New Orleans fiasco.
(For a astonishing read on how little has been accomplished read this.)

Anyway, this thread was inspired by the first response to this topic over at that other place.

My bus next month is from Lima to Arequipa. Yeah, it probably stops in Pisco to pick up and drop off passengers - I was not planning on getting off there to gawk at tragedy.

A scone??? Sheesh, there are some pretty pathetic people out there...

See? Now I feel guilty again.

I see they're as friendly as ever over at TT.

Anyway, the economic issue has been well discussed. When we arrived in Dahab, Egypt the morning after it was bombed last year, a few things were quite clear. The first was the sorrow over the deaths - the bombings killed 19 local residents, and only 3 foreigners in a town where tourists are a huge majority - and, of course, the anger at the people who would do such a thing. But it was also clear that people were very worried about where their income for the next year or so was going to come from. The deaths were a tragedy, but the economic fallout was going to last a lot longer.

Anyway, quite aside from economics, I think the whole idea of staying away from Peru is just kind of silly. As has been mentioned, most of the areas tourists are likely to visit weren't affected. So, telling people to avoid Peru now is like telling people to avoid the whole US after Katrina. It might make sense to avoid some areas, but not the whole country.

Lastly - some people have, immediately after talking about the economic fallout of the disaster, suggested volunteering for the relief effort. I would suggest that unless you have some special skill that is needed, not to do this. Large disasters bring a flood of aid money, so paying people to do the work isn't much of an issue. Volunteering your unskilled help just means that you're doing a job that a local - who has likely just had their home and livelihood taken from them - would otherwise be paid for.