WestminsterResearch
http://www.wmin.ac.uk/westminsterresearch
Tourism and social policy: the value of social tourism.
Lynn Minnaert1
Robert Maitland1
Graham Miller2
1
2
School of Architecture and the Built Environment
University of Surrey
This is an electronic final author formatted version of an article published in
Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (2). pp. 316-334, April 2009. The definitive
publisher-authenticated version is available from the journal homepage at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01607383
The WestminsterResearch online digital archive at the University of Westminster
aims to make the research output of the University available to a wider audience.
Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the authors and/or copyright owners.
Users are permitted to download and/or print one copy for non-commercial private
study or research. Further distribution and any use of material from within this
archive for profit-making enterprises or for commercial gain is strictly forbidden.
Whilst further distribution of specific materials from within this archive is forbidden,
you may freely distribute the URL of WestminsterResearch.
(http://www.wmin.ac.uk/westminsterresearch).
In case of abuse or copyright appearing without permission e-mail wattsn@wmin.ac.uk.
TOURISM AND SOCIAL POLICY:
The value of Social Tourism
1
TOURISM AND SOCIAL POLICY:
The value of Social Tourism
Dr. Lynn Minnaert
University of Westminster, UK
Professor Robert Maitland
University of Westminster, UK
Dr. Graham Miller
University of Surrey, UK
2
Abstract
Social Tourism for low-income groups forms part of social policy in several
countries of mainland Europe, but little research evidence of its benefits
exists. This study empirically examines these benefits in terms of increases in
social and family capital. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with
participating families and their support workers, in a semi-longitudinal
research design. Social Tourism was found to increase family capital in the
short term, and social capital – in terms of social networks, related pro-active
behavior and self-esteem - in the medium term. These increases can be seen
as beneficial for the participants and to wider society. Consequently it is
suggested that Social Tourism may be a cost-effective addition to social
policy.
Keywords: Social Tourism, low-income, social capital, family capital
3
Bio sketch
Lynn Minnaert is a Research Fellow at the University of Westminster (35
Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, Email minnael@wmin.ac.uk). Her
research interest is tourism for low-income and minority groups. Robert
Maitland is Director of the Centre for Tourism Research at the University of
Westminster. His research focuses on city tourism and tourism policy. Graham
Miller is a Senior Lecturer in management at the University of Surrey. His
research interests are sustainable tourism and ethics.
4
INTRODUCTION
Hunziker describes Social Tourism as “the relationships and phenomena in
the field of tourism resulting from participation in travel by economically weak
or otherwise disadvantaged elements in society” (1951:1). It encompasses a
variety of different initiatives, commercial and non-commercial, governmental
and private, that aim to offer holiday experiences to groups that would not
otherwise have them. It has been defined as “tourism with an added moral
value, which aims to benefit either the host or the visitor in the tourism
exchange” (Minnaert, Maitland and Miller 2006:9). Examples of Social
Tourism range from holiday initiatives for people with disabilities and charity
holidays for children from disadvantaged backgrounds to the development of
community-based tourism in economically underdeveloped areas. This article
focuses on Social Tourism for members of low-income groups who would not
otherwise go on holiday.
In several countries of mainland Europe (for example France, Belgium,
Spain), Social Tourism is supported by public funding, and mostly takes the
form of low-cost domestic holidays. In these countries, the basis for provision
is the perceived right of all to enjoy tourism (EESC 2006). Social Tourism is
provided on the grounds that it increases equality between groups of society
(Minnaert, Maitland and Miller 2006). In other countries, including the UK and
USA, Social Tourism is a less well-known phenomenon, and rarely publicly
funded, since tourism is seen as a discretionary activity, to which no right
exists. In these circumstances, any public funding for Social Tourism depends
upon utilitarian considerations: whether it can confer net benefits to society as
5
a whole (Minnaert, Maitland and Miller 2006). In the UK for example, there is
currently little government policy interest in Social Tourism. Whilst “Tourism
for All”, is a topic in the 1999 “Tomorrow’s Tourism” policy (DCMS 1999) there
is no reference to it in the 2004 follow-up policy document, “Tomorrow’s
Tourism Today” (DCMS 2004). Assistance to low income groups is largely
confined to grants from charitable bodies (Smith and Hughes 1999).
Where Social Tourism is an established part of public policy, its benefits are
strongly asserted. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) for
example, in its Barcelona declaration, links Social Tourism to a set of benefits,
which include improvement of well-being, personal development of the
beneficiaries and the host community, European citizenship, improved health
and increased employment opportunities (EESC 2006), and describes the
member state governments as stakeholders in this form of tourism (EESC
2006). However, research to assess how far such benefits are actually
realized is very limited. If Social Tourism is to be considered as a potential
component of public policy in countries where it is not already established on
a rights basis, evidence that it confers benefits on participants and the wider
society - for example by increasing social and family capital - is needed. And if
such benefits exist, research is needed to investigate how they can be
maximized cost-effectively.
The aim of this paper is therefore twofold. First to draw together literature on
social and family capital, social policy and learning to show how in principle
Social Tourism might be seen as a contributor to public policy. Second, to test
6
the ideas empirically through a study of how Social Tourism affects personal
and family development of low-income groups. The study was carried out with
holiday participants and their “welfare agents” (WFA) (support workers, such
as health workers, charity workers or social workers, who apply for the holiday
on behalf of the participants). It examines how far Social Tourism has benefits
beyond simply providing holidays to those who would otherwise not be able to
afford them, and how far it can lead to increases in social and family capital
for low income groups.
