This article was downloaded by: [81.175.159.72]
On: 21 November 2014, At: 16:05
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Current Issues in Tourism
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20
Dark and toxic tourism in the
Chernobyl exclusion zone
a
Ganna Yankovska & Kevin Hannam
b
a
Faculty of Business and Law , University of Sunderland ,
Sunderland , UK
b
School of Events, Tourism and Hospitality , Leeds Metropolitan
University , Headingley Campus, Leeds LS6 3QW, UK and Visiting
Research Fellow in the Department of Tourism, University of
Johannesburg , South Africa
Published online: 07 Aug 2013.
To cite this article: Ganna Yankovska & Kevin Hannam (2013): Dark and toxic tourism in the
Chernobyl exclusion zone, Current Issues in Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2013.820260
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.820260
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Current Issues in Tourism, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.820260
Dark and toxic tourism in the Chernobyl exclusion zone
Ganna Yankovskaa† and Kevin Hannamb∗
a
Faculty of Business and Law, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK; bSchool of Events,
Tourism and Hospitality, Leeds Metropolitan University, Headingley Campus, Leeds LS6 3QW,
UK and Visiting Research Fellow in the Department of Tourism, University of Johannesburg,
South Africa
Downloaded by [81.175.159.72] at 16:05 21 November 2014
(Received 17 February 2013; final version received 21 June 2013)
With the development of ‘dark’ and ‘toxic’ tourism, interest in death, sufferings or
disasters has grown significantly and there is a need to achieve an in depth
understanding of tourists experiences at such sites. This paper is an attempt to explore
and understand tour guides interpretations of tourist’s experiences at the one of the
most infamous sites of dark and toxic tourism – the Chernobyl exclusion zone. The
paper shows how different types of tourists visit the Zone at different times of the year.
It further explores the site interpretations of the tour guides and the increasing influence
of the media and video games in the construction of the touristic experience. It is
concluded that the benefits and impacts of forms of dark and toxic forms of tourism for
local communities and the environment must be further researched.
Keywords: dark tourism; toxic tourism; Chernobyl; tour guides; interpretation;
qualitative methodology
Introduction
The main aim of this paper is to gain a deeper understanding of the tourism experience at
one of best known dark and toxic tourism destinations, the Chernobyl exclusion zone in
Ukraine. We do this by examining the types of tourists visiting Chernobyl at presents,
the role of tour guides and tour agents in terms of the site interpretation and the role of
the media in influencing visits.
The name ‘Chernobyl’ has become a synonym for one of the worst nuclear accidents
and technological disasters of all times. The nuclear accident at the Chernobyl power
station occurred on 26 April 1986 as an accident during an experiment allegedly due to
inexperienced staff and a weak security backup system (for a detailed review see
Perez, 2009). As a result of the nuclear accident, the roof of the reactor came off due
to an explosion, which soon turned into a radioactive cloud spreading over Ukraine,
Russia, Belarus and most of Europe. The immediate result was significant ecological
harm due to the spread of radioactive ions in the environment, 400 times more than the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs. Within a few days hundreds of thousands of
people were evacuated from the most contaminated areas around the Chernobyl
(UNDP, 2002). Most of the evacuees were residents from the nearest town to Chernobyl,
Pripyat, which later became known as a ‘ghost town’. The residents were misinformed by
∗
Corresponding
†
author. Email: [email protected]
Current address: Dmitrivska 24, flat 82, Kiev 01054, Ukraine.
# 2013 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [81.175.159.72] at 16:05 21 November 2014
2
G. Yankovska and K. Hannam
the Soviet Government about the accident and were promised to be allowed to return
within a few days and hence left all their personal belonging in their homes but were
never allowed to return once the scale of the disaster was recognised. The negative
health impacts (cancer, leukaemia, circulatory diseases and other chronic diseases)
have so far claimed 600,000 lives of people in the contaminated zones (International
Atomic Energy Agency, 2006).
The most radioactively contaminated area around the Chernobyl power plant was officially designated as The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Zone of Alienation, known as the
‘Chernobyl Exclusion Zone’ or the ‘Zone’, located in the northern territory of Ukraine. The
exclusion zone extends approximately 30 km in radius from the Chernobyl nuclear reactor
and covers around 2600 km2 of the Ukrainian mainland. It includes the most visited tourist
places of Chernobyl city, the town of Pripyat and roughly 180 villages that were evacuated
and placed under the military control due to the disaster. Mycio (2005, p. 2) in her book
Wormwood Forest, describes the exclusion zone as ‘Europe’s largest wildlife sanctuary’
and explains that ‘radiation is no longer “on” the zone, but “of” the zone. It is part of the
food chain’. Twenty-seven years on Ukrainian scientists are still evaluating Chernobylrelated problems as environmental and health issues in the contaminated areas continue
to pose a real challenge (Liashenko, 2013).
