Dark tourism is on the up. It’s a form of travel that some researchers say has been around for centuries, perhaps since visitors watched the violent games at the Colosseum, or since the bloodthirsty joined the Crusades, or medieval peasants journeyed to a day’s entertainment at a public hanging. And the human taste for the macabre has not gone away.
A market worth tens of billions
Surprisingly for a generation often deemed to be sensitive, Gen Z appear to be the sector’s latest fans. In fact, some say it is Gen Z’s obsession with dark tourism that is driving its rise: an overwhelming 91% of Gen Z surveyed had already done some form of dark tourism back in 2022.
Whether or not they started a trend, by 2023, the global dark tourism market was estimated at $31.89 billion by industry analysts Grand View and is expected to grow 2.9% a year to 2030. A Digital Journal research paper says it will reach a global value of $43.5 billion by 2031.
Dark tourism v. urbexing
That demand is being fed by an increasing supply of “destinations” marketing themselves under the dark tourism banner. So-called “murder houses”, where visitors can experience the vibe in residence where horrific killings have taken place, are on the increase in the US and garner considerable interest in Japan, where they are known as “incident houses” and where restless spirits (reikon) are thought to roam.
There is some overlap here with urbexing (urban exploring), an activity in which the curious enter abandoned properties. But urbexing is partly about the thrill of the forbidden or unknown, whether it’s a disaster site like Chernobyl or uncovering a gem that has lain unappreciated in a dilapidated castle. “Dark tourism” is increasingly seen by some as the opposite – the cynical curation and commercial exploitation of victims’ stories.
Take, for example, plans that recently hit the news, for a tour taking visitors to the site of the Jonestown Massacre in Guyana, where over 900 people were killed as part of a religious cult. While authorities and tour operators grapple with the logistics of getting tourists to the remote jungle location of the former People’s Temple, others are asking what revisiting the mass poisoning, committed by US citizen Jim Jones on a group of US victims, can possibly add to Guyana in terms of cultural value?
What about memorials?
Even where a moral argument for trips to the sites of death, destruction and tragedy can be made, for example in the case of historic battle sites or memorials, some commentators are asking whether educational visits or people paying their respects at places such as Auschwitz or Gambia’s slave trade island, Kunta Kinteh, should even be mentioned in the same breath as other “attractions”.
For Professor Heather Lewis, who spoke to Discover Magazine, part of the answer lies in “making sure that we are being ethically and morally upright in the marketing and use of these locations as dark tourism destinations. We should never seek economic gain by exploiting others’ suffering and loss.”
