Tourism is heavily reliant on visitor confidence, making it suceptible to acts of violence
that create a sense of danger. So, it should be no surprise that terrorism would lead to an
immediate decline in tourist arrivals to the area and tarnish the image of a destination
indefinitely. Although it's not advisable to visit a destination shortly after there's been an act of
terrorism, travelers will often perceive risk as higher than it actually is because of how media
coverage sensationalizes the attack and avoid the location long after the risk has subsided. This
substitution effect means travelers choose alternative destinations perceived as safer,
compounding the economic challenges for regions affected by terrorism.
One example of how terrorism has been used to target tourism specifically was the 2002
Bali bombings. On October 12, two bombs exploded in the Kuta area of Bali, Indonesia, killing
202 people, including many international tourists. The extremist group Jemaah Islamiyah
attacked many popular nightclubs in the area, making the incident not only a direct assault on
Bali’s tourism-dependent economy but also a symbolic act against Western influence and
globalization. Bali represents Western influence for many visitors due to its cultural
distinctiveness compared to the rest of Indonesia. The immediate aftermath of the attacks saw a
steep decline in tourist arrivals, devastating the island’s economy, where over 70% of GDP relied
on tourism at the time. I chose this case in particular because although it happened relatively
recently, it's not something you hear about when Bali is mentioned. Maybe it has to do with my
age relative to the time of the attack, but it gives me the impression that Bali was able to recover
and reestablish its image.
The Bali bombings illustrate several dynamics discussed in David Mc. A. Baker’s study
of terrorism and tourism. Economically, the attack disrupted Bali’s primary industry, causing
widespread unemployment and hardship for locals. The attackers made a powerful statement
against the Westernized culture of Bali, which was their primary objective. Media coverage also
significantly amplifies the attack’s impact, with extensive reporting spreading fear among
potential tourists worldwide. This kind of media exposure, while unintentional, can often serve
the interests of terrorist groups by magnifying their harmful ideological messages and increasing
their visibility.
Tourists are appealing targets for terrorists due to their symbolic association with foreign
influence and globalization. Additionally, terrorist organizations usually aim to either cause
damage or a high number of casualties. Therefore, places with many tourists, such as airports or
landmarks, provide opportunities for this and are sure to generate significant media coverage.
Targeting tourism will also disrupt local economies reliant on the visitors, creating immediate
instability and scaring governments into addressing the terrorists' ideological demands.
Some preventative measures could have mitigated the severity of the attack, but
unfortunately, these kinds of measures are almost always implemented in hindsight. One
example of this could be increasing intelligence sharing with the international community, which
could have possibly identified the threat beforehand. Strengthening visible security in
high-traffic areas might have deterred attackers. In the aftermath, Bali’s anti-terrorism measures
primarily targeted marketing campaigns and tourist incentives that would restore trust and
rebuild the island’s reputation as a peaceful and carefree destination.
Travelers born after 2002, such as myself, are not likely to associate Bali with terrorism
or even religious extremism. These bombings have made evident the relationship between
terrorism and tourism, highlighting Bali’s resilience and the successful preventative measures
they implemented in the aftermath. With enhanced security protocols and international
collaboration, Bali successfully restored its image as an accepting and peaceful destination..