SOCIAL AND FAMILY CAPITAL
This section outlines the concepts of social and family capital relevant to the
study. For more extensive reviews of the considerable literature in this field
see for example Baron, Field and Schuller (2000), Swartz and Zolberg (2005),
and Marjoribanks (2002).
Coleman contrasts social capital with two other forms of capital: physical
capital (goods and services), and human capital (skills and abilities). If
physical capital is comparatively tangible, being embodied in observable
material form, and human capital is less tangible, being embodied in the skills
and knowledge acquired by an individual, social capital is less tangible yet, for
it exists in the relations between persons (Coleman 1998). Apart from benefits
like co-operation, trust and trustworthiness, Putnam also mentions social
capital as a tool that “helps develop and maintain character traits that are
good for the rest of society”, linked to better employment opportunities, a
reduction in benefit dependency and thus a net benefit for society. It is also
7
linked to lessening illness, thus reducing the public cost of healthcare by
reducing demand on the health service (Putnam 2000:288). This would
indicate that increasing social capital could be a worthwhile public investment;
and if Social Tourism can achieve an increase in social capital, it could
potentially be justified for public funding.
A related concept is that of family capital. Parcel and Dufur describe it as “the
bonds between parents and children that are useful in promoting child
socialization. (It) reflects the time and attention parents spend in interaction
with children, in monitoring their activities, and in promoting child well-being,
including academic achievement” (Parcel & Dufur 2001:882). Families on low
incomes or parents with limited schooling are not necessarily low on family
capital. Family capital is determined by the stability of the family on the one
hand, and the social contacts of the parents on the other hand (Parcel & Dufur
2001). Marjoribanks has shown the educational impacts of family capital:
“family environmental contexts are moderately to largely associated with
children’s
academic
performances
and
adolescents’
aspirations”
(Marjoribanks 1998:328). The level of family capital can also affect the
resilience of the family as a whole, and thus influence (being part of social
capital) each member of that family (Belsey 2003). This highlights the
importance of family capital, influencing both the family unit and each of its
members. This study examines whether Social Tourism can increase social
and family capital, affecting society as a whole and suggesting Social Tourism
could contribute to social policy.
8
SOCIAL CAPITAL IN SOCIAL POLICY
Increases in social and family capital benefit individuals, and may have a
positive impact on the wider society – in which case public support can be
worthwhile. However, the importance of social and family capital depends
upon the perspective taken on public policy. The two existing models that
systematically organize different social policy ideas are those of Levitas
(1998) and Silver (1994). Levitas’ conceptualization is more helpful because
Silver’s paradigms fail to account for the effect of differing ideologies in
institutional frameworks in different societies.
Levitas (1998) has analyzed different British policies that aim to reduce social
exclusion, and has organized them in a system of three discourses. The first
discourse is the redistributionist discourse (RED), which focuses on reducing
poverty through income redistribution. It contrasts poverty with citizenship,
and addresses the social, political, cultural and economic aspects of
citizenship, so it can also be seen as a general critique of inequality. It aims to
remove the factors that produce inequality and to redistribute resources and
power (Levitas 1998). This view on social policy mainly emphasizes
increasing the physical capital of excluded groups (by increasing their
incomes), rather than their social capital, implying that a rise in physical
capital can alleviate shortcomings in social and family capital.
The second discourse is the social integrationist discourse (SID), linking
inclusion to work. Social policy should thus aim to increase participation in
9
paid work, and poverty should be reduced by increasing participation in
employment rather than by income redistribution. It implies that an increase in
human capital (skills and ability to work) can lead the way to an increase in
physical, social and family capital.
The third discourse of social exclusion is the moral underclass discourse
(MUD), which concentrates on the cultural explanations of poverty. It presents
the socially excluded (or underclass) as culturally distinct from the
mainstream, and focuses on the behavior of the poor rather than on the
structure of society. It implies that state provided income supplements
encourage dependency and so are bad, rather than good, for their recipients,
and the wider society. Levitas describes this discourse as “gendered”, as it is
about idle, criminal young men and single mothers (1998). This discourse
focuses on socially undesirable behaviors (e.g. teenage pregnancy, benefit
dependency, substance abuse), and sees them as part of a “culture” of the
underclass - a cause rather than a result of exclusion. This perspective is
strongly linked to the social and family capital of excluded groups and their
values and attitudes, which differ from the mainstream. It implies that if social
and family capital can be increased, an increase in physical capital and/or
employment will follow.
How one interprets the role and key aims of social policy influences the role
Social Tourism may play in it. From a RED point of view, Social Tourism
provides low-income groups with holidays, which they would not have
otherwise. This results in a more equal distribution of goods and services in
10
society (Levitas 1998), and is thus a justification for public investment per se,
independent of its further benefits. Countries, which have historically seen
holidays as a right can be seen as taking a RED perspective. They also assert
– as discussed above – that an increase in equality (in terms of access to
consumer goods) can automatically lead to an increase in social and family
capital. Elsewhere this discourse of social exclusion is generally less
influential in social policy.
