Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II: Enhancing the Lives of Tourists, Residents of Host Communities and Service Providers (International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life) 303131512X, 9783031315121

Citation preview

International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life Series Editor: Graciela Tonon

Muzaffer Uysal M. Joseph Sirgy   Editors

Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II Enhancing the Lives of Tourists, Residents of Host Communities and Service Providers

International Handbooks of Qualityof-Life Series Editor Graciela Tonon, Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora and Universidad de Palermo, Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina Editorial Board Members Alex Michalos, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada Rhonda Phillips, Purude University, West Lafayette, IN, USA Don Rahtz, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, USA Dave Webb, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia Wolfgang Glatzer, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Hessen, Germany Dong Jin Lee, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea (Republic of) Laura Camfield, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

This handbook series offers extensive bibliographic resources and presents current issues and topics from different disciplines and areas of study in relation to quality of life. It is published in association with the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies. Handbooks in the series focus on capturing and reviewing the latest quality-of-life research literature in specific life domains, on specific populations, or in relation to specific disciplines or sectors of public policy. In addition, the handbooks present different research methods and techniques, as well as different proposals for professional action and policy making, providing bibliographies originating from different parts of the planet, which allows an updated overview of each topic from a global perspective. The handbooks are a key reference resource on quality-of-life research and are edited by global experts in their respective fields, with multidisciplinary and diverse author representation.

Muzaffer Uysal • M. Joseph Sirgy Editors

Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II Enhancing the Lives of Tourists, Residents of Host Communities and Service Providers

Editors Muzaffer Uysal Department of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Isenberg School of Management University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA, USA

M. Joseph Sirgy Department of Marketing Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Blacksburg, VA, USA

ISSN 2468-7227 ISSN 2468-7235 (electronic) International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life ISBN 978-3-031-31512-1 ISBN 978-3-031-31513-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8 # The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

Trifocal Tourism Vision: Quality of Life for All A handbook is often a registry of known knowledge, showcasing research questions answered and, significantly, marking new frontiers of research to be explored. Populated with 39 insightful chapters, this reference book presents a bird’s-eye view of quality of life (QoL) and its association with tourism. The contents are subdivided into five themes, with each one being defined, framed, and supported with telling studies, alongside further illustration through case studies. The handbook brings to light the wellbeing, QoL, happiness, and satisfaction of tourists, residents, and tourism employees, without forgetting the desired role of government in the making and shaping of best practices in tourism. Notably, it offers applied intelligence, coupled with guidance not only for the host and guest ensemble, but also on climate-change friendly development—hence, contributing to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. The book chapters, directly or indirectly, deal with the tourist culture (the unordinary life of tourists away from home), the host culture (the ordinary life of residents at home), and the service culture (the workplace “chemistry”). Such a composition or cultural mélange makes the book distinct among those dealing with this and related themes. The unique coexistence of host, guest, and employee populations at each destination worldwide suggests why the same research question would lead to dissimilar outcomes. How certain tourists blend with the host culture and not in other cases. Why tourism evolves to mass or overtourism (over capacity) in some but is kept suitably down (under capacity) in other destinations. What roles the increasing information and communication technologies play in various layers of the tourism industry, small to large, from village tourism to mega destinations. Why governments lionize large-scale tourism enterprises and volumes, not realizing that it is the small entrepreneurs and operations which constitute the lion size of tourism almost everywhere. Why globalization of tourism pays off in some instances, while it is the informed glocalization strategies, with local authenticity and hospitality ever more present among them, which mark the success of many destinations. There are many specialty destinations (e.g., tourism seasoned with slow food, wellness tourism, medical tourism). Many of these targets senior citizens, v

vi

Foreword

the fastest growing population segment. Finally, why tourism contributions to the wellbeing, quality of life, happiness, host and guest satisfaction, and even peace and peacefulness are uneven and cannot be documented worldwide. The Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life II answers and hints to many of the whats, whys, hows, whens, and wheres questions, while leaving space for further interpretations. In addition to the documented and emerging trends highlighted, a new path-making vista emerges as the discourse advances. This reference to me shows that the ongoing research focus mostly on tourists will have to be replaced with a bifocal vision, that is, with the host and guest satisfaction/dissatisfaction regularly studied and monitored. A further widening of this frame of analysis to trifocal, by also including the aptitude of workplace employees who typically deliver experiences in their dual host/guest roles. It is this transforming empathy (based on lessons learned) which determines the quality of life, wellbeing, and happiness attributed to tourism. Time for both the industry and research community (public agents included) to wear trifocal glasses in developing and managing sustainable climate-, host-, and guest-friendly destinations for all, as “A Nice Place to Live, is a Nice Place to Visit.” Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, WI, USA

Jafar Jafari

Contents

Prologue: Tourism and Quality of Life (QoL) Research II . . . . . . Muzaffer Uysal and M. Joseph Sirgy Part I

1

Tourism and QoL: General

Positive Psychology and Tourism: Positive Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . Abbas Alizadeh and Sebastian Filep

11

Cross-Cultural Aspects of Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ahu Yazici Ayyildiz and Erdogan Koc

25

Place, Culture, and Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greg Richards

37

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jorge Ridderstaat

49

Exploring the Link Between Quality of Life and Destination Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adiyukh Berbekova

73

Well-being for Everyone Involved in Tourism: An Invitation to Create a Destination Well-being Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eva Vroegop and Rico Maggi

85

Models of Family Leisure Time-Use: Implications for Family Interaction, Stress, and Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Jay A. Mancini Part II

QoL from the Perspective of Tourists

Subjective Aspects of Quality of Life (QOL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Ruhet Genç Quality of Life: Demographic, Psychological, Social and Cultural Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Ruhet Genç Travel Behavior of the Elderly and Quality-of-Life . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Joanna Zielińska-Szczepkowska

vii

viii

Contents

Gender-Based Differences in Medical Tourists’ Destination Preferences and Their Perception of Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Derya Sivuk Risks and Benefits of Medical Tourism in Terms of Quality of Life: Physical, Economic, Psychological and Social Aspects . . . . 181 Ruhet Genç Well-Being and Aesthetic Journeys: Motivations for Cosmetic Surgery Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Erdogan Koc and Ahu Yazici Ayyildiz Self-Identification with Tourism Experiences, Hedonic–Eudaimonic Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Deniz Karagöz and Selin Kama Human Connection: A Crucial Ingredient in Vacation Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Ondrej Mitas, Moji Shahvali, Peter Ward, Matt Duerden, and Marcel Bastiaansen Exploring the Role of Authenticity and Frequency of Participation on Tourists’ Quality of Life in Nature-Based Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Ana María Campón-Cerro, Bárbara Sofía Pasaco-González, José Manuel Hernández-Mogollón, and Elide Di-Clemente Experiencing Wellbeing and Life Satisfaction through Gastronomy Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Muhammet Kesgin Part III

QOL from the Perspective of Host Community: Sustainability

Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) and the Quality of Life (QOL) of Destination Community Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Muzaffer Uysal, Eunju Woo, and Manisha Singal A Case for Sustainable Destinations: The Perceived Impact of Tourism on Quality of Life in the Thompson Okanagan Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 N. Qwynne Lackey and Kelly S. Bricker Quality of Life and Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Tourism Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Kathleen Andereck and Christine Vogt Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 Lisa C. Chase, Rhonda G. Phillips, and Benoni Amsden Empowerment and Support for Tourism: Giving Control to the Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Adiyukh Berbekova, Sujie Wang, Jiahui Wang, Guangxin Song, and Xinke Wang

Contents

ix

Exploring the Causal Nexus of Tourism Impacts on Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 Jeffrey Michael Rempel and Adiyukh Berbekova Agri-Tourism and Quality of Life of Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Joanna Kosmaczewska Slow Food Tourism and Quality of Life: The Social Capital Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 Saule Baimuratova and Deepak Chhabra Quality of Life-cantered Tourism Sustainability Paradigm . . . . . . 397 Tanja Mihalič Destination Competitiveness, Sustainability and Resident Quality of Life: The Potential for a Tripartite Symbiotic Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 B. Bynum Boley Ethnic Tourism and Quality of Life: Community Perspectives . . . 429 Li Yang, Xiang (Robert) Li, and Xingyu Huang Benefits of Volunteerism and Quality of Life: A Norwegian Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 Elsa Kristiansen, Nina K. Prebensen, and Joseph S. Chen Part IV

QoL from the Perspective of Providers

Employee Engagement on Wellbeing: An Analysis of PERMA Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459 Lenna V. Shulga, James A. Busser, and Jeffrey Yedlin What About Us? Emotional Labor and Wellbeing of the Hospitality Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477 Sandra Sun-Ah Ponting and Jess Ponting Well-Being and Performance in the Hotel Industry: A Multilevel Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487 Yao-Chin Wang, David S. Martin, and Muzaffer Uysal Part V

QoL and Information Technology

Well-being as a Function of Technology and Smart Economy: A Municipality-Level Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 Wenqi Wei and Irem Onder Residents’ Perspectives in Smart Tourism Destinations Development: A Theoretical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519 Adalberto Santos-Júnior, Fernando Almeida-García, Luiz Mendes-Filho, and José Manuel Simões Robots, Artificial Intelligence and Service Automation in Tourism and Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533 Craig Webster and Stanislav Ivanov

x

Contents

Virtual Tourism and Consumer Wellbeing: A Critical Review, Practices, and New Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 Tingting (Christina) Zhang and Ahmet Hacikara Leisure, Well-Being, and Quality of Life in the Digital Age: Social Media and Online Communities as Leisure Settings . . . . . . 559 Ching-Hua Ho Part VI

Epilogue

Putting Things Together to Have a Better Understanding of the Big Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 M. Joseph Sirgy and Muzaffer Uysal

About the Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Muzaffer Uysal Ph.D. is a provost professor and chair of the Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management—Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts—Amherst. Dr. Uysal is a member of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism, the Academy of Leisure Sciences, a founding member of the Hospitality and Tourism Management Academy, and co-founder of Tourism Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Journal. He has also authored and co-authored a significant number of articles, monographs, chapters, and books, related to tourism and hospitality settings. He has also received over 30 awards, honors, and recognitions including “lifetime achievement” awards. Most recently, he was recognized as one of the world’s most highly cited researchers under the category of Social Sciences in 2021. His current research interests focus on tourism development and quality-of-life research in tourism and hospitality settings. Email: [email protected] M. Joseph Sirgy Ph.D. is a management psychologist (Ph.D., U/Massachusetts, 1979) and the Virginia Tech Real Estate Professor Emeritus of Marketing at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (USA) and Extraordinary Professor at the WorkWell Research Unit at North West University—Potchefstroom Campus (South Africa). He has published extensively in the area of marketing, business ethics, and quality of life (QOL). His awards include: International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies’ (ISQOLS’) Distinguished Fellow Award, ISQOLS’ Distinguished QOL Researcher, Academy of Marketing Science’s (AMS) Distinguished Fellow Award, AMS’ Harold Berkman Service Award, Virginia Tech’s Pamplin Teaching Excellence Award/Holtzman Outstanding Educator Award and University Certificate of Teaching Excellence, the EuroMed Management Research Award, and the Macromarketing Society’s Robert W. Nason Award. Best paper awards include articles published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, the Journal of Travel Research, and Applied Research in Quality of Life. His editorial responsibilities include co-founding editor of Applied Research in Quality of Life, editor of the QOL section in the Journal of Macromarketing, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Macromarketing, co-editor of ISQOLS’/ Springer’s book series on International Handbooks in QOL, Community xi

xii

About the Editors and Contributors

QOL Indicators–Best Cases, Applied Research in QOL–Best Practices, and co-editor of the Springer book series on Human Well-Being and Policy Making. Email: [email protected]

Contributors Abbas Alizadeh Department of Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Fernando Almeida-García Ph.D. Department of Geography at University of Málaga (UMA), Malaga, Spain Ben Amsden Ph.D. New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Concord, NH, USA Kathleen Andereck School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA Ahu Yazici Ayyildiz Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, Turkey Saule Baimuratoa School of Community Resources and Development, Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA Marcel Bastiaansen Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg, Netherlands Adiyukh Berbekova School of Travel Industry Management, Shidler College of Business, University of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA Kelly S. Bricker Ph.D. School of Community Resources and Development, Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA James A. Busser Ph.D. William F. Harrah College of Hospitality, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA Ana María Campón-Cerro Ph.D. Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain Lisa Chase Ph.D. University of Vermont, Vermont Tourism Research Center, Brattleboro, VT, USA Joseph S. Chen Ph.D., CHA Department of Health and Wellness Design, School of Public Health, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA Deepak Chhabra Ph.D. Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University-Downtown Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA

About the Editors and Contributors

xiii

Elide Di-Clemente Ph.D. Centro Universitario de Plasencia, Universidad de Extremadura, Plasencia, Spain Matt Duerden Department of Experience Design Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA Sebastian Filep School of Hotel & Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Tsim Sha Tsui East, Kowloon, Hong Kong Ruhet Genç Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, TurkishGerman University (TGU), Beykoz, Istanbul, Turkey Ahmet Hacikara Department of Hospitality Services, Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA José Manuel Hernández-Mogollón Ph.D. Facultad de Empresa, Finanzas y Turismo, Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain Ching-Hua Ho Ph.D. Graduate Institute of Tourism Management, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Kaohsiung, Xiaogang, Taiwan Xingyu Huang Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management, School of Sport, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA Stanislav Ivanov Ph.D. Varna University of Management, Zangador Research Institute, Varna, Bulgaria Selin Kama Ph.D. Department of Tourism Management, Bitlis Eren University, Bitlis, Turkey Deniz Karagöz Ph.D. Department of Tourism Management, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey Muhammet Kesgin Ph.D. Saunders College of Business, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA Erdogan Koc Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey Joanna Kosmaczewska Ph.D. Faculty of Economics, Department of Economics and Economic Policy in Agribusiness, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznań, Poland Elsa Kristiansen Ph.D. USN School of Business, University of SouthEastern Norway, Drammen, Norway N. Qwynne Lackey Ph.D. Department of Recreation, Parks and Leisure Studies, SUNY, Cortland, NY, USA Xiang (Robert) Li Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management, School of Sport, Tourism and Hospitality Management, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA Rico Maggi Ph.D. USI Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

xiv

About the Editors and Contributors

Jay A. Mancini Athens, GA, USA David S. Martin Ph.D. Department of Nutrition, Dietetics, and Hospitality Management, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA Luiz Mendes-Filho Ph.D. Department of Tourism, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil Tanja Mihalič Ph.D. Department of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana (SEBLU), Ljubljana, Slovenia Ondrej Mitas Ph.D. Breda University of Applied Sciences, Breda, Netherlands Irem Onder Ph.D. Department of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA Bárbara Sofía Pasaco-González Ph.D. University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain Rhonda Phillips Ph.D., FAICP John Martinson Honors College, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA Jess Ponting Ph.D. Center for Surf Research, L. Robert Payne School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA Sandra Sun-Ah Ponting Ph.D. L. Robert Payne School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA Nina K. Prebensen Ph.D. Business School, University of South-Eastern Norway, Drammen, Norway Jeffrey Michael Rempel PhilECO Environmental Consulting Ltd., Calgary, AB, Canada Greg Richards Ph.D. Breda University of Applied Sciences and Tilburg University, Breda, The Netherlands Jorge Ridderstaat Ph.D. Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA Adalberto Santos-Júnior Ph.D. Mercosur Integration Center, Federal University of Pelotas (UFPEL), Pelotas, Brazil Moji Shahvali Breda University of Applied Sciences, Breda, Netherlands Lenna V. Shulga Ph.D. School of Travel Industry Management, Shidler College of Business, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA José Manuel Simões Ph.D. Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal Manisha Singal Ph.D. Howard Feiertag Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Pamplin College of Business, Blacksburg, VA, USA

About the Editors and Contributors

xv

Derya Sivuk Ph.D. Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ankara Hac{ Bayram Veli University, Ankara, Turkey Guangxin Song School of Management, Shandong University, Jinan, China Christine Vogt Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA Eva Vroegop The Academy of Tourism of Fondazione Campus in Lucca (Tuscany), Lucca, Italy Jiahui Wang HTM Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA Sujie Wang Ph.D. School of Management, Shandong University, Jinan, China Xinke Wang School of Management, Shandong University, Jinan, China Yao-Chin Wang Department of Tourism, Hospitality and Event Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Peter Ward Department of Experience Design Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA Craig Webster Ph.D. Department of Applied Business Studies, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA Wenqi Wei Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Isenberg School of Management, Amherst, MA, USA Eunju Woo Ph.D. Department of Tourism Management, College of Business Administration, Busan, Republic of Korea Li Yang Ph.D. Department of Geography, Environment, and Tourism, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA Jeffrey Yedlin Ph.D. William F. Harrah College of Hospitality, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA Tingting (Christina) Zhang Department of Hospitality Services, Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA Joanna Zielińska-Szczepkowska Ph.D. Faculty of Economic Sciences, Institute of Economics and Finance Department of Economic Policy, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Olsztyn, Poland

Prologue: Tourism and Quality of Life (QoL) Research II Muzaffer Uysal and M. Joseph Sirgy

Introduction As convincingly argued and empirically demonstrated by researchers and practitioners that tourism and quality of life (QoL) is a subject matter that touches on a wide variety of stakeholders with different goals and behaviors in the tourism ecosystem (e.g., Sirgy, 2010, 2019; Uysal & Sirgy, 2019; Ponting, 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Dwyer, 2022; Crotts et al., 2022). It is clear that the three main stakeholders of the tourism ecosystem, are (1) tourists as consumers, (2) providers of goods and services, including employees, and (3) residents of destinations (Berbekova & Uysal, 2021). These stakeholders have almost always direct and ubiquitous relationships with the tourism ecosystem. As such, tourism plays a significant role in enhancing the well-being of these three stakeholders by catering to their interests and goals. Other stakeholders are also affected including individuals whose livelihood may not necessarily depend on tourism activities. In that vein, the tourism ecosystem can be viewed as an amalgam M. Uysal (✉) University of Massachusetts – Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. J. Sirgy Virginia Tech Real Estate Professor Emeritus of Marketing at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

of entities that have to be managed to ensure competitiveness and sustainability. It is equally important to acknowledge that places as destinations go through structural and physical changes, thus creating different levels of development over time. Not every stage of development results in higher QoL for the three major stakeholder groups. For example, it has been demonstrated that destination residents’ QoL across the life cycle stages usually follows a predictable pattern, namely an inverted U-shape (Su et al., 2022; Uysal et al., 2012b). In some cases, the stages of development evoke different levels of behavioral responses from tourists and residents as well as from government bodies and policymakers (Bimonte, 2019). That is, both the consequences of the destination development over time and how the stages of development are managed and translated into public policy directly affect the QoL of all three stakeholder groups.

The Growth of Tourism as an Academic Discipline Tourism regardless of existing global crises (e.g., pandemics, regional conflicts, and wars) is a major socioeconomic force in human wellbeing. It is and remains resilient in today’s turbulent world. The study of tourism and its increasing growth as an academic discipline can be largely attributed to tourism’s ability to create

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_1

1

2

significant economic benefits , jobs, and infrastructure improvements in destinations. In addition, the benefits of tourism go beyond those whose economic livelihood depends on tourism. For example, residents in host communities whose livelihood is not dependent on tourism may enjoy more open space in their community, have better roads (walking and biking paths), and have better education and healthcare systems because of tourism development. That is, the study of tourism and its socioeconomic impact (economic, cultural, and environmental) is now an established discipline in today’s academic world. The impetus underlying the growth of the tourism discipline is the fact that both consumers and governments invest heavily in tourism experiences and development intending to improve the quality of life of tourists and destination residents. We, as a society, invest heavily in vacations and holiday travel and value the constructive use of our leisure time in a holistic way. As such, both travel volume and expenditures have grown to become one of the major social and economic forces of modern society. Leisure and travel are now accepted as necessary to both mental and physical health. Whereas in the past one lived to work, increasingly we now work to live. However, the work landscape has significantly changed in recent times as a result of the pandemic. We have flex hours, and we work remotely now more than ever. Work-life, family life, and leisure life are increasingly integrated affecting overall QoL. As such, our QoL is increasingly influenced by how we manage the integration of life domains. At a more macro level, governments throughout the world are investing heavily in the development, promotion, and operation of tourism destinations. Governments are recognizing the economic potential of tourism. Both public policy and government expenditures seem to be increasingly focused on creating a tourism economy with the goal of enhancing the QoL of destination area residents. By doing so, they are also reassuring the provisioning of safety and security measures for tourists as consumers. Initially, the success of these policies and investments was largely measured in economic terms such as tourist

M. Uysal and M. J. Sirgy

expenditures, tax revenues, and the number of jobs created. More recently, we have begun to measure success not only in such economic terms but also relative to the impact of tourism development, both positive and negative, on the physical environment and the well-being of area residents.

The Growth of Research in Tourism and QoL Beginning in the 1960’s, there has been a plethora of academic research examining both the effects of leisure and travel on an individual’s emotional well-being and QoL and on how tourism development impacts the QoL of destination area residents. Interestingly, these two bodies of work seemed to have evolved with relatively little interaction or cross-fertilization. This may be partly attributed to the fact that one represents the demand side and the other represents the supply side. In the first volume in 2012, the aim was to attract chapters from leading scholars in both areas with the goal of conducting a comparative analysis and, ideally, a sharing of concepts, theories and methods. We believe we were successful to a certain extent in achieving this goal. Certainly, within the tourism literature, the research examining the effects of tourism development on host communities and their residents is the more developed body of work (Hu et al., 2022; Ridderstaat et al., 2016; Woo et al., 2019). There has been a substantial number of studies examining tourism as an economic development strategy from the perspective of its social and environmental consequences, its demandsupply interactions, and its realized and perceived tangible and intangible benefits to different stakeholders. Research examining the tangible benefits of tourism with their associated costs has been limited to economic measures and physical changes in destination environments at the macro level. The tangible benefits and costs of tourism development were reflected in various studies that examine the “objective” indicators of QoL. For example, Uysal and Sirgy (2019) have argued that there is some overlap between

Prologue: Tourism and Quality of Life (QoL) Research II

3

tourism performance indicators and QoL measures. A recent study by Berbekova et al. (2022) provided empirical evidence that there is a reciprocal relationship between objective QoL indicators and traditional destination performance measures over time. The study employed a set of 16 QoL indicators (covering economic, social, and environmental domains) and a set of five destination performance variables of tourist arrivals and spending proxies were used to perform a canonical correlation analysis using panel data from 105 countries. The study findings confirmed the notion of the reciprocal relationship between economic development and QoL. Implicit in the concept of objective QoL indicators is the notion that increases in tourism in the community should increase tourism jobs in the community and of course sales of tourism goods and services. Furthermore, increases in tourism jobs within the destination area should play a significant role in increasing the economic and consumer well-being of the destination residents. Increases in jobs and sales should also generate more tax revenues for the destination, which in turn allows increases in public sector spending. Public sector spending enhances residents’ economic, consumer, social, health, and environmental well-being.

of sales to tourism providers, creating a downward spiral. Loss of jobs and sales leads to loss of tax revenues. Loss of tax revenues means decreases in public sector spending, which in turn adversely affects the well-being of the destination residents. In addition, heavy reliance on tourism and uncontrolled tourism development may over time also bring undesired structural changes to the destination community that result in the deterioration of QoL due to overtourism, gentrification (in some destinations such as cities and urban areas), crowding, congestion, more pressure on existing services, even loss of local identity and culture.

Research on Both Positive and Negative Impact of Tourism Development With respect to the negative objective QoL impact of tourism, the concern focuses primarily on the possibility that increases in tourism will lead to greater reliance and dependence on tourism and, as a result, both poor quality and overdevelopment of the tourism resource. Heavy reliance on tourism may cause changes in the environment and subsequent economic and social instability. Significant decreases in the quality and value of the tourism economy can, in turn, cause significant tourism job losses as well as loss

Process and Outcome Indicators of QoL In relation to these positive and negative QoL outcomes, one may identify two sets of objective indicators across a community time span. These indicators can be categorized in terms of process and outcomes (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). Outcome indicators are those directly related to community residents’ QoL. These include: • Economic effects such as wage, household income, unemployment, unskilled workers, literacy rates, consumer cost of living, prices of goods and services, cost of land and housing, property taxes, number of retail stores, and the like; • Social effects such as educational attainment, crime rate, quality of the public transportation system, number of recreational parks and programs, housing quality, teen pregnancies, quality of local services such as police and fire protection, utilities, and roads; • Health effects such as infant mortality rates, reported incidents of certain diseases such as tuberculosis, polio, and venereal disease; infectious and serum hepatitis, life expectancy, and number of healthcare facilities in the community; and

4

M. Uysal and M. J. Sirgy

• Environmental effects such as land pollution, air pollution, water pollution, crowdedness, traffic congestion, and the like.

perception of their own social, environmental, and health well-being.

The process indicators of QoL are the tourismrelated factors and conditions affecting resident QoL, including:

Research on Tourism Impact on the QoL of Tourists and Destination Residents

• Number of jobs in tourism-related firms, • Amount of sales of tourism-related firms, • Tax revenues generated from tourism activities and firms, • Leakage due to savings and money lost to outside visitors, • Quality and number of attractions in the community, and • Open space and degree of accessibility to visit and participate.