Nevertheless, in recent years, Chernobyl has gone through an increase in the number of
visitors mainly for tourism activities. According to the Australian newspaper, Sydney
Morning Herald (2008), 7500 tourists travelled to the exclusion zone and spent around
£130 per day. The Chernobyl zone exemplifies the darker aspects of scientific advancement
and human experience and its ability to lure increasing number of tourists raises numerous
questions. Recent academic work has analysed photographic representations of Chernobyl
in terms of the anxieties that these may suggest in terms of its symbolism for industrial
decline (Dobraszczyk, 2010), the postmodern sublime (Goatcher & Brunsden, 2011) or
as a heterotopian space (Stone, 2013). Indeed, Stone (2013, p. 91) asserts that, ‘Chernobyl
is a heterotopia that allows us to gaze upon a post-apocalyptic world, in which the familiar
and uncanny collide.’ Nevertheless, this studies lack an actual engagement with the actual
experiences of Chernobyl, which this paper seeks to understand from the perspective of tour
guides and tour operators at Chernobyl.
The first tourists in Chernobyl appeared in the mid-1990s, after the level of radiation
had significantly fallen (Steshyn & Cots, 2006). At this time, ‘Chernobylinterinform’ was
the only legal tourism organisation allowed to arrange excursions to the Zone. Initially,
the ‘radioactive’ tourist destination was especially popular among foreign tourists from
the United States and Western Europe. The Chernobyl nuclear zone is now controlled
by the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs and entry to the Zone is only permitted
to officials and a short stay can also be arranged on a special request for tourists
(Ministry of Emergencies, 2011). Some areas in and around Chernobyl still have high
radiation levels and all tourists must follow an official tourist guide and adhere to the
health and safety requirements. According to the head of the Administration of the exclusion zone and the zone of absolute resettlement officially the visitors of the Zone can be
classified into three categories; foreign scientists, Ukrainian and foreign journalists and
former residents of the territory visiting the remains of their homes and graves of relatives and friends (Golovata, 2010). However, there is a significant number of thrill
seeking unofficial visitors in the Chernobyl area each year (Schindlauer, 2008). The
number of tourists visiting Chernobyl is on the rise and the legalisation of some of
the tours in 2011 prior to the UEFA Euro 2012 football tournament was a sign that
the authorities recognised the site’s potential and the role it can play in the region’s
Current Issues in Tourism
3
social and economic development (Bogdanov, 2011). Moreover, as Phillips and
Ostaszewski (2012, p. 127) note:
Lax surveillance and a lack of security, along with shoddy and broken-down fencing in places
around the zone’s perimeter, mean that the zone of alienation has very porous borders. Wildlife
and people roam in and out. In short, the area has never truly been an ‘exclusion zone’.
Downloaded by [81.175.159.72] at 16:05 21 November 2014
Dark tourism and toxic tourism
Sharpley and Stone (2009) highlight that since the mid twentieth century the tourism
industry has experienced a rapid growth in the fascination of death and dark experiences.
Although most research work in the field of dark tourism is quite recent Stone (2005)
states that the concept and the idea of dark tourism has its roots in the pre-modern
age, when religious pilgrimages were made to places of suffering and death. Interestingly, dark tourism is also seen as a controversial endeavour from an ethical perspective
as they question the tourists’ motives and desires to visit places of death and suffering.
On the one hand, Lisle (2007) suggests that dark tourism is only for some people who
gain satisfaction from observing the sites of violence and conflict which most of the tourists would never find enjoyable or attractive. On the other hand, Lennon and Foley
(2000) explain that there is nothing wrong with visiting sites of death and even point
out that it carries a commemorative and educational character and helps tourists to
remember those different historical periods when tragic events happened (see also
Cohen, 2011).
Death related tourism activities have been given different names and meanings by
various researchers. Seaton (1996, p. 240) defines ‘thanatourism’ as a ‘travel to a location
wholly, or partially, motivated by the desire for actual or symbolic encounters with death’.