From the SID perspective, social policy aims to increase participation in paid
work (Levitas 1998). As Social Tourism does not directly result in
employment, this discourse is unsuitable for this study. Even if employment
were a long-term benefit of Social Tourism, the holidays would have
influenced the participant’s employability indirectly, not directly (as for
example in the case of training, and education).
From the MUD perspective social policy aims to reduce the presence of a
number of behaviors that hinder the individual’s integration in society (Levitas
1998). It aims to increase social and family capital in terms of norms, values
and behaviors, and bring these closer to those of mainstream society. This
could benefit wider society, for example through lower crime levels, lower
levels of benefit-dependency, and lower costs for health services. This means
that if Social Tourism increases social and family capital it will generate
benefits to society and could be justified on that basis. This study aims to
assess the effects of Social Tourism from the perspective of the MUD
11
discourse – described by Wilson as the “most accepted of the three in a
liberal Western society” (Wilson 1996:164).
Concentrating on the MUD approach to social capital means addressing
certain behaviors in individuals that should change. Achieving behavior
change requires an understanding of how individuals make decisions in the
first place, so that public policy can encourage different behavioral options to
be chosen. Issues of behavior and character are becoming increasingly
popular in public policy debates (Nickson et al 2004; Offer 2006). Barr (2007)
explains that knowledge, social norms, demographics, situational and
psychological variables will all be responsible to some extent for different
behaviors exhibited by different people in different contexts. The challenge is
to prevent a behavioral ‘lock-in’ where people are either unwilling, or unable to
remove themselves from an ultimately damaging form of behavior. If people
are unable to change their behavior, then in order to avoid a state of cognitive
dissonance, many of the messages encouraging change will either not be
heard, or become the source of annoyance, resulting in message fatigue.
When people are able to change behavior but have proved unwilling to do so,
a different context may mean they to hear messages anew. By changing the
context, Social Tourism may create opportunities for people to learn new
behaviors, which can ultimately reduce their social exclusion and enhance
social capital. The next section explores theories of learning to understand
how Social Tourism can maximize the potential for changing behavior.
Social Tourism as a potential form of learning
12
This section discusses how ideas from learning theories can be applied to
tourist experiences. Research on this theme is scarce, though Mitchell (1996)
has outlined a number of alternative approaches. Here the focus is on ideas
about experiential learning and situated learning since they specifically link
learning to experience in non-institutionalized settings, such as going on
holiday.
As the name suggests, experiential learning is learning rooted in experience.
This form of learning first received attention at the end of the 1970s and
during the 1980s, and represented an alternative to the more traditional,
cognitive learning theories. It can be defined as learning that “begins with the
experience followed by reflection, analysis and evaluation of the experience”
(Boydell 1976:17). From the perspective of experiential learning, a holiday can
offer the participant the chance to encounter new situations, witness different
social interactions, and compare these to his or her own behavior pattern
(Boydell 1976). A holiday, with its opportunities to explore a new environment
and engage in new activities, meet new people and be faced with unexpected
problems, can provide the encounters the participants need to start their
experiential learning cycle, even if this learning is not intended. This can have
two effects. First, the holiday makers can develop or improve their skills: this
is known as single-loop learning (for example, the family learns to use public
transport independently). Second, they may go through a deeper level of
change, affecting the underlying views and attitudes for that behavior. This is
known as double-loop learning (for example, successfully mastering the public
13
transport system creates greater self-esteem). In double-loop learning, the
very norms for effective performance (and personal behavior) are reviewed
(Argyris & Schön 1978).
Situated learning, as opposed to experiential learning, does not focus on the
individual learning in itself, but rather on how the individual learns. This
theory, developed in the 1990s, emphasizes that learning is a social activity,
and largely rooted in participating in activities with a “community of practice”,
who come together to carry out these activities (in school, at work, at home, in
leisure activities)’ (Lave & Wenger 1991:33). Communities of practice can
thus be described as entities that solve problems and promote learning via
communication amongst their members (Johnson 2001). Members of low
income groups are often not in paid employment, and have restricted social
networks, giving limited access to new communities of practice. Holidays can
bring contact with new communities of practice, which in turn can lead to
increases in social capital and behavior change (Lesser & Storck 2001).
An important condition for any learning is goal difficulty level, and how the
learners assess their chances for success. Rawsthorne and Elliot found that
an important factor in performance is “whether participants pursuing a
performance goal are focused on the possibility of a positive or negative
performance outcome” (Rawsthorne & Elliot 1999:328). This means
individuals are oriented either towards the attainment of success, or towards
the avoidance of failure. Fear of failure can lead to performance avoidance
(Silver et al 2006). Consequently, when goals are set too high or the learners
14
are pessimistic about their own success, the learning process can be
diminished. In terms of Social Tourism and experiential learning, this could
mean that holidays or situations that are too challenging for the learners can
prevent behavior change.
An additional condition for successful situated learning is level of contact with
new communities of practice. For a community of practice to be successful,
the members must meet or communicate more than just once, and form a
structured network based on trust and common interest (Lesser & Storck
2001). In the case of Social Tourism, this means that the most successful
holidays will be those which expose holiday makers to new communities of
practice during activities or via socializing. Both conditions highlight that the
choice of holiday and destination can have important effects on the success of
the holiday, in terms of learning and the extent to which socially undesirable
behavior is reduced.