Subjective Indicators of QoL and Tourism Impact The assumed intangible benefits of tourism are more difficult to quantify and are usually expressed in the perceived importance of the impact of tourism as seen differently by a wide variety of stakeholders, representing both the demand and supply of tourism. These benefits represent the “subjective” indicators of QoL. The concept of subjective QoL indicators implies that community residents’ overall QoL is a function of their satisfaction in their major life domains, namely their economic, consumer, social, environmental, and health domains. The greater the perception of well-being in these life domains, the higher the perception of their overall QoL. To the extent that residents’ perceptions of tourism in their community affect their overall satisfaction in various life domains, tourism impacts their overall, subjective QoL. For example, residents’ perception of the economic impact of tourism in their community may affect their overall perception of their own economic wellbeing (Ramkissoon, 2020; Kim et al., 2013). Similarly, residents’ perception of the social, environmental, and health impact of tourism in their community may affect their overall

More recently we are seeing a noticeable number of studies examining tourism and its connection with and contribution to the QoL of individuals as travelers and participants in leisure activities. A diverse body of tourism and leisure research is evolving, and a wide variety of research questions are being addressed relating individual life happiness and well-being to tourism issues such as tourist satisfaction, quality of tourism experiences, medical tourism and wellness, and residents’ QoL. Tourism needs to further examine the issue of whether it meets both the basic and growth needs of the residents to make a significant contribution to the QoL of residents. Access to resources, the empowerment that allows individuals to make decisions and act and creating life enhancing opportunities for individuals and local businesses should be at the heart of discussion in every aspect of sustainable tourism development. Naturally, measuring the perceived quality and the equality of the exchange related to tourism activities in a destination is critical to the quality production of tourism experiences for both residents and tourists. If one traces the product concept from the early 1950s to the service concept in the late 1970s and early 1980s and the experience economy in the 1990s, and the digital economy of the 2000s; it seems that there is a natural progression from the experience economy to extraordinary, meaningful, and co-creation of experiences. How this evolution of thought in tourism affects both the research and practice of tourism and QoL is an important question from governance and policy perspectives.

Tourism, QoL, and Sustainability There is an increasing focus on the value of tourism as a tool for social and economic policy. The

Prologue: Tourism and Quality of Life (QoL) Research II

5

value of tourism has transitioned to focus more on non-economic measures such as QoL, appealing to higher order needs of participants, life enrichment, and satisfaction. Recently, there has been an increased focus on abstract forms of value such as perceived QoL and sustainability. The effectiveness of tourism to facilitate and support QoL policy imperatives such as poverty reduction, revitalization of community heritage and culture, preservation and protection of cultural and natural resources, and sustainability constitute an increasingly important research agenda. The concept of sustainability in the context of tourism involves both intra-generational and inter-generational equity, striking a balance between the enjoyment of the attributes and resources of a particular place and the maintenance of its inherent character and charm for future generations. The balance of attracting visitors to destinations in a profitable manner while also enhancing the well-being of destination residents and employees of service providers of the tourism enterprise, and preserving the natural and cultural assets of the destination for future generations is most challenging. Furthermore, the interplay of sustainability, environmental preservation, and QoL can also be used to enhance destination competitiveness (Modica & Uysal, 2016). The long-term objective is to both provide quality touristic experiences and avoid excessive exploitation of resources and promote preservation for future generations. This implies that QoL research must focus on the QoL of both current and future generations. This certainly requires a practice of shared social and corporate responsibility on the part of both tourists as consumers and suppliers as providers of tourism goods and services. Early tourism development has focused primarily on opportunities for economic development with little regard for externalities. Over the years as awareness of environmental, cultural, and social issues increased, tourism developers and government officials have recognized a need to address the effects of tourism development on the subjective well-being of host community residents. In today’s world of tourism, communities as destination places are better

informed of the consequences of tourism and development activities and are thus better prepared to monitor and manage tourism for a quality experience and benefits. We see an increasingly competitive tourism environment characterized by ever more specialized and individualized tourist product designs aimed at providing more rewarding and varied tourism experiences while at the same time reducing the negative impact of tourism on the natural and cultural resources of communities (Uysal et al., 2020) This is imperative. Not only do we need to preserve resources but also, we need to protect the attributes that facilitate the competitiveness of a tourism destination and improve the QoL of tourists and residents. The concepts of destination competitiveness, sustainability, and QoL are intimately interdependent, and conceptually and naturally linked (Modica & Uysal, 2016). However, these linkages have not been fully and systematically examined and certainly are worthy of further pursuit.

This Current Volume and Other Books Since its publication in 2012, our book “The Handbook of Tourism and Quality of Life Research: Enhancing the Lives of Tourists and Residents of Host Communities, (edited by Uysal et al., 2012a) brought QoL issues in tourism and hospitality to the forefront of the research agenda. At the time of its publication, it was considered one of the most comprehensive works relating to the topic of tourism. The book, grounded in theory and conceptual frameworks, provided an extensive discussion of QoL issues and tourism experiences and explored the potency of tourism to improve the well-being of those involved in tourism production and consumption. Furthermore, the authors of the first volume, mainly grounded in the classic disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, geography, and many fields within these disciplines) identified new areas of research and called for empirical testing, verification, and substantiation. There were case studies that explored the inner layers of the assumed connection between QoL

6

and tourism as a socioeconomic force. Before the publication of the first volume. We had a few related books covering some aspects of QoL and well-being available: • Quality Tourism Experiences by Jennings and Nickerson (2006) • Wellness and Tourism: Mind, Body, Spirit, Place by Bushell and Sheldon (2009) • Leisure, Health, and Wellness: Making the Connections by Payne et al. (2010), and • Quality of Life Community Indicators for Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management by Budruk and Phillips (2011) Since 2012, we have seen more books on QoL in tourism settings and its variants, further signifying the heightened interest in OoL research and issues in tourism and related settings. The recent book examples support the momentum created in this research track tackling a more diverse set of OoL issues in tourism and hospitality. Such books include: • Health, Tourism and Hospitality: Spas, Wellness and Medical Travel by Smith and Puczkó (2014) • The Routledge Handbook of Health Tourism by Smith and Puczkó (2016) • Sustainable Island Tourism: Competitiveness, and Quality of Life by Modica and Uysal (2016) • Co-Creation and Wellbeing in Tourism by Correia et al. (2017) • Managing Quality of Life in Tourism and Hospitality by Uysal et al. (2018) • Best Practices in Hospitality and Tourism Marketing and Management: A Quality of Life Perspective by Campón-Cerro et al. (2019) • Tourism, Health, Wellbeing and Protected Areas by Azara et al. (2018) • Good Health and Well-Being by Filho et al. (2020) • Tourist Health, Safety and Wellbeing in the New Normal by Wilks et al. (2021), and • Rebuilding and Restructuring the Tourism Industry: Infusion of Happiness and Quality of Life, Multiple authors by IGI Global (2021)

M. Uysal and M. J. Sirgy

Contribution of This Handbook In this second volume, our goal is not to cover every possible subject that may fall under the large umbrella of QoL and tourism but rather to offer a selection of topics that would exemplify emerging research in this area. In other words, we made an attempt in this volume to provide a portfolio of conceptual, empirical, and case studies that would represent important and emerging issues of QoL from the perspectives of tourists, destination residents, and providers of tourism goods and services. In addition, the roles of information and communication technology and sustainable tourism development are addressed. This volume is a sequel to the first volume with its 67 outstanding contributors has 39 chapters representing 18 countries. Eight chapters are updated and revised from the first volume, and the rest of the other 30 chapters are all new additions to the current volume. These chapters were also blind-reviewed for inclusion in the book. The book is organized under five sections reflective of the perspectives and their connections to sustainable development and the use of technologies. • Tourism and QoL—General • QoL from the Perspective of Tourists • QoL from the Perspective of Community—Sustainability • QoL from the Perspective of Providers • QoL and Information Technology • Epilogue

Host

We believe that this handbook would be of great interest to several audiences. Specifically, the audience for this handbook involves both academic and industry professionals interested in QoL issues in different settings focusing on different perspectives. With respect to the academic audience, the scholarly literature on tourism has been expanding and proliferating exponentially for the past five decades. The effects of tourism on host community residents have long been a major research topic. While relatively less scholarly research has examined the effects of tourism on individual well-being (whether being a

Prologue: Tourism and Quality of Life (QoL) Research II

7

participant or provider of goods and services), we see this as a growing research trend. With respect to industry professionals, tourism policy and decision-makers have long focused on the effects of tourism on community residents and, particularly, their support for tourism development and pro-tourism policies. More recently, this work has been extended to understand the effects of tourism on community residents’ wellbeing. Finally, we are beginning to explore social policies related to sustainability, competitiveness, poverty reduction, and resource preservation. Furthermore, industry professionals are increasingly interested in understanding the science that can help them develop better marketing and other managerial programs designed to enhance the QoL of tourists and participants. A lower level of QoL of residents of a destination is not likely to help produce a better quality tourism experience. Moreover, we need to be cognizant of the fact that quality tourism experiences are interpreted within specific contexts and by specific “actors” (Jennings & Nickerson, 2006). Much evidence points to the assertion that enhancing tourists’ well-being is good for business in the sense that highly satisfied tourists engage in repeat business and further promote business through positive word-of-mouth communications. As such, this handbook is designed to provide state-of-the-art reference material that both tourism academics and practitioners could consider indispensable. A general theme of this handbook is that the chapters regardless of their focus attempt to conceptualize and test relationships between QoL and tourism as an important socioeconomic phenomenon. Our contributors are grounded in different theoretical perspectives; they have interdisciplinary interests; and use varying research methods.

editorial team who helped shape this volume—from inception to publication and distribution. Finally, we thank our family members for their unwavering and loving support.

Acknowledgement A book like this would not have been possible without the generous and full support of our esteemed colleagues around the world. We owe a great debt to our contributors from around the globe for their diligent work on the chapters and prompt revisions. We are grateful for sharing their time, talent, and expertise in writing their well-noted chapters. We are also grateful for the support and encouragement of Springer and the

References Azara, I., Michopoulou, E., Niccolini, F., Taff, B. D., & Clarke, A. (Eds.). (2018). Tourism, health, wellbeing and protected areas. CABI. Berbekova, A., & Uysal, M. (2021). Wellbeing and quality of life in tourism. In Tourist health, safety and wellbeing in the new normal (pp. 243–268). Springer. Berbekova, A., Uysal, M., & Assaf, A. G. (2022). Toward an assessment of quality of life indicators as measures of destination performance. Journal of Travel Research, 61(6), 1424–1436. Bimonte, S. (2019). Tourism development as a residenttourist exchange process: An economic theoretic interpretation. In Best practices in hospitality and tourism marketing and management (pp. 63–76). Springer. Budruk, M., & Phillips, R. (2011). Quality of life community indicators for parks recreation and tourism management. Springer. Bushell, R., & Sheldon, P. (2009). Wellness and tourism: Mind, body, spirit, place. Cognizant Communication Books. Campón-Cerro, A. M., Hernández-Mogollón, J. M., & Folgado-Fernández, J. A. (2019). Best practices in hospitality and tourism marketing and management: A quality of life perspective. Springer. Correia, A., Kozak, M., Gnoth, J., & Fyall, A. (Eds.). (2017). Co-creation and well-being in tourism. Springer. Crotts, J. C., Magnini, V. P., & Calvert, E. (2022). Key performance indicators for destination management in developed economies: A four pillar approach. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights, 3(2), 100053. Dwyer, L. (2022). Destination competitiveness and resident well-being. Tourism Management Perspectives, 43, 100996. Filho, W. L., Wall, T., Azul, A. M., Brandli, L., & Özuyar, P. G. (2020). Good health and well-being. Springer International Publishing. GI Global. (2021). Rebuilding and restructuring the tourism industry: Infusion of happiness and quality of life. GI Global’s InfoSci® platform, 11 Chapters, Multiple contributors. Hu, R., Li, G., Liu, A., & Chen, J. L. (2022). Emerging research trends on residents’ quality of life in the context of tourism development. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 10963480221081382. Jennings, G., & Nickerson, P. N. (2006). Quality tourism experiences. Elsevier. Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management, 36, 527–540.

8 Modica, P., & Uysal, M. (Eds.). (2016). Sustainable island tourism: Competitiveness and quality of life. CABI. Payne, L., Ainsworth, B., & Godbey, G. (2010). Leisure, health, and wellness: Making the connections. Venture Publishing. Ponting, S. S. A. (2020). Organizational identity change: Impacts on hotel leadership and employee wellbeing. The Service Industries Journal, 40(1–2), 6–26. Ramkissoon, H. (2020). Perceived social impacts of tourism and quality-of-life: A new conceptual model. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–17. Ridderstaat, J., Croes, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2016). A two-way causal chain between tourism development and quality of life in a small island destination: An empirical analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(10), 1461–1479. Sirgy, M. J. (2010). Toward a quality-of-life theory of leisure travel satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 49(2), 246–260. Sirgy, M. J. (2019). Promoting quality-of-life and wellbeing research in hospitality and tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(1), 1–13. Smith, M., & Puczkó, L. (2014). Health, tourism and hospitality: Spas, wellness and medical travel. Routledge. Smith, M. K., & Puczkó, L. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of health tourism. Taylor & Francis. Su, L., Yang, X., & Swanson, S. R. (2022). The impact of spatial-temporal variation on tourist destination resident quality of life. Tourism Management, 93, 104572. Uysal, M., Berbekova, A., & Kim, H. (2020). Designing for quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 83, 102944. Uysal, M., Perdue, R. R., & Sirgy, M. J. (Eds.). (2012a). Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities. Springer. Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2019). Quality-of-life indicators as performance measures. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 291–300. Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., & Kruger, S. (Eds.). (2018). Managing quality of life in tourism and hospitality. CABI. Uysal, M., Woo, E., & Singal, M. (2012b). The tourist area life cycle (TALC) and its effect on the quality-of-life (QOL) of destination community. In Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 423–443). Springer. Wang, Y. C., Qu, H., Yang, J., & Yang, C. E. (2020). Leisure-work preference and hotel employees’ perceived subjective well-being. The Service Industries Journal, 40(1–2), 110–132. Wilks, J., Pendergast, D., Leggat, P. A., & Morgan, D. (2021). Tourist health, safety and wellbeing in the New Normal. Springer. Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Joseph Sirgy, M. (2019). What is the nature of the relationship between tourism

M. Uysal and M. J. Sirgy development and the quality of life of host communities? In Best practices in hospitality and tourism marketing and management (pp. 43–62). Springer.

Muzaffer Uysal PhD is a provost professor and chair of the Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts – Amherst. Dr. Uysal is a member of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism, the Academy of Leisure Sciences, a founding member of the Hospitality and Tourism Management Academy, and co-founder of Tourism Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Journal. He has also authored and co-authored a significant number of articles, monographs, chapters, and books, related to tourism and hospitality settings. Dr. Uysal has also received over 30 awards, honors, and recognitions including “lifetime achievement” awards. Most recently, Dr. Uysal was recognized as one of the world’s most highly cited researchers under the category of Social Sciences. His current research interests focus on tourism development and quality-of-life research in tourism and hospitality settings. Email: [email protected]. M. Joseph Sirgy is a management psychologist (Ph.D., U/Massachusetts, 1979) and the Virginia Tech Real Estate Professor Emeritus of Marketing at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (USA) and Extraordinary Professor at the WorkWell Research Unit at North West University – Potchefstroom Campus (South Africa). He has published extensively in the area of marketing, business ethics, and quality of life (QOL). His awards include: International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies’ (ISQOLS’) Distinguished Fellow Award, ISQOLS’ Distinguished QOL Researcher, Academy of Marketing Science’s (AMS) Distinguished Fellow Award, AMS’ Harold Berkman Service Award, Virginia Tech’s Pamplin Teaching Excellence Award/Holtzman Outstanding Educator Award and University Certificate of Teaching Excellence, the EuroMed Management Research Award, and the Macromarketing Society’s Robert W. Nason Award. Best paper awards include articles published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, the Journal of Travel Research, and Applied Research in Quality of Life. His editorial responsibilities include co-founding editor of Applied Research in Quality of Life, editor of the QOL section in the Journal of Macromarketing, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Macromarketing, co-editor of ISQOLS’/ Springer’s book series on International Handbooks in QOL, Community QOL Indicators--Best Cases, Applied Research in QOL--Best Practices, and co-editor of the Springer book series on Human Well-Being and Policy Making. Email: [email protected].

Part I Tourism and QoL: General

Positive Psychology and Tourism: Positive Tourism Abbas Alizadeh and Sebastian Filep

Quality of Life and Positive Psychology To understand the relationship between positive psychology and tourism, it is appropriate to first consider how positive psychology relates to the concept of quality of life—the main theme of this handbook. While quality of life can be understood from philosophical, sociological, marketing management and other standpoints, all of which apply to tourism (Sirgy et al., 2006), research embellishes current from psychology understandings of tourism and quality of life. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines quality of life as individuals’ perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns. Therefore, it is “a broad-ranging concept affected in a complex way by the person’s physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, personal beliefs and their relationship to salient

A. Alizadeh (✉) Department of Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] S. Filep School of Hotel & Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong e-mail: sebastian.fi[email protected]

features of their environment” (WHOQOL, 1997, p. 1). Ruut Veenhoven, sociologist and social psychologist, has dedicated his long research career to understanding quality of life issues. Holistically reflecting on the quality of life issues, Veenhoven (2013) derived a fourfold matrix (see Table 1) in which he distinguished between life chances (i.e., chances for a good life) and life results (i.e., actual outcomes of life), and between outer qualities (i.e., qualities in the environment) and inner qualities (i.e., qualities in the individual). The two distinctions produce four qualities of life: (a) ‘Livability of environment’ which refers to the meaning of good living conditions; (b) ‘Life-ability of the person’ which refers to the individual’s capabilities to cope with life’s hardships; (c) ‘Utility of life’ which refers to the meaning of life implying life has to be good for something other than itself; and (d) ‘Appreciation of life’ which refers to the subjective value of life and is directly linked to the ideas of subjective well-being and life satisfaction. Therefore, quality of life is a catchword for various notions of the good life. It is appropriate to be aware of these nuances in the context of understanding psychological aspects of quality of life. It is the inner qualities that Veenhoven links with psychological terms and concepts such as life satisfaction, happiness and subjective wellbeing that are the central focus of this chapter. These terms and concepts are important topics of research in psychology that deals with these

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_2

11

12

A. Alizadeh and S. Filep

Table 1 Four qualities of life. Source: Veenhoven (2013) Life chances Life results

Outer qualities Livability of environment Utility of life

Inner qualities Life-ability of the person Appreciation of life

issues—positive psychology (simply the psychological study of what makes life worth living) (Seligman, 2012). Now that this linkage has been established, a closer look at the conceptualisation and the development of positive psychology follows. After those discussions, the chapter turns to more explicitly assessing positive psychology research in the tourism context.

Development of Positive Psychology With the edition of a special issue of American Psychologist (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), the year 2000 marked the official launch of positive psychology as a scientific field. In this issue, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Martin Seligman, known as the founders of positive psychology, argued that psychology has become relatively proficient in helping people survive in adverse situations, but it is not capable of enabling people to flourish. Positive psychology aims at addressing this issue, and thus, Seligman defined the field as the “scientific study of optimal human functioning [that] aims to discover and promote the factors that allow individuals and communities to thrive” (2008, p. 5). In straightforward terms, positive psychology is not primarily concerned with helping individuals alleviate their problems but transforming them and enabling them to thrive (Boniwell, 2012). As such, Seligman et al. (2005) suggested that positive psychology is an umbrella term for studies of positive emotions, positive character traits, and enabling institutions, although, over the years, the field has developed to examine other aspects of positive human experiences (e.g., optimism, humour, meaning in life). Despite the relatively recent interest in the field of positive psychology, the roots of positive

psychology can be traced all the way back to the ancient thoughts of Greek philosophers— Socrates, Plato, and especially Aristotle with his idea of daimon (i.e., the true self) (Boniwell, 2012). However, the contemporary roots of positive psychology are much more recent. The twentieth century’s psychological focus on psychoanalysis, behaviourism, humanistic psychology, cognitive therapy, and existential psychology are seen as early modern ancestors of positive psychology (Duckworth et al., 2005). Adler’s (1924) work on healthy individual endeavours in a social context, Freud’s (1933) work on the pleasure principle, Jung’s (1955) work on individuation, Jahoda’s (1958) work on positive mental health, and Frankl’s (1984) work on human’s search for meaning in adverse conditions are cited frequently as significant contributors to the current understanding of positive psychology. However, as the consensus in the literature suggests, the most notable predecessor of positive psychology is the humanistic psychology field with its focus on the authentic self and growth of an individual, beginning in the 1950s and reaching its peak during the 1960s and 1970s (Boniwell, 2012; Duckworth et al., 2005; Filep, 2012). Notable examples of related works in this era are Carl Roger’s (1961) concept of fully-functioning person and Maslow’s (1954) concept of self-actualisation. More recently, the ever-increasing attention of academia to positive psychology is evidenced by the publications of related books (Brown et al., 2017; Seligman, 2012), a myriad of special issues in major journals and seminal articles (beginning with Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), positive psychology-related journals (e.g., the Journal of Positive Psychology), numerous meetings and conference networks (e.g., the 7th World Congress on Positive Psychology, July 2021 in Vancouver, Canada), and various research centres and courses devoted to this field (e.g., the Master’s degree in Applied Positive Psychology in a number of universities around the world). Furthermore, the financial incentives in the form of research grants which, after World War II, were provided mainly for the treatment of mental illness (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) are

Positive Psychology and Tourism: Positive Tourism

now directed towards the positive side of psychology as well, providing necessary motivation for pursuing this field (e.g., grants by the Annenberg Foundation). This growth of the field is likely to accelerate once the horrors of the global pandemic and the recent political conflicts and wars at the time of writing (March 2022) dissipate. Although it is challenging to speculate what will happen as a result of the global pandemic (Filep et al., 2022a) and the major political upheavals, humanity’s sense of well-being and mental health is undoubtedly threatened. It would be foolish to predict that the research grounded in positive psychology theories would therefore suddenly become unpopular. On the contrary, it will likely become even more important, especially in sectors like tourism where human well-being of key human stakeholders has been severely diminished by these crises (Filep et al., 2022a). Human wellbeing as the core tenet of positive psychology is discussed in the following section.

Human Well-Being as the Focus of Positive Psychology Perhaps the most commonly acknowledged conceptualisation of human well-being adopted in positive psychology is the one suggested by Ryan and Deci (2001). These authors emphasise the dichotomy between two forms of well-being: (a) Hedonism that regards well-being as pleasure and happiness (Kahneman et al., 1999); and (b) Eudaimonia that argues well-being as not simply pleasure and gratification. The eudaimonic perspective stresses the realisation of human potentials and living according to one’s true self as the correct pathway to human well-being (Waterman, 1993). Hedonistic views of well-being, however, often recognised simply as ‘happiness’, have been discussed for centuries. Tatarkiewicz (2011) names Democritus [c. 460–c. 370 BC] as one of the first Greek philosophers suggesting that happiness is subjective; thus, it “does not depend solely on good fortune or indeed on any external contingencies, but also, and even to a

13

greater extent, on a man’s cast of mind” (p. 29). Aristippus of Cyrene [c. 435–c. 356 BCE] is recognised for his pure hedonistic views focusing on human pleasure, “pleasure is the sole good, but also that only one’s physical, positive, momentary pleasure is good, and is so regardless of its cause” (p. 317). Many philosophers have followed this conceptualisation throughout history. For instance, Adam Smith’s theory of moral sentiment places the primary emphasis on material or hedonic well-being (Smith, 1976). Utilitarian philosophers, such as Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, argued that the sum of individuals’ pursuit of maximising pleasure and self-interest is what ultimately creates a good society. Thus, hedonism can be articulated in terms of simple gratification of physical pleasure to the more complex issues of self-interest. In the field of psychology, hedonism is regarded as subjective happiness concerning “the experience of pleasure versus displeasure broadly construed to include all judgments about the good/bad elements of life” (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 144). As such, hedonic psychology refers to studying “what makes experiences and life pleasant and unpleasant” (Kahneman et al., 1999, p. ix). In Kraut’s (1979) work, Two Conceptions of Happiness, happiness, as perceived by ordinary people, is ‘extremely subjective’ and involves “the belief that one is getting the important things one wants, as well as certain pleasant affects that normally go along with this belief” (p. 178). Later, Waterman (1993) expanded Kraut’s definition to hedonic happiness and predicted that such hedonic experiences would be felt by an individual when a pleasant affect is accompanied by need satisfaction. On the other hand, eudaimonic well-being is well-being beyond mere pleasures. As Ryff and Singer (2008) observe, eudaimonia is a term that is simultaneously tricky to spell, pronounce, and understand. Yet, it is suggested that the time has come for the eudaimonic turn in defining wellbeing (Pawelski & Moores, 2012). From an etymological point of view, Greek eudaimonia, eudaimon, consists of the words eu (‘good’) and daimōn (‘spirit’). The term is usually translated to happiness; however, such translation is

14

misleading since it neglects the genuine meaning of the term. Reflecting on this issue, some scholars have proposed to use well-being or human flourishing as English equivalents to eudaimonia (e.g., Robinson, 1989), but Kraut (1979) objects to this proposition, noting that neither well-being nor flourishing is beyond the reach of evil people and therefore, neither can convey the striving for the virtue implicit in the term. He suggests leaving eudaimonia untranslated—the approach that will be taken in this chapter when using the term eudaimonic well-being. Like the hedonist approach, eudaimonic thinking dates back to ancient Greek wisdom. Contrary to the hedonist philosophers, however , eudaimonic-oriented Greek philosophers advocated a strict objective stand. Plato’s list, for instance, included the possession of good and beautiful things (Plato, 1990). Nevertheless, the central philosopher in the eudaimonic discussions is undoubtedly Aristotle, and the central book his Nicomachean Ethics (2009), in which he rejected the subjectivity of happiness altogether and disparaged the hedonistic idea as being vulgar since it reduces the human to a slave of their desires (Ryan & Deci, 2001). In Aristotelian ethics and philosophy, eudaimonia is associated with possessing what is most valued (Tatarkiewicz, 2011). On this note, another Aristotelian concept, virtue, can help clarify what should be valued the most. Confronting one of the most fundamental philosophical questions, i.e., how we should live, Aristotle attempted to develop a reasoned argument: one should live in accordance with virtue (Ryff & Singer, 2008). Virtue, Aristotle thought, is characterised by what is simultaneously best and moderate, for neither too much pleasure nor too little of it is desirable. Therefore, one has to avoid both excess and deficiency when seeking virtue. Virtue then lies in doing what is worth doing (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Further, Aristotle’s view of virtue concerns what is best as well and is thus a teleological idea in nature, with telos, i.e., the ultimate goal, achieving the best of what is within us (Ryff & Singer, 2008). Having discussed what virtue

A. Alizadeh and S. Filep

refers to, eudaimonia then stems from the activity of expressing virtue by striving toward the ultimate virtuous objective of life, which is to recognise and realise one’s true potential through living in accordance with one’s daimon or true self (Kjell, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff, 2018; Waterman, 1993). The complexity of defining human well-being is significant, but it is clear that both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are necessary for understanding optimal human functioning. This is especially relevant to tourism, where well-being has often been appraised in a hedonic manner (Filep, 2012), ignoring until fairly recently its eudaimonic role (Nawijn & Filep, 2016). While the former’s role is to assist the individual through homeostasis in safe, familiar, and trouble-free situations, the latter functions in situations where one faces challenging tasks and change is necessary and assists the individual to attach meaning to the situation (Vittersø & Dahl, 2013). A brief review of tourism doctoral theses suggests that psychology-informed research in tourism studies is increasingly engaging with concepts related to positive psychology, especially hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Examples of PhD theses include Dillette (2016)’s work on the application of positive psychological theory in the context of wellness tourism, Shahvali’s (2018) work on the value of human relationships and well-being in tourist experiences, Vada (2019)’s examination of effects of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in tourist experiences, Wan (2021)’s use of positive character traits as enablers for well-being in technology-mediated meaningful tourism experiences, and Alizadeh (2021)’s exploration of the sustainability-well-being nexus in tourist experiences.