He argues that ‘thanatourism’ is defined in accordance to tourist motivations to encounter
the places where death has occurred. Slade (2003), in his analysis of Gallipoli, suggests that
such motivations can be just incidental, as when tourists are visiting sites of death without
knowing much about the site and its history, while Kang, Scott, Lee, and Ballantyne (2012,
p. 257), in their analysis of Jeju, South Korea, note a sense of ‘obligation’ as a key motivation for dark tourism. Ashworth (2008) and Kidron (2013) further explore tourists experience at such sites and explain that this is frequently a very emotional encounter of violence,
death, horror and pain. Rojek (1993, p. 136) discusses ‘Black Spot tourism’ or ‘fatal attractions’ which he describes as ‘the commercial developments of grave sites and sites in which
celebrities or large numbers of people have met with sudden and violent death’. He further
emphasises that this type of tourism is dependent on the audio-visual media which makes it
more attractive and popular for tourists who are in search of postmodern spectacles (see also
Walter, 2009). Stone (2011, 2012) further argues that dark tourism can be seen as a ‘mediating institution’ that allows the construction of contemporary ontological meanings of
mortality and the contemplation of both life and death through consumption (see also
Jamal & Lelo, 2011).
Browman and Pezzullo (2010) offer another critical perspective on dark tourism. They
argue that:
By labeling certain tourists or tourist sites ‘dark’, an implicit claim is made that there is something disturbing, troubling, suspicious, weird, morbid, or perverse about them, but what exactly
that may be remains elusive and ill-defined because no one has assumed the burden of proving
it. . . . Labeling a site as ‘dark’ seems to be a complicated matter of perspective and privilege.
(Browman & Pezzullo, 2010, pp. 190– 191)
4
G. Yankovska and K. Hannam
Thus rather than examining whether tourism is light or dark, they suggest that:
Downloaded by [81.175.159.72] at 16:05 21 November 2014
it seems worth further exploring how some tours at sites of death open up possibilities for solidarity or alliance-building, particularly those that are sites of environmental disasters (from tsunamis to industrial accidents, such as Chernobyl, to ongoing polluting industries that threaten
public health, species extinction, and ways of life for specific cultures) and/or social injustices
(from prisons to sites of politically or ethnically motivated violence). (Browman & Pezzullo,
2010, p. 194)
Pezzullo (2007) uses the term ‘toxic tourism’ to describe organised tours to places of
environmental degradation in underprivileged communities in various parts of the USA.
Nevertheless, toxic tourism cannot just be categorised as a form of dark tourism, but as
Di Chiro (2000) argues may also be conceptualised as a form of environmental tourism;
focusing more on the relationship between environmental and social degradation. According Di Chiro (2000) toxic tourism provides first-hand experiences of environmental prejudice and hazard which challenges the remoteness of the tourist gaze. Di Chiro thus defines
‘toxic tours’, as a form of ‘reality tours’. Pezzullo (2007) further suggests that the major
reasons for the organisation of toxic tours is to provide tourists with all possible information
and show the effects of polluting industries on local communities and surrounding lands.
Some environmental protection agencies use the same concept to promote and encourage
environmental justice movements. The purpose of these tours is thus not only to visit
and observe sites or to take a memorable picture, but also to build strong political and economic support in order to fight against environmental injustices and to make a difference to
the lives of poor communities. Pezzullo (2007) shows that such toxic tours, which she
further calls environmental advocacy tours may move tourists to do something more transformative. She also suggests that toxic tourism can also become a damaging experience for
residents who may feel themselves viewed as objects. Nevertheless, in this paper we argue
that some places such as the case presented here, Chernobyl, may be interpreted as simultaneously both dark and toxic tourism sites.
Methodology
Visiting the actual Chernobyl exclusion zone to conduct research in the form of participant observation is not possible due to the health risks from the high levels of radiation.
Therefore, data collection in the form of in depth semi-structured interviews with tour
guides and tour agents was conducted in the Ukrainian capital Kiev located around
100 km from the Chernobyl exclusion zone in July 2012. Focus groups as a method
were considered but not pursued due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter and
the need for confidentiality. Tour guides were chosen as guiding plays an important
role in the successful presentation of the tourism destination and is of vital importance
for the tourist experience (Cohen, 1985). Bruner (2004) explains that experiencing a
site depends a lot on the performance of the tour guides since they can provide tourists
with a more complex presentation and a deeper understanding of the sites. Nevertheless,
it has also been highlighted that tour guides have an authoritative position and guiding can
become, as in this context, an ‘ideologically charged social event’ (Brin & Noy, 2010,
p. 20). Tour agents were also included in the interviews for this project as they acted
as ‘gatekeepers’ for the tour guides in many cases.
