The Nutella Project

Abstract

How different the world would be had countries not reopened their borders to welcome tourists after conflict, thus providing opportunities for travelers to learn, understand, and overcome potential stereotypes and negative perceptions of a country’s residents and environment. This study reveals preliminary results of an education initiative focused on understanding, addressing, and overcoming negative perceptions, with the possibility of creating interest in, and opportunities for, a revitalization of tourism in Afghanistan. The study offers contact theory as a way to present organic images of a place to help create perceptions of destinations that are more accurate than induced images. Results revealed that contact theory, through intergroup dialogue between residents of two countries with noted historic conflict, provided the means for reducing cultural ambiguity and overcoming stereotypes. The findings offer implications for both the tourism and education sectors and suggest that intergroup dialogue may be key to increasing visit intentions and, most importantly, enhancing a destination’s image after conflict.

The role of dark commemorative and sport events in peaceful coexistence in the Western Balkans

“…Ambitions of international actors to develop "Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions" (United Nations, 2015a, 2015b) as well as hopes for sustainable tourism associated with these events are "prisoners of the past." Advocates of peace through tourism suggest that increased contact between communities will lead to peace (Durko & Petrick, 2016;Kim et al, 2007), yet this research contributes new evidence that the peaceful coexistence of post-conflict societies is a pre-condition for sustainable tourism development, in line with the previous findings of Pratt and Liu (2016). In the Western Balkans sustainable tourism development linked to events is more likely to be the "beneficiary of peace" and not its cause (Litvin, 1998, p. 63).…”

“…Does an increase in tourism help to promote peace, or is peace a necessary condition for the development of tourism? Advocates of the first position claim that contact between people from different cultures, societies and nations will lead to mutual understanding, helping to reduce the likelihood of conflict breaking out in the future (Durko & Petrick, 2016;Kim et al, 2007). The counter-argument is that this contact is not possible unless there is a peaceful situation in a destination and that, without peace, it is not possible to develop or grow tourism (Pratt & Liu, 2016).…”

Tourism, peace and sustainability in sanctions-ridden destinations

“…The role of tourism in establishing peace is reported in numerous studies (Becken & Carmignani, 2016;Blanchard & Higgins-Desbiolles, 2013b;D'Amore, 1988;Farmaki, 2017;Gelbman, 2019;Moufakkir & Kelly, 2010). The contribution of tourism in reconciliation efforts in post-conflict settings has also been highlighted in cases including the Former Yugoslavia (Causevic & Lynch, 2011), Cambodia (Winter, 2008), Vietnam (Gillen, 2014), Burundi (Novelli et al, 2012), Cyprus (Farmaki, 2017), Korean Peninsula (Cho, 2007;Kim & Prideaux, 2003), Palestine (Isaac, 2009), Afghanistan (Durko & Petrick, 2016) and China and Taiwan (Rowen, 2014). In contrast, there is another perspective that questions the validity of the causal relationship between tourism and peace (Hall, 1994(Hall, , 2005Khalilzadeh, 2018;Pratt & Liu, 2016;Salazar, 2006).…”

Fostering higher level cultural learning among tourism students through virtual interaction

“…After the pre-survey, students were informed they would be virtually "meeting" university students of the other country through live videoconferences to discuss topics of their choosing in hopes of gaining an understanding of a country and its people they may have known little about. As in previous studies of attitude change (Durko & Petrick, 2016;Nyaupane et al, 2008), students were not given formal lectures, readings, or material that may have influenced their initial perceptions. During each of the two-hour live virtual meetings, students asked questions of one another and provided answers reciprocally.…”