So far it has been argued that, in societies where holidays are not seen as a
right, Social Tourism can only be justified as a part of social policy if the
holiday benefits not merely participants, but also the rest of society. Such
benefits could be achieved through an increase in social capital and family
capital. The MUD view of social exclusion argues that socially excluded
groups are excluded because of socially undesirable characteristics, which
prevent their integration in mainstream society. A holiday may reduce these
characteristics, and change certain values and behaviors, through an
experiential or situated learning process. The most successful Social Tourism
15
initiatives are thus those where the learning possibilities of the individual are
maximized. This means that the difficulty level must be seen as achievable,
and that there must be in-depth interaction with a new community of practice.
The fieldwork for this study aimed to examine to what extent Social Tourism
has benefits for the participants and society, the nature of those benefits and
how they can be maximized.
Study methods
The study involved qualitative fieldwork with the participants of Social Tourism
and their welfare agents. A qualitative method was chosen to examine the
tourist experience because this “is a complex phenomenon, a frame of mind,
a way of being, and above all, more complex to researchers than a simple
series of constructs which can be measured, quantified” (Page 2002:141).
The fieldwork examined how far Social Tourism affected behavior, which
areas of life were affected, the learning processes involved and how far they
depended on holiday type.
The fieldwork was carried out with the support of the Family Holiday
Association, a London-based Social Tourism charity, which provides about
1100 UK families per year with a holiday. All these families have low incomes,
and can be affected by various social problems: for example they include
carers for disabled children, women who have fled a violent relationship,
persons affected by HIV and people with mental health problems. The
16
holidays provided are usually for one week, taken in Britain, and in basic, selfcatering holiday parks at the seaside in the low season. The cost depends on
the size of the family, but averages around $1200 for the whole family. Most
families go on an individual holiday, unaccompanied by a welfare agent, but
social organizations can also apply for funding for group holidays they
organize themselves. Welfare agents would usually accompany the group
holidays, and often organize activities. In some cases they also provide
participants with food and toiletries from the grants.
Ethical
concerns
regarding
privacy
of
the
respondents
and
clear
communication with them were of utmost importance for this study. Therefore,
the welfare agents were first approached for help when selecting participants
for the research. They were sent information letters about the research, and
were telephoned individually. They were then asked to provide clients who
had been allocated a holiday with an invitation letter. This ensured that the
respondents could discuss the research with their welfare agent before
participating. A random sample was taken from those participants
volunteering to participate in the research.
The fieldwork was carried out in two rounds. The first round was conducted in
the first month after the holiday and involved 40 respondents; the second
round was carried out in the sixth month after the holiday and involved 30 of
the original 40 respondents (a retention rate of 75%). This dual structure
aimed to examine not only the immediate effects of the holiday, but also its
effects in the medium term. The methods used were semi-structured
17
interviews for individual holiday participants, and focus groups for group
holiday participants. For all welfare agents, semi-structured interviews were
used.
The data were manually coded. The choice of a manual coding method was
underpinned by the relatively small sample size and the fact that data often
had to be coded under several concepts at a time. The respondents did not
use a common or uniform vocabulary to explain their experiences, which
resulted in a very nuanced and hard to codify set of concepts that were
closely interlinked. The data were then analyzed thematically and tested for
validity in the second round.
In longitudinal research, an important issue is the effect of time and
perspective on the respondents’ answers. Contradictory accounts can also be
obtained from different respondents. A pluralist analysis was therefore chosen
“where different versions of reality are revealed by a range of actors who
operate with a variety of interests and perceptions” (Pettigrew 1990:272).
In the presentation of the findings, all names have been changed. Quotes are
reproduced exactly and without changes to vocabulary and grammar, to
preserve their authenticity. Quotes refer to the interviews and focus groups
carried out in the first round (post-holiday interview 1 or PHI1) and the second
round (post-holiday interview 2 or PHI2). The findings have been presented
thematically rather than chronologically, combining data from the two
interview rounds.
FINDINGS
18
This section is divided into two parts. The first part will examine the effects of
Social Tourism on family capital (in terms of family relations, stability of the
family and the family’s social contacts). The second part will examine the
effects on social capital (in terms of extended social networks, and related
changes to behavior and confidence).
Increases in family capital
An improvement in the family relations of the respondents was one of the
clearest outcomes in the first round of interviews, in the month after the return
of the respondents. The great majority of respondents indicated positive
behavior changes, mainly referring to the relationship with the children, the
time spent with them and the change in parenting styles. One participant,
whose daughter has behavioral problems at school and at home, for example
mentioned how she and her daughter spend more time together since the
holiday, and how they enjoy each other’s company more (PH1).
Lindsey (participant): I am spending quite a lot of time with my little one now,
quality time. Maybe it’s just sitting down at home doing a puzzle, or sitting in
the garden having biscuits together. Or going out in the weekend.
Daniel, a disabled father of a teenage son, reported how their relationship had
improved dramatically after the holiday (PHI1).
19
Daniel (participant): It’s a lot better yeah. He’s certainly opened up more, at
one time he wouldn’t speak to anybody, like when you’d say, how was work.