For this research project, 12 people agreed to be interviewed – 8 tour guides (who
conduct the tours) and 4 tour agents (who sell the tours). Eight of the semi-structured
Downloaded by [81.175.159.72] at 16:05 21 November 2014
Current Issues in Tourism
5
interviews were recorded digitally and in the remaining four only written notes were taken.
The interviews were conducted in Russian or Ukrainian (depending on the interviewee),
later translated into English for coding purposes. Each interview lasted between 45 min
and one and a half hours. All interviewees were assured of the confidentiality of their
responses to protect their identities. Interview questions were formulated by drawing
upon the work of Pezzullo (2009), in particular. The participants were interviewed regarding their work experience as a tour guide or tour agent, their interpretation of the Chernobyl
site, and their views on tourists, motivations, experiences and expectations in the exclusion
zone of Chernobyl power plant. The tour guides and agents can be considered one of the
most important actors for tourism at Chernobyl because tourists are not allowed to be
without a guide in the zone.
The interview process was not a straight forward task because most of the tour agencies
that provide tours to Chernobyl operate clandestinely due to restrictions imposed by the
Ukrainian government since 2011. This also made it extremely difficult to interview tourists
who had been on the tours and therefore it was decided to concentrate on tour guides and
tour agents. Only a small number of tour agencies are currently authorised to provide tours
to the Zone. However, there are many unlicensed agencies operating in Chernobyl illegitimately. Such agencies do not advertise Chernobyl tours on websites and tour brochures but
they usually operate through word of mouth connections or through an agreement with the
staff at a particular hotel. The usual price per person for the trip from a legal tour agency can
vary between £50 and £150 depending on the visitation period and the equipment needed
including protective clothing and accessories like masks, glasses, gloves and special shoes.
In contrast, the illegal tour agents and guides request a price between £200 and £500 per
person. Six out of the eight tour guides interviewed were born in the town of Pripyat or
in the villages close to Chernobyl city and thus had local knowledge of the environment.
All of the tour guides pointed out that they had undertaken training to work at the site.
Although most of them are related to the evacuated Pripyat town or the villages nearby,
they still had to learn the history, culture and nature of the place and in particular, the
effects of radiation contamination and its impacts on the environment, as well as health
and safety issues.
Four out of the six local tour guides named the reason that they work there as their home
– where they were born and grew up. However, some of the interviews did not proceed
straightforwardly as some interviewees broke down crying and upset because of their
experiences. This raised important ethical concerns about the nature of the research
being undertaken and the relative positionality of the researchers and the interviewees
(Swain, 2004). Nevertheless, all the interviewees maintained that they thought the research
was important as it would allow them to articulate the educational lessons to be learnt from
the Chernobyl disaster not just for the tourists but for the wider world.
The interview transcripts were coded using principles of open coding and axial coding
to reveal particular themes. Open coding refers to analysis in terms of labelling and categorising data by asking questions and making comparisons; similar incidents are grouped
together and given the same conceptual label. Axial coding, meanwhile, puts the data
back together by making connections between a category and its sub-categories (Strauss
& Corbin, 1990). Using these data analysis procedures a number of themes emerged
from the data, namely, the types of tourists that visit Chernobyl and their different motivations and behaviours; the interpretations of Chernobyl by the tour guides as part of their
work; the influence of the media on the tourist experience. These are now considered in
turn in relation to existing literature on dark and toxic tourism.
6
G. Yankovska and K. Hannam
Downloaded by [81.175.159.72] at 16:05 21 November 2014
Discussion
Chernobyl tourist types and visitation periods
One of the main themes that emerged during the analysis was the differentiation between
types of tourists and their motives for visiting the Chernobyl exclusion zone. The tour
guides discussed the average age of the tourists, their nationalities and whether they had
any personal connection with the site as important factors in shaping their tourist experiences. According to Tour Guide C there are two main age groups visiting the Chernobyl
exclusion zone. The first group aged between 18 and 28 seem to be more interested in
‘fun, fear and thrill’. The second age group includes visitors above 28 years of age who
usually visit in remembrance of the tragedy. The Tour Agent K, meanwhile, argued that
the tours provided to younger people usually have a different programme and different
tour guides. Significantly, the route of the tour is also modified for the younger tourists
with more extreme places and visits to places mentioned in the S.T.A.L.K.E.R.1 video
game (empty buildings, the car graveyard and the Chernobyl power plant itself). Tour
guide D noted that tourists from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus who are directly or indirectly
related to Chernobyl have a more emotional experience due to their personal connections
with the place, a finding which resonates with Mowatt and Chancellor’s (2011) analysis
of the experience of slave castles in Ghana.