Positive Tourism and Well-Being Grounded in positive psychology, in the year 2017, Filep, Laing and Csikszentmihalyi launched the concept of positive tourism (Filep et al., 2016). In short, positive tourism is a study

Positive Psychology and Tourism: Positive Tourism

of hedonic and eudaimonic human well-being and conditions for thriving as they relate to three important actors: tourists, residents of host communities, and tourism professionals or workers. In a broad sense, positive tourism is based on positive psychology theories and the creation of a body of knowledge that explains what psychological mechanisms enable optimal tourist experiences, what conditions and circumstances allow host community members to thrive, and what conditions allow tourism employees in various settings to flourish (Filep et al., 2016). The topics of interest for positive tourism include concepts and theories such as mindfulness, flow, acts of kindness and generosity, humour, optimism, savouring and other positive psychology topics (Pearce, 2017). Kozak (2022, forthcoming) has further developed positive tourism in its creation of a more holistic approach to the concept, highlighting tourist behaviour and operators and communities. He explored the rewarding nature of experience through romantic relationships, humour and flow, which are used to investigate how tourism can contribute to psychological and physiological benefits. These broadly relate to aspects of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being—for example, the work on flow and mindfulness is more eudaimonic in nature, while the work on humour and kindness has a more hedonic well-being focus. A key distinguishing characteristic of positive tourism as opposed to the broader positive psychology field is the background of its research community members, who are mainly disciplinary trained and/or have research interests in tourism, leisure, sport, recreation, health, and sports psychology. The notion of positive tourism is shaped by the researchers’ backgrounds since their subjectivities, experiences, and professional upbringing determine who they are, as well as how they think and reason (Filep et al., 2016). As a humanist-inspired field of research, positive tourism is therefore based on positive psychology theories, models and viewpoints. However, unlike the majority of positive psychology research, positive tourism knowledge is developed using a variety of approaches that

15

combine quantitative and qualitative research methods to address specific research questions and objectives, bridging the gap between positivism and interpretivism. Thus, positive tourism should not be thought of as the mere application of positive psychology theories and concepts to tourism studies but as a distinct area of inquiry that is conceptually aligned to positive psychology. Some examples of recent positive tourism research include research on characteristics of meaningful tourist experiences (Packer & Gill, 2017); the nature of small acts of kindness between hosts and tourists that generate wellbeing (Glover & Filep, 2015); or the style of positive interactions between tourism workers and tourists (e.g. the role of co-creation of experiences for greater well-being) (Parsons et al., 2019). The following section discusses key research developments under the three main pillars of positive tourism in more detail: positive tourist experiences, positive host communities and positive tourism workers before concluding this chapter. The identified pillars (forthcoming subheadings) follow Filep et al. (2016) structure in their conceptualisation of positive tourism. The following section should not be treated as a comprehensive review of positive tourism research— rather, major strands of positive tourism knowledge are highlighted for readers, based on Kozak (2022) and Filep et al. (2016).

Positive Tourist Experiences A central concern in this pillar of positive tourism research has been on understanding the subjective value of the tourist experience and ascertaining how different aspects of the tourist experience can generate greater hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing. While each tourist experience is different, the ability of models, frameworks or taxonomies to capture useful ways to understand the complexities of tourist experiences deserves further attention. In their conceptualisation of positive tourism, Filep et al. (2016) argued for greater adoption of PERMA (positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning and achievement)—

16

an overarching well-being model (Seligman, 2012) when theorising about tourist experiences. This is because PERMA integrates hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being and it includes highly relevant theoretical constructs to tourism, including both hedonic (e.g., positive emotions) and eudaimonic (e.g., meaning) aspects of wellbeing. The pillars help explain well-being in relation to tourist experiences more holistically than purely hedonistic theories and the bottom-up spillover model (Kler & Tribe, 2012). Some readers may have used PERMA as a personal or intuitive lens for evaluating their own tourist experiences. For example, our positive emotions might increase when daydreaming about an upcoming vacation. When marvelling at the sites we visit, we feel engaged. Further, when laughing and joking with travel companions or host community residents, we bond and build relationships. Achievement as another element of PERMA might be a priority after white-water rafting or similar nature-based adventure experiences. Finally, when we witness extreme poverty on our trips, we may question our meaning or a sense of purpose in life (Crossley, 2012; Filep & Higham, 2014). Although the empirical research employing PERMA in tourism is still scarce (Pourfakhimi et al., 2021), using this framework might be a way forward in circumstances when it is more relevant to study lasting aspects of well-being rather than mere hedonic pursuits (Alizadeh, 2021; Filep & Pearce, 2013; Pourfakhimi et al., 2021). Still, it needs to be highlighted that PERMA was not conceived as a tourism-specific model (Seligman, 2012), but rather as a generic lifestyle, well-being model so there is room for its further refinement or development of new tourism models. A novel conceptualisation of tourist well-being grounded in the PERMA model has subsequently emerged (Filep et al., 2022b). This conceptual model re-organises hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of tourists’ psychological well-being based on PERMA and is termed DREAMA. DREAMA consists of the following dimensions: detachment-recovery (DR) dimension, including positive emotions; engagement (E); affiliation (A); meaning (M); and achievement (A). The

A. Alizadeh and S. Filep

new affiliation (A) dimension now includes both social connections and tourists’ connections with the environment, thus reframing tourist wellbeing conceptualisation beyond human-tohuman contact (as was the case with the R element of PERMA). Still, DREAMA is brand new at the time of writing (Filep et al., 2022b) and its value in appraising tourist experiences needs to be further investigated. While various leisure experiences may generate hedonic and eudaimonic rewards (as outlined by PERMA and DREAMA models), tourist experiences are distinct from other leisure experiences in this regard. Gilbert and Abdullah’s (2004) study is perhaps among the most cited works in this area since they included a control group in their survey, enabling them to compare the results within and between groups. In their study, they compared the subjective well-being of a holiday taking case group (n = 355) and a non-holiday taking control group (n = 249) and demonstrated that the case group’s subjective well-being was significantly higher than that of the control group in both pre- and post-trip phases. They concluded that a tourism activity has a special potential to enhance people’s levels of well-being. In another study, McCabe and Johnson (2013) examined the impact of tourism on the well-being of social tourists (mainly unemployed individuals in low-income brackets who receive financial support from charity organisations to be able to take a holiday break). They conducted both pre-holiday (n = 168) and post-holiday (n = 127) surveys and demonstrated that tourism participation contributes to the wellbeing of low-income groups. Interestingly, their findings allow for the interpretation that tourism has the potential to enhance short-term hedonic well-being and contribute to longer-term eudaimonic well-being—perhaps even more so than other leisure experiences. Respondents in McCabe and Johnson (2013)’s study reported improvements in their positive functioning domains such as optimism and social life, including satisfaction with family life and relationships. While positive tourism research on tourist experiences shows that tourist experiences enhance tourists’ hedonic and eudaimonic well-

Positive Psychology and Tourism: Positive Tourism

being, less research has been done to understand the underlying processes and explain how this greater well-being can be achieved and sustained over a more extended period. Some pathways include: (a) the extent to which the trip can either strengthen an existing relationship or the extent to which it allows for new quality relationships to form (Filep et al., 2017; Lu & Pearce, 2017; Pearce & Foster, 2007); (b) the extent to which tourism experiences can function as a stress reliever (Chen et al., 2016), (c) the extent to which tourists engage in savouring (or positive reminiscence) as a way of extending well-being (Filep et al., 2013; Pearce & Mohammadi, 2019); and (d) the extent to which tourists engage in tourist experiences with eudaimonic rewards (Nawijn & Fricke, 2015; Saunders et al., 2013). Examples in this last category include spiritual and self-development tourist experiences that allow tourists to self-develop and grow rather than just have a good time. These activities allow individuals to identify themselves as unique human beings (Matteucci & Filep, 2017). Specific forms of volunteer tourism or tourist experiences involving participation in music and cultural workshops are good examples of these eudaimonic experiences (Matteucci & Filep, 2017; Stebbins, 2007). Thus, tourist experiences form a central aspect of positive tourism and while there is a recognition of the need to pursue eudaimonia through tourism there is room for further research to empirically investigate the eudaimonic nature of tourist experiences. The next section discusses a less researched area—positive host communities—the second positive tourism pillar.

Positive Host Communities Residents/locals (representatives of host communities) should also expect better wellbeing outcomes through tourism development nested in their communities. The effects of tourism development on host community residents have long been an important research topic (Uysal et al., 2012). However, traditionally studies have examined benefits and costs of tourism

17

development on a macro level, such as increasing tourism jobs in the community, or sales of tourism goods and services (e.g., Croes & Vanegas, 2008; Marin, 2015). Much less focus has been on understanding the psychological well-being needs of individual host community members— which is a core focus of positive tourism research. When this micro (more subjective and individual) approach to examining host community wellbeing is adopted, it is clear that positive psychology literature that relates to communities still does not have an established history (Marujo & Neto, 2014; Vada et al., 2020). A notable exception is the research on Appreciative Inquiry, a strength-based methodological tool from positive psychology, which has been used in studies with communities affected by tourism development (Nyaupane & Poudel, 2012). Appreciative Inquiry draws from positive psychology in that it inquires into what is working rather than a traditional focus on what is not working and aims to empower individuals and facilitate the resolution of given problems to enact desired change (Whitney & Cooperrider, 2011). Nyaupane and Poudel (2012), for instance, have found it an effective and epistemologically sound tool to better understand the rural population’s knowledge, needs, and priorities in a study of conservation, livelihood, and tourism development in rural host communities located in Nepal. Beyond appreciative inquiry there are a few other examples of positive tourism research related to host communities. Through a crosscultural research study of Balinese host communities, Hillman et al. (2017) highlighted the quality of social ties and relationships among the host community members from a positive psychology perspective. Similarly, Glover and Filep (2017)’s examination of acts of kindness by hosts provided to tourist hikers in a nature-based tourism setting revealed the temporary social capital built in interactions between strangers (in this case hosts and tourists). There has also been work done on the resilience of host community members (Atkinson et al., 2009). Resilience can be defined as the capacity to recover from extremes of trauma and stress and

18

is a concept that features in both positive psychology literature and tourism literature (Atkinson et al., 2009). There is now evidence that resilience is not an unmeasurable personality trait, fixed and stable over time (Rutter, 2007). Instead, resilience can be thought of as the process of struggle against hardship and can be learned at any age—it could be considered an acquired skill (Gillespie et al., 2007). The health benefits of resilience on individuals are numerous. There is compelling evidence, for example, that resilience plays a crucial role in recovering from posttraumatic stress disorder (Atkinson et al., 2009; Paton, 2006). However, while many assessments of resilience correlate with health and well-being outcomes (Kubzansky et al., 2001), more studies should be done to ascertain if resilience causes health and well-being improvements for host community members. Overall, it is clear that positive psychology– inspired work in tourism studies on host communities is slowly developing. However, most of the research thus far has concentrated on studying tourists and their various experiences (Filep & Laing, 2019). Therefore, more work is needed on the psychological well-being of host community members, especially on interpersonal relationships and resilience. The third focus of positive tourism is on tourism workers, which is discussed in the next section.

Positive Tourism Workers Tourism workers, both management-level and those employed in lower-ranked positions, are at the forefront of curating a destination’s image and reputation to its visitors. They form one of the critical pillars of tourism, and therefore, businesses should invest more in their wellbeing which has been heavily affected in recent times by the global pandemic and other crises (Garcês et al., 2020). Most of positive tourism research in this space has focused on the well-being of guides (Houge Mackenzie & Brymer, 2020). Houge Mackenzie and Raymond (2020) developed a conceptual model in which people, the natural environment,

A. Alizadeh and S. Filep

and the adventure activity were identified as the three crucial elements of adventure guides’ wellbeing (Houge Mackenzie & Raymond, 2020). In this conceptual model, people element includes clients, co-guides, managers, while natural characteristics, and weather are included in the natural environment element. The adventure activity includes factors such as the type of activity, duration of the trip, levels of risk. Strategies to enhance adventure guide well-being were outlined. Beyond this, further positive tourism work exists on guide well-being using longdistance walking (LDW) as a context. Saunders et al. (2017) studied LDW guides’ well-being and identified associated benefits and challenges. Outcomes and benefits of being a guide included enjoyment and pleasure in what they do, place attachment and a sense of purpose and connection to something worthwhile. Particularly, naturebased walking guides derive a sense of purpose as they share a set of values aligned to nature conservation so that any deep acting that might be required is essentially an expression of their attitudes and beliefs. On the other hand, guiding in such contexts requires emotional engagement with clients (Tung & Ritchie, 2011). Adventure guides not only provide safety and destination information but they are increasingly challenged to facilitate unique, customised experiences that provide meaning and enjoyment for participants (Houge Mackenzie & Kerr, 2017). Fostering this depth of involvement can be challenging for guides. Emotional labour has been defined by Hochschild (2012, p. 7) as the ‘management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display’ by workers to produce a preferred state of mind or response in clients. Hochschild’s research suggests that surface acting (hiding real emotions or even ‘faking’ feelings) can generate a sense of estrangement and alienation, leading to a loss of job satisfaction. Emotional labour can present particular challenges to tourism guides, who may be ‘required to be in close proximity with clients, often over extended periods with few opportunities to retreat to backstage areas where they can relax and step out of their leader persona’ (Black & Weiler, 2015, pp. 37–38).

Positive Psychology and Tourism: Positive Tourism

Beyond guiding however, positive tourism research on workers is nearly non-existent although there is much scope for further development. Positive organisational scholarship (POS) (Kelly & Cameron, 2017) for example may be a useful area of research from which further ideas can be generated to advance scholarship in this area. POS is the systematic study of positive psychology at the level of an organisation and focuses on the study of positive results, processes, and traits of organisations and their individuals. POS is not a single theory; rather, it focuses on dynamics that are often represented by adjectives like excellence, thriving, flourishing, resilience or virtuousness (Kelly & Cameron, 2017)—all of which are potential future topics of inquiry under the pillar of positive tourism workers.

Conclusion This chapter provided a discussion of positive tourism research. We discussed hedonic and eudaimonic well-being and conditions for thriving related to three important actors: tourists, residents of host communities, and tourism workers. There are opportunities for future research related to these three key stakeholders. For example, future research on tourist experiences, within the positive tourism domain, could examine the impacts of technology use on well-being. In particular, there is a need to examine virtual (digital, non-physical) tourist experiences and their effects on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, as engagement in virtual tourism becomes popular (Deng et al., 2021). This could include various forms of virtual tourism such as tourism live streaming (Deng et al., 2021) and webcam travel (Jarratt, 2021) as part of a broader research agenda on impacts of technology on human well-being (Stankov & Gretzel, 2021). New research about tourism workers could more closely examine mental health of tourism employees, as this topic gains relevance in the post pandemic environment. In addition, using positive organisational scholarship may be

19

a useful area of research to further understand mechanisms leading to resilience of tourism professionals. For those researchers interested in issues related to well-being of host communities, there are opportunities to examine how communities are impacted by tourism organisations that have adopted economic structures centred on the creation of well-being. These include businesses and organisations that place value on the greater good, well-being and forms of capital beyond financial capital. These new economic structures include the generosity/ gift economy, sacred economy, regenerative economy, creative economy and circular economy (Sheldon, 2021). Overall, it was shown that the focus of positive tourism research remains on tourist experiences, and there is a need for further development of research with host communities and workers in the tourism sector. With an unprecedented drop in demand and widespread travel restrictions, pandemics and conflicts, global tourism at the time of writing is experiencing its worst years on record. Destinations worldwide saw one billion fewer international arrivals in 2020 than in the previous year; the year 2021 was another challenging year as arrivals were still 72% down on pre-pandemic levels, thus, affecting destinations, locals and tourists (UNWTO, 2022). In such a situation, the lack of positive tourism research with host communities and workers is of concern because the pandemic has impacted so many livelihoods worldwide (Abbas et al., 2021). Although this chapter provided an overview of current developments in positive psychology and tourism research, the analysis should not be regarded as a systematic or a semi-systematic review of literature in this field. Future researchers can address this limitation by conducting a more extensive, systematic, review. The existing chapter is based primarily on analyses of research studies conducted in Western societies that have been the subject of most attention in the positive tourism domain. It is crucial to include non-Western perspectives in future

20

research endeavours to advance the interface between positive psychology and tourism.

References Abbas, J., Mubeen, R., Iorember, P. T., Raza, S., & Mamirkulova, G. (2021). Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on tourism: Transformational potential and implications for a sustainable recovery of the travel and leisure industry. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 2, 100033. Adler, A. (1924). The practice and theory of individual psychology. Taylor & Francis. Alizadeh, A. (2021). Exploring the relationship between sustainable tourism behaviour and psychological wellbeing in tourism experiences. University of Otago. Aristotle. (2009). In L. Brown (Ed.), The Nicomachean ethics (Vol. New). Oxford University Press (4th Century BCE). Atkinson, P., Martin, C. R., & Rankin, J. (2009). Resilience revisited. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 16(2), 137–145. Black, R., & Weiler, B. (2015). Theoretical perspectives on tour guiding. Demystifying Theories in Tourism Research, 31–45. Boniwell, I. (2012). Positive psychology in a nutshell: The science of happiness (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Brown, N. J., Lomas, T., & Eiroa-Orosa, F. J. (2017). The Routledge international handbook of critical positive psychology. Routledge. Chen, C.-C., Petrick, J. F., & Shahvali, M. (2016). Tourism experiences as a stress reliever: Examining the effects of tourism recovery experiences on life satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 55(2), 150–160. Croes, R., & Vanegas, M. (2008). Tourism and poverty alleviation: A co-integration analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 47(1), 94–103. Crossley, É. (2012). Poor but happy: Volunteer tourists’ encounters with poverty. Tourism Geographies, 14(2), 235–253. Deng, Z., Benckendorff, P., & Wang, J. (2021). Travel live streaming: An affordance perspective. Information Technology & Tourism, 23(2), 189–207. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40558-021-00199-1 Dillette, A. K. (2016). Wellness tourism: An application of positive psychological theory to overall quality of life. Duckworth, A. L., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Positive psychology in clinical practice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 629–651. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1. 102803.144154 Filep, S. (2012). Positive psychology and tourism. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 31–50). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2288-0_ 3

A. Alizadeh and S. Filep Filep, S., Cao, D., Jiang, M., & DeLacy, T. (2013). Savouring tourist experiences after a holiday. Leisure/ Loisir, 37(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14927713.2013.842731 Filep, S., & Higham, J. (2014). Chasing well-being new directions for appraising tourist experiences. In Green growth and travelism: Concept, policy and practice for sustainable tourism. Filep, S., King, B., & McKercher, B. (2022a). Reflecting on tourism and COVID-19 research. Tourism Recreation Research, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281. 2021.2023839 Filep, S., & Laing, J. (2019). Trends and directions in tourism and positive psychology. Journal of Travel Research, 58(3), 343–354. Filep, S., Laing, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2016). What is positive tourism? Why do we need it? In S. Filep, J. Laing, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Positive tourism (pp. 3–17). Routledge. Filep, S., Macnaughton, J., & Glover, T. (2017). Tourism and gratitude: Valuing acts of kindness. Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 26–36. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.annals.2017.05.015 Filep, S., Moyle, B. D., & Skavronskaya, L. (2022b). Tourist well-being: Rethinking eudaimonic and hedonic dimensions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research. Filep, S., & Pearce, P. (2013). Tourist experience and fulfilment: Insights from positive psychology. Taylor & Francis. Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man’s search for meaning (Revised and Updated ed.). Washington Square Press. Freud, S. (1933). The psychology of women. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 22, p. 3). Hogarth Press. Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., & de Jesus, S. N. (2020). Psychological well-being as a creative resource for businesses in the tourism industry: A multidisciplinary view. In Multilevel approach to competitiveness in the global tourism industry (pp. 98–119). IGI Global. Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holidaytaking and the sense of well-being. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003. 06.001 Gillespie, B. M., Chaboyer, W., & Wallis, M. (2007). Development of a theoretically derived model of resilience through concept analysis. Contemporary Nurse, 25(1–2), 124–135. Glover, T., & Filep, S. (2017). Examining kindness of strangers in tourism: Trail magic on the Appalachian Trail. In S. Filep, J. Laing, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Positive tourism (pp. 135–148). Routledge. Glover, T. D., & Filep, S. (2015). On kindness of strangers in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 159–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.10.001 Hillman, P., Moyle, B. D., Weiler, B., & Che, D. (2017). The impact of tourism on the quality of life of local industry employees in Ubud, Bali. In S. Filep, J. Laing,

Positive Psychology and Tourism: Positive Tourism & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Positive tourism (pp. 148–165). Routledge. Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press. Houge Mackenzie, S., & Brymer, E. (2020). Conceptualizing adventurous nature sport: A positive psychology perspective. Annals of Leisure Research, 23(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2018. 1483733 Houge Mackenzie, S., & Kerr, J. H. (2017). Co-creation and experience brokering in guided adventure tours. In S. Filep, J. Laing, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Positive tourism (pp. 185–203). Routledge. Houge Mackenzie, S., & Raymond, E. (2020). A conceptual model of adventure tour guide well-being. Annals of Tourism Research, 84, 102977. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.annals.2020.102977 Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. Basic Books. Jarratt, D. (2021). Webcam-travel: Conceptual foundations. Annals of Tourism Research, 91, 103088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103088 Jung, C. G. (1955). Synchronicity an acausal connecting principle. Ark/Routledge. Kahneman, D., Kubovy, M., Diener, E., & Schwartz, N. (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage Foundation. Kelly, J., & Cameron, K. (2017). Applying positive organisational scholarship to produce extraordinary performance. In C. Proctor (Ed.), Positive psychology interventions in practice (pp. 207–217). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-51787-2_12 Kjell, O. N. E. (2011). Sustainable well-being: A potential synergy between sustainability and well-being research. Review of General Psychology, 15(3), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024603 Kler, B. K., & Tribe, J. (2012). Flourishing through SCUBA: Understanding the pursuit of dive experiences. Tourism in Marine Environments, 8(1–2), 19–32. Kozak, M. (2022). Moving from positive psychology to positive tourism: A conceptual approach. In T. V. Singh, D. Butler, & D. A. Fennell (Eds.), Tourism, hope and happiness. Aspects of Tourism. Kraut, R. (1979). Two conceptions of happiness. The Philosophical Review, 88(2), 167–197. https://doi. org/10.2307/2184505 Kubzansky, L. D., Sparrow, D., Vokonas, P., & Kawachi, I. (2001). Is the glass half empty or half full? A prospective study of optimism and coronary heart disease in the normative aging study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63(6), 910–916. Lu, H., & Pearce, P. L. (2017). Learning by and learning from Chinese outbound tourist groups. In P. L. Pearce & M.-Y. Wu (Eds.), The world meets Asian tourists (pp. 73–91). Emerald. Marin, D. (2015). Study on the economic impact of tourism and of agrotourism on local communities.