But now he’s like “I am doing this today”, “I am doing that today”. He’s looking
forward to go to college, and everything seems to be falling into place. He’s
happy now. (PHI1)
A concern voiced by the majority of the welfare agents was that parents did
not often play or spend time with their children. One month after the holiday, a
general improvement in this area was reported. Many comments showed how
this positively affected both the children (doing better at school, being proud
and happy to spend time with their parents, being better behaved), and the
parents (feeling less guilty, feeling more positive towards the children,
spending quality time together). This behavioral change was directly linked to
the holiday experience by the respondents: after they had spent time together
on holiday and had engaged in new activities, this new behavior pattern was
repeated at home. This can be seen as a form of experiential learning.
In the second round, these changes were still present in most cases. This
effect was mainly noted in the relationship between parents and children.
Lindsey was one of the parents who in the second round of interviews again
emphasized how she and her daughter were still closer, and how that
positively influenced the behavior of the child (PHI2)
Lindsey (participant): Last weekend we went up to London to the Lord Mayor
Show. She really enjoyed it actually … It was weird because normally I don’t
20
really go out much and spend time on my own with her like that but it was
really good.
Improvements in the relationships between the adults were less clear. This
was mainly because most interviewees headed single-parent families. In
some cases though, the holiday was reported to have had a very positive
effect on the relationship between the parents. Katherine said:
Katherine: So we were spending like two hours a day together, as husband
and wife, not just as mum and dad so that was lovely. That brought us
together. (PHI2).
As discussed earlier, family capital is based on the stability of the family on
the one hand, and the social contacts of the parents on the other hand (Parcel
& Dufur 2001). The study results have shown that a holiday can contribute to
both. First, a better relationship between the family members can reduce
tension, and therefore make family life more agreeable. Such improvements
in the relationship were generally illustrated by examples such as more
frequent family outings, or spending “quality time” together after the holiday.
Increases in family capital are more generally linked to higher educational
performance and aspirations, and are also claimed to improve family
resilience (Marjoribanks 1998). Both of these factors can reduce certain
characteristics (low education, family break-down), thus achieving the aims of
the MUD view of social policy, and benefiting both participants and society
generally.
21
Second, the social contacts of the participants were shown to increase - most
clearly where the group holidays were concerned. Participants in group
holidays mentioned meeting new people as one of the main benefits of the
holiday, and often kept in touch with fellow participants after the holiday.
Welfare agent Abdul emphasized the role of sharing, talking, and coming
together as the great benefit of a group holiday. He also pointed out that
participants learnt from each other, which would suggest that the group can
act as a new community of practice, as presented in the situated learning
theory:
Abdul (WFA): Coming together, sharing, talking… and it is also important
because you’ll find that people get information more word of mouth than
reading. So as people gather together they talk about issues, so they learn
something from each other (PHI2)
Moreover, enlarging social networks contributes not only to family capital, but
also to the social capital of individual family members. In the following section,
more individual consequences of increased social contact for other areas of
life are discussed.
Increases in social capital
Portes describes social capital as the ability of actors to secure benefits by
virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures (Portes
1998:6). The study findings show that Social Tourism led to increases in the
22
social capital of many respondents. This could take a variety of forms, and
some holiday types were more effective at improving particular aspects. The
following discussion highlights the benefits of Social Tourism for expanding
membership into social networks and other social structures. These
expanding networks were also found to have impacts on other areas of the
participants’ lives such as confidence, and attitude to or perspective on life.
Social contact
Social isolation was often reported by respondents, and many testified that
holidays had led to an expansion of their social networks. This was most
noticeable in the case of the group holidays: the respondents often reported
that the chance to talk about their problems to people in the same situation
was a great benefit of the holiday. For example participants Harry and
Anthony both mentioned making new friends, with whom they were aiming to
keep in touch. (PHI1).
In the case of individual family holidays, most participants focused on
spending time together as a family, resulting in an increase in family capital.
Most participants did not build strong personal ties with other holiday makers.
However their social capital could increase in other ways. Rather than
expanding their membership in social networks, they often increased their
involvement in social structures, most commonly the support organization via
the welfare agent. In many cases the participants proved more engaged or
open to the support program, or more confident in seeking help from the
support staff, as this welfare agent describes:
23
Gemma (WFA): Afterwards they might come to a group or they might bring
their child to stay and play. They might even not have been confident enough
to talk to you before, but then afterwards they are. (PHI2)
Confidence
Gemma’s comment indicates how an increase in social contact may lead to a
higher level of confidence after the holiday. However the findings overall in
this respect were mixed. There were cases where the holiday had been
successful and the participants reported an increase in confidence. This
applied to the group holidays in all cases, and to the individual holidays when
the respondents were generally able to cope. For Katherine, whose son has
severe behavioral problems, the individual holiday improved her confidence
as a parent (PHI1).
Anne (WFA): Tim’s behavior, Katherine was quite concerned about before
she went, “what will I do with him when he starts in public”. I said “do exactly
the same as you are doing now with him”, and she has actually got the
confidence to take that forward now, if he screams in a supermarket, so what.
If she can manage to take this child away and cope with him in front of all
these holiday makers, Asda or Tesco’s is not a problem. (PHI1)
When Sandra, a single mother with mental health problems, participated in a
group holiday, it led her to try new activities, and do things she would not have
done on her own (PHI1).
24
Sandra (participant): Also being with other single parents, they are more or
less in the same boat, like my little one, you think I am not the only one,
everybody else is the same. So that opened my eyes a bit.
Interviewer: And did that give you a bit of strength?
