“That’s exactly what we call them too” A Salvation Army Team Leader told me. “They come with the intentions of delivering aid or helping, when in actuality, they have no real skills or assets they can provide, and become liabilities because they cannot provide for or support themselves. They end up slowing down the aid effort.”
That explained why the Salvation Army initially asked us to leave. I was later told by another Salvation Army leader that the only reason they decided to help Mathieu and I was: “…because you were very stubborn and we could see you meant business.”
Mathieu and I saw this “disaster tourism” phenomena several times. As crazy as it sounds, this is an absolutely real thing… these individuals become sensationalized by the media about a disaster and feel the urge to visit and become personally acquainted with the location, although they go thinking they will help.
The first place we saw it was in the Dominican Republic, there was a Chinese Reporter going to PAP….ALONE. She couldn’t have been taller than 5’0” and was dressed like someone going on a vacation. She didn’t have a place to stay, no food, she didn’t have a crew with her or even an idea how she was going to get out of the country. She planned on staying 2 days.
Rick even mentioned that he saw some women wearing high heels wanting to go to PAP. While that may not seem like a big deal to most blog readers, there just wasn’t a place for high heels in Haiti a week after the quake.
There is not a clear cut way to define who a “disaster tourist” is. We spoke with a Hospital Administrator who was furious over the fact that all of the American doctors who came didn’t bring any of their own food, and were eating the hospital’s supply, which was meant for patients. Were they “disaster tourists”? I would say no, because they were supplying critical skills to the hospital in a big way.
Why I am taking the time to make this post?
If you decide to go into a disaster area to help, make sure you do not become a “disaster tourist”. This is my opinion only, but typically a “disaster tourist” is someone who becomes sensationalized by the media regarding a disaster and has several (3 or more) of the following qualities (listed in order of most likely characteristic):
1. They are liabilities to others. (This includes becoming victims themselves)
2. They are non-self sustaining. (They do not have their own food, shelter, money or means or a plan to take care of themselves)
3. They have limited skill sets, resources, plans, information, and means to actually help.
4. They usually have an exceptionally short period of stay (typically 1-3 days max).
5. Feel drawn to visit specific locations sensationalized by the media.
6. Photograph themselves in front of disaster locations and smile.
If you Google “Disaster Tourist” you will see that it is a well documented phenomena:
This is just crazy and honestly sad. I do think you should add to the list…."They wear fanny packs, dockers and button up collared shirts"….:)!
And hence my comments in your first iReport – "I would be a liability"…but your definitely were not! The skeptisim by the Salvation Army seems so understandable now.
Michael I need to make a clarification.
I was asked to come to Haiti by the SA disaster services director Bob Poff. I acquired the requisite equipment and made my way. You know the story of most of the trip.
While I agree totally with your posting on disaster tourists (they are a huge problem) I disagree just as strongly with the SA manager’s assessment that our group were tourists. Mathieu, Brian, you and I were categorized by those people who had taken over from Bob as soon as I walked in the door. They were against our being there before a word was spoken. Incredibly frustrating for me personally.
Yes they allowed you and Mathieu to stay and it worked out for all of those thousands who you managed to put into the system. SA’s behavior however, not as an organization but the two individuals, was despicable.
One last point: ad-hoc volunteers (Michael, Mathieu, Brian in our case) are capable of making huge contributions if they have capabilities that can be folded into the various systems of delivery of aid. There is a significant difference in the ad-hoc volunteer and the disaster tourist.
Rick- I agree completely- They just assumed we were disaster tourists without really giving us a chance. Even after you and Brian left, the first few days they made it clear they still wanted Mathieu and I to leave. Bob was a very important contact for everyone involved. There has to be a better way of plugging capable volunteers in.
On the other hand…in all fairness to the 2 gentlemen we are speaking of, after a few days they became our biggest supporters as well as good friends. They are good men and had a lot on their minds when we first got there, Im certain it wasn’t intended to be a personal attack.
Michael the fact that I am offended does not mean that I understand it was not personal. They knew I was deployed by Bob; he stood there and told them that. The animus displayed to me was a result of internal SA politics not anything related to me as an individual. I understand your opinion of those persons I have a different opinion. I respect what you and Mathieu did immensely. I have nothing but disgust for those individuals’ behavior. I have, sadly, seen exactly the same at other places when again lives were in the balance. Very sad.
When I encouraged you to work in the system I was aware that the system is not always operating properly. Again lives in the balance and some people have to play politics.
I would like to see more pictures in here…