21 Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 47(4), 160–163. Marujo, H. Á., & Neto, L. M. (2014). Positive nations and communities: Collective, qualitative and culturalsensitive processes in positive psychology. Springer. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality (1st ed.). Harper. Matteucci, X., & Filep, S. (2017). Eudaimonic tourist experiences: The case of flamenco. Leisure Studies, 36(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2015. 1085590 McCabe, S., & Johnson, S. (2013). The happiness factor in tourism: Subjective well-being and social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 42–65. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.12.001 Nawijn, J., & Filep, S. (2016). Two directions for future tourist well-being research. Annals of Tourism Research, 61(C), 221–223. Nawijn, J., & Fricke, M.-C. (2015). Visitor emotions and behavioral intentions: The Case of Concentration Camp Memorial Neuengamme. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(3), 221–228. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jtr.1977 Nyaupane, G. P., & Poudel, S. (2012). Application of appreciative inquiry in tourism research in rural communities. Tourism Management, 33(4), 978–987. Packer, J., & Gill, C. (2017). Meaningful vacation experiences. In S. Filep, J. Laing, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Positive tourism (pp. 33–48). Routledge. Parsons, H., Houge Mackenzie, S., & Filep, S. (2019). Facilitating self-development: How tour guides broker spiritual tourist experiences. Tourism Recreation Research, 44(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02508281.2019.1582159 Paton, D. (2006). Critical incident stress risk in police officers: Managing resilience and vulnerability. Traumatology, 12(3), 198–206. Pawelski, J., & Moores, D. (2012). The eudaimonic turn: Well-being in literary studies. . Pearce, P. (2017). Foreword. In S. Filep, J. Laing, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Positive tourism (pp. xi– xii). Routledge. Pearce, P., & Foster, F. (2007). A “university of travel”: Backpacker learning. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1285–1298. Pearce, P., & Mohammadi, Z. (2019). Savoring Persian travel: Analyzing tourists’ memories. In A. Correia, M. Kozak, & A. Rodrigues (Eds.), Experiencing Persian Heritage: Perspectives and challenges. Emerald. Plato. (1990). In B. Jowett & I. NetLibrary (Eds.), Symposium. Project Gutenberg NetLibrary. Pourfakhimi, S., Nadim, Z., Prayag, G., & Mulcahy, R. (2021). The influence of neophobia and enduring food involvement on travelers’ perceptions of wellbeing—Evidence from international visitors to Iran. International Journal of Tourism Research, 23(2), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2391

22 Robinson, D. N. (1989). Aristotle’s psychology. Columbia University Press. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin. Rutter, M. (2007). Resilience, competence, and coping. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(3), 205–209. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.02.001 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.52.1.141 Ryff, C. D. (2018). Eudaimonic well-being. Diversity in Harmony–Insights from Psychology, 375. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13–39. Saunders, R. E., Laing, J., & Weiler, B. (2013). Personal transformation through long-distance walking. Tourist Experience and Fulfilment: Insights from Positive Psychology, 127–146. Saunders, R. E., Weiler, B., & Laing, J. (2017). Transformative guiding and long- distance walking. In S. Filep, J. Laing, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Positive tourism (pp. 167–185). Routledge. Seligman, M. E. P. (2008). Positive health. Applied Psychology, 57, 3–18. Seligman, M. E. P. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon and Schuster. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. An introduction. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 5. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X. 60.5.410 Shahvali, M. (2018). The association between vacations, couple functioning, and satisfaction with relationship. The Pennsylvania State University. Sheldon, P. J. (2021). The coming-of-age of tourism: Embracing new economic models. Journal of Tourism Futures. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-03-2021-0057 Sirgy, M. J., Michalos, A., Ferriss, A., Easterlin, R. A., Patrick, D., & Pavot, W. (2006). The qualityity-of-life (QOL) research movement: Past, present, and future. Social Indicators Research, 76(3), 343–466. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-2877-8 Smith, A. (1976). The theory of moral sentiments. Oxford University Press. (1759). Stankov, U., & Gretzel, U. (2021). Digital well-being in the tourism domain: Mapping new roles and responsibilities. Information Technology & Tourism, 23(1), 5–17. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40558-021-00197-3 Stebbins, R. A. (2007). Serious leisure: A perspective for our time (Vol. 95). Transaction Publishers. Tatarkiewicz, W. (2011). Analysis of happiness. Springer.

A. Alizadeh and S. Filep Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, J. B. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1367–1386. UNWTO. (2022). UNWTO World Tourism Barometer and Statistical Annex, January 2022. World Tourism Organization. https://webunwto.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws. com/s3fs-public/2022-01/UNWTO_Barom22_01_ January_Excerpt.pdf?lXWPdwSpA0FBYClC_ xMHrLYarzBnARrV Uysal, M., Perdue, R., & Sirgy, M. J. (2012). Prologue: Tourism and quality-of-life (QOL) research: The missing links. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 1–5). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94007-2288-0_1 Vada, S. (2019). The tourist perspective: Examining the effects of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in tourism. Griffith University. https://go.exlibris.link/ QGrVxQCw Vada, S., Prentice, C., Scott, N., & Hsiao, A. (2020). Positive psychology and tourist well-being: A systematic literature review. Tourism Management Perspectives, 33, 100631. Veenhoven, R. (2013). The four qualities of life ordering concepts and measures of the good life. In The exploration of happiness (pp. 195–226). Springer. Vittersø, J., & Dahl, T. I. (2013). What’s in a face? Perhaps some elements of both eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013. 803597 Wan, C. K. B. (2021). Design for technology-mediated memorable and meaningful tourism experiences: A strengths-based approach. Unpublished PhD thesis. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.64.4.678 Whitney, D., & Cooperrider, D. (2011). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. ReadHowYouWant.com, Limited. WHOQOL. (1997). WHOQOL: Measuring quality of life. WHO.

Abbas Alizadeh Ph.D., obtained his PhD in tourism from the University of Otago, New Zealand. Awarded with the University of Otago’s “Exceptional Thesis” status, his thesis focused on the interconnections between tourists’ sustainability-related decisions and psychological well-being. Abbas served as a researcher from 2017 to 2018 in the Sustainable Development of Tourism Programme of the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) providing research support on international processes and issues on sustainable development. Email: [email protected].

Positive Psychology and Tourism: Positive Tourism Sebastian Filep Ph.D., is Associate Professor at the School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Dr Filep has an established platform of research focusing on investigations of well-being, happiness and flourishing in tourism, primarily drawing from the field of positive psychology. Filep is a co-author of Tourists, Tourism and the

23 Good Life (Routledge, 2011), the lead editor of Tourist Experience and Fulfilment: Insights from Positive Psychology (Routledge, 2013) and the lead editor of Positive Tourism (Routledge, 2016). Email: sebastian.filep@polyu. edu.hk.

Cross-Cultural Aspects of Well-Being Ahu Yazici Ayyildiz and Erdogan Koc

Introduction Culture plays a pervasive role in people’s perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours regarding many aspects of their lives (Hofstede et al., 2010), including the way and which they engage in tourism, hospitality, and leisure activities (Koc, 2020). Furthermore, crosscultural characteristics of people may also determine people’s perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours towards the notions and activities of well-being and quality of life. Throughout the chapter, the term tourism is used to mean tourism, hospitality, and leisure activities unless specifically pointed out. Studies show that culture may significantly influence tourists’ expectations and perceptions (Zhang et al., 2015; Koc & Yazici Ayyildiz 2021, 2022). Cross-cultural characteristics are becoming increasingly important due to the fast growth of internationalisation in tourism with the participation of more and more customers and suppliers from various countries (Mihalič & Fennell, 2015; Koc, 2020). Also, tourism activities involve relatively intense and frequent social interactions between the customers and the A. Y. Ayyildiz Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] E. Koc (✉) Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey e-mail: [email protected]

service providers, and among the service providers themselves (Cooper et al., 2021; Koc & Yazici Ayyildiz, 2021, 2022), understanding the implications of cross-cultural factors for tourism has increased significantly. People’s interest in the quality of living, health, and well-being has increased significantly over the past decades, and this interest has reflected itself in the consumption of products and services, including tourism, leisure, and hospitality (Hjalager & Flagestad, 2012). World Economic Forum’s The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report ranks countries according to their competitiveness and places a great amount of significance on well-being and quality of life in a given country, under the categories of enabling environment, enabling conditions, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources (World Economic Forum, 2019). Statistics show that the Asia Pacific region, with $136.7 billion worth of wellness tourism expenditures, represents 22% of the world’s well-being or wellness tourism expenditures which amounted to $639.4 billion in 2017 (Global Wellness Institute, 2018). Moreover, with 258 million trips, the Asia Pacific region represents 32.3% of the total number of world wellness trips out of 830 million trips (Global Wellness Institute, 2018). The demographic changes, increasing commercialisation of tourism, leisure and hospitality activities, together with major shifts in the lifestyles may be considered as among the main

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_3

25

26

motivations behind the interest in well-being, health, quality of living related tourism activities (Hjalager & Flagestad, 2012). However, as this chapter explains culture may also play a significant role in the development of both demand and supply for well-being, or wellness tourism. Studies on tourism trends show that there is a move from GIT (General Interest Tourism), for instance, sun, sand, and sea tourism) to SIT (Special Interest Tourism) for instance culinary tourism, well-being tourism, etc. (Koc & Altinay, 2007). Serving specific segments in the tourism industry requires a better understanding of the customers, processes, people, and interactions, all of which are influenced significantly by their cultural orientations. Based on the above background, this chapter explains and discusses the influence of culture on well-being, well-being tourism, and the quality of life.

A. Y. Ayyildiz and E. Koc

The Potential Influence of Culture on Tourism Koc (2020) explained that culture may influence activities dyadically, in other words, both from the demand and supply perspectives. Figure 1 explains how culture may influence tourism activities from the perspective of demand that is from the perspectives of the customers. As it can be seen in Fig. 1, culture may influence customers (tourists or guests) in a wide variety of ways, eventually determining the success or failure of a business significantly. The influence of culture on tourism customers may occur in three stages, namely pre-purchase and consumption, purchase, and consumption, and post-purchase and consumption (Table 1). As Fig. 1 and Table 1 demonstrate the practitioners in tourism need to have a deeper understanding of cross-cultural characteristics

Fig. 1 Culture’s influence on customers: a demand perspective (Source: Adapted with permission from Koc, E. (2020). Cross-cultural aspects of tourism and hospitality: A services marketing and management perspective. Routledge)

Cross-Cultural Aspects of Well-Being

27

Table 1 The influence of culture on tourism Examples of potential influences in Examples of potential influences in the pre-purchase & consumption stage the purchase & consumption stage Customers’ cultural characteristics may influence • The types of tourism, leisure, and • How they perceive the tourism, leisure, and hospitality services and hospitality activities, the destinations products that they consume. visited, the various features of • The way and which they evaluate destinations and, the physical evidence, how they are designed and their interactions with products, tangible and non-tangible elements of presented. the service, and the service providers. • The way and which they collect • How they perceive various information and the sources of systems such as payment, purchase, information they use. and service delivery processes during • Their attitudes and responses consumption. towards marketing communications • How they evaluate other messages, and the cues used in these customers. messages. • The way and which they evaluate • Their evaluations of corporate service quality, service dimensions, social responsibility activities • And the distribution channels they service encounters, and their dis/satisfaction with the service. use to reach tourism products and • How they perceive service failures, services. service businesses’ recovery efforts, • The way and which they respond and whether they complain and if they to various sales promotion methods do how. and techniques. • How they perceive and evaluate locations. • How they evaluate the service providers. • Their evaluation of various processes before consumption such as the reservation, booking, and payment.

Examples of potential influences in post-purchase & consumption stage • The way and the extent to which they remember their service experiences. • Their satisfaction and dissatisfaction regarding each element of the tourism activities, products, and processes. • How they evaluate their service experience and how they provide feedback. • How, if at all, they engage in WOM and the type of WOM they engage in • The factors that influence their repurchase intentions, and their loyalty towards the service providers.

Source: Adapted from Koc, E. (2020). Cross-cultural aspects of tourism and hospitality: A services marketing and management perspective. Routledge: Abingdon, UK

and how each characteristic may influence their various operations and activities. Of course, culture’s influence is not only limited to its influence on customers. The supply side influences of culture may comprise the various aspects of the service design and delivery, ranging from its influence on service staff, managers, processes, and systems (Fig. 2).

consumer behaviour, and marketing. The second one is from the perspective of supply, i.e. from the perspective of service providers such as managers, systems, and processes. These influences are explained and discussed below under two separate headings.

The Demand Perspective: Customers, Consumer Behaviour and Marketing The Specific Influence of Culture on Well-Being, Tourism, and Quality of Life The influences of culture on well-being, tourism, and quality of life are twofold. The first one is to do with the demand, that is the customers,

It is known that there is a close link between maintaining physical and mental health, avoiding certain illnesses, that is well-being, healthy aging, and quality of life, as well as engaging in travel, leisure, tourism, and hospitality activities (Ahn & Janke, 2011; Lu et al., 2016; Uysal et al., 2016,

28

A. Y. Ayyildiz and E. Koc

Fig. 2 Culture’s influence on the service providers: a supply perspective (Source: Adapted with permission from Koc, E. (2020). Cross-cultural aspects of tourism

and hospitality: A services marketing and management perspective. Routledge)

2020). Nawijn et al. (2010) and Nawijn and Peeters (2010) showed that holidays not only increased pre-trip happiness but also had a significant positive influence on their happiness after their return from their holidays. Similarly, McCabe et al. (2010) found that after participating in holidays people’s rating of their quality of life increased significantly. The above findings justify the growth of interest among researchers to study the link between tourism and the quality of life, well-being, and wellness tourism both from the demand and supply perspectives (Uysal et al., 2016). Primarily, the types of tourism activities, for instance, whether customers engage in well-being tourism or not, their attitudes towards well-being and quality of life, may be significantly influenced by their cultural orientations. Litvin et al. (2004) and Litvin and Kar (2003) found that tourists’ participation in tourism activities was congruent with their self-images. Tourists’ self-images may be largely shaped by their cultural characteristics (Koc, 2020). The findings from various research studies regarding the influence of culture will be presented here from the perspective of two cultural paradigms, namely by Hofstede et al. (2010), power distance, individualismcollectivism, uncertainty avoidance, indulgence-

restraint, masculinity-femininity, and timeorientation) and by Hall (1977), high- and low-context cultures. The reason for choosing Hofstede et al. (2010) and Hall’s paradigms is that 75% of the cross-cultural research studies used these two paradigms (Ferreira et al., 2014). However, it needs to be noted that the examples provided here are not comprehensive, as a chapter would not be sufficient to provide a detailed and comprehensive perspective on the influence of culture on well-being and quality of life.

Power Distance Research shows that tourists from high power distance cultures tend to be happier when the prices higher and tend to have more positive expectations (Nath et al., 2016). In a similar vein, people from high uncertainty avoidance cultures tend to be happier with the manifestation of price (and the manifestation of inequality), for instance, the presentation of information on a hotel’s pricing policy (Mattila & Choi, 2006); Sabiote-Ortiz et al.’s (2016), as they have a more pressing need for order and structure than people from low uncertainty avoidance cultures such as the people from the UK, the USA, Sweden, Denmark, and New Zealand, etc.

Cross-Cultural Aspects of Well-Being

Hence, well-being tourism activities targeted people from low-context cultures, almost 70% of the total world population (Tung, 1995; Koc, 2020), and people from collectivistic, high power distance, and high uncertainty avoidance cultures, the price, and quality relationship need to be presented in the marketing communications messages. Tourism and hospitality customers from highpower distance cultures, for instance, people from Malaysia, Russia, Mexico, China, France, Brazil, and Turkey, tend to place greater importance on the tangible elements of their holiday experiences such as the buildings, indoor and outdoor spaces, furniture, decorations, and uniforms of service personnel, etc.). This is due to the fact that the grandeur of objects is associated with the hierarchy which may express exclusivity, luxury, high status, and elitism that people from high power distance cultures may be after (Koc, 2006, 2020). Also, Nath et al. (2016) demonstrated that tourists from high power distance cultures are more likely to choose destinations, hotels, restaurants, and services where and which tangibles support their image in terms of being part of a superior social class, status, and prestige and wealth. Hence, when targeting customers from high power distance cultures, tourism, leisure, and hospitality businesses are recommended to place a special emphasis on the tangible elements of the service. The marketing communication messages and all the visuals shared on the Internet web pages and social media are recommended to express the theme of grandeur, luxury, and elitism. Whilst the expectations of the tourists from high power distance cultures tend to be higher, and they have a tendency to evaluate their service experiences more negatively (Mattila, 1999; Gao et al., 2018), and expect more personalised service (Davis et al., 2009), their propensity to make a complaint is relatively low (Yuksel et al., 2006). Hence, well-being tourism establishments serving tourists from high power distance cultures are recommended to establish systems to make complaining easier so as to be able to identify customer dissatisfactions and the fall points in the service delivery.

29

Uncertainty Avoidance For instance, tourists from collectivistic cultures (e.g. China, South Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, etc.) are more likely to prefer package holidays, as in the case of tourists from high uncertainty avoidance cultures such as the people from Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Russia, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Israel, etc., tourists from individualistic cultures such as the people from the USA, Australia, and most western European countries such as the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, etc.) may prefer individual holidays and more personalized tourism products and services (Stauss & Mang, 1999; Mueller et al., 2003). Similarly, Koc’s (2013a) study supported the above and showed that people from high uncertainty avoidance cultures are more likely to engage in all-inclusive package holidays. However, this research also showed that people on all-inclusive package holidays with all-you-caneat-buffet systems had important implications for obesity. Hence, package holidays with all-youcan-eat-buffet systems may pose a threat to well-being, and quality of life. Regarding the communication needs and information search behaviours of tourists, Lee et al. (2012) found that Japanese medical and health tourists (high uncertainty avoidance culture) placed greater importance on travel agencies as a source of information, as they were more likely to depend on personal sources of information such as the travel agencies, tour operators, friends, and relatives (Money & Crotts, 2003; Litvin et al., 2004).

Masculinity and Femininity Again, as another proof of the fact that cultural characteristics influence the types of tourists, leisure, and hospitality activities the masculinity and femininity paradigm may be looked at. For instance, tourists from masculine cultures (e.g. Ireland, Germany, Italy, USA, and

30

South Africa) are more likely to prefer more dynamic and active types of touristic activities as opposed to tourists from feminine cultures (e.g. South Korea and Spain) (Pizam & Fleischer, 2005). According to Pizam and Fleischer (2005), young adults from feminine cultures tend to prefer low energy and static holiday products and services. People from feminine cultures tend to engage in activities such as visiting friends and relatives, shopping, attending cultural and arts festivals and going to the opera, ballet, and theatre, in other words, the activities that are softer, gentler, and, mainly people and culture-oriented. As tourists from individualistic cultures have a more tendency to seek after novelty as opposed to tourists from collectivistic cultures (Kim & Lee, 2000) the practitioners in well-being tourism and hospitality businesses need to pay attention to making novel offerings to their customers.

Indulgence and Restraint According to Hofstede et al. (2010) in there is a higher percentage of people who feel happy and healthy indulgence cultures (e.g. Mexico, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, United Kingdom, United States, Argentina, Brazil, Belgium, and Luxembourg, etc.) compared with people in restraint cultures (e.g. Egypt, Bulgaria, Estonia, Iraq, Ukraine, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, and India, etc). This means that people from indulgence cultures would be more concerned with the quality of life and well-being. Also, people from indulgence cultures place greater importance on leisure and pleasure activities (Hofstede et al., 2010). Koc (2020) argued that people from indulgence cultures would get more involved in their tourism activities, collect and process more information about their tourism, leisure, and hospitality activities, and develop more specific expectations. Hence, when designing and delivering tourism, leisure, and hospitality products and services to tourists from indulgence cultures, practitioners need to place greater importance on the expectations of the customers before designing and delivering their services.

A. Y. Ayyildiz and E. Koc

It needs to be kept in mind that the relationship between tourism activities, and the quality of living perceptions of people depend on the satisfaction they get from their holidays. In this vein, service failures may cause a significant amount of dissatisfaction for tourists (Koc, 2013b), and influence tourists’ overall level of happiness.

Time Orientation Parker (2003) and Cheong et al. (2010) argue that customers from long-term-oriented cultures (e.g. China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea) are more health and nutrition-conscious. Hsu and Huang (2016) also found that health and nutrition were more relevant for Chinese customers (long-term oriented) than American customers (short-term oriented). Hence, well-being tourism activities may be specially targeted at tourists from long-term-oriented cultures with messages emphasizing the themes of health and nutrition. Also, tourists from future-oriented cultures are more likely to be aware that travel and tourism activities promote healthy aging, help older people avoid certain illnesses, and maintain their physical and mental health (Ahn & Janke, 2011; Lu et al., 2016), people from future-oriented cultures may also be targeted for well-being tourism products and services. In general, people from future-oriented cultures (e.g. Singapore, Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, Canada, etc.) tend to be better than others at foreseeing and expressing future goals and directing action in the achievement of future objectives (Lu et al., 2016). Also, people from future-oriented cultures tend to be better at making decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis of the expected outcomes of future events. Furthermore, these people tend to be highly keen on knowledge seeking (Bergadaa, 1990), and are more likely to be interested in and prefer personal development activities (Cotte & Ratneshwar, 2001). Especially senior tourists with future orientation prefer holidays for personal development, recreation, well-being, and advancement (Li & Cai, 2012; Lu et al., 2016). Hence, people from future-oriented cultures may be more likely

Cross-Cultural Aspects of Well-Being

to engage in well-being tourism activities, products, and services.

High- and Low-Context Cultures Connell (2013) showed that as opposed to general interest tourism, health and well-being conscious tourists took cultural differences more into account when they engaged in health and medical tourism activities. Health and medical tourism activities are directly related to the quality of life and well-being (Uysal et al., 2016). A further study on medical and health tourists by Ngamvichaikit and Beise-Zee (2014) showed that as opposed to people from high-context cultures (people from most Asian countries, Latin and Mediterranean countries) people from low-context cultures (Western European countries, the USA, and Canada, etc.) preferred direct and explicit information when making their purchase decisions. Also, people from high-context cultures, as well as people from collectivistic cultures, are more likely to consider price-quality relationships than people from low-context and individualistic cultures (Jeong et al., 2019). Similarly, tourists from high-power distance cultures have a tendency to use price to evaluate the quality and tend to believe that high prices reflect a high level of quality (Nath et al., 2016), though they are sensitive about their image in the society they may refrain from bargain hunting behaviour (Bathaee, 2011; Lalwani & Forcum, 2016).

Management, Organisational Behaviour, and Human Resource Management Perspective Similar to the above categorisation of culture’s influence from the demand perspective this section provides an overview of research on the influence of culture on the supply side, in other words, from the perspective of management, organisational behaviour, and human resource management.

31

Uncertainty Avoidance Koc (2020) explained that in high uncertainty avoidance cultures employee turnover rates tend to be relatively low. However, this may not necessarily be attributed to the fact that employees are content and satisfied at work. Rather, the staff may continue to stay in their jobs due to a high level of risk aversion in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, even though they may not be content with their jobs. Nedeljković et al.’s (2012) study in the hospitality industry in Serbia supports this view. Their study showed that the employees continued to keep their jobs and adhere to company rules, even though they were highly dissatisfied with their jobs.

Masculinity and Femininity Hofstede et al. (2010) also argued that feminine societies (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Chile, Portugal, Thailand, South Korea, and Spain, etc.) tend to place greater importance on cooperation, equality, consensus, modesty, caring for the weak and the well-being of others, and the quality of life as opposed to the masculine cultures (e.g. Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland, Greece, Mexico, and Italy, etc.). In line with the above, Kang et al.’s (2016) study showed that masculinity had a negative significant influence on tourism and hospitality managers’ positive attitudes towards corporate social responsibility. People in highly masculine cultures are likely to concentrate on material gains and economic success, and ignore socially responsible activities (i.e. positive CSR), a hindrance to the quality of life. As failing to pay attention to corporate social responsibility may have implications for quality of life and wellbeing, masculine cultures may have problems relating to tourism competitiveness, as mentioned above when referring to the World Economic Forum’s Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Index, as well as problems relating to the design and delivery of well-being and wellness tourism activities in masculine cultures.

32

On the other hand, in feminine countries, not only do managers tend to be more interested in corporate social responsibility but also, people in general, are more likely to value relationships, the welfare of others, a friendly atmosphere, employment security, the support of females and their equal treatment of them together work and social life balance (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2006). The work and family or social life balance may be considered a sign of quality of life and wellbeing (Nawijn & Damen, 2014).

Indulgence and Restraint The potential implications of the indulgence and restraint paradigm on the quality of living, wellbeing, and wellness tourism were explained above from the customer and marketing perspective. However, the indulgence paradigm may have important implications for the service providers, that is from the management, human resource management, and organisational behaviour perspectives. Koc (2020) put forward that as service staff from restraint cultures may have difficulty in understanding and internalising fun, leisure, and pleasure, they may require additional support and control to ensure the delivery of high quality service. Furthermore, service providers from indulgence cultures may be expected to provide better service as they place greater importance on fun, leisure, and hedonistic activities, and internalise tourism activities (Koc, 2020).

Individualism and Collectivism Magnini et al. (2013) found that hospitality employees in collectivistic cultures are more likely to be uncomfortable with empowerment. This means that service staff interacting with the customers may lack empowerment and be unable to solve problems. This, in turn, may result in service quality problems. Likewise, empowerment problems may be encountered in highpower distance cultures too. Koc (2013b) found that hospitality employees in high power distance

A. Y. Ayyildiz and E. Koc

cultures such as Turkey, staff tended to communicate service problems and crises to their superiors in a rather indirect manner using mitigated speech compared with the hospitality employees in low power distance cultures such as in the UK. This meant that in high power distance cultures the recovery of service failures and crises took unnecessarily longer, causing customer dissatisfaction, and service quality problems, and resulting in reduced revisit intentions and customer loyalty. Hence, a lack of empowerment among service providers coupled with a lack of direct communication between subordinates and managers, in high power-distance cultures may unnecessarily prolong the recovery of service failures, and result in service quality and customer dissatisfaction problems. Service failures and service quality problems could cause customer dissatisfaction and customers’ ratings of quality of life, and the evaluations of well-being holidays tourists take. Service providers in collectivistic and high-power distance cultures are recommended to establish empowerment and direct communication systems and procedures with their subordinates. Based on the above explanations it becomes obvious that the service providers need to be trained in how to interact with tourists who have different cultural orientations. For instance, tourists from low power distance cultures such as the people from the US and most of the northern European countries are more likely to ignore formalities when they communicate with the service employees as they tend to see themselves as equal to them (Lee, 2015). However, tourists from high-power distance cultures such as the people. from Japan, South Korea, China, Russia, and Mexico tend to view themselves as superior compared to the service employees and perceive service employees’ attempts to initiate communication negatively (Lee, 2015). Koc (2020) proposed that customer participation involving interactions with the service employees may be perceived negatively by tourists from high power distance cultures, and tourists from high-power distance cultures may be more positive towards services delivered by service robots. Hence, the design and delivery of well-being tourism

Cross-Cultural Aspects of Well-Being

products and services may require considering the above issues pointed out by research. The provision of high quality services to tourists, making sure that they are satisfied with their holidays requires an efficient and effective implementation of the human resource management activities in the tourism, leisure, and hospitality establishments. Human resource management activities especially play an important role in the design and delivery of well-being tourism products and services due to the need for attention to detail, special care, and sophistication. One of the key factors in the establishment of the efficiency and effectiveness of human resources in services is the ensuring of staff continuity (DiPietro & Condly, 2007; Madera et al., 2017).