S: More confidence yeah. Because otherwise we would have just sat here
and not do anything, so that were quite good. (PHI1)
However, not all respondents experienced these benefits. Some found the
holiday very challenging, because of the lack of support, or because of the
lack of organized entertainment. This can be linked back to the relationship
between the goal difficulty level and performance. In this case the
respondents felt over-stimulated or threatened by the difficulties they
encountered on the holiday. Rupert was an example of this over-stimulation,
he found an individual holiday with three children damaging to his confidence
as a parent.
Rupert (participant): It was a nice bit of bonding for them three. But for myself
it wasn’t really very relaxing. I found it a little hard really. I would have found it
easier staying at home, because I have all my equipment and everything
here. And there was more to do in the garden here than there was there, you
know, for the little ones. (PHI1)
These findings highlight how the holiday type needs to be tailored to the
participants to achieve the desired results. Holidays can provide the
25
participants with learning situations that can potentially change their behavior,
but this does not happen automatically. Some participants would have
benefited from a higher level of support during the holiday, either in the form
of a group holiday or in the form of more organized activities for children and
adults. Organized entertainment was often seen as a way to structure the
holiday, and many respondents who went on individual holidays expressed a
preference for holiday parks where there were plentiful entertainment
opportunities..
Changing perspectives
Social capital is described as “productive, making possible the achievement of
certain ends that in its absence would not be possible” (Coleman 1998:98).
This was mainly noticeable in the second round of the research: over 6
months gains in social capital had developed further, and combined with the
potential for learning of the holiday, this had resulted in new, additional
benefits for about half of the respondents. The holiday, as a potential learning
experience, had given many respondents the time to reflect on their lives, and
identify areas where a change was desirable. With the help of their new social
networks, the support of the social organization and by accessing new
information channels, these particular respondents were able to turn
motivation into positive changes to their lives.
The research findings made clear that this benefit did not develop
immediately, and time to work on changes was often needed. In the first
month after the holiday, about half of the participants and welfare agents
26
described the escape from routine as one of the most important benefits of
the holiday. Being able to leave the worries and financial problems at home,
and concentrate on more positive things changed the perspective of the
participants. Many welfare agents like Aisha and Anne emphasized how the
daily worries could make people so focused on them, “they can’t see beyond
that” (PHI1). Daniel also testified how being away from the unsafe estate
where he lives made him free his mind to spend time with his teenage son
(PHI1).
Daniel (participant): I wasn’t too excited at first, because, where I live, there is
a lot of drug users, and I didn’t wanna leave me house. The week we were
going away there was scaffolding up as well. And I am on the second floor,
where nobody gets to, but then they put scaffolding. And I’ve got a back
balcony, so someone could get up the balcony. So that was a weight on me
mind. But on the holiday I was more relaxed, and so was me son, he’s
opened up more, he’s telling us what he’s doing (PHI1).
This can be linked to the experiential learning theory, where the “experience”
stage needs to be followed by generalization for learning to be successful.
During the holiday, many participants took time to reflect on their lives, and
decided they wanted to make changes in some areas. Many respondents
testified that they put these new behaviors into practice while on the holiday
(for example, Daniel and his son who communicated more). This development
can be the basis for a lasting behavior change, resulting in increased social
capital for the individual; or family capital for the family unit.
27
In the second round, these results were not only maintained but the examples
of behavior change became much more marked. This would indicate that the
effects of the holiday need some time to be incorporated into the behavior of
the participants. It also became noticeable that support from the WFA was an
important factor in this process, and that this support was sought more often
after than before the holiday. Most support opportunities were already
available before the holiday, but the participants did not take them up until
after their holiday. Participants Nancy and Katherine for example became
much more involved in their support organizations: they enrolled in a
parenting course and sought individual counseling (PHI2). WFA Gemma also
highlighted this development:
Gemma (WFA): Afterwards they might come to a group or they might bring
their child to stay and play. They might even not have been confident enough
to talk to you before, but then afterwards they are. (PHI2)
This more pro-active attitude often coincided with the new outlook on life that
had been developed: respondents reported that they had evaluated their life
on the holiday, and found a desire to change certain aspects. Many
respondents emphasized that the holiday changed their aspirations in life, and
how things that seemed out of reach now seemed possible after all. Welfare
agent Leanne described the holiday as “a little taste of what it could be like”,
which motivated some of her clients strongly (PHI2). She linked this to the
more active attitude a lot of her clients adopt when granted the holiday.
28
Leanne (WFA): You’ve got to book the holiday. And in an area like this,
people are not used to doing things like that, they are used to having
everything done for them. They go to the Social if they run out of money, they
go to Social Services saying “my washing machine has cracked up, you’ve
got to get me a new one”. They are not used to having a look around and
finding the best buy and saving up for it. (PHI2)
It was found that in the cases where the participants received adequate
support, for example from their welfare agents, the behavior change sought
was mostly achieved. Examples are the two respondents who were in work,
who both changed jobs (Rachel and Kloey, PHI2). One decided to look for a
more flexible job, so she could spend more time with her autistic son; the
other left her job and opened her own market stall. Three respondents
changed their views on debt and money (Katherine, Nancy and Carry – PHI2),
and started budgeting better.
Anne (WFA): I know [Katherine] had terrible trouble the year before last at
Christmas time, she had no money, she was depressed. But this year seems
to have been a complete turn-around, they have budgeted, it wasn’t huge
amounts, but budgeting for the holiday has started the ball rolling with them.
