Customer Satisfaction
Guaranteed
Only pay after getting the perfect paper. No revision limits.
Get Help With Your Literature Review
If you need assistance with writing your literature review, our professional Literature
Review
Service is here to help!
Tourist Motivation
Human society, once so sedentary, has begun to move. Today a hurried mobility has
obsessed
most of the inhabitants of the industrialized nations. One seizes every opportunity to
free
oneself. To escape the boredom of everyday life as often as possible: short jaunts
during
the week or week-end, long trips during vacations. Nobody wants anything more fervently
...
for their old age than a secondary residence.
Above
all,
one does not want to stay home but to get away at any price (Krippendorf, 1987).
The subject of tourist motivation involves questions about why people travel.
However,
identifying clearly the relationships between an individual’s motivations and
selection
of a
destination is a difficult task. Krippendorf (1987), for instance, identified a
number
of
tourist motivations, including:
Recuperation and regeneration;
Compensation and social integration;
Escape;
Communication;
Broadening the mind;
Freedom and self-determination;
Self-realisation;
Happiness.
Collectively, these motivations reflect that ‘the traveller is a mixture of many
characteristics that cannot be simply assigned into this category or that one’
(Krippendorf,
1987: 28). He furthers states that, man spends part of his leisure time in mobile
leisure
activities, that is in travel, which opens a window to the world of the ordinary.
This
departure or escape is typified and conditioned by specific influences, motivations,
and
expectations. The purposes of travel constitute the polar opposite of daily life:
they
represent the non-ordinary. In this context, it is especially interesting to examine
the
behaviour and experiences of travellers, the circumstances and environment of the
people
visited (the hosts), and the encounters between travellers and other travellers,
especially
between travellers and hosts.
The system of work – habitat – leisure – travel is enclosed in a large framework and
influenced by the force which governs it. One can distinguish four major domains of
these
forces, which are connected to each other by numerous interactions: society with its
value
system (sociocultural subsystem); the economy and its structure (economic
subsystem);
the
environment and its resources (ecological subsystem); the government and its
policies
(political subsystem) (Rotach, Mauch, and Gueller 1982: 35ff).
Krippendorf believes that the main motive for tourism is to escape from something
that
we
feel is wrong in our daily lives. In today’s highly technological world we feel
trapped
in
routines and commitments over which we have no control, says Krippendorf.
Nowadays, the need to travel is above all created by society and marked by the
ordinary.
People leave because they no longer feel at ease where they are, where they work,
and
where
they live. They feel an urgent need to rid themselves temporarily of the burdens
imposed
by
the everyday work, home and leisure scenes, in order to be in a fit state, to pick
the
burden up again. Their work is more and more mechanized, bureaucratized, and
determined
without regard to their wishes. Deep inside, they feel the monotony of the ordinary,
the
cold rationality of factories, offices, apartment buildings, and the highway
infrastructure,
the impoverishment of human contact, the repression of feelings, the degradation of
nature,
and the loss of nature (Krippendorf, 1987).
Kripendorf highlights, besides the motivation, the society has simultaneously
furnished
to
its members the means of carrying out this escape: money, in the form of higher
income;
and
time, thanks to more and more limited work schedules. But most important of all,
industry
has developed the true prime mover of mobile society. The car and, to a lesser
extent,
the
airplane have ushered in the mobile leisure revolution and have brought it to
today’s
state
in scarcely two decades and at an amazing speed.
The society makes available the recreation industry, which plays in a sense the role
of
friend and advisor. This industry has taken over free time. It provides not only
various
kinds of gratification, but also creates, if necessary, the corresponding wishes and
desires (Traitler 1971: 28). Many works to a large extent, in order to be able to
take
vacations, and he needs vacations to be able to go back to work (Krippendorf, 1987).
The work ethic has allowed many achievements: especially the much hoped for material
well-being, the elimination (or nearly so) of poverty, and the reduced work week.
But
next to this undeniable progress, the ethic has also brought major problems which
weigh
more and more heavily in the scales and which are felt by a growing number of
people:
the loss of meaning in one’s job (as a consequence of mass production and of the
extreme
division of labour), an ever diminishing satisfaction with work and with life
(Yankelovich, 1978; Noelle-Neumann 1983), the rigid and immutable organization of
time,
the phenomena of stress and boredom and the growing “medicalization” of lives
(Isopublic
1982; Opaschowski, 1983), and most especially, the increase in unemployment
(Kenward,
1983).
Social Tourism
The benefits of participation have prompted many governments to promote access to leisure
travel as positive social and economic activities. However, government provisions to
ensure
equality of access to tourism are not universal ranging from tacit support to direct
investment in the provision of services in the form
... of social tourism
(European Commission
2001). In Europe active support for social tourism can be traced back to the
Christian
movement in France and Switzerland, the early youth movements in
Germany and workers educational collectives. However, there are political, cultural
and
moral dimensions to the debates based on different perspectives on the ideological
and
fundamental role of the state in the provision of holiday services that has resulted
in
diverse provision of holiday services that has resulted in diverse provision of
access
to tourism opportunities.