The interviewees also mentioned the significance of different visitation periods, considering them to play a vital role in the tourist experience. Tour Guide B named two main
visitation periods to the Chernobyl Exclusion zone which are: autumn-winter and springsummer. According to him, autumn and winter are the best seasons for dark tourism when
‘everything is grey, empty and frightening’. Tour Agent F also suggested that visitation
between November and February was ‘scarier’. Tour Guide C similarly stated that during
the spring and summer tourist’s experiences are totally different as the flora is abundant.
Moreover, in the summer time, scientists from across the world visit the area to explore
the flora and fauna. Therefore, from the above, it can be drawn that different seasons
serve different types of tourists in Chernobyl and the season is also a significant factor in
defining the tourist’s experiences. Put simply, the autumn-winter visitation period would
favour the ‘dark’ tourists who aim to experience tragic death, fear and loss; while the
spring-summer period suits the toxic tourists looking for changes in the natural environment.
Interpreting Chernobyl
Cohen (1985) calls tourist guides ‘cultural brokers’. These intermediaries select sights, offer
information and interpretations to tourists and their mediation may slant towards the tour
guide’s own professional training or personal preferences. However, in the Chernobyl
zone, the sightseeing does not just depend on the tour guides preferences but also on
health and safety measures. According to the tour guides,
There is no one better to explain these feelings to the tourists and say more than just some facts
about Chernobyl than the one who was born here, saw everything with his own eyes, suffered,
was forced to move and forget his home forever. (Tour Guide D)
Tour Guide C, meanwhile, stated that the reason he worked as a tour guide in Chernobyl
was to stay close to his family which had returned to live in the exclusion zone after the
first year of evacuation. This tour guide also brought tourists to visit his family in their
village house located 15 km from the Chernobyl power plant. He suggested that tourists
Current Issues in Tourism
7
Downloaded by [81.175.159.72] at 16:05 21 November 2014
bring gifts with them if they wanted to visit their home, particularly uncontaminated food
brought from other districts in Ukraine.
Most excursions are developed with an underlying theme to picture the pre-disaster life
in the town of Pripyat, the information about the communist USSR and the exclusion zone.
One of the tour agents, explaining the programme of the trip to Chernobyl said ‘at the start
of the tour, when travelling to the passport check point in the bus, tour guides play the
movie called “The Battle of Chernobyl” to help tourists learn about the history and background of the place’. The tour guides further stated that it was important for them to provide
valid site interpretation. For example, Tour Guide C argued that:
Interpretation is the main part of my work. It is something that tourists are wanting from me the
most. Gathering in the empty buildings and walking on desolated streets cannot tell you about
the great meaning which I see this place carries. Tourists come with their own imagination and
expectations, asking millions of questions and waiting to hear something exciting, new and,
maybe, life-changing.
Tour Guide F reflected that details about the catastrophe were important to keep the
tourists interested:
I was there on the 26th of April (1986) and I remember how I felt that taste of iron on my
tongue, headache and stomach sickness. I did not know what was going on, as there was no
sign of difference in the air, but I felt something is going wrong. All the bees and bugs disappeared. It was scary . . . I know these details are interesting and exciting for tourists as they want
to know more what people experienced on that horrific day.
During the interviews, some tour guides also mentioned the role of the personal interaction
with the local residents of the exclusion zone. Tour Guide C who lets tourists visit his family
house located near the town of Pripyat, where his parents returned the year after evacuation
stated that: ‘tourists gain even more satisfaction when “real” people who suffered and
experienced the nuclear catastrophe themselves can tell the “real” story and describe the
horrific event in details’. Tour Guide G also added that most of the tourists are curious
about the exclusion zone habitants’ style of life, feelings and left memories. He commented
that some tourists experience ‘the peak’ of their emotions when they receive hospitality
from the older people continuing their life in the zone. In addition to the ‘valid interpretations’ most of the tour guides expressed also emphasised that they had to make up their
own interpretations of the site and at times embellished stories related to the disaster in
order to enthral the tourists.