(PHI2)
DISCUSSION
29
These findings generally show that Social Tourism can facilitate considerable
changes in the lives of the participants. Although these changes may seem
small, for the participants they were often fundamental and a stepping stone
for further development. The changes were achieved for a relatively modest
investment in terms of time and money: the participants often only went away
for a week, to fairly basic accommodation in holiday parks during the low
season. Social Tourism was reported by the majority of respondents to have
positively affected one or more areas of daily life after the holiday; these are
discussed below. The first area was the family capital of the respondents - the
relationships between the family members and their resilience when faced
with adversity. This benefit was reported by most of participants, in the short
term and in the medium term. Both adults and children benefited from an
increase in family capital, which could encourage the adults to change
parenting techniques and encourage a more active lifestyle for the family (for
example, going out more). For the children this could lead to better behavior
both at home and at school.
The second area of improvement was an increase in the social capital of the
respondents, or an increase in the valuable relations between the individual
and the world surrounding him or her. This was reported by most of the
respondents in the short term, and about half of the respondents achieved
beneficial behavior changes in the medium term. Ways in which an increase
in social capital can manifest itself include improvements in self-confidence,
extension of support networks, new ways of prioritizing duties, changes in
work circumstances, and better budgeting skills.
30
The most important factor for a successful holiday was not the holiday type,
but the level of support for the participant. Very independent families who
could cope well on their own generally reported benefits from an individual
family holiday. Families who found it harder to cope usually found individual
holidays challenging, and that could have negative effects on their confidence.
These families benefited from having additional support on the holiday, either
in the form of a family member and organized entertainment, or in the form of
a group holiday.
During the holiday, appropriate support is needed so that the opportunities for
encountering new situations and reflecting on them are optimized. The level of
support deemed “appropriate” depends on the independence and ability to
cope of the participants: some participants will require no support at all and
prefer to go on holiday alone, whereas other families might find this too
challenging and will prefer extra support. This support could be provided by
the holiday provider (for example through childcare facilities, organized forms
of entertainment), or by the supporting organization and the welfare agent (in
the case of group holidays). What is appropriate will depend on the family: if
the welfare agent suspects the parents need support to improve their family
relations, the imposed structure of a group holiday, with group activities with
adults and children, may be beneficial.
Appropriate support is also important after the holiday. It was found that after
the holiday, appropriate support needs to be given to allow new motivations to
31
be embedded as changed behaviors. If the holiday has given the participants
the chance to reflect on their life and make generalizations about what they
would like to change, support may still be needed to implement changes. The
welfare agent normally has the necessary knowledge to support the
participant after their return home.
Increasing social and family capital has social as well as individual benefits; it
also has financial implications. An average holiday with the Family Holiday
Association costs approximately $1200 (for all family members). This
investment can reduce certain costs society bears. Some of these are direct
costs such as reduction in healthcare costs – three respondents in this study
reported that they stopped taking medication for stress-related illnesses, for
example. More common are reductions in indirect or opportunity costs. For
example, the holidays proved able to reduce problems such as low selfesteem and bad family relationships. This in turn helps address mental health
problems like depression, or improves the chance of finding employment, thus
making individuals more independent from state income support. Holidays
can also be seen as a complementary or alternative form of intervention to
others that are more expensive. In 2003, the cost of a parenting class in the
UK
was
estimated
at
$1500
per
person
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk). The cost of the average social
holiday, for a whole family, is thus $300 less. This does not mean Social
Tourism can replace other initiatives fully, but the holiday could increase
uptake of the necessary support, and reduce reliance on other services.
Moreover, Social Tourism has the potential not only to increase family capital,
32
but also the social capital of the individual family members. This can also
improve the reach and effectiveness of support services, which are often
available but do not always reach those most in need of them (SEU 2004:6).
CONCLUSION
This study examined the value of Social Tourism for low-income groups, in
terms of the benefits it can bring both in the short term and in the medium
term. It has shown that for a modest investment in terms of time and money,
holidays can facilitate significant increases in social and family capital for the
participants (in terms of family relations, confidence, social network and a
changed perspective on life). It has also highlighted new aspects of the social
effects of tourism, and has linked tourism to unintended learning
opportunities. It has shown the potential of tourism as a part of social policy:
not only because of the inherent benefits of the holiday, but also as a support
for the success of other, existing interventions. It has been shown that tourism
can be seen as potentially cost-effective. The findings have policy as well as
research implications.
The research findings highlight the meaningful role tourism can play in social
policy. Perceiving tourism as a potential catalyst of social benefits, on the
level of the individual, the family and through them society, goes against its
typical depiction as a frivolous and hedonist activity. Tourism already plays
this role in several countries and regions of mainland Europe, where its
benefits have been recognized by the European Union (EESC 2006).
33
The implications for the way in which Social Tourism is provided focus on the
need for adequate support to participants during and after the holiday. The
role of the welfare agent is crucial, both in helping to choose a suitable holiday
and in supporting the family after their return. This has management
implications. Making the most of Social Tourism can be an intensive process
that can stretch over many months, from booking the holiday to supporting the
participants upon their return. This is outside the normal role of many welfare
agents so that the necessary time is not always available. Welfare agents also
need to be able to be very flexible in the support they offer. The areas
participants might want to improve can range from family development to
career change, and may fall outside the area the organization usually works
in. Some welfare agents in the study were able to provide this flexible support,
others were not able to do so because of time constraints or lack of human
and financial resources. Social Tourism will not provide the same benefits
automatically for every participant, so welfare agents need to be aware of
their role in the process and how they can influence outcomes – and must be
trained and resourced to do so.