Recommendations for Future Research In line with the growth of well-being tourism and the increasing association of quality of life with tourism, hospitality and leisure are on the rise. As stated above, tourism activities, including wellbeing tourism, are becoming increasingly international. Hence, there is a need for continuous research to understand tourists from different cultures and design and present products and services that meet the needs of these customers. As seen above, research examples are limited to certain cultural variables. For instance, various studies may be designed and implemented from the perspective of the influence of individualismcollectivism on customers. For instance, there may be differences in terms of the expectations of tourists from individualistic and collectivistic cultures. The indulgence paradigm has been recently developed by Hofstede et al. (2010), and there is limited research using this paradigm, including studies in the area of well-being tourism. However, as briefly explained above, indulgence and restraint may be significantly relevant for well-being and quality of life and hence future research may investigate the various aspects of indulgence and restraint from the perspective of well-being tourism and quality of life.

33

Also, as pointed out by Koc and Yazici Ayyildiz (2021) almost all of the scales or inventories regarding cultural competence and cultural characteristics are self-report based. Future research may concentrate on developing ability or skill-based cross-cultural scales which may be used to better understand the well-being of tourists and the service providers.

Conclusions This chapter explained and discussed how crosscultural orientations of tourists and service providers may influence their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours towards various aspects of quality of life, well-being, and well-being tourism. From a demand perspective, the chapter identified that people from long-term and future-oriented cultures were more likely to take part in wellbeing or wellness tourism activities. Moreover, it was explained how various cultural characteristics of tourists influenced the way and which well-being tourism products may be designed and delivered. For instance, although tourists from the Asia Pacific region represent a significant proportion of wellness tourism, due to their relatively high uncertainty avoidance and collectivistic characteristics they may prefer to engage in all-inclusive package holidays. However, some of the all-inclusive package holidays with all-you-can-eat-buffet systems may cause obesity. Hence, all-inclusive package holidays targeted at tourists with these cultural characteristics need to be designed and delivered by considering the well-being, wellness, and quality of life-related motivations of these customers. The chapter also provided examples to explain the influence of cultural characteristics from a supply-side perspective, i.e. in terms of the service staff, managers, systems, and processes. It was shown that while certain characteristics hindered the effective and efficient delivery of wellbeing tourism products and services, some others had a positive influence on the effective and efficient delivery of well-being tourism products and services. For instance, as collectivism and high

34

power distance made it difficult to establish employee empowerment, customer dissatisfactions and service quality problems are more likely to occur in well-being tourism and hospitality products and services delivered by service providers from these cultures. As a final word of conclusion, the chapter emphasises the importance of understanding cultural aspects of service provision in tourism and hospitality. Cross-cultural training of service providers and managers may increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of tourism and hospitality services delivered to international customers by staff with different international and cultural backgrounds.

References Ahn, Y. J., & Janke, M. C. (2011). Motivations and benefits of the travel experiences of older adults. Educational Gerontology, 37(8), 653–673. Bathaee, A. (2011). Culture affects consumer behavior: Theoretical reflections and an illustrative example with Germany and Iran (No. 02/2011). Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere. Bergadaa, M. (1990). The role of time in the action of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 289–302. Cheong, Y., Kim, K., & Zheng, L. (2010). Advertising appeals as a reflection of culture: A cross-cultural analysis of food advertising appeals in China and the US. Asian Journal of Communication, 20(1), 1–16. Connell, J. (2013). Contemporary medical tourism: Conceptualisation, culture, and commodification. Tourism Management, 34, 1–13. Cooper, M. A., Camprubí, R., Koc, E., & Buckley, R. (2021). Digital destination matching: Practices, priorities, and predictions. Sustainability, 13(19), 10540.3. Cotte, J., & Ratneshwar, S. (2001). Timestyle and leisure decisions. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(4), 396–409. Davis, P., Lu, V., & Crouch, R. (2009). Importance of service quality across different services types: An exploratory study of Australian and Chinese consumers. Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Annual Conference: Sustainable management and marketing conference (pp. 1–9). DiPietro, R. B., & Condly, S. J. (2007). Employee turnover in the hospitality industry: An analysis based on the CANE model of motivation. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 6(1), 1–22.

A. Y. Ayyildiz and E. Koc Ferreira, M. P., Li, D., Reis, N. R., & Serra, F. R. (2014). Culture in international business research. Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 12, 68–91. Gao, B., Li, X., Liu, S., & Fang, D. (2018). How power distance affects online hotel ratings: The positive moderating roles of hotel chain and reviewers’ travel experience. Tourism Management, 65, 176–186. Global Wellness Institute. (2018). Global Wellness Tourism Economy: Asia-Pacific. Retrieved December 15, 2021, from https://globalwellnessinstitute.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/AsiaPacific_ TourismEconomyMonitor2018revfinal.pdf Hall, E. T. (1977). Beyond culture. Anchor Press. Hjalager, A. M., & Flagestad, A. (2012). Innovations in well-being tourism in the Nordic countries. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(8), 725–740. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, revised and expanded (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Hsu, C. H., & Huang, S. S. (2016). Reconfiguring Chinese cultural values and their tourism implications. Tourism Management, 54, 230–242. Jeong, J. Y., Crompton, J. L., & Hyun, S. S. (2019). What makes you select a higher price option? Price–quality heuristics, cultures, and travel group compositions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 21(1), 1–10. Kang, K. H., Lee, S., & Yoo, C. (2016). The effect of national culture on corporate social responsibility in the hospitality and tourism industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(8), 1728–1758. Kim, C., & Lee, S. (2000). Understanding the cultural differences in tourist motivation between Anglo American and Japanese tourists. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 9(1/2), 153–170. Koc, E. (2006). Total quality management and business excellence in services: The implications of all-inclusive pricing system on internal and external customer satisfaction in the Turkish tourism market. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17(7), 857–877. Koc, E. (2013a). Inversionary and liminoidal consumption: Gluttony on holidays and obesity. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(8), 825–838. Koc, E. (2013b). Power distance and its implications for upward communication and empowerment: Crisis management and recovery in hospitality services. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(19), 3681–3696. Koc, E. (2020). Cross-cultural aspects of tourism and hospitality: A services marketing and management perspective. Routledge. Koc, E., & Altinay, G. (2007). An analysis of seasonality in monthly per person tourist spending in Turkish inbound tourism from a market segmentation perspective. Tourism Management, 28(1), 227–237.

Cross-Cultural Aspects of Well-Being Koc, E., & Yazici Ayyildiz, A. (2021). An overview of tourism and hospitality scales: Discussion and recommendations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights. Article in Press. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JHTI-06-2021-0147 Koc, E., & Yazici Ayyildiz, A. (2022). Culture’s influence on the design and delivery of the marketing mix elements in tourism and hospitality. Sustainability, 13(21), 11630. Lalwani, A. K., & Forcum, L. (2016). Does a dollar get you a dollar’s worth of merchandise? The impact of power distance belief on price-quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 317–333. Lee, H. E. (2015). Does a server’s attentiveness matter? Understanding intercultural service encounters in restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50, 134–144. Lee, M., Han, H., & Lockyer, T. (2012). Medical tourism—Attracting japanese tourists for medical tourism experience. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(1), 69–86. Li, M., & Cai, L. A. (2012). The effects of personal values on travel motivation and behavioral intention. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), 473–487. Litvin, S. W., Crotts, J. C., & Hefner, F. L. (2004). Crosscultural tourist behaviour: A replication and extension involving Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(1), 29–37. Litvin, S. W., & Kar, G. H. (2003). Individualism/collectivism as a moderating factor to the self-image congruity concept. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(1), 23–42. Lu, J., Hung, K., Wang, L., Schuett, M. A., & Hu, L. (2016). Do perceptions of time affect outboundtravel motivations and intention? An investigation among Chinese seniors. Tourism Management, 53, 1–12. Madera, J. M., Dawson, M., Guchait, P., & Belarmino, A. M. (2017). Strategic human resources management research in hospitality and tourism: A review of current literature and suggestions for the future. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(1), 48–67. Magnini, V. P., Hyun, S. S., Kim, B. P., & Uysal, M. (2013). The influences of collectivism in hospitality work settings. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management., 25(6), 844–864. Mattila, A. (1999). Culture in evaluating services. Journal of Service Research, 1(3), 250–261. Mattila, A. S., & Choi, S. (2006). A cross-cultural comparison of perceived fairness and satisfaction in the context of hotel room pricing. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(1), 146–153. McCabe, S., Joldersma, T., & Li, C. (2010). Understanding the benefits of social tourism: Linking participation to subjective well-being and quality of life. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(6), 761–773.

35 Mihalič, T., & Fennell, D. (2015). In pursuit of a more just international tourism: The concept of trading tourism rights. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(2), 188–206. Money, B., & Crotts, J. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information search, planning and purchases of international travel vacations. Tourism Management, 24(2), 191–202. Mueller, R. D., Palmer, A., Mack, R., & McMullan, R. (2003). Service in the restaurant industry: An American and Irish comparison of service failures and recovery strategies. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22, 395–418. Nath, P., Devlin, J., & Reid, V. (2016). Expectation formation in case of newer hotels: The role of advertising, price, and culture. Journal of Travel Research, 55(2), 261–275. Nawijn, J., & Damen, Y. (2014). Work during vacation: Not so bad after all. Tourism Analysis, 19(6), 759–767. Nawijn, J., Marchand, M., Veenhoven, R., & Vingerhoets, A. (2010). Vacationers happier, but most not happier after a holiday. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 5(1), 35–47. Nawijn, J., & Peeters, P. M. (2010). Travelling ‘green’: Is tourists’ happiness at stake? Current Issues in Tourism, 13(4), 381–392. Nedeljković, M., Hadžić, O., & Čerović, S. (2012). Organizational changes and job satisfaction in the hospitality industry in Serbia. UTMS Journal of Economics, 3(2), 105–117. Ngamvichaikit, A., & Beise-Zee, R. (2014). Communication needs of medical tourists: An exploratory study in Thailand. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 8(1), 98–117. Parker, B. J. (2003). Food for health: The use of nutrient content, health, and structure/function claims in food advertisement. Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 4755. Pizam, A., & Fleischer, A. (2005). The relationship between cultural characteristics and preference for active vs. passive tourist activities. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 12(4), 5–25. Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2006). Cultural consequences on traveler risk perception and safety. Tourism Analysis, 11(4), 265–284. Sabiote-Ortiz, C. M., Frías-Jamilena, D. M., & CastañedaGarcía, J. A. (2016). Overall perceived value of a tourism service delivered via different media: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 34–51. Stauss, B., & Mang, P. (1999). Culture shocks in intercultural service encounters. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(4/5), 329–346. Tung, R. (1995). International organizational behaviour (pp. 487–518). Luthans Virtual OB McGraw-Hill. Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., & Kim, H. (2020). Well-being research in the service industries. The Service Industries Journal, 40(1–2), 1–5.

36 Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., Woo, E., & Kim, H. L. (2016). Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tourism Management, 53, 244–261. World Economic Forum. (2019). The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report. World Economic Forum. Retrieved December 15, 2021, from https://www. weforum.org/reports/the-travel-tourism-competitive ness-report-2019 Yuksel, A., Kilinc, U. K., & Yuksel, F. (2006). Crossnational analysis of hotel customers’ attitudes toward complaining and their complaining behaviors. Tourism Management, 27(1), 11–24. Zhang, Z., Li, H., & Law, R. (2015). Differences and similarities in perceptions of hotel experience: The role of national cultures. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(sup1), S2–S14.

A. Y. Ayyildiz and E. Koc Ahu Yazici Ayyildiz is associate professor of marketing at Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Tourism, Turkey. She specializes in services marketing, digital marketing in tourism and hospitality. Erdogan Koc is professor of services marketing at Bahcesehir University, Faculty of Economics Administrative, and Social Sciences, Turkey. He specializes particularly in the behavioural aspects of services marketing and his publications focus primarily focuses on the human element (both as consumer and employee) in tourism and hospitality. Apart from his academic, teaching and research, activities he provides consultancy and training services for the service sector businesses.

Place, Culture, and Quality of Life Greg Richards

Introduction The attractiveness of places, both for permanent and temporary residents, depends heavily on the Quality of Life (QoL). Recent research on the relationship between creativity and place emphasises the role of soft factors of location (including the atmosphere and buzz emanating from cultural and creative activity), as major elements of place attractiveness. The qualities of place provide a major inspiration for cultural and creative activities, which in turn generate tourism and support the creative economy. Many cities and regions have therefore embarked on creative development strategies, designed to support the creative industries, to attract the creative class or to create entire ‘creative cities’. The OECD (2014) has noted the increasing synergies between these areas of creative development and the creative economy. Creative production and consumption make places more attractive for tourism, and increased tourism in turn supports creative enterprises and cultural production. Recent years have also seen an increasing awareness of the close relationships between culture, creative and place, and particularly the role that creativity can play in processes of G. Richards (✉) Breda University of Applied Sciences and Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

placemaking. Tourists have come to be seen not just as consumers of the places they visit, but also as place actors who can initiate change in cities and regions. Efforts to develop cultural and creative tourism have therefore transitioned from ‘attracting the right kind of tourists’, or ‘quality tourism’, towards finding tourists willing to interact with the destination and its people in order to increase QoL. In the aftermath of mass cultural tourism growth and the Covid-19 pandemic, many DMOs are changing their remit from being marketing organisations to being placemaking actors. They are focussing not just on tourists from far away, but also on their own permanent and temporary residents, who can all arguably make a contribution to improving QoL. This paper considers the strengthening relationships between culture, creativity, tourism and QoL, with a particular emphasis on the emergence of placemaking and an alternative development approach to place marketing.

The Changing Relationship Between Culture and Tourism Cultural tourism was one of the major growth areas of global tourism in the twenty-first century. Now, like other areas of tourism, it has been decimated by Covid-19 (Flew & Kirkwood, 2021). In a sense, this inflection arrived at a critical moment in the development of cultural

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_4

37

38

tourism: just as it was beginning to implode through the weight of its own success. Up to 2020, cultural tourism grew steadily in destinations around the world, drawing tourists to the highlights of tangible culture, and particularly the centres of historic cities with their concentrations of museums and monuments (Richards, 2022a). Estimated to account for almost 40% of international tourism arrivals globally (UNWTO, 2018), cultural tourism was actively promoted by countries, regions and cities as a ‘good’ form of tourism that brought cultured people to spend large amounts of money in cultured places (Richards, 2021). Over the years, however, the style of cultural tourism changed from an activity engaged in by the cultured few to a mass market segment that threatened the QoL in the destinations frequented by large numbers of cultural tourists. Cultural tourism grew to such an extent that there were increasing complaints about culture-driven ‘overtourism’, particularly in the heritage-rich centres of European cities, such as Barcelona and Venice. Budget airlines and the growth of sharing economy accommodation not only brought more tourists, but also significant changes in their behaviour and impacts. More tourists seeking culture meant more queues at museums, the commodification of culture as heritage, and the displacement of traditional functions from the city centre. Local resistance to tourism was marked until recently in street protests, negative media coverage and increased regulation designed to reduce the worst excesses of mass tourism flows. However, the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic marked a sharp change in the level of tourism in most places as lockdowns and restrictions prevented or limited travel. At first, there was a sigh of relief from many residents in the centre of cities suddenly relieved of tourist pressure. Before long, however, the continuing ‘undertourism’ caused by the pandemic also changed the tone of many livings in former tourist hotspots from ‘tourists go home’ to ‘tourists come back’. The reason that many people still want cultural tourists is that they have long been viewed as a beneficial influence on cities,

G. Richards

bringing money, respecting local culture and adding to the allure of the city. Even in cities such as Barcelona, where resistance to tourism growth had been growing, many citizens saw tourism, and in particular cultural tourism, as generally beneficial for the city, even if the behaviour of a few tended to decrease the QoL for many. The shift in views of cultural tourism was linked to changes in the nature of both tourism and culture. The tourism industry has changed from a Fordist production system designed to exploit the natural resources of beach resorts and ski slopes, into a Postfordist producer of customised experiences. The growth of budget airlines and collaborative economy accommodation providers such as Airbnb facilitated the growth of tourism in cities around the world, and shifted attention from the highlights of global culture towards the culture of locality (Russo & Richards, 2016). The cultural objects of tourism have also been influenced by the shift in culture from what Sacco et al. (2018) described as ‘Culture 1.0’ to ‘Culture 3.0’. Culture 1.0 was characterised by a system of patronage, in which wealthy industrialists funded culture through the surpluses derived from manufacturing. As the economy became post-industrial in the twentieth century, however, the role of the Maecenas declined, and culture instead became a means of ameliorating industrial decline and economic restructuring. Under Culture 2.0, the cultural sector developed as a powerful economic engine, driving the redevelopment of cities and forging new roles for cities as cultural and creative hubs. The power of the cultural industries was in turn challenged in the twenty-first century by the rise of the Internet and digital culture, which enabled the cultural consumer to become a producer and maker of culture. The development of cultural tourism has paralleled these shifts in culture, with the traditional Grand Tour of the nineteenth century giving way to mass cultural tourism in the twentieth century, and ‘creative tourism’ in the twenty-first century (Richards, 2021). It may even be argued that we have progressed beyond Culture 3.0, to enter the hybrid world of Culture 4.0, in which the

Place, Culture, and Quality of Life

integration of digital technologies begins to erase the boundaries between the physical and digital worlds, and between tourism and heritage and culture (De Andrade, 2018). Against this shifting background, the roles of culture, heritage and tourism in cities have changed profoundly. Among the changes in these relationships, we can note: • A shift in the raw materials used by tourism from tangible to intangible sources • A rise in the symbolic value of cities • Creativity as an emerging attraction for tourists • Everyday life and the local becoming arbiters of authenticity • Increasingly vague boundaries between physical and digital realities In this context, the model of cultural tourism development popular under Culture 3.0 is beginning to be re-assessed, as is the relationship between tourism and QoL.

The Creative Use of Culture and Heritage In traditional models of cultural tourism, the main driver for consumption was provided by tangible cultural resources, particularly museums and monuments related to high culture. The marketing of cultural tourism also tended to be limited to highlighting these cultural assets, a process strengthened by UNESCO designations of World Heritage Sites, which have been shown to have a positive effect on tourism flows in some destinations (Canale et al., 2019). Postmodern styles of tourism and new views of authenticity have tended to complicate this relatively simple model of attraction (Bueno de Andrade-Matos et al., 2022). Growing attention for intangible heritage and culture among both tourists and residents has produced a much wider range of cultural and creative objects for tourist attention. Heritage is no longer something to be kept in the museum but is a part of the life and soul of the city itself. Not only do tangible monuments need to be conserved, but also the

39

everyday life that springs from and gives meaning to tangible heritage. Heritage, seen as the tangible and intangible legacy of the past given meaning by contemporary practice, is not a static stock of capital, but a creative resource. This is particularly important to understand in the context of the pandemic—at a time when the previous model of economic exploitation through the physical presence of tourists is under threat. Increasingly, culture and heritage are produced not just for tourists, but also by and with tourists. The development of perspectives on ‘heritage from below’ (Robertson, 2016) as well as the broadening view of what constitutes culture and heritage, means that rather than preserving high culture for connoisseurs, we are now thinking about communities of interest producing culture and heritage together. Our view of ‘the tourist’ is also broadening from the short-term leisure visitor into a wider range of roles, including the ex-pat and the temporary citizen (Russo & Richards, 2016; Richards & Marques, 2018). The pandemic also threw the spotlight on the growth of digital nomads as a growing travel niche (Orel, 2019). The digital nomad takes their work with them and can stay for a relatively long time in the destination, stimulating the local tourism industry while enjoying the local QoL. Digital nomads can to some extent be seen as a highly mobile segment of the creative class, and they are a prime target for many destinations keen to replace lost travel business (Richards, 2015b). The pandemic may have temporarily removed the mass cultural tourist from the scene, but the streets, museums and Airbnb apartments are rapidly filling up again. Avoiding the most negative scenarios for post-pandemic tourism will require some creative thinking about how we deal with culture and heritage in cities. If we continue to view culture in narrow terms as tangible heritage related to a limited range of historical periods or artistic movements, then we will continue to concentrate cultural tourism in a limited number of crowded spaces in cities. If we can re-focus our view of culture towards a broader and more inclusive approach, then we also have more possibilities to develop new streams of interest

40

which go beyond the beaten tracks to famous monuments. Arguably the basis for such an approach lies in a creative conception of cultural resources: seeing these as part of a broader placemaking system in cities, rather than as consumption objects for either residents or tourists. The concept of placemaking implies a dynamic relationship between the different elements of place as a basis for making places better for all. Some Destination Marketing Organisations (DMOs) are already beginning to shift their activities in this direction, hoping to develop new models of tourism and to deflect criticism of their role in creating tourism capacity problems. For example, Amsterdam Marketing, which before the pandemic had been very successful in developing cultural tourism in Amsterdam, has taken on a new role as ‘amsterdam&partners’. This change is designed to reflect the shift from being a

G. Richards

marketing organisation to a broader placemaking remit: We are no longer talking about ‘city marketing’. It’s now more about improving the city’s reputation and influencing people’s behaviour by guiding different target groups to places that are less wellknown. And about applying a comprehensive strategy to manage the environment around us. We’re thinking about maintaining the right balance between liveability and prosperity; about sustainability and social responsibility; about maximising advantages and minimising disadvantages. About an integrated approach that centres on residents while also offering a warm welcome to visitors. Our focus is on better rather than more, quality not quantity. (amsterdam&partners, 2022)

As Richards (2021) discusses, placemaking processes involve a relationship between place resources, meanings and creativities (Fig. 1). The resources of a place include not just cultural resources (including both tangible and intangible

Fig. 1 Elements of creative placemaking (Source: Richards, 2020a)

Place, Culture, and Quality of Life

culture), but also the people, the networks and the knowledge that can be mobilised in and around a place. In order to mobilise and valorise these resources, however, they must be given meaning, otherwise they will not be valued or used. Meaning making can be achieved when connections are made between particular loci, events and people (Harrison & Tatar, 2008). These connections in turn require the application of creativity, which is not the preserve of specific talented individuals, but rather a social process of co-creation. The relationships between resources, meaning and creativity are constantly being re-negotiated in cities, as some resources are reassessed and revalued as social and cultural values change and different needs are prioritised. Parts of the city that were previously ‘no-go’ areas can be upgraded and assimilated into the cultural consumption system as our appreciation of different facets of culture and creativity changes. In many cities, for example, there has been a reassessment of former industrial areas, where a new appreciation of the ‘grittiness’ and ‘edge’ of working cultures has provided the basis for new cultural clusters (Strom, 2020). The previously blank walls of many of these districts is now covered with graffiti, or ‘street art’, to use its newly respectable name. In cities such as Lisbon, street art is now being actively developed as a resource, providing opportunities for local and international artists, creative businesses and tourism companies. As Campos (2021, p. 145) notes, “The relevance of urban art in terms of international marketing for both city and country is, furthermore, acknowledged by the entities promoting national tourism, since they place emphasis on the quality of national artists and their works.” The official sanction given to street art by its incorporation into public cultural and tourism programmes raises its profile and value, and careful management of street art resources helps to spread tourism around the city and provide new opportunities for peripheral areas. Similar creative programmes can be developed with a wide range of intangible and creative resources in cities. For example, BarreraFernández and Hernández-Escampa (2017) analysed the development of cultural and creative

41

tourism in Oaxaca, México, and they found that the recent growth of creative tourism businesses has been taking place in new areas away from the traditional centres of cultural tourism. Creative tourism development tends to be more closely integrated with the local community, and supports mixed modes of business development that are less likely to exclude local residents. Creative tourism is in any case much more geared towards the development of relationships than cultural tourism, which tends to be focussed on physical objects rather than people.

Creative Tourism as Placemaking Richards (2020a) argues that creative tourism is increasingly being employed as a placemaking tool. Creative tourism in its widest sense, as a combination of the creative economy and tourism, can be used to shape places through design, architectural interventions or gamification of spaces. In the Netherlands, for example, artists have been asked to design new spaces that give creative appeal for locals and tourists. In Amsterdam Gkoumas and D’Orazio (2020) describe the installation of the ‘room-car’ outside the Lloyd hotel. By perching an Opel Kadett car on four metallic columns over 4 meters above the ground, a unique experience was created for those staying in the car-room, as well as other hotel guests and passers-by: Full Llove Inn provided an extraordinary allure for visitors and residents. It created a sense of intrapersonal and inter-personal existential authenticity for local and non-local guests, respectively, while introducing a pop-up hotel as a new form of tactical initiative (p. 711).

A more large-scale creative intervention in the urban fabric of Rotterdam was the Staircase to Heaven, which was constructed on the outside of a nine-story building in Rotterdam in 2016. This temporary attraction was climbed by 368,611 people in five weeks. Getting to the top of the 180 steps gave the visitors a view over the city, including the Rotterdam Central Station next door. The wide staircase could accommodate a significant flow of visitors, which turned the

42

G. Richards

climb into a social experience, shared with others who were also experiencing the city from on high for the first time. The project created a new view of Rotterdam for residents and tourists alike and cast attention on the rooftops of the city. Using roofs in this way provides a lot of creative possibilities, as the Portuguese city of Faro discovered in 2019 when they organised Açoteia, a Rooftop Festival run together with a network of eight other European cities (Richards, 2022b). These new event spaces provided opportunities for new events as well as giving people a new experience of their city. With the outbreak of Covid-19 these rooftop events suddenly took on new meanings as relatively safe open-air spaces to organise events with controlled access. This underlines the ability of creative tourism solutions to improve the quality of space and place in tourist destinations. Another proposal for relieving city centres crowded with tourists was made by Frey and Briviba (2020), who suggested that popular cultural attractions under threat from heavy visitation could be replaced by: ‘Revived Originals’, which is a new conceptual approach designed to identically replicate heavily visited historical sites in a suitable other location. With the support of the most advanced digital technology, such as holograms, ‘Revived Originals’ provide a more intense historical experience than provided by the ‘historical’ sites.