In the UK for example, the European model has not been followed and there is concern
about an ‘over-work’ culture (Bunting 2004). Similarly, the US has witnessed both
long-term erosion in leisure time and a propensity for shorter holidays (Schor,
1991)
whilst in Japan, holiday time has traditionally been even more scaring (Richards
1999).
Therefore cultural attitudes towards holidaymaking could affect political support
for
social tourism as a policy tool.
Social tourism can be described as “the relationships and phenomena in the field of
tourism resulting from participation in travel by economically weak or otherwise
disadvantaged elements of society” (Hunzinger, “Social tourism, its nature and
problems,” quoted in ETB and TUC 1976, 5). It involves the provision of vacations
for
people who can afford them only with the aid of a third party. Although the aim of
social tourism is Unitarian in philosophy-to extend the benefits of vacations to a
broader segment of society-it is expressed in a variety of forms.
Trade unions in industrialized nations have long sought and won paid vacation time
for
their members, and by example, have won similar rights for most industrial and
service
workers. In Europe and Japan some companies help, pay for a substantial portion of
vacation costs. Most workers in West Germany receive Urlaubsgeld (holiday money), a
bonus that cna equal 45 per cent of their regular vacation pay. In France, the
state-owned Renault Company contributes to the operation of thirty family vacation
villages for its workers (Time 1981).
Social agencies such as the YMCA, Boy scouts, and church groups support many summer
camps which offer subsidized vacations to the young, poor or handicapped. In the
United
States there is evidence of “social tourism” with a twist, according to Lundberg
(1976,
170). He notes that social tourism is designed to subsidize vacations or facilities
for
the working class, but points out that recent resort development in certain state
parks
is really social tourism for the middle class. These resort park projects offer
country
club quality and settings at a subsidized price, and have proved to be very popular
attractions.
In recent years there has been a re-emergence of research on issues related to
social
justice and welfare issues in tourism (Higgins-Desboilles 2006; Hall and Brown 1996,
2006) including the concpt of social tourism. Haulot (1982) defines social tourism
as a
‘the totality of relations and phenomena deriving from the participation of those
social
group with modest incomes-participation which is made possible or facilitated by
measures of a well-defined social character’ (40). Although there are diverse
interpretations of what constitutes social tourism and how it can be implemented,
Minnaert, Maitland and Miller (2007) differentiate between visitor-and host-related
forms of social tourism.
The literature linking social tourism to social welfare issues from a social policy
perspective is limited (Minnaert, Maitland and Miller 2009). Social tourism in the
UK is
largely dependent on the charities sector, although there are a few studies on the
structure and organization of support (Local Government Association 2001). The
social
policy literature has given limited consideration to the issue of tourisms role in
current debates despite a one-wee holiday being included in the indicators of
exclusion
for some time (Hazel 2005) and tourism being increasingly perceived as a social
‘right’
(Richards 1998). The UK has not adopted the European model of policy provision on
social
tourism such as the World Tourism Organization (1980).
In the UK the largest factor for non-participation in a holiday was affordability
(Corlyon and La Placa, 2006). In 2006-07 there were 2.9 million children living in
income poverty in the UK, a figure which rose by 100,000 for the second year running
(Department for work and Pensions 2008; see also Palmer, Carr and Kenway 2005). The
main
social groups who are most at risk from social exclusion from tourism include those
who
are: disabled; ill; older; at fear of persecution or other risk factors; suffering
from
poverty; lack time due to work or caring commitments, ethnic minority groups.
Further,
it is not clear how non-participation in tourism may impact upon the costs of health
and
social care provision (ODPM 2005).
According to McCabe, holiday space does not contain referents to family problems,
and it
is free of negative associations, stress and barriers to novel experiences. The
holiday
offers people a chance to live differently, individually and as a family, allowing a
change in routines, to try new activities and experiences, for children to
experience
freedom, and to live at a different pace of life. Furthermore, holidays provided
opportunities for positive and active behaviours in relation to sport and exercise,
positive recreation as opposed to passive leisure forms, and issues which has been
highlighted by Roberts in relation to leisure consumption and social exclusion
(2004).
Further McCabe states, that, analysis of the application forms indicates that people
are
very often aware of the problems and issues which they face in their lives which can
often lead to a sense of guilt. Given the opportunity of time and space away from
the
home environment, people have the chance to actively solve their own issues without
the
intervention from others. They have a chance to build or heal relationships and
recover
from past difficulties and an opportunity to reassess issue and face the future in a
positive way.
Conclusion
Travel motivation studies attempt to answer the question ‘why people travel’ or ‘why
people visit a particular destination’ because the underlying assumption is that
motivation is one of the driving forces of behaviour. Understanding specific tourist
motivations and/or the nature of travel motivation can help destination managers and
marketers do a better job of product/service planning, marketing communication and
visitor attraction and retention.
Travel motivation is a psychological construct which holds a multidimensional
underlying
structure. People travel to various places to meet different needs. Individuals
travel
motivations are influenced by their culture, background and previous experience. Of
the
motivational forces, pull factors are destination attributes, which are under a
great
deal of control of the destinations.