Tour Guide C presented the Chernobyl catastrophe as primarily an educational experience (see Cohen, 2011). The main educational lesson mentioned by the tour guides was
about the past mistakes and its impacts which could help prevent future catastrophes.
Tour Guide B stated that: ‘I consider my main role as a guide is to share with the most
tragic, horrific and heartbreaking experiences of the Chernobyl and its people and deliver
the main message to its visitors which will generate awareness around them.’ Tour
Guide C also explained that: ‘working here for 11 years already, I have seen different motivations from tourists who come to the Chernobyl, but what I really think they should receive
is one important lesson about the tragedy which happened here’. The tour guide E similarly
emphasised that: ‘so many people are left hurt from the Chernobyl. No one takes care of
them; no one tries to give support or medical help to fight with their damaged health and
mind. This trip into the heart of the disaster and its surroundings makes everyone more
conscious about the consequences and a need to volunteer for the suffered one’.
8
G. Yankovska and K. Hannam
Media influences
Downloaded by [81.175.159.72] at 16:05 21 November 2014
The role of the media as the part of the site interpretation was mentioned by five tour guides
and three tour agents. The media, according to Guide C, helps tourists to learn about the site
before reaching it and gives important information about its history and tragic event. Tour
Agent K confirmed that the media has made the site of the Chernobyl exclusion zone even
‘more tragic’ and ‘exciting’ for tourists. As noted above, the interviewees also highlighted
the significant role of computer games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. where illegal explorers of the
Zone fight against animal and humanoid mutants (see also Phillips and Ostaszewski’s
(2012) satirical account). The tour guides explained that during the past few years after
the game gained popularity the number of tourists who want to experience extreme adventure had grown significantly. The tour guides explained that some tourists are interested in
seeing mutated animals and often pretend to be in a ‘zombie’ type movie. Tour Guide B was
especially critical of this and stated that:
People believe in these games and horror movies too much. Consequently, they are not interested in real history and valid information anymore. What is more, they want to risk their lives
and find adrenalin instead of appreciation and memorialisation of the past which gives some
valuable lessons.
Indeed, the need for a more sustainable process of memorialisation has been identified by Pezzullo (2009) in her analysis of tourism after Hurricane Katrina in the USA. Tour Guide E
further explained that before going on an excursion into the Chernobyl zone they let the tourists
read a number of warnings in order to prevent the tourists from being dissatisfied. For example:
Warning 1. Things you will and will NOT see. You will NOT see zombies, three head horses
and other monsters. You WILL see something even scarier, evidence of the world largest technogenic catastrophe and face its magnetic emptiness. A freaky and strange feeling that you
won’t ever forget . . .
Sharpley and Stone (2008) suggest that more people are now able to experience dark
tourism virtually via the internet and television in an intangible form. According to Tour
Guide C, some tourists are curious to know about death and its causes at Chernobyl and
drew upon medical programmes they had watch on television. He also stated that some
tourists even want to know the details of how people suffered from radiation and what
exactly caused their death. Tour Guide D added that he used internet video hosting websites
for promotion and used graphic technology to create weird animals and pictures to promote
his work as a guide. He explained that the potential market is a more significant if the
experience is more thrilling since more tourists want to see ‘violent stuff’.
Tour Guides A and B concurred that tourists aged between 28 and 40 years were generally more curious about the suffering of people who died from radiation poisoning. Tour
Guide E suggested that at least 40% of tourists coming to the site are very interested in death
and the related experience. Many places in Pripyat town and near the Chernobyl Power
Station have monuments and graves of people who died of the radiation. According to
tour Guide B, everything in the Chernobyl exclusion zone reminds tourists about death:
‘its empty streets, broken windows, desolated buildings and signs of a danger and high radiation level’. Tour Guide K, meanwhile, explained that tourists who visit the monument of
the ‘liquidators’ and the Chernobyl power plants where they fought with radiation fire, want
to understand the price others paid for their life, understand human sacrifice and ‘feel
inspired for heroism in their life and for bigger actions’.
Current Issues in Tourism
9
Downloaded by [81.175.159.72] at 16:05 21 November 2014
Conclusions
The main aim of this research was to gain a deeper understanding of the tourism experience
at one of best known dark and toxic tourism destinations, the Chernobyl exclusion zone in
Ukraine. The research has emphasised the importance of the tour guides own on-site
interpretations, performances and influences in defining the tourists experiences. Di
Chiro (2000) has emphasised that toxic tourism can provide a strong educational experience, raising awareness about the current environmental issues and the polluted environmental conditions around us. According to the tour guides and agents a large number of
tourists visiting Chernobyl expect an educational experience in order to explore the
health and environmental impacts of the disaster. Furthermore, the tour guides expressed
that they are usually attempting to change tourist’s attitudes about the place and make
them aware of the mistakes and the misinformation about the disaster.