Many routes for further research are still open. Firstly, future research
opportunities exist in the area of the effects of Social Tourism on participants.
This study has aimed to offer a short and medium term perspective of Social
Tourism benefits, but a longitudinal study is needed to show its long-term
implications. Another area of research is the type of participant. This study
has shown great similarities between the potential benefits of Social Tourism
34
for different target groups, for example single parents, families with disabled
children, asylum seekers, and victims of domestic violence. However social
holidays might have more or different benefits on particular social subgroups.
An example of a potential research topic is Social Tourism for older people,
examining if holidays can improve autonomy at an older age.
Secondly, research is needed to design a model of successful and costeffective provision. One focus is management, involving research with the
welfare agents and Social Tourism providers to identify, codify and
disseminate good practice. Another is comparing Social Tourism with other
forms of intervention in terms of cost and effectiveness For example, results
of formal parenting classes and the experiential learning of parenting skills
during the holiday could be compared.
Thirdly, opinion research is needed to highlight public attitudes towards
government funding of Social Tourism, since Social Tourism may be seen
simply as a ‘reward’ for deviant behavior of the moral underclass or for groups
that do not contribute greatly to society. It is unusual to see holidays as a
potential learning process and an incentive to change behavior, and this
perspective may contradict current widespread views of holidays as a reward
for hard work. Although in many countries in mainland Europe there seems to
be a high public acceptance of Social Tourism as a part of social policy, this is
less likely to be the case in countries like the US and the UK, unless much
more evidence can be shown of the wider benefits for society.
35
REFERENCES
Argyris, C., and D. Schön.
1978 Reasoning, Learning and Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baron, S., J. Field, and T. Schuller.
2000 Social Capital, Critical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barr, S.
2007 Factors Influencing Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors.
Environment and Behavior 39:435-472.
Belsey, M.
2003 AIDS and the Family. United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs.
<http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/PubFrame.htm>
Boydell, T.
1976 Experiential Learning. Manchester: Manchester Monographs.
Coleman, J.
1998 Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, The American Journal
of Sociology 94:95-120.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
1999 Tomorrow’s Tourism. London: DCMS.
2004 Tomorrow’s Tourism today. London: DCMS.
European Economic and Social Committee.
2006 Opinion of the European Economic and Social committee on Social
Tourism in Europe. Brussels: EESC.
Hunziker, W.
36
1951 Social Tourism: Its Nature and Problems. No Place: International
Tourists Alliance Scientific Commission.
Johnson, C.
2001 A Survey of Current Research on Online Communities of Practice.
Internet and Higher Education, 4:45-60.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger.
1991 Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lesser, E., and J. Storck.
2001 Communities of Practice and Organizational Performance. IBM
Systems Journal 40(4):831-841.
Levitas, R.
1998 The Inclusive society? Social Exclusion and New Labour. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Marjoribanks, K.
1998 Family Capital, Children’s Individual Attributes, and Adolescents’
Aspirations. The Journal of Psychology 132(2): 328-336.
2002. Family and School Capital: Towards a Context Theory of Students’
School Outcomes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Minnaert, L., R. Maitland, and G. Miller.
2007 Social Tourism and its Ethical Foundations. Tourism Culture &
Communication 7:7-17.
Mitchell, R.
1998 Learning Through Play and Pleasure Travel: Using Play Literature to
Enhance Research into Touristic Learning, Current Issues in Tourism,
37
1(2):176-188.
Nickson D., C. Warhurst , and E. Dutton.
2004 Aesthetic Labour and the Policy-Making Agenda, Glasgow: SCER.
Offer, A.
2006 The Challenge of Affluence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Portes A.
1998 Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24:1-24.
Rawsthorne, L., and A. Elliott.
1999 Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation. Personality and Social
Psychology Review 3(4):326-344.
Parcel, T., and M. Dufur.
2001 Capital at Home and at School: Effects on Student Achievement.
Social Forces 79(3):881-912.
Page, S.
2002 Urban tourism; evaluating tourists’ experience of urban places. In The
Tourist Experience, C. Ryan ed., pp112-136. London: Continuum.
Pettigrew, A.
1990 Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice.
Organization Science, 1(3):267-292.
Putnam, R.
2000 Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Chuster.
Swartz, D., and V. Zolberg.
2005 After Bourdieu: Influence, Critique, Elaboration. Dordrecht: Springer
Science and Business.
38
Silver H.
1994 Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: Three Paradigms. International
Labour Review, 133:531-578.
Silver, L., S. Dwyer, and B. Alford.
2006 Learning and Performance Goal Orientation of Salespeople Revisited.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 26(1):27-38.
Smith, V., and H. Hughes.
1999 Disadvantages Families and the Meaning of the Holiday. International
Journal of Tourism Research 1:123-133.
Social Exclusion Unit.
2004 Breaking the Cycle: Taking Stock of Progress and Priorities for the
Future. London: SEU.
Wilson, W.
1996 When Work Disappears. New York: Vintage Books.
39