It remains to be seen if the current generations of cultural tourists will be tempted by cultural deep fakes. However, as more of the cultural audience becomes composed of ‘digital natives’ for whom the distinction between physical and virtual reality is in any case less clear, perhaps this will become a creative solution for mass cultural tourism. These examples show that even relatively mundane objects in the city, such as blank walls, an old car or a tall building, can be turned into interesting parts of the cityscape with a little creativity. Creative development can provide alternatives to traditional cultural tourism formulas and help to decrease the pressure of mass cultural tourism while developing more

sustainable relationships residents and cities.

between

tourists,

Tourism and QoL: Evidence from European Research The QoL in cities has become a major concern for policymakers in Europe, where almost 75% of the population inhabit urban areas. Data from the Eurobarometer surveys show that QoL is strongly related to the presence of cultural facilities and cultural heritage. For example, in the Eurobarometer survey on Cultural Heritage in 2017 (European Commission, 2017), more than 70% of the European population agree that living close to places related to Europe’s cultural heritage can improve people’s quality of life. Levels of agreement with this statement were highest in Poland and Croatia (over 80%) and lowest in France and the Netherlands (under 60%). Levels of agreement were also highest among those with higher education levels and higher incomes. In the 2015 Eurobarometer survey (European Commission, 2016) more than 40,000 people were interviewed in 79 cities and in 4 metropolitan areas on issues related to QoL. The research found that in most cities, levels of life satisfaction are high, with at least 80% of respondents saying they are satisfied with life in their city. Life satisfaction is higher in northern and western Europe, with lower levels in the south and east. For example, Oslo (Norway) and Zurich (Switzerland) topped the rankings with 99% satisfaction, and Istanbul (Turkey), Palermo (Italy) and Athens (Greece) scored lowest. Satisfaction with cultural facilities such as concert halls, theatres, museums and libraries follows a similar pattern, with respondents in Vienna (Austria), followed by Zurich (Switzerland) and Helsinki (Finland) most likely to be satisfied. The cities with lowest satisfaction levels are the southern cities of Valletta (Malta), Heraklion (Greece) and Palermo (Italy). These headline figures indicate a strong influence of geography, with higher levels of satisfaction with cultural facilities in northwestern Europe seemingly related to greater

Place, Culture, and Quality of Life

43

Table 1 Synergies between tourism and culture in European cities (European Cultural Cities Monitor and TOURMIS)

Tourist overnight stays Significance

No. of museums .344**

No. of cinema seats -0.014

No. of concerts & shows .319**

No. of theatres .217*

Museum visitors .366**

Satisfaction with cultural facilities .197*

Quality of governance 0.219*

0.000

0.855

0.000

0.005

0.000

0.010

0.004

* P < 0.01 ** P ≤ 0.001

levels of investment in facilities and greater levels of participation. Cultural heritage and cultural facilities not only play a role in supporting the QoL of residents, but also have an important role in generating tourism. As Romão et al. (2018) have shown, both tourists and residents are attracted to places that have cultural and tourism resources. The European Cultural and Creative Cities Monitor (2019) provides data on the cultural and creative resources of cities as well as satisfaction with cultural facilities as a measure of SWB. Table 1 shows that there is a strong relationship between overnight tourist stays, cultural facilities and satisfaction with cultural facilities. This provides evidence of the synergies between tourism and culture, and their positive impact on the QoL. Interestingly, the quality of city governance is also positively correlated with both the level of tourism overnights and the supply and satisfaction with cultural facilities. This indicates that governance makes and important contribution to both tourism development and QoL. Dragin-Jensen et al. (2016) also argue that the type of cultural content offered in event portfolios has differing QoL effects. They examined what types of cultural event programmes would provide the most perceived variety in life and diversity for (potential) residents, therefore heightening QoL. They found that qualityoriented portfolios with fewer high quality and internationally recognised events produced higher levels of perceived variety in life than quantity-oriented portfolios, offering more regular and local events. Quality-oriented event portfolios also have a stronger effect for residents living in larger cities. This may indicate that there

are challenges in generating QoL benefits for both residents and tourists through cultural activities such as events. Although research at an aggregate level suggests strong positive relationships between culture, tourism and QoL, other studies have questioned the outcomes of policies related to event-led regeneration and placemaking. For example, Liburd and Derkzen (2009) examined the relationship between QoL perceptions and the Wadden Sea Festival in Denmark. They adopted an emic approach, collecting data through interviews and observations. They found a significant gap between the positive instrumental view of festival organisers, who emphasise the transformative potential of the festival, and the experience of artists and visitors. In particular, the organisers were keen to develop a programme featuring international artists, which reduced the local embedding and local placemaking potential of the event. On the other hand, visitors reported positive, and in some cases, transformative experiences, highlighting the intrinsic value of the festival. Liburd and Derkzen (2009) conclude that the relationship between cultural festivals and QoL outcomes is more complex than usually assumed by policymakers and festival organisers. There is therefore a need to include subjective indicators in the assessment of QoL effects for such events.

Moving Towards Quality of Life for All Richards and Duif (2019) argue that the basic output of placemaking processes should be improved quality of life for all. QoL, as

44

G. Richards

Paskaleva-Shapira (2007) notes, is also increasingly considered as a key element of urban tourism. Tourism affects not just the experiences and satisfaction of the tourists, but the livelihoods and living environment of the local residents. Therefore, “Destination competitive policies should, however, be increasingly concerned with quality of life and the broader democratic governance of the cities.” (Paskaleva-Shapira, 2007, p. 114). This also means that tourism scholars need to think more broadly about QoL indicators, and how to utilise them as tools not just to measure the QoL for residents, but to measure QoL for other users of tourist destinations as well. As Richards (2015a) notes, there has been a shift in QoL research from quantitative and economic indicators of well-being towards more qualitative and socio-cultural measures. For example, the World Health Organisation definition of quality of life is: An individual’s perception of their position in life, in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live, and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns. It is a broad ranging concept, affected in a complex way by the person’s physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, and their relationship to salient features of their environment. (WHOQOL Group, 1995, p. 1404)

This suggests we must look beyond traditional and relatively accessible measures such as standard of living, to include perceived or subjective elements, moving towards measures based on subjective well-being (SWB). The Encyclopaedia of Quality of Life and Well-being Research defines SWB as: The personal perception and experience of positive and negative emotional responses and global and specific cognitive evaluations of satisfaction with life. . . . Simply, SWB [subjective well-being] is the individual evaluation of quality of life. (Michalos, 2014)

SWB includes basic factors such as Arousal, Intrinsic satisfaction, Involvement, Mastery, Perceived freedom and Spontaneity (Unger & Kernan, 1983), all of which can alter our perceptions of QoL. These SWB factors are also affected by the contexts or places that people live

in, since the environment can influence our feelings of arousal, intrinsic satisfaction, etc. Convergence between SWB and QoL is also reflected in the increasing attention paid to ‘soft’ location factors. For example, Richard Florida’s concept of the ‘creative class’ (2002) suggests that creative people are attracted to cities by subjective factors such as ‘atmosphere’ and ‘buzz’. The creative people who seek out the ‘cool’ places to be in turn attract others, adding to the local ‘buzz’ and making places even more attractive. Even though there is a strong circular element to this idea, many cities and regions emphasise these soft factors related to creativity and QoL in their attempts to attract mobile populations, stimulate inward investment and increase the satisfaction levels of residents. The subjective factors that residents and tourists tend to value in neighbourhoods have been examined in more detail by Silver (2017), who has attempted to quantify the attractions of specific parts of major cities. His work on urban ‘scenes’ is another example of how concepts originally related to specific forms of creativity have gone through a spatial turn. In analysing urban scenes, Silver et al. (2006) originally identified a number of factors that arguably account for the emergence of distinctive social scenes, including a delimited neighbourhood and attending physical structures and demographics. These combine with the available activities (like attending a concert or museum) and the values people pursue in a scene. Interestingly, among these values Silver et al. (2006) include ‘authenticity’, seen as ‘a meaningful sense of identity’. An interesting aspect of Silver’s (2017) work is his quantification of the factors that influence the composition of the scene, including over 700 indicators of amenities “from Starbucks to public schools for every zip code in the US.” In contrast to models of the creative class or the creative city, Silver et al. (2006) emphasise the need for more holistic measures of neighbourhood qualities: “We stress not a single process like gay tolerance or Veblenesque conspicuousness, but how multiple subcultures support distinct scenes and development patterns.”

Place, Culture, and Quality of Life

What this work emphasises in a tourism context is that the scene, and the QoL it generates, is dependent not just on the physical structure or amenities of a location, but also on the presence, activities and values of other place users. Tourism researchers have become increasingly aware of the effect of others on the quality of experience in recent years, as growing tourism flows have tended to negatively impact on the experience of other tourists. This is not something that has yet penetrated other research fields, since urban scholars see tourists as being largely conceptually and spatially separate from residents, for example (Richards, 2020b). Tourists have been positioned as an external nuisance to be managed, rather than one part of a continuum of more or less permanent users of urban space. If we take a broader, scene-based approach to the spatial development of cultural production and consumption, however, tourists can be positioned as an essential part of the scene in many instances. They often provide important support for cultural institutions and activities, which otherwise would not be available in many locations. For example, one third of the West End theatre audience in London and 70% of the museum visits in Barcelona are accounted for by tourists. Problems are more likely to occur when the cultural and creative offer becomes almost exclusively orientated to the needs of visitors. When the needs of visitors become paramount, there is a danger of replacement of local by globally oriented amenities (Richards & Marques, 2018). As Sharon Zukin has shown in her research on gentrification in New York City, these processes are not entirely dependent on tourism. The replacement of ‘local’ businesses by retail and hospitality outlets orientated to a broader cosmopolitan or international audience has been going on for decades (Zukin et al., 2009). The challenge is to find ways to support smaller, locally orientated cultural and commercial facilities in the face of the pressure of globalisation, gentrification and tourism development (Richards & Marques, 2018). Schemes like Lojas com História (Shops with History) in Lisbon are not only about preserving heritage, but they also aim to conserve the local cultural and creative fabric that support the QoL.

45

Such programmes help to support the QoL for all. Even though they are not aimed at tourists, visitors also benefit from the maintenance of cultural and creative amenities and practices that increase the QoL for residents.

Conclusions This brief review indicates that there are potentially positive relationships between culture, creativity, tourism and QoL. Those places that have more cultural and creative assets and activities tend to have a higher QoL, which will also tend to be attractive for tourists. Making the most of these relationships requires good governance, and a holistic approach. As many tourism destinations have discovered in recent years, concentrating on a narrow range of development goals is unlikely to provide positive outcomes. If policies concentrate on growing tourist numbers and economic impact, the wider QoL outcomes are likely to be poor. Instead, a wider view of the relationship between tourism, place and QoL should be linked to a holistic placemaking approach. As a number of studies have indicated, there is a need to move towards more diverse, intangible indicators of SWB. This may also help to move past the obsession with tourist numbers of both DMOs and critics of ‘overtourism’. One of the main challenges to QoL in cities everywhere, regardless of their levels of tourism, is the growing user pressure on limited resources, including cultural amenities and public space. These are also spaces and places used by local residents, tourists, and other mobile groups. Increasing the QoL for all of these user groups depends on improving the relationships between them, which requires creative solutions. In the future, it will be interesting to see how these relationships develop in the post-pandemic era. One of the effects of the pandemic was to encourage many residents to explore their own surroundings, becoming ‘tourists in their own city’ (Richards, 2017). Research during the pandemic by Toerisme Vlaanderen (2021) indicated that around 50% of residents in cities such as Antwerp, Bruges and Gent had discovered and

46

appreciated more of their own area thanks to the lockdown. In addition, 31% said that they would be likely to continue making visits in their own city after the pandemic. Only 18% of respondents indicated that they would not become ‘tourists in their own city’ in future. This may mean that there will be more mixing between tourists and locals in future, and perhaps also a greater focus in the QoL aspects of tourism.

Recommendations This review of the links between place, culture, and QoL has also identified a number of areas in which places can take action to improve these relationships, and where new research might be fruitful. We should broaden our views of culture and heritage to include a greater range of place attributes. In particular, shifting the focus of tourism from the cultural heritage of the past towards contemporary creativity can widen the activities of cultural tourists, and perhaps address some of the problems of overcrowding at key heritage sites, thereby improving both the QoL for locals and the quality of experience for visitors. In addition to analysing the role of new creative spaces, such as creative clusters, street art festivals and rooftops, we could also analyse the effects of shifting the tourist gaze from traditional heritage sites to New Tourism Areas (Maitland, 2007) and ‘cool’ neighbourhoods (Pappalepore et al., 2014). The creation of ‘heritage from below’ can also act as a means of providing alternatives to authorised heritage and as a potential new placemaking strategy. This is a trend recognised in the new National Travel and Tourism Strategy for the USA (Tourism Policy Council, 2022), which emphasises the potential to identify “untold stories and omitted perspectives at tourism destinations”. The policy suggests that such stories can “incorporate community perspectives to tell a collaborative story about the United States that will resonate with a wider, more diverse audience and eliminate barriers (both real and perceived) in public materials and interpretation” (Tourism Policy Council, 2022, p. 19).

G. Richards

Such strategies have the potential to contribute to the QoL by building more inclusive communities and making diversity in local communities more visible. In terms of research opportunities, this chapter has identified a need to broaden the analysis of QoL to include a broader range of indicators, and to extend the scope to include more qualitative inputs as well. For example, the development of the QoL research at European level discussed above has been almost totally based on quantitative indicators, such as the number of museums or museum visitors. There remains a lot of room to flesh out the mechanisms behind the basic correlations between cultural supply, cultural demand and QoL. As Grossi et al. (2011) suggest in their large-scale study of cultural consumption and wellbeing in Italy, there is “a strong necessity to rely upon tools that allow the researcher to take into account this inextricable multi-dimensional association between variables that translate the typical behavioral patterns of (cultural) choice” (p. 404). Recent debates around the relationship between residents and tourists also suggest that tourism scholars should think more broadly about QoL indicators, and how to utilise them as tools not just to measure the QoL for residents, but to measure QoL for other users of tourist destinations as well. Part of this challenge is to encapsulate the relationship between permanent residents and temporary place users such as tourists in our consideration of QoL issues. We are used to studying SWB at individual levels, without taking the social dimension into account. In fact, the tourist experience, as well QoL for residents, is determined by the actions and attitudes of others. Just as the residents are not passive hosts for tourists, so tourists can also be active placeshapers through their involvement in cultural and creative processes. To develop these new perspectives, we need to rethink the basis of connection between people and place. Outmoded concepts of citizenship that work from permanent dwelling and embedding in the local context could be replaced by a wider view of ‘inclusive citizenship’. As Emilia Saiz, Secretary General of the United Cities and Local Governments

Place, Culture, and Quality of Life

(UCLG) puts it: “transforming our notion of citizens from being right-holders only to recognizing them also as community developers.” (UCLG, 2021, p. 6). This thinking could also serve to broaden the view of tourists as ‘temporary citizens’ into potential placemakers. If we want tourists and other temporary place users to become more involved in placemaking then we could also think about targeting particular groups who can make an active contribution to place quality. In the past, cities have tended to concentrate on the attraction of the ‘creative class’, who tend to be orientated towards consumption of creativity. In the future, attracting artists, creative makers and digital nomads might stimulate a more productive form of creative development that would generate greater place quality. We should also pay more attention to the relationship between tourism and spatial contexts. Bargeman and Richards (2020) emphasise the importance of studying context as one of the explanatory factors in the behaviour of actors, including tourists and producers. A more contextual approach to studying tourism also implies using more holistic measures of the quality of space and place, as suggested by Petrovič and Murgaš (2020). In the study of QoL aspects of tourism, the context of tourism activities can also be more holistically captured by considering the ‘experiencescape’ within which tourists move (Chen et al., 2020). If we consider tourism as a multifaceted experience, we can also consider the contribution of different elements to experience quality. These might include, for example, places as soundscapes (He et al., 2019), smellscapes (Dann & Jacobsen, 2003), sightscapes and increasingly ‘virtualscapes’ (Grasseni, 2014). The convergence of these different scapes across the physical and digital realms is likely to become increasingly important in the assessment of QoL and quality of experience in future. Acknowledgements Parts of this paper were originally presented to the World Monuments Fund meeting on Urban Regeneration for Historic Cairo: Workshop on management, Public-Private partnering, economy revitalization, and cultural authentication, 31st March 2021.

47

References Amsterdam&partners. (2022). Who we are and what we do. https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/our-network/ amsterdam-and-partners/about-us/who-we-are Bargeman, B., & Richards, G. (2020). The practices of leisure: A new approach to understanding participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 84. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102988 Barrera-Fernández, D., & Hernández-Escampa, M. (2017). From cultural to creative tourism: Urban and social perspectives from Oaxaca, México. Revista de Turismo Contemporâneo, 5. Bueno de Andrade-Matos, M., Richards, G., & de Lourdes de Azevedo Barbosa, M. (2022). Rethinking authenticity through complexity paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021. 103348 Campos, R. (2021). Urban art in Lisbon: Opportunities, tensions and paradoxes. Cultural Trends, 30(2), 139–155. Canale, R. R., De Simone, E., Di Maio, A., & Parenti, B. (2019). UNESCO World Heritage sites and tourism attractiveness: The case of Italian provinces. Land Use Policy, 85, 114–120. Chen, Z., Suntikul, W., & King, B. (2020). Constructing an intangible cultural heritage experiencescape: The case of the Feast of the Drunken Dragon (Macau). Tourism Management Perspectives, 34, 100659. Dann, G., & Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2003). Tourism smellscapes. Tourism Geographies, 5(1), 3–25. De Andrade, P. (2018). Mobile cultural tourism. Art spaces, times and logos. Lusophone Journal of Cultural Studies, 5(2), 365–378. Dragin-Jensen, C., Schnittka, O., & Arkil, C. (2016). More options do not always create perceived variety in life: Attracting new residents with quality-vs. quantity-oriented event portfolios. Cities, 56, 55–62. European Commission. (2016). Quality of Life in European Cities 2015. FLASH EUROBAROMETER 419. Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2017). Cultural Heritage. Special Eurobarometer 466. Publications Office of the European Union. Flew, T., & Kirkwood, K. (2021). The impact of COVID19 on cultural tourism: Art, culture and communication in four regional sites of Queensland, Australia. Media International Australia, 178(1), 16–20. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. Basic Books. Frey, B. S., & Briviba, A. (2020). Revived originals–A proposal to deal with cultural overtourism. Tourism Economics, 27(6), 1221–1236. Gkoumas, A., & D’Orazio, F. (2020). Public-space tactical intervention as urban tourist allure. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 6(4), 711–730. Grasseni, C. (2014). The Atlas and the Film. Collective storytelling through soundscapes, sightscapes, and

48 virtualscapes. Anthrovision. Vaneasa Online Journal, 2.2. https://doi.org/10.4000/anthrovision.1446 Grossi, E., Sacco, P. L., Blessi, G. T., & Cerutti, R. (2011). The impact of culture on the individual subjective wellbeing of the Italian population: An exploratory study. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 6(4), 387–410. Harrison, S., & Tatar, D. (2008). Places: People, events, loci–the relation of semantic frames in the construction of place. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(2), 97–133. He, M., Li, J., Li, J., & Chen, H. (2019). A comparative study on the effect of soundscape and landscape on tourism experience. International Journal of Tourism Research, 21(1), 11–22. Liburd, J. J., & Derkzen, P. (2009). Emic perspectives on quality of life: The case of the Danish Wadden Sea Festival. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9, 132. Maitland, R. (2007). Cultural tourism and the development of new tourism areas in London. In G. Richards (Ed.), Cultural tourism: Global and local perspectives (pp. 113–128). Routledge. Michalos, A. C. (2014). Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer. OECD. (2014). Tourism and the creative economy. OECD. Orel, M. (2019). Coworking environments and digital nomadism: Balancing work and leisure whilst on the move. World Leisure Journal, 61(3), 215–227. Pappalepore, I., Maitland, R., & Smith, A. (2014). Prosuming creative urban areas. Evidence from East London. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 227–240. Paskaleva-Shapira, K. A. (2007). New paradigms in city tourism management: Redefining destination promotion. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 108–114. Petrovič, F., & Murgaš, F. (2020). Holistic and sustainable quality of life conceptualization and application. Folia Geographica, 62(1), 77–94. Richards, G. (2015a). Eventfulness and the quality of life. Tourism Today, 14, 23–36. Richards, G. (2015b). The new global nomads: Youth travel in a globalizing world. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 340–352. Richards, G. (2017). Tourists in their own city – Considering the growth of a phenomenon. Tourism Today, 16, 8–16. Richards, G. (2020a). Designing creative places: The role of creative tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 85, 102922. Richards, G. (2020b). Cities, events and the eventful city. In S. J. Page & J. Connell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of events (pp. 273–286). Routledge. Richards, G. (2021). Rethinking cultural tourism. Edward Elgar. Richards, G. (2022a). Urban tourism as a special type of cultural tourism. In J. van der Borg (Ed.), Research agenda for urban tourism (pp. 31–50). Edward Elgar. Richards, G. (2022b). Faro: From tourist capital to cultural capital? In A. Fidalgo & G. D. Gomes (Eds.), FARO 2027, Now What? (pp. 78–82). Epopeia Books.

G. Richards Richards, G., & Duif, L. (2019). Small cities with big dreams: Creative placemaking and branding strategies. Routledge. Richards, G., & Marques, L. (2018). Creating synergies between cultural policy and tourism for permanent and temporary citizens. UCLG/ICUB. Robertson, I. J. (2016). Heritage from below. Routledge. Romão, J., Kourtit, K., Neuts, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2018). The smart city as a common place for tourists and residents: A structural analysis of the determinants of urban attractiveness. Cities, 78, 67–75. Russo, A. P., & Richards, G. (2016). Reinventing the local in tourism: Producing, consuming and negotiating place. Channel View Publications. Sacco, P. L., Ferilli, G., & Tavano Blessi, G. (2018). From culture 1.0 to culture 3.0: Three socio-technical regimes of social and economic value creation through culture, and their impact on European Cohesion Policies. Sustainability, 10(11), 3923. Silver, D. (2017). Some scenes of urban life. In J. Hannigan & G. Richards (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new urban studies (pp. 408–429). SAGE. Silver, D., Clark, T. N., & Rothfield, L. (2006). A theory of scenes: The structure of social consumption. University of Chicago, 11–15. Strom, E. (2020). Revisiting the arts as a socially innovative urban development strategy. European Planning Studies, 28(3), 475–495. Toerisme Vlaanderen. (2021). Bewonersonderzoek Vlaamse kunststeden 2021. https:// toerismevlaanderen.be/nl/cijfers-en-onderzoek/ onderzoeksthemas/bewonersonderzoeken Tourism Policy Council. (2022). National Travel & Tourism Strategy 2022. Tourism Policy Council, Department of Commerce. UCLG. (2021). Local citizenship and migration: Fostering the right to the city for all. UCLG Peer Learning Note #28. UCLG. Unger, L. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1983). On the meaning of leisure: An investigation of some determinants of the subjective experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 381–392. UNWTO. (2018). Report on tourism and culture synergies. UNWTO. WHOQOL Group. (1995). The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science & Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409. Zukin, S., Trujillo, V., Frase, P., Jackson, D., Recuber, T., & Walker, A. (2009). New retail capital and neighborhood change: Boutiques and gentrification in New York City. City & Community, 8(1), 47–64.

Greg Richards Ph.D., is Professor of Placemaking and Events at Breda University of Applied Sciences and Professor of Leisure Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He has conducted extensive research on the relationship between culture, creativity, tourism and place. Email: [email protected].

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm Jorge Ridderstaat

Introduction Tourism can be a benefit or a detriment for destinations and societies. As a phenomenon, tourism can have different impacts in, for example, the economic, cultural, and environmental spheres, and it is not set in stone that all these effects are beneficial for a destination. Take, for example, the continued growth in visitors, which can lead to overbuilding (e.g., the excessive building of hotels and casinos in Las Vegas or Macau) and overtourism practices, all of which could impact people’s lives at destinations. Therefore, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of the tourism phenomenon is essential for managing the positives and mitigating the negatives. There is a plethora of research covering in some way the link between tourism development (TD) and quality of life (QOL), for example, Godovykh and Ridderstaat (2020), Lankford and Howard (1994), Milman and Pizam (1988), Ridderstaat et al. (2016a, 2016b, 2022), Urtasun and Gutiérrez (2006), and Woo et al. (2015). However, the extensive literature has several imbalances and drawbacks due to superficial research outcomes, including excessive concentration on a single research method, research emphasis predominantly on J. Ridderstaat (✉) Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected]

unilateral causality, overstudying subjective features of quality of life, and frequent consideration of the individual as the sole unit of analysis. Consequently, the existing literature endorses study variation rather than depth in our quest for understanding the TD-QOL nexus. This chapter proposes a paradigm shift from the conventional research approaches related to the TD-QOL relationship by introducing a research framework that emphasizes (i) a granular approach to the applied constructs of tourism development, quality of life, and possible mediating factors, (ii) a bilateral connection between the applied constructs, (iii) mediating and moderating effects, and (iv) multiple research method applications to the same research problem and geography. The study assesses the state of the literature using secondary information from two previously conducted reviews (Hu et al., 2022; Uysal et al., 2016) and performs a separate study scan. The investigation contributes to advancing our state of knowledge on the TD-QOL relationship by signaling additional weaknesses of the existing literature and proposing a method to mitigate these limitations and steer future studies toward a deeper understanding of the nexus between these constructs. The rest of this study is as follows. Section ‘The Tourism Development: Quality of Life Nexus in Perspective’ will discuss the state of TD-QOL research, while section ‘Towards a New Research Paradigm’ presents the analysis

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_5

49

50

J. Ridderstaat

and explains the paradigm shift model. The final section gives the concluding remarks.