Although the environmental education within toxic tourism was found to be an important influence on tourism in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, the experience can become too
overwhelming. Pezzullo (2009) has shown that tourists often have difficulties in ‘properly’
expressing pain or sorrow about disasters. Indeed, it was mentioned by most interviewees
that some tourists who look excited during the trip still experience things indifferently.
Overall, this paper contributes to the wider understanding of dark and toxic tourism
forms and the ways in which they can overlap and intersect with each other. Understanding
the benefits and impacts of both dark and toxic forms of tourism for local communities and
the environment must be further researched as this paper is limited to the interpretations of
the tour guides and agents. Further research is needed into the actual tourist experiences at
such sites (Hannam & Knox, 2010; Sharpley & Stone, 2011).
Note
1.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl is an open world first-person shooter video game by the
Ukrainian developer GSC Game World, published in 2007.
References
Ashworth, G. J. (2008). The memorialization of violence and tragedy: Human trauma as heritage. In
B. Graham & P. Howard (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity
(pp. 231 –244). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bogdanov, V. (2011). Oa Ulrajof mfdamjijrpcamj yfropbpm:sljk turjin; [‘Ukraine has
Legalized Chernobyl Tourism’]. Vesti News. Retrieved May 26, 2012, from http://www.vesti.
ru/doc.html?id=431101&cid=9
Brin, E., & Noy, C. (2010). The said and the unsaid: Performative guiding in a Jerusalem neighbourhood. Tourist Studies, 10(1), 19 –33.
Browman, M., & Pezzullo, P. C. (2010). What’s so ‘dark’ about ‘dark tourism’? Death, tours, and performance. Tourist Studies, 9(3), 187 –202.
Bruner, E. (2004). Culture on tour: Ethnographies of travel. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, E. (1985). The tourist guide: The origin, structure and dynamics of a role. Annals of Tourism
Research, 12, 5–29.
Cohen, E. H. (2011). Educational dark tourism at an In Populo site: The Holocaust Museum in
Jerusalem. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 193–209.
Di Chiro, G. (2000). Bearing witness or taking action? Toxic tourism and environmental justice. In
R. Hofrichter (Ed.), Reclaiming the environmental debate: The politics of health in a toxic
culture (pp. 275 –300). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dobraszczyk, P. (2010). Petrified ruin: Chernobyl, Pripyat and the death of the city. City: Analysis of
Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 14(4), 370–389.
Goatcher, J., & Brunsden, V. (2011). Chernobyl and the sublime Tourist. Tourist Studies, 11(2),
115 –137.
Downloaded by [81.175.159.72] at 16:05 21 November 2014
10
G. Yankovska and K. Hannam
Golovata, L. (2010). Yfropbjm:s:l{ Stamlfrj [Chornobyl stalkers]. Zaxid News. Retrieved
April 24, 2013, from http://zaxid.net/home/showSingleNews.do?chornobilski_stalkeri&objectId=
1101343
Hannam, K., & Knox, D. (2010). Understanding tourism: A critical introduction. London: Sage.
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2006). Chernobyl’s legacy: Health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts and recommendation to the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation
and Ukraine. The Chernobyl forum 2003– 2005. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.
pdf
Jamal, T., & Lelo, L. (2011). Exploring the conceptual and analytical framing of dark tourism: From
darkness to intentionality. In R. Sharpley & P. Stone (Eds.), Tourist experience: Contemporary
perspectives (pp. 29 –42). London: Routledge.
Kang, E., Scott, N., Lee, T., & Ballantyne, R. (2012). Benefits of visiting a ‘dark tourism’ site: The
case of the Jeju April 3rd Peace Park, Korea. Tourism Management, 33, 257–265.
Kidron, C. (2013). Being there together: Dark family tourism and the emotive experience of copresence in the Holocaust past. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 175–194.
Lennon, J., & Foley, M. (2000). Dark tourism – the attraction of death and disaster. Hampshire:
Cengage Learning.
Liashenko, A. (2013). News analysis: Chernobyl disaster poses long-term environmental challenges.