All the three authors talk about the push / pull factor of tourism but in different
concept, Dann focuses on anomie and ego-enhancement, whereas Krippendorf talks about
working class people needing to take holiday, with McCabe it is about social tourism
for
the people who are excluded from the society and cannot afford holiday. Each author
explains the same in different ways and logic.
References:
Bello, D. C. And Etzel, M. J. (1985) The rate of novelty in pleasure travel
experiences.
Journal of Travel Research 24(1), 20-26.
Bunting, M. (2004), ‘Willing Slaves’: How the Overwork Culture is Ruling Our Lives.
London: Harper Collins.
Corlyon, J., and La Placa, V., (2006) Holidays for Families in Need: Policies and
Practice in the UK. London: Policy Research Bureau.
Crompton, J. (1979) Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research
6(4),
408-424.
Dann, G. (1977), Anomie, ego-enhamcement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
4(4),
184-194.
Dann, G., (1981), Tourist motivation: An appraisal, Annals of Tourism Research 8(2),
187-219.
Department for Work and Pensions (2008) Households Below Average Income: An Analysis
of
the Income Distribution 1994 / 95 -2006 /0. HMSO.
European Commission, (2001), Report of the Results of the Tourism for all
Investigation.
Brussels: European Commission.
Fodness, D., (1994), Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research 21
(3),
555-581.
Gnoth, J., (1997), Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism
Research 24(2), 283-304.
Hall, D., and Brown, F., (1996) Towards a Welfare Focus for Tourism Research.
Progress
in Tourism and Hospitality Research 2:41-57.
Hall, D., and Brown, F., (2006) Tourism and Welfare: Ethics, Responsibility and
Sustainable Well-being. Wallingford: CABI.
Haulot, A., (1982) Social Toursim: Current Dimensions of Future Developments.
Journal of
Travel Research 20:40.
Hazel, N. (2005) Holidays for Children and Families in Need: An Exploration of the
Research and Policy Context for Social Tourism in the UK. Children & Society
19:225-236.
Higgins-Desboilles, F. (2006), More than an “Industry”: The Forgotten Power of
Tourism
as a Social Force. Tourism Management 27: 1192-1208.
Hsu, C.H.C., and Lam, T.,( 2003), Mainland Chinese travellers motivations and
barriers
of visiting Hong Kong. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics 2(1), 60-67.
Isopublic – Umfrage, (1982), Le Suisse et le travail. Zuerich: Institut fur
Markt-und
meinungsforschung.
Jang, S.C. and Cai, L.A., (2002), Travel motivations and destination choice: a study
of
British outbound market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 13(3), 111-133.
Kenward, L. (1983), Arbeitslosigkeit in den grossen Industrielaendern. In
Finanzierung
und Entwicklung 2:24 – 38. Hamburg: HWWA-Institut.
Krippendorf, J. (1987), The Holidaymakers. Understanding the Impact of Leisure and
Travel. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Local Government Association (2001) Tourism as a Tool for Social Inclusion. London:
LGA.
McCabe, S. (2009) Who needs a holiday? Evaluating social tourism, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 667-688, 2009.
Minnaert, L., R. Maitland, and G. Miller (2007) Social Tourism and its Ethical
Foundations. Tourism Culture & Communicaton 7:7-17.
Minnaert, L., R. Maitland, and G. Miller (2009) Tourism and Social Policy: The Value
of
Social Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 36(2): 316-334.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1983), Freude, Feiheitsgefuehl und Produktivitaet. In
Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung 111:13. Frankfurt: Frakfurter Allgemeinc Verlag.
Opaschowski, H. W., (1983), Freizeit: Zur Langeweile verurteilt. In Animation 1:2-7.
Hannover: Vincentz.
OPDM (2005) Inclusion Through Innovation: Tackling Social Exclusion through New
Technologies. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Richards, G. (1998) time for a Holiday? Social Rights and International tourism
Consumption. Time and Society 7(1): 145-160.
Richards, G. (1999), Vacations and the Quality of Life: Patterns and Structures.
Journal
of Business Research 44: 189-198.
Rotach, M. S. Mauch, and P. Gueller, eds, (1982), Szenarien kuenftiger
Entwicklungen.
Bern: Programmletiung NFP “Regional Probleme.”
Schor, J. (1991), The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline in Leisure. New
York:
Basic Books.
Traitler, R. (1971), Der manipulierte Tourist. In Der Ueberblick 3:28-29. Stuttgart:
Arbeitsgemeinschaft evang. Kirchen in Deutschland.
Uysal, M., and Jurowski, C., (1994), Testing the push and pull factors. Annals of
Tourism Research 21(4), 844-846.
World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1999) Global code of Ethics for Tourism.
Yankelovich, D. (1978), Wer hat noch Lust zu arbeiten? In Psychologie heute 5:14
-21.
Weinheim: Beltz.
Zhang, H., and Lam, T., (1999), an analysis of mainland Chinese visitors motivations
to
Hong Kong. Tourism Management 20(5), 587-594.