The Tourism Development: Quality of Life Nexus in Perspective A Summary of Two Study Reviews A good starting point for understanding the state of knowledge on the TD–QOL nexus is looking at

the related study reviews. Uysal et al. (2016) initiated such an approach by reviewing the content of 36 relevant studies between 1988 and 2015 (Table 1). They noted that the studies were largely unbalanced toward subjective measures of QOL. According to the authors, objective measures were in the minority, but they could provide better monitoring and measurement capabilities of structural and physical changes over time. They also recommended combining both QOL measurements to better capture the QOL

Table 1 Studies on the TD-QOL research Authors Analyzed criteria

Number of studies covered Period covered Main conclusions

Hu et al. (2022) Number of studies by Journal Co-authorship Co-occurrence of keywords Study context Geographic areas Theoretical foundations Conceptual frameworks Measurement of residents’ QOL Data and methods Emerging trends in the QOL-TD nexus 184

Uysal et al. (2016) Study purpose Sample/Data collection QOL measurement used Notes on results

2015–2021

1988–2015

• Regions of studies moved from developed to developing economies. • Different forms of tourism have become popular research topics (e.g., overtourism, ecotourism, and responsible tourism). • Social Exchange Theory is the most popular theory used in the analyses. • Subjective measures of QOL have dominated the literature. • Survey data are popular as research data, but time series and panel data are emerging in recent studies. • The TD → QOL impact is the most commonly investigated nexus in studies using composite TD and QOL scales. • Reverse (QOL → TD) or bilateral relationships (TD $ QOL) have sometimes been investigated.

• There were more studies on the TD-QOL relationship based on subjective measures of QOL than objective criteria. • Studies based on objective indicators could better monitor and measure possibilities for structural and physical changes over time. • A conjoin of objective and subjective indicators can better capture QOL in TD relations. • Life domains capturing QOL of tourists and community residents can differ in terms of their relevance and measures of QOL that can address the relative relevancies. Context should matter here. • Most studies reflecting QOL effects are not straightforward, mainly reflecting tourism impact types (e.g., social, cultural, economic) and support for TD. • Most studies also captured QOL impacts at the individual level, while other units of analysis are possible (e.g., family, community, and country). • We also need to understand the QOL effects of TD for alternative dimensions, such as those at the consumers, providers, and employee levels. • TD should aim to enhance the QOL of all stakeholders.

36

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm

construct in its relationship with TD. Also, they found that the literature did not weigh the relative significance of the different domains of QOL (e.g., health, education, income, political liberty) and assumed them all to be equally important. The reviewed studies also considered multiple tourism impacts (e.g., social, cultural, economic), but they were often not straightforward when understanding the TD–QOL relationship. The unit of analysis is mostly the individual, mainly omitting other possible analysis dimensions (e.g., family, community, country, consumers, providers, employees, and tourists), according to Uysal et al. (2016). More recently, Hu et al. (2022) sampled 184 relevant studies from 2015 to November 2021 for the TD-QOL connection and found an increasing study emphasis on developing economies. Similar to Uysal et al. (2016), they also found an extensive focus on multiple dimensions of tourism (e.g., overtourism, ecotourism, and responsible tourism). Moreover, studies were primarily geared towards finding a unilateral nexus (TD → QOL), with sporadic research of the reverse or bilateral influences. While studies used many theoretical frameworks, the Social Exchange Theory (SET) seemed the most dominant one. The SET evolves around a series of actions-reactions (exchanges) between parties, where the actions of one party are contingent on rewarding responses from the other (Emerson, 1976). In other words, the SET explains the interaction between people based on the benefits or detriments they receive from interplay with others. The SET describes a people-to-people relationship (micro), which is more aligned with survey-based research. As we will see further in section ‘Critical Considerations in the TD-QOL Relationship’, studies on the TD-QOL relationship have overabundantly emphasized the survey method to decipher the connection between these two constructs, which might explain the overuse of this theory in the tourism study field. The overuse of survey research could also explain the overemphasis on subjective measures of QOL found by Hu et al. (2022).

51

The two above-presented studies reviewed different research periods (1988–2015 versus 2015–2021) and primarily covered different aspects, indicating that there are possibly more features that could cause imbalances and drawbacks in conducted studies so far. The following section will emphasize some of these additional features.

A New Scan of TD-QOL Studies This section presents the results of an analysis of 54 studies between 1988 and 2022, considering the type of data used, main tested constructs, period investigated, countries surveyed, the finding related to the TD-QOL relationship, and the primary analysis method (Table 2). Several results of Uysal et al. (2016) and Hu et al. (2022) were confirmed with this new scan of the relevant literature. For example, the study under review found that most of the studies used survey data, consistent with Hu et al. (2022). The reviewed studies in Table 2 covered multiple constructs simultaneously, which did not benefit the clarity of the study objectives. QOL is mainly one of the numerous constructs being investigated in several studies, complicating our immediate understanding of the targeted relationship between TD and QOL, in line with the conclusion of Uysal et al. (2016) of lack of straightforwardness. About 1/5 of the reviewed studies did not provide information about when the survey data collection occurred, complicating our understanding of the timing of the assessed nexus between TD and QOL. While studies initially focused on US cities or regions, Chinese location analyses have gained momentum in recent years. However, the study under review could not corroborate Hu et al. (2022) claim that the concentration of studies has moved from developed to developing countries, as recent studies also included developed countries such as Italy, Canada, the UK, and Germany. The study results seem to suggest mainly a unilateral effect of TD on QOL, with some instances of bilateral (TD $ QOL) or reverse (QOL → TD) causalities, mirroring to some extent the findings of Hu et al. (2022).

Data type Cross-section

Cross-section (survey)

Cross-sectional (survey) Cross-sectional (survey)

Author(s) Allen et al. (1988)

Milman and Pizam (1988)

Allen et al. (1993) Lankford and Howard (1994)

Main tested constructs (proxy variables) • Importance (DV) • Situation (DV) • Population (IV) • TD (IV) • Feelings about the presence of tourists in Central Florida • Impact of increased presence of tourism on the image of Central Florida • Impact of selected current level of tourism on selected socio-cultural issues (incl. QOL) • Appeal of certain occupations • Perceived degree of similarity between tourism and residents • Perceived degree of similarity between American and foreign tourists • Overall opinion of the tourism industry in Central Florida • Opinion on the volume of tourists visiting Florida • Recreation statements • Tourism statements • Level and extent of promotion of local and regional tourism • Community infrastructure • Public safety • Personal leisure opportunities

Table 2 Use of multiple constructs in quality of studies

United States (Colorado) United States (Oregon)

N.A.

United States (Central Florida)

Country/countries United States (Colorado)

1987

N.A.

Period investigated N.A.

Analysis of Covariance Multiple Regression Analysis

TD → QOL TD → QOL

Multiple Regressions and Factor Analysis

Main method of analysis Canonical analysis

TD → QOL QOL → TD

Findings (tourism’s relationship with quality of life) Community size → residents’ perceptions of community life

52 J. Ridderstaat

Cross-section (survey)

Cross-section (longitudinal survey)

Longitudinal crosssection (two specific years)

Perdue et al. (1995)

Carmihael et al. (1996)

Urtasun and Gutiérrez (2006)

• Jobs • Economic role of tourism at a personal and community level • Support for gambling • Personal benefits from gambling • Quality of contact with gambling • Future of community • Crime • Traffic • Less desirable place to live • Tax base • Historic value • Additional income • Unemployment • Regional benefit • Casino expansion plans • Chinese theme park • Attitudes toward the tribes • Natural environment • Gambling as an appropriate or immoral recreational activity • Changes in real estate values • Recreational opportunities • Job related to the tourism industry • Work for a specific company • Casino visitation • Social welfare (a measure of 12 synthetic objective partial indicators of social welfare) • Tourism evaluation function • Economic evaluation function United States (Colorado & South Dakota)

United States (Mashantucket Pequot reservation)

Spain (Spanish provinces)

1992

1992, 1993, 1995

1996 and 2001

Stepwise and Logit Regression

Ordinary Least Squares

TD → QOL

TD → QOL

(continued)

Ordinary Least Squares

TD → QOL

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm 53

Data type Time series

Cross-section (survey)

Cross-sectional (survey)

Cross-section (survey)

Author(s) Croes (2012)

Kim et al. (2013)

Rivera et al. (2016)

Woo et al. (2015)

Table 2 (continued)

United States

Aruba

N.A.

2012 (Winter)

United States (Virginia)

N.A.

• Perceived tourism economic impact • Perceived tourism social impact • Perceived tourism cultural impact • Perceived tourism environmental impact • Sense of material well-being • Sense of community wellbeing • Sense of emotional wellbeing • Sense of health and safety • Life satisfaction • Cultural impact • Social impact • Socioeconomic impact • Environmental impact • Macroeconomic impact • Tourism development • Income • QOL • Comparison of life situation • Subjective happiness • Perceived value of TD • Non-material life domain satisfaction • Material life domain satisfaction

Country/countries Nicaragua and Costa Rica

Period investigated 1990–2009

Main tested constructs (proxy variables) • Human development index • Tourism spending

Structural Equation Modeling

Structural Equation Modeling

TD → QOL

Structural Equation Modeling and Hierarchical Multiple Regression

Main method of analysis Vector Error Correction

TD → QOL

Findings (tourism’s relationship with quality of life) Nicaragua: TD → QOL QOL → TD Costa Rica: TD → QOL TD → QOL

54 J. Ridderstaat

Cross-section (survey)

Cross-section (survey)

Time series

Pratt et al. (2016)

Ridderstaat et al. (2016a)

Cross-sectional (survey)

Longitudinal Crosssection

Nunkoo and So (2016)

Bimonte and Faralla (2016) Liang and Hui (2016)

• Overall QOL • Support for further TD • Aspects of own life (income, family, sentimental situation, work, health, friendship) • Urban issues • Community economic strength • Family and personal wellbeing • Way of life • Community awareness and facilities • Personal benefits from tourism • Knowledge of tourism • Trust in government • Power of tourism • Satisfaction with QOL • Support for tourism • Psychological well-being • Health • Time use • Education • Cultural diversity and resilience • Good governance • Community vitality • Ecological diversity and resilience • Living standard • TD (tourism receipts) • QOL (human development index) • EG (real GDP) Canada (Niagara Region)

Fiji

N.A.

N.A.

Aruba

China (Shenzhen)

2014–2015

1972–2011 (annual data)

Italy (Follonica)

N.A.

Structural Equation Modeling

Gross Happiness Index calculation

TD → QOL

TD → QOL

(continued)

Autoregressive Distributed Lag and Granger Causality

Multiple linear regression

QOL → TD

Direct: TD → QOL QOL → TD Indirect: TD→EG→QOL QOL→EG→TD

Ordinal Logistic Regression

TD → QOL

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm 55

Data type Survey analysis

Panel

Interviews

Interviews

Cross-section (survey)

Author(s) Ridderstaat et al. (2016b)

Tokarchuk et al. (2016)

Vogt et al. (2016)

Volo (2017)

Yolal et al. (2016)

Table 2 (continued)

Italy (Lipari)

Turkey (Municipality of Adana)

2014 (September)

United States (Alaska)

2011 and 2011

2015 (may)

Germany (Berlin)

2000–2011

• Community life • Health • Work and productivity • Material well-being • Personal safety • Quality of environment • Emotional well-being • Relationship with family and friends • Nights per resident • Subjective well-being (definitions by interviewees) • Factor influencing subjective well-being • Subjective well-being and tourism planning • Island tourism as an avenue for a virtuous life • Island tourism and meaningful challenges • Island tourism self-discovery and ongoing transformation • Community benefits • Cultural/educational benefits • QOL concerns • Community resource concerns • Subjective well-being of residents

Country/countries Aruba

Period investigated 2013

Main tested constructs (proxy variables) • TD • QOL • EG (moderator)

Descriptive (summarizing interviews)

Descriptive (summarizing interviews)

Structured Equation Modeling

TD → QOL

TD → QOL

Panel regression

Main method of analysis Structural Equation Model

TD → QOL

Findings (tourism’s relationship with quality of life) Direct: TD → QOL Indirect: TD → EG → QOL QOL → EG → TD TD → QOL

56 J. Ridderstaat

Panel data

Cross-sectional (survey)

Cross-section survey

Kubickova (2017)

Lin et al. (2017)

Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Croes et al. (2018)

Lee et al. (2018)

Time series

Ivlevs (2017)

Cross-section (survey)

Time series

Longitudinal crosssection (5 rounds of survey data collection between 2014 and 2016).

Chi et al. (2017)

• Real GDP • Real investments • Years of schooling • Tourism specialization • Human development • Economic CSR • Legal CSR

• Costs • Social-cultural benefits • Economic benefits • Life satisfaction • Co-creation • Responsible tourism • Destination sustainability • QOL

Different factors (economic status, social relations, sense of community, social environment, tourism impacts) affect residents’ subjective well-being and their support for tourism. • Subjective well-being (the satisfaction and happiness) • Tourist arrival rates • Socio-demographic controls (e.g., age, gender) • Country-level controls (e.g., GDP per capita, unemployment rate, inflation rate) • • Tourism competitiveness index • Human agency • Human development index Seven countries in Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Belize China

1995–2007

2015 (October)

1988–2014

December 2013–April 2014

South Korea (Taeback city and Jeongsun County)

Malta

India (Kerala)

32 countries in Europe

2002–2013

2016 (July and August)

China (Lijang)

2014–2016

Structural Equation Modeling

TD → Sustainability → QOL

Structural Equation Modeling (continued)

Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation Modeling

TC → QOL QOL → TC

CSR → QOL QOL → CSR

Vector Error Correction and Random Effect Modeling

TC → QOL QOL → TC

Two-stage least square (2SLS)

Ordinary Least Squares Fixed Effects and Instrumental Variable

TD → QOL

TD → QOL

Structural Equation Modeling

TD → QOL QOL → TD

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm 57

Data type

Cross-section (survey)

Cross-section (survey)

Cross-section (survey)

Panel (10 crosssections and 17 years of observation per cross-section)

Author(s)

Woo et al. (2018)

Eslami et al. (2019)

Ali et al. (2020)

Croes et al. (2020)

Table 2 (continued)

• Ethical CSR • Philanthropic CSR • Perceived benefits • Quality of life • Support • Perception of tourism impacts on material life • Residents affiliated versus not-affiliated with tourism • Perceptions of tourism impacts on non-material life • Satisfaction with material life • Overall life satisfaction • Perceived environmental impacts of tourism • Perceived socio-cultural impacts of tourism • Perceived economic effects of tourism • Quality of life (material, non-material) • Support for sustainable tourism • Natural attraction • Ecotourism motivation • Community participation • Improved quality of life • Political instability (moderator) • Government policy (moderator) • Arrivals • GDP • GDP per capita • GINI coefficient

Main tested constructs (proxy variables)

1998–2014

10 Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador,

Bangladesh

N.A.

No effect of TD on QOL

Mixed-Effect Regression

Emphasized ecotourism

Structural Equation Modeling

TD → QOL QOL → TD

Malaysia (Langkawi island)

2016 (July and August)

Indirect: TD → CP → QOL

Structured Equation Modeling

TD → QOL

Main method of analysis

United States (New York, Orlando, Las Vegas, Hawaii, and Virginia)

Country/countries

Findings (tourism’s relationship with quality of life)

2013 (February)

Period investigated

58 J. Ridderstaat

Koh et al. (2020)

Godovykh and Ridderstaat (2020) Jordan et al. (2020)

Cross-section (survey) and interviews

Cross-section (survey)

Time series

• Cruise tourism • Airbnb tourism • Community well-being • Urban issues • Community pride and awareness • Natural/cultural preservation • Economic strength • Recreation amenities • Crime and substance abuse • Perceived economic impact of TD • Perceived social impact of TD • Perceived cultural impact of TD • Perceived environmental impact of TD • Perceived material wellbeing • Perceived community wellbeing • Sense of health and safety • Perceived emotional wellbeing • Overall life substitution/ QOL

• Human development index (and its sub-components) • Inflation • Tourism competitive index • Tourism value-added • Ratio between UNESCO heritage and population • Tourist arrivals • Income • Health Portugal (Island of São Miguel, the Azores Archipelago)

Thailand (Chiang Mai City)

2019 (October and November)

Spain

2019 (June and September)

1995–2018

Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Repeated Measures ANOVA

Structural Equation Modeling and qualitative assessment of interview responses

TD → QOL

TD → QOL QOL → TD

(continued)

Limited Information Maximum Likelihood

TD → QOL

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm 59

Data type Cross-sectional (survey)

Cross-sectional (survey)

Cross-sectional (survey)

Cross-section (survey)

Cross-sectional (survey)

Author(s) Lee et al. (2020)

Slabbert et al. (2021)

Stienmetz et al. (2020)

Su and Swanson (2020)

Cheng and Xu (2021)

Table 2 (continued)

Main tested constructs (proxy variables) • Social impact • Economic impact • Environmental impact • Satisfaction with the casino community • Community attachment • Support for casino tourism • Community effect • Level of interest • Individual effect • Developmental effect • Spillover effect • Negative effect • Socio-economic effects • QOL effect • Perceived level of peer-topeer • Economic impact • Social impact • Environmental impact • Economic well-being • Social well-being • Environmental well-being • QOL • Personal benefits from tourism • Overall community satisfaction • Community identification • QOL • Support for TD Different forms of sharing (socio-economic, community, participation, environmental, Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

TD → QOL China (Chengdu)

2017

Structural Equation Modeling

TD → QOL

United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland)

2018 (June)

China (Xiamen City)

Partial Least Squares

TD → QOL

South Africa (Jeffreys Bay)

N.A.

N.A.

Multiple Linear Regression

No effect

Country/countries Vietnam (Grand Ho Tram Strip)

Main method of analysis Structural Equation Modeling

Findings (tourism’s relationship with quality of life) Casino tourism → economic effect → satisfaction with the casino community → support for casino tourism

Period investigated N.A.

60 J. Ridderstaat

Panel data

Cross-section (survey)

Cross-section (survey)

Cross-section (survey)

Panel data

Godovykh et al. (2021)

Jordan et al. (2021)

Kim et al. (2021)

Lai et al. (2021)

Lee et al. (2021)

facility, culture, development ideals) • Happiness • Income • Arrivals • Tourism-related stressors (36 tourism impact categories) • Tourism-related stress • Touristification • Economic satisfaction • Community satisfaction • Emotional satisfaction • Health/safety satisfaction • Quality of life • Perception of tourism’s impact on: • Material life • Community life • Emotional life • Health and safety life • Satisfaction with: • Material life • Community life • Emotional life • Health & safety life • Overall satisfaction with QOL • Emotional solidarity toward tourists • Country travel and leisure sector returns • International tourism revenues in % of total exports • Life ladder • GDP per capita • Country social support • Country absence of corruption South Korea (Jaju Island)

Macao (China)

119 countries

2018 (April and May)

2006–2007

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama Hawaii (island of O’ahu)

2017 (July)

2015 (June– December)

2006–2019

Structural Equation Modeling

Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling

TD → QOL

TD → QOL QOL → TD

(continued)

Panel Quantile regression

Logistic regression

TD → QOL

Happiness does not affect tourist arrivals or tourism revenues

Three-stage Least Squares

TD → QOL

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm 61

Data type

Mixed, but in particular crosssectional (survey)

Ethnographic research on social media platforms and semistructured interviews

Author(s)

Manhas et al. (2021)

Rastegar et al. (2021)

Table 2 (continued)

• Country negative effect • Country confidence in the national government • Democratic quality • Twitter happiness index • Consumer price index • Official currency exchange rate per USD • Net inflow of foreign direct investment • Industrial production • Inflation • Imported merchandise • Crude oil price • Total unemployment rate • Economic responsibility • Social responsibility • Cultural responsibility • Environmental responsibility • Community involvement • Material well-being • Community well-being • Emotional well-being • Healthy and safe well-being • Perceptions about tourism • Influence of tourism on city’s inscription as a World Heritage Site • Heritage preservation after inscription • Livelihood and QOL • World Heritage management process • City’s tourism development • Residents’ involvement in

Main tested constructs (proxy variables)

2019

2011

Period investigated

Iran (Yazd)

India (Kashmir)

Country/countries

Structural Equation Modeling

Descriptive (summarizing interviews)

TD → QOL

Main method of analysis

Responsible tourism practice → Community involvement → QOL

Findings (tourism’s relationship with quality of life)

62 J. Ridderstaat

Panel data

Cross-section (survey)

Time series

Cross-section (survey)

Tokarchuk et al. (2021)

Wang et al. (2021)

Li et al. (2022)

Lindberg et al. (2022)

tourism planning and decision-making process • Role of residents in future tourism development • Community life • Health • Work and productivity • Material well-being • Personal safety • Quality of environment • Emotional well-being • Satisfaction with family life • Tourist nights per resident • Emotional closeness • Sympathetic understanding • Welcoming nature • Leisure well-being • Spiritual well-being • Residents’ attitude • Tourist arrivals • Population of different age cohorts • Human Development Index • Visitor intensity • Visitor change • Population change • Primary job in tourism • Years lived in the county • Gender • Income • Community impact • Environmental impact • Change in financial SWB • Change in community SWB • Change in social SWB • Change in environmental SWB • Change in Overall SWB Structural Equation Modeling (Maximum Likelihood with robust standard errors)

TD → QOL QOL → TD

(continued)

Three-Stage Least Squares

TD → QOL QOL → TD

Japan

1985–2019

USA (Oregon)

Bootstrapping technique

QOL → TD

China (Shandong province)

2017 (June– August)

2018 (Summer)

Panel regression

TD → QOL

Germany (Berlin)

2008–2017

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm 63

Data type Cross-section (survey)

Time series

Cross-section (survey)

Author(s) Mihalic and Kuščer (2022)

Ridderstaat et al. (2022)

Wang et al. (2022)

Table 2 (continued)

Main tested constructs (proxy variables) • Natural pillar • Socio-cultural pillar • Economic pillar • Destination management • Residents’ irritation • QOL • Tourist arrivals • Real GDP • Human Development Index • Poverty Gap at $1.90 a day • Distributive justice • Procedural justice • Interactional justice • Personal economic benefits • QOL • Support for tourism Country/countries Slovenia (Ljubljana)

Honduras

China (Shangdong province)

Period investigated 2018 (July and August)

1989–2016

2018 (July– August)

Three-Stage Least Squares

Structural Equation Modeling

QOL → TD

Main method of analysis Structural Equation Modeling

TD → QOL QOL → TD

Findings (tourism’s relationship with quality of life) TD → QOL

64 J. Ridderstaat

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm

Many studies only aimed to find TD’s effect on QOL, which is a limitation of these studies, as explained later. Structural equation modeling was the most widely applied analysis technique in the reviewed studies, resulting from the high emphasis on survey data. Time series, panel, and qualitative data (interviews) were less frequently used in the reviewed studies. The new literature scan discussed in this section has confirmed various imperfections signaled by Hu et al. (2022) and Uysal et al. (2016) but has brought new ones to the front. While the study drawbacks have been signaled above, there is a need to assess them as critical considerations for future investigations, which is the topic of the next section.

Critical Considerations in the TD-QOL Relationship Constructs of TD and QOL Concepts of TD and QOL have been used in many studies but have generally been considered as self-explaining elements without further considering their meaning. Many studies, particularly survey-based research, have presented a series of statements and let respondents delineate what they think TD and QOL are, using their subjective assessment. The notion here is that the respondents know best and should be responsible for conceptualizing the meaning of TD and QOL. The consequence is that responses related to these constructs become contextual to the individual, depending on the sense the latter assigns to them, possibly diverging from the actual intention of the researcher’s questions. A formal definition of TD and QOL would be helpful for the interpretation of both TD and QOL. Ridderstaat et al. (2013) defined TD as “the sum of dynamic processes, activities, and outcomes involved in the tourism phenomenon (for example, tourists, tourism suppliers, residents of a destination, the government).” (p. 324). The “relationship” in the TD definition implies interaction or bilateral nexus rather than a one-way process. These are not solely among tourists or residents but may also include other actors.

65

How about QOL? Croes (2011) envisioned QOL through three paradigms. In the income paradigm, people use their income to buy goods and services to achieve the desired QOL. The second paradigm endorsed the subjective wellbeing approach, where individuals can adequately judge their welfare condition. The well-being approach is often applied in the relevant literature, but the question is whether emphasizing the wellbeing approach only is sufficient to cover the QOL construct. The third paradigm brought forth by Croes (2011) is based on the capability approach based on the work of Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen. According to Sen, capabilities are “the alternative combinations of functions that are feasible for her [the person] to achieve.” (Sen, 1999, p. 75). In Sen’s view, functionings are “the various things a person may value doing or being.” (Sen, 1999, p. 75). The paradigms propelled by Croes (2011, 2016) are not mutually exclusive but likely combinatorial. People can attach personal value to their income, while simultaneously being experts in valuing their well-being and managing the things that make their lives worthy. Future research must try to assign meaning to TD and QOL constructs instead of leaving the responsibility to respondents.

Bilateral Effects Studies on the relationship between TD and QOL have predominantly been geared toward finding a unilateral nexus from TD to QOL. While some studies indirectly alluded to an active effect of residents’ QOL on TD through their support for tourism (e.g., Nunkoo & So, 2016; Perdue et al., 1995; Woo et al., 2015), they have not pursued such a role for QOL. There are four possible mechanisms through which QOL can impact TD (Ridderstaat et al., 2013, 2016b). The first is through tourism support, where residents can act friendly and receptive when meeting visitors and may not protest further tourism development. The second form is to pursue a better QOL for destinations’ residents. Projects aimed at improving people’s QOL (e.g., cultural development of a neighborhood) can affect TD by adding a product that tourists could enjoy. The third way QOL

66

influences TD is through education. Welleducated people generally have better health, are likely to be employed, have more social connections, and are more engaged in civic and political life (Stiglitz et al., 2009). Well-educated people can also better serve the tourism product and provide a good tourist experience, contributing to TD. The fourth route of QOL to TD is through deliberate residents’ attempts to misuse tourists for their benefit, such as overcharging or committing crimes against visitors. These actions may positively impact the actors’ QOL but may damage TD. These mechanisms suggest an active role of QOL in influencing TD, and it is time for more investigators to consider this potential effect as a starting point in future studies.