Retrieved April 26, 2013, from http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-04/26/c_
132342756.htm
Lisle, D. (2007). Defending voyeurism: Dark tourism and the problem of global security. In P. Burns
& M. Novelli (Eds.), Tourism and politics: Global frameworks and local realities (pp. 333–347).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ministry of Emergencies. (2011). Procedure of visiting of the exclusion zone. State Agency
of Ukraine. Retrieved June 12, 2012, from http://dazv.gov.ua/en/index.php?option=com_
content&view=article&id=184:order-moe-of-ukraine-on-november-2-2011-1157-approving-thevisiting-of-the-exclusion-zone-and-zone-of-unconditional-mandatory-resettlement&catid=80:
normativno-pravov-akti-z-pitan-scho-nalejat-do-kompetenc-dazv&Itemid=156
Mowatt, R., & Chancellor, C. (2011). Visiting death and life: Dark tourism and slave castles. Annals of
Tourism Research, 38(4), 1410– 1434.
Mycio, M. (2005). Wormwood forest: A natural history of Chernobyl. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry
Press.
Perez, J. R. (2009). Uncomfortable heritage & dark tourism at Chernobyl. In S. Merill & L. Schmidt
(Eds.), A reader in uncomfortable heritage and dark tourism (pp. 31 –47). Cottbus: Brandenburg
University of Technology.
Pezzullo, P. C. (2007). Toxic tourism: Rhetorics of pollution, travel, and environment justice.
Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
Pezzullo, P. C. (2009). Tourists and as disasters: Rebuilding, remembering, and responsibility in New
Orleans. Tourist Studies, 9(1), 23 –41.
Phillips, S., & Ostaszewski, S. (2012). An illustrated guide to the post-catastrophe future. The
Anthropology of East Europe Review, 30(1), 127–140.
Rojek, C. (1993). Ways of escape: Modern transformations in leisure and travel. London: Sage.
Schindlauer, S. (2008). Chernobyl, nuclear energy and risk perception: Can risk management be
prosperous? Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag oHG.
Seaton, A. V. (1996). Guided by the dark: From thanopsis to thanatourism. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 2, 234 –244.
Sharpley, R., & Stone, P. (2008). Consuming dark tourism: A thanatological perspective. Annals of
Tourism Research, 35(2), 574 –595.
Sharpley, R., & Stone, P. (2009). The darker side of travel: The theory and practice of dark tourism.
Clevedon: Channel View.
Sharpley, R., & Stone, P. (Eds.). (2011). Tourist experience: Contemporary perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Slade, P. (2003). Gallipoli thanatourism: The meaning of ANZAC. Annals of Tourism Research,
30(1), 779 –794.
Steshyn, D., & Cots, E. (2006). The ‘Komsomolska Pravda’. Retrieved May 20, 2012, from http://
www.kp.ru/daily/23696/52367/
Stone, P. (2005). Dark tourism – an old concept in a new world. The Tourism Society Journal, 125, 20.
Downloaded by [81.175.159.72] at 16:05 21 November 2014
Current Issues in Tourism
11
Stone, P. (2011). Dark tourism and the cadaveric carnival: Mediating life and death narratives at
Gunther von Hagens’ Body Worlds. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(7), 685–701.
Stone, P. (2012). Dark tourism and significant other death: Towards a model of mortality mediation.
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1565–1587.
Stone, P. (2013). Dark tourism, heterotopias and post-apocalyptic places: The case of Chernobyl. In L.
White & E. Frew (Eds.), Dark tourism and place identity: Managing and interpreting dark places
(pp. 79–93). London: Routledge.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. London: Sage.
Swain, M. (2004). (Dis)embodied experience and power dynamics in tourism research. In J.
Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism (pp. 102–118). London:
Routledge.
Sydney Morning Herald. (2008). The say in the half-life of Chernobyl. Retrieved May 15, 2012, from
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/activity/active/a-day-in-the-halflife-of-chernobyl-20081113-6401.
html
UNDP, United Nations Development Program. (2002). ‘The human consequences of the Chernobyl
nuclear accident: A strategy for recovery’ Chernobyl report-final. Commissioned by UNDP
and UNICEF. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from http://www.unicef.org/newsline/chernobylreport.
pdf
Walter, T. (2009). Dark tourism: Mediating between the dead and the living. In R. Sharpley & P. Stone
(Eds.), The darker side of travel: The theory and practice of dark tourism (pp. 39–55). Clevedon:
Channel View.