Many people suggest to me that recovering tourism after war must be similar to after a natural disaster, asking me to compare such conflict zones to places like Hawaii after the Maui fire, Indonesia and other locations after the Boxing Day Tsunami, Turkey after the earthquake, New Orleans after Katrina, and other harrowing catastrophes.

I want to first emphasize that I believe the human element and the needs of the people who have survived tragedies of any kind is important to consider, especially where issues of community resilience and rebuilding come into play. Still, there are many differences between natural disasters and the destruction of war, making tourism rebuilding after conflict a significantly more difficult and lengthy process.

Perception Challenges

The first of these is perception. Once the tourism infrastructure has been rebuilt, you want to go back to Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Indonesia, New Orleans, Turkey or wherever the natural disaster occurred. Clearly, you might worry about other natural disasters in the future, as well as in the case of Maui, how much future fire resistance was considered in the rebuilding. Still, the memory of the old disaster rarely clouds people’s expected experience in the location.

However, a destination recovering from war and conflict experiences something very different. The perception of danger remains long after a conflict has ended, creating almost illogical levels of worry. My own work has shown that places are often seen through the lens of conflict for twenty years or more, an entire generation, even after the war is over. For example, early next year, I will start a research fellowship in Rwanda to examine tourism sites related to the 1994 Genocide, where more than 800,000 people were killed. Some friends have expressed fears of visiting me, despite the fact that Rwanda and its capital Kigali are today among the safest places to visit in Africa.

Traditional media often plays a role in these perception issues, with Western editors reluctant to look at tourism to a destination as it rebuilds from war. I myself had difficulties convincing editors to work with me when I visited Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine and other locations.

However, hearing directly from recent visitors is one way these perception challenges can be overcome. My research on Western visitors who recently made trips to Iraq show a form of contagion, convincing others to consider visiting the country, based on how their own experiences challenged perceptions of the country.

We can see this with Vietnam. While some tourists do consider seeing what remains from the long war and United States involvement over 50 years ago, many come just for the beaches, a scenario that would have been impossible to think about decades ago. Importantly, social media influencers also change perceptions of destinations coming out of war in ways traditional media overlooks, showing direct, unfiltered experiences, particularly for young travelers.

Reconnecting the Social Fabric and Business Environment

Another major issue for places recovering from war is that both the social fabric and the business environment need to be reconnected.

These are places that have experienced war, ethnic and religious conflict, military occupation, genocide and other horrors. People have fled in droves, and much of what keeps a society together under normal circumstances is now gone. Neighbors might have killed neighbors, as in the case of places like the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, El Salvador and elsewhere. One of the best books to understand this breakdown in the midst of war is The Bosnia List, a memoir by Kenan Trebincevic written with Susan Shapiro.

In addition, there are brain drains, where those with the best educations and financial resources have left, fleeing for safety or from persecution. Thus, much needs to be relearned, with expertise coming in from the outside to help, which is the case for many places recovering from conflict.

Many might consider this a form of colonialism which can reshape a location after war, internationalizing a society, while also creating a layer over top of it, as we saw in places like Afghanistan, until it was given back to the Taliban by the United States.

Importantly, and I see this in many places I have been to, there is also a fraying and disconnect that exists among various sectors, particularly among those in business, government, education, culture and communications. I saw this very distinctly in examining Erbil, in 2013, the capital of the Iraqi Kurdish region as it made its preparations for its selection as the Arab Capital of Tourism for 2014 by the Arab League.

I even had an epiphany of sorts, high above the city within its ancient Citadel, one of the longest inhabited places on earth. Archeologists and experts were preparing for its UNESCO designation. There were museums full of incredible artifacts. The city also boasted luxury hotels full of business people exploiting the region’s oil wealth, dining on sushi and other fine foods.

However, if you wanted to tour the Citadel or explore museums, there was little formal tourism setup for this. The concierge at one hotel told me they could hire a driver to take me to sites, but they could not tell me how to actually see any of them nor find tour guides. There was also the government communication office, preparing apps and other media, though they had trouble connecting to Western markets that might explore the city once its 2014 efforts were in full force. In fact, some staff were unfamiliar with some of the Western publications I wrote for.

This epiphany is what made me want to get a PhD to look at all of these issues in a holistic way, in ways I could not do as a journalist. In fact, both Bloomberg News and the New York Times cancelled the articles I was writing on Erbil and Kurdistan from this trip, examples of how so much of what I looked at never sees the light of day through mainstream Western media.

All of this, whether perception, social and business disconnects and much more make looking at tourism redevelopment after conflict a very different project from how places recover their tourism after natural disasters, even if they are often compared to each other.

What The Future Holds For Destinations In Conflict

Right now, two major wars are raging, one between Russia and Ukraine, and another between Israel and Gaza. Both seem intractable. Both demonstrate the horrors that war inflicts on innocent populations. Both also are in places of great natural beauty, steeped in history.

Regardless of one’s views on these wars, the absolutely unnecessary and horrific human costs must be considered. Peace is a long way off for both. In fact, a gruesome plan has been put on the table for Gaza concerning tourism rebuilding by the United States government, calling for the forced removal of the local population, which is certainly not the way tourism reconstruction should ever be considered. In strong contrast, organizations like Rebuild Ukraine Travel are looking at organic ways to reconnect Ukraine to the world even now during the current conflict.

What will the aftermath of both of these places scarred by war look like decades from now, and will you make the decision to visit and hear the stories when peace finally comes?