Direct and Indirect Effects It is possible that the TD-QOL relationship is not only direct (TD → QOL; QOL → TD) but also indirect through the mediation of one or more variables. A mediator variable intervenes between two other variables (dependent and independent) and may provide (an additional) explanation of the causal relationship between the dependent and independent variables. Simply put, if there are two variables, A and C, they may have a direct connection (A → C; C → A), but it is also possible that the relationship between A and C may go through B (A → B → C; C → B → A). As such, the relationship between A and C could also be indirect through the workings of a mediating variable. Some studies on the TD-QOL relationship have considered the possibility of a mediating variable (e.g., Ridderstaat et al., 2016a, 2016b; Fu et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022; Ridderstaat et al., 2022), but more emphasis on indirect effects through mediation is needed. Magnitude of Effects Another under-emphasized dimension in the TD-QOL relationship is the magnitude or intensity of the effects. It is safe to conclude that the TD-QOL connection, like many other types of relationships, is dynamic rather than generic, implying that there is no one-size-fits-all effect

J. Ridderstaat

and that the link could be characterized by moderation. Moderator effects are derived from both qualitative (e.g., personal characteristics) and quantitative variables (e.g., stage of development), which could determine the direction and/or intensity of possible relationships (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Woo et al. (2019) have also indicated variations in the relationship and demonstrated that the QOL effect of TD is not always positive because of moderation effects. It should be noted that some recent studies have considered moderation, for example, by estimating short and long-term impacts (e.g., Ridderstaat et al., 2016a) or segmenting tourism markets (e.g., Fu et al., 2020). However, the incidences of such studies are still limited. Considering the strength and direction of effects between TD and QOL could add value to our knowledge of the connection between these two constructs.

Applied Research Methods The TD-QOL nexus has overwhelmingly been studied using surveys as the research method, with Structural Equation Modeling being the predominant method of choice. Surveys could be one of the best methods to collect a vast amount of data over a short time (Albudaiwi, 2017), but it is not the Holy Grail of research methods. Even though researchers may have shown many different indicators that validate the adequacy of their survey results, other issues need to be considered, particularly in the design and execution of the data collection process (Story & Tait, 2019). Surveys, for once, rely on human responses. Even though the correct procedures have been undertaken (e.g., training of interviewers, adequate sampling), the proof of the pudding is in getting people to participate and answer the questions the way the researcher intended. One fundamental problem with surveys could be the level of response (or non-response). Non-response can come in two forms. i.e., when a potential respondent refuses to participate entirely in the survey (unit non-response) or when a respondent is participating but refuses to answer one or more questions in the questionnaire (item non-response) (Education Development Center,

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm

2018). Some non-response is always present in surveys, but outcomes with significant non-response rates may be subject to non-response bias (Story & Tait, 2019). Besides notifying readers about the non-response, it is also good to compare the survey outcomes with one or more indicators of the actual population, like age, gender, and place of living of the respondents. Unfortunately, the analyzed studies in Table 2 often omitted this part, and the readers are left in the dark on the reliability of the collected data. Surveys also require appropriate language to avoid confusion with the respondents. For instance, surveys for the general population in most developed countries should still be written at eight-grade level reading, avoiding all kinds of “abbreviations, jargons, colloquialisms, acronyms, or unfamiliar technical terms.” (Story & Tait, 2019, p. 194). Most of the presented research did not (entirely) disclose their questionnaire, partly due to the limited available publication space for presenting the research. However, some wordings like “seasonal months”, “congestion”, “cultural heritage”, “fair prices for goods and services”, “urban sprawls”, “standard of living” and “community spirit” were used in some of the reviewed studies in Table 2, which may affect respondents’ understanding of the questions. Failure to adhere to the language barriers may result in not trustable responses, as researchers may not be able to determine whether respondents understood the questions in the way they were intended, while there is likely no way of going back to check or seek clarification with respondents (Allen et al., 2012). Survey research may also contain personal assessment issues on the TD-QOL analysis. For example, Rivera et al. (2016) noted the workings of social comparison processes, where respondents compare themselves to others while considering the impact of TD on their subjective well-being. This comparative process may affect many results, including a person’s self-concept, level of aspirations, and well-being perceptions (Suls et al., 2002; Ridderstaat et al., 2013). The previous has shown that surveys as a research method are not perfect, and many

67

influences can impact the results. However, no other research method is free of imperfections either. For example, interviews as a research method may be time-consuming and costly, and the findings are not generalizable. At the same time, case studies may be challenging to set up, and the case-effect connection may be tough to establish (Queirós et al., 2017). Time series and panel data research may require comprehensive longitudinal data and proxies for TD (e.g., tourist arrivals or spending) and QOL (e.g., Human Development Index). More diversified research efforts are needed to deepen our understanding of the TD-QOL connection in an environment where the research methods are imperfect.

Towards a New Research Paradigm The previous section has shown that the current research framework on the TD-QOL relationship is incomplete and unbalanced. In an unchanged environment, we risk achieving sub-optimal knowledge about the genuine TD-QOL connection. This study proposes a research paradigm shift along the lines of Fig. 1. From the inner side of the figure, this study suggests investigating the TD-QOL connection in a granular way by focusing on the dimensions of each construct (TD and QOL) and possible mediators. A granular approach allows for a more in-depth understanding of the TD-QOL connection. A study by Fu et al. (2020) already applied such an approach by considering several market segments that constitute TD and how they relate to QOL. Berbekova and Uysal (2021) evaluated the TD-QOL relationship using multiple indicators for each construct. Similar strategies related to the QOL construct and the mediating factor(s) are possible and encouraged in the paradigm shift. The paradigm shift also supports the notion of a bilateral connection between TD and QOL. Studies by Ridderstaat et al. (2013, 2016b) have alluded to this active effect of QOL on TD through, as discussed in the previous section, and studies also validated the bilateral connection (e.g., Ridderstaat et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2022). In

68

J. Ridderstaat

Surveys

Time series

G

G

G

Mediator(s) G

G

G

Case studies

Panel

G G

G

G

G G

TD

G

G

G G

QOL G

G

Same country or region

Mixed methods

Interviews

Expe rime nts

G = Granular

Fig. 1 A paradigm shift in TD-QOL studies

this way, we can assess possible indirect effect relations between TD and QOL. Moreover, the proposed paradigm shift also proffer intensity differences in these effects, alluding to potential workings of moderating effects. Besides direct-indirect and intensity of effects, the new research framework also proposes to study the TD-QOL relationship according to multiple research methods for the same country or region. Ridderstaat et al.’s (2016a, 2016b) studies offer a good example of the envisioned research direction. The authors analyzed the TD-QOL relationship (with mediating effect of economic growth) using a time series approach for the island of Aruba (Ridderstaat et al., 2016a). Subsequently, the authors used a survey to examine the same relationship for the same island (Ridderstaat et al., 2016b). The studies revealed somewhat similar results between TD and QOL. While the studies of Ridderstaat et al. (2016a, 2016b) integrated two study approaches to one country context, further study integration is possible and needed to deepen our understanding of

the TD-QOL nexus. Interview studies could, for example, provide more information on people’s mindsets and how they form their perceptions of the TD-QOL nexus. The experimental design could also provide more information about human behavior in a controlled environment. A multi-method approach to the TD-QOL connection could offer a deeper understanding of the connection between these two constructs. The proposed research paradigm switch offers a structured approach to TD-QOL connection. In this way, we can organize and direct future studies to achieve an optimal understanding of the true nature of the relationship between the TD-QOL relationship.

Conclusion This study investigated the state of current research on the relationship between TD and QOL, first by reviewing two independent studies and second by examining a sample of 54 relevant

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm

studies published between 1988 and 2022. The results show several imbalances that do not necessarily contribute to advancing our understanding of the TD-QOL connection, such as overconcentration on one single research method (surveys), overemphasis on subjective measures of QOL and unilateral effects (mostly TD → QOL). Also, most studies captured QOL at the individual level, remaining oblivious to other possible units of analysis such as family, community, and country. Without any change, the current research modus operandi will continue contributing to diverging and superficial research outcomes. This study proposed a paradigm shift from existing study approaches to the TD-QOL relationship by deepening our understanding using multiple research methods in the same country or region. At the same time, the study proposes to granulate the TD-QOL constructs and consider possible mediating and moderating factors to achieve an in-depth notion of the workings of the envisioned relationship. Using different research methods, we can try to validate the findings among the studies with different methodologies but similar research questions and country/region of analysis, allowing us to strengthen our understanding of the TD-QOL nexus beyond what has been achieved so far. At the same time, we can twist existing research habits and trends (e.g., overemphasis on surveys, a single unit of analysis, and unilateral effects) and challenge researchers into new ways of understanding relationships. We can uncover a more in-depth picture of a theme that has captivated researchers for many years.

References Albudaiwi, D. (2017). In M. Allen (Ed.), Sage. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods: http://methods. sagepub.com/base/download/ReferenceEntry/thesage-encyclopedia-of-communication-researchmethods/i14503.xml Ali, M., Quaddus, M., Rabbanee, F., & Shanka, T. (2020). Community participation and quality of life in naturebased tourism: Exploring the antecedents and

69

moderators. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 46(3), 630–661. Allen, J., Browne, M., & Cherrett, T. (2012). Survey techniques in urban freight transport studies. Transport Reviews, 32(3), 287–311. Allen, L., Hafer, H., Long, P., & Perdue, R. (1993). Rural residents’ attitudes toward recreation and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, Spring, 1993, 27–33. Allen, L., Long, P., Perdue, R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The impact of tourism development on residents’ perceptions of community life. Journal of Travel Research, Summer, 1988, 16–21. Baron, M., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Berbekova, A., & Uysal, M. (2021). Toward an assessment of quality of life indicators as measures of destination performance. Journal of Travel Research, 1–13. Bimonte, S., & Faralla, V. (2016). Does residents’ perceived life satisfaction vary with tourist season? A two-step survey in a Mediterranean destination. Tourism Management, 55, 199–208. Carmihael, B., Peppard, D., & Boudreau, F. (1996). Megaresort on my doorstep: Local resident attitudes toward Foxwoods Casino and casino gambling on nearby Indian reservation land. Journal of Travel Research, Winter, 1996, 9–16. Cheng, L., & Xu, J. (2021). Benefit-sharing and residents’ subjective well-being in rural tourism: An asymmetric approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 21. Chi, C., Cai, R., & Li, Y. (2017). Factors influencing residents’ subjective well-being at World Heritage Sites. Tourism Management, 63, 209–222. Croes, R. (2011). Tourism, poverty relief and the quality of life in developing countries. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & J. Sirgy (Eds.), Tourism and quality of life research (pp. 85–103). Springer. Croes, R. (2012). Assessing tourism development from Sen’s capability approach. Journal of Travel Research, 51(5), 542–554. Croes, R. (2016). Connecting tourism development with small island destinations and with the well-being of the island residents. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(1), 1–4. Croes, R., Ridderstaat, J., & Niekerk, M. (2018). Connecting quality of life, tourism specialization, and economic growth in small island destinations: The case of Malta. Tourism Management, 65, 212–223. Retrieved from https://academic.microsoft.com/paper/ 2765431042 Croes, R., Ridderstaat, J., & Shapoval, V. (2020). Extending tourism competitiveness to human development. Annals of Tourism Research, 80. Education Development Center. (2018). Evaluation toolssample representativeness and nonresponse bias:

70 Frequently asked questions. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from https://preventionsolutions.edc.org/sites/default/ files/attachments/Sample_Representativeness_Nonre sponse_Bias_FAQs_0_0.pdf Emerson, R. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Reviews, inc., 2, 335–362. Eslami, S., Khalifah, Z., Mardani, A., Streimikiene, D., & Heesup, H. (2019). Community attachment, tourism impacts, quality of life and residents’ support for sustainable tourism development. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(9), 1061–1079. Fu, X., Ridderstaat, J., & Jia, H. (2020). Are all tourism markets equal? Linkages between market-based tourism demand, quality of life, and economic development in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 77, 1–13. Godovykh, M., & Ridderstaat, J. (2020). Health outcomes of tourism development: A longitudinal study of the impact of tourism arrivals on residents’ health. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 17. Godovykh, M., Ridderstaat, J., & Fyall, A. (2021). The well-being impacts of tourism: Long-term and shortterm effects of tourism development on residents’ happiness. Tourism Economics, 1–20. Hu, R., Li, G., Liu, A., & Chen, J. (2022). Emerging research trends on residents’ quality of life in the context of tourism development. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 1–22. Ivlevs, A. (2017). Happy hosts? International tourist arrivals and residents’ subjective well-being in Europe. Journal of Travel Research, 56(5), 599–612. Jordan, E., Lesar, L., & Spencer, D. (2021). Clarifying the interrelations of residents’ perceived tourism-related stress, stressors, and impacts. Journal of Travel Research, 60(1), 208–219. Jordan, E., Vieira, J., Santos, C., & Huang, T. (2020). Do residents differentiate between the impacts of tourism, cruise tourism, and Airbnb tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–19. Kim, H., Kim, Y., & Woo, E. (2021). Examining the impacts of touristification on quality of life (QOL): the application of the bottom-up spillover theory. The Service Industries Journal, 41(11), 787–802. Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management, 36, 527–540. Retrieved from https://academic.microsoft.com/paper/ 2058924038 Koh, E., Fakfare, P., & Pongwat, A. (2020). The limits of Thai hospitality impact of tourism development on residents. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 8(1), 187–209. Kubickova, M. (2017). Human agency shaping tourism competitiveness and quality of life in developing economies. Tourism Management Perspectives, 22, 120–131. Lai, H., Pinto, P., & Pintassilgo, P. (2021). Quality of life and emotional solidarity in residents’ attitudes toward tourists: The case of Macau. Journal of Travel Research, 60(5), 1123–1139.

J. Ridderstaat Lankford, S., & Howard, D. (1994). Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale. Annals of Tourisn Research, 21, 121–139. Lee, C., Chen, M., & Peng, Y. (2021). Tourism development and happiness: International evidence. Tourism Economics, 27(5), 1101–1136. Lee, C., Kim, J., & Kim, J. (2018). Impact of a gaming company’s CSR on residents’ perceived benefits, quality of life, and support. Tourism Management, 64, 281–290. Lee, D., Kim, S., Han, H., & Wong, A. (2020). Casino tourism development is blessing or curse? Assessment of casino tourism impacts and suggestions for sustainable casino tourism development. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(11), 1168–1184. Li, S., Ridderstaat, J., & Yost, E. (2022). Tourism development and quality of life interdependence with evolving age-cohort-based population. Tourism Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022. 104621 Liang, Z., & Hui, T. (2016). Residents’ quality of life and attitudes toward tourism development in China. Tourism Management, 57, 56–67. Lin, Z., Chen, Y., & Filieri, R. (2017). Resident-tourist value co-creation: The role of residents’ perceived tourism impacts and life satisfaction. Tourism Management, 61, 436–442. Lindberg, K., Munanura, I., Kooistra, C., Needham, M., & Ghahramani, L. (2022). Understanding effects of tourism on residents: A contingent subjective well-being approach. Journal of Travel Research, 61(2), 346–361. Manhas, P., Singh, R., Fodor, G., Berghauer, S., Mir, M., & David, L. (2021). Examination of impact of responsible tourism practices on quality of life of destination communities. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 36(2), 688–697. Mathew, P., & Sreejesh, S. (2017). Impact of responsible tourism on destination sustainability and quality of life of community in tourism destinations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31, 83–89. Mihalic, T., & Kuščer, K. (2022). Can overtourism be managed? Destination management factors affecting residents’ irritation and quality of life. Tourism Review, 77(1), 16–34. Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 191–204. Nunkoo, R., & So, K. (2016). Residents’ support for tourism: Testing alternative structural models. Journal of Travel Research, 55(7), 847–861. Perdue, R., Long, P., & Kang, Y. (1995). Resident support for gambling as a tourism development strategy. Journal of Travel Research, Fall, 1995, 3–11. Pratt, S., McCabe, S., & Movono, A. (2016). Gross happiness of a ‘tourism’ village in Fiji. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5, 26–35. Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research

Tourism Development and Quality of Life Research: Towards a New Study Paradigm methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9), 369–387. Rastegar, R., Zarezadeh, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2021). World heritage and social justice: Insights from the inscription of Yazd, Iran. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(2–3), 521–540. Ridderstaat, J., Croes, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2013). Tourism development, quality of life and exogenous shocks: A systemic framework. International Journal of Society Systems Science, 5(4), 321–336. Ridderstaat, J., Croes, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2016a). The tourism development-quality of life nexus in a small island destination. Journal of Travel Research. Ridderstaat, J., Croes, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2016b). A two-way causal chain between tourism development and quality of life in a small island destination: An empirical analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(10), 1461–1479. Ridderstaat, J., Fu, X., & Lin, B. (2022). A framework for understanding the nexus between tourism development and poverty: Application to Honduras. Tourism Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022. 104620 Rivera, M., Croes, R., & Lee, S. (2016). Tourism development and happiness: A residents’ perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5, 5–15. Sen, A. (1999). Commodities and capabilities. OUP Catalogue. Slabbert, E., Plessis, E., & Digun-Aweto, O. (2021). Impacts of tourism in predicting residents’ opinions and interest in tourism activities. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 19(6), 819–837. Stienmetz, J., Liu, A., & Tussyadiah, L. (2020). Impact of perceived peer to peer accommodation development on community residents’ well-being. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–19. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://www.unstats.un.org Story, D., & Tait, A. (2019). Survey research. Anesthesiology, 130(2), 192–202. Su, L., & Swanson, S. (2020). The effect of personal benefits from, and support of, tourism development: The role of relational quality and quality-of-life. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(3), 433–454. Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: why, with whom, and with what effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159–163. Tokarchuk, O., Gabriele, R., & Maurer, O. (2016). Development of city tourism and well-being of urban residents: A case of German Magic Cities. Tourism Economics, 23(2), 343–359. Tokarchuk, O., Gabriele, R., & Maurer, O. (2021). Estimating tourism social carrying capacity. Annals of Tourism Research, 86. Urtasun, A., & Gutiérrez, I. (2006). Tourism agglomeration and its impact on social welfare: An empirical approach to the Spanish case. Tourism Management, 27, 901–912.

71

Uysal, M., Sirgy, J., Woo, E., & Kim, H. (2016). Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tourism Management, 53, 244–261. Vogt, C., Jordan, E., Grewe, N., & Kruger, L. (2016). Collaborative tourism planning and subjective wellbeing in a small island destination. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5, 36–43. Volo, S. (2017). Eudaimonic well-being of islanders: Does tourism contribute? The case of the Aeolian Archipelago. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6, 465–476. Wang, S., Berbekova, A., & Uysal, M. (2021). Is this about feeling? The interplay of emotional well-being, solidarity and residents’ attitude. Journal of Travel Research, 60(6), 1180–1195. Wang, S., Berbekova, A., & Uysal, M. (2022). Pursuing justice and quality of life: Supporting tourism. Tourism Management, 89. Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 84–97. Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Joseph Sirgy, M. (2019). What is the nature of the relationship between tourismdevelopment and the quality of life of host communities? In Best practices in hospitality and tourism marketing and management (pp. 43–62). Springer. Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2018). Tourism impact and stakeholders’ quality of life. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(2), 260–286. Yolal, M., Gursoy, D., Uysal, M., Kim, H., & Karacaoglu, S. (2016). Impacts of festivals and events on residents’ well-being. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 1–18.

Jorge Ridderstaat Ph.D., is currently an Associate Professor at the UCF Rosen College of Hospitality Management. Between 1996–2016, he worked as an economist (1996–2008) and Research Director (2008–2016) at the Central Bank of Aruba. Since 2016, he has been a faculty member at the University of Florida/Rosen College of Hospitality Management. His primary research interest focuses on investigating novel factors that impact tourists’ demand for goods and services. Some off-center factors are push-pull weather, quality of life, health treatment, crowding-out tourist markets, (smart) tourism specialization, households’ financial position, money supply, vegetation, economic growth, dengue, and COVID-19. He specializes in secondary time series and panel data applications. His secondary research interest concerns the factors influencing the hospitality industry’s performance, where he focuses mainly on the restaurant and lodging sectors. Dr. Ridderstaat has a Bachelor’s Degree in Accounting (The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands), a Master’s Degree in Economics (Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands), and a Ph.D. Degree in Tourism Economics from the Free University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands). Email: Jorge. [email protected].

Exploring the Link Between Quality of Life and Destination Performance Adiyukh Berbekova

Introduction The first edition of this Handbook of Tourism and Quality of Life Research: Enhancing the Lives of Tourists and Residents of Host Communities (Uysal et al., 2012b), has covered an extensive list of topics and challenges relating to quality of life (QOL) research in tourism. One of the missing links identified by the editors in concluding remarks was the connection between quality of life and destination performance. It was argued that while it is commonly accepted that tourism development may have an impact on the objective quality of life in the destination (e.g., economic development), there has been limited research exploring this complex connection (Uysal et al., 2012a, 2012b). Indeed, the interest in the QOL topic in tourism continues to grow, but we haven’t seen many empirical studies that would take an initiative in exploring the suggested link between performance and QOL further. Tourism and hospitality researchers recognize the enhancement of quality of life and well-being of tourists, residents, and industry employees as the ultimate goal. There is a rich body of knowledge that examines the effects of tourism activities and experiences on well-being and QOL. These inquiries contribute to our A. Berbekova (✉) Shidler College of Business, University of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA e-mail: [email protected]

understanding of the underlying mechanism of tourism effects on well-being and suggest intervention practices aimed at improving QOL (Uysal et al., 2016). Despite the vast literature, the majority of existing studies focus on subjective assessment of well-being on the level of an individual. There is a lack of research investigating the application of quality of life variables, pertaining to different tourism stakeholders, and indicators as performance measures. Recently it was proposed that for a comprehensive measure of performance in tourism and hospitality, the incorporation of quality of life indicators (both objective and subjective) is needed (Uysal, 2019; Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). Thus, Uysal and Sirgy (2019) argue that certain QOL indicators should be formally treated as performance measures for tourism destinations and hospitality businesses. The implementation of quality of life indices will provide a more inclusive measure of success, promote sustainable tourism development, and further contribute to communities’ well-being. While Uysal and Sirgy (2019) conceptualize the inclusion of QOL indicators as measures of performance both on a macro (destination) and micro (hospitality firm) levels, in this book chapter we discuss the reciprocal connection between traditional measures of destination performance and related quality of life indicators. The health crisis caused by COVID-19 has further intensified the challenge for destination management organizations and tourism policy-

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_6

73

74

makers. Managing organizations should direct their focus toward developing destinations following sustainability principles and considering the wide impact on the quality of life of all stakeholders involved. The successful recovery from the pandemic impacts requires coordinated endeavors from both the industry and academia (Berbekova & Uysal, 2021). There is a need for novel research that will concentrate on establishing new comprehensive measures of destination performance that account for quality of life. Thus, the objectives of this book chapter are as follows: (1) to provide an overview of the relevant literature on quality of life in tourism and destination performance; (2) to discuss the mutual connection between performance measures and quality of life indicators and to offer some avenues for future research.

Quality of Life in Tourism The topics of quality of life and well-being in tourism and hospitality have received considerable attention and continue to attract scholars and practitioners’ interest in exploring new research avenues (Ali et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). While this book chapter does not aim to provide an extensive review of the existing research, to set the stage for the subsequent discussion, it is important to summarize the existing QOL approaches and measurements. Currently, three main research directions can be highlighted: (1) communities/residents’ quality of life (e.g., Wang et al., 2022; Woo et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2011); (2) tourists’ quality of life (e.g., Farkić et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021; Sirgy et al., 2011); (3) industry employees’ overall well-being and quality of work life (e.g., Baker & Kim, 2020; Kara et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2018). Within each of these research areas, QOL or well-being primarily serve as an outcome or dependent variable and the research questions are concerned with how certain tourism/hospitality experiences and activities affect the main actors’ QOL positively or negatively. With the progress of this research stream, scholars bring new antecedents in exploring the underlying processes of what may impact

A. Berbekova

stakeholders’ QOL in tourism and hospitality settings (e.g., Aleshinloye et al., 2022). The concepts of well-being and quality of life are often used interchangeably, nonetheless, while sharing a similar connotation, there are differences in these concepts with the latter (QOL) being a more encompassing term (Land & Michalos, 2018; Michalos, 2015; Sirgy et al., 2006). When it comes to measures of QOL, there are three approaches recognized in the literature, including objective conditions of one’s life, subjective evaluation of or satisfaction with life, and the combination of the two (Sirgy, 2012; Sirgy & Uysal, 2016). The objective QOL includes indicators that reflect several dimensions, including economic conditions (e.g. per capita income, consumer expenditure), state of the health sector (e.g., number of hospitals), education sector (e.g., mean years of schooling), environmental conditions (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions), safety and stability (e.g., homicide rate). On a contrary, subjective QOL is commonly concerned with one’s reactions and feelings toward the objective conditions or circumstances and includes concepts of perceived QOL, overall life satisfaction and happiness (Diener, 2006; Diener & Suh, 1997). Originally, the social indicators referred to objective indicators only (Land & Michalos, 2018), currently, the term encompasses the subjective evaluations as well. The combination of both is desirable to capture a holistic picture of quality of life. However, while beneficial, it is not always feasible due to data availability. As this book chapter discusses both objective and subjective measures of quality of life and concentrates on their connection to destination performance, some discussion on the existing studies that focus on the relationship between tourism and communities’ QOL is warranted. The topic of tourism impacts on the destination and communities’ perceptions and attitudes toward tourism development remains one of the most well-researched in tourism studies. Moreover, with the conceptual shift toward non-material benefits of tourism, novel inquiries were put forward to focus on how tourism may impact locals’ overall well-being and

Exploring the Link Between Quality of Life and Destination Performance

communities’ QOL (Uysal et al., 2016). These studies employed both subjective (e.g. Chen et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2019; Woo et al., 2015) and objective (e.g. Meng et al., 2010; Urtasun & Gutiérrez, 2006) measures of QOL. For the subjective assessment of QOL and wellbeing, researchers used several measures, including life domain satisfaction, overall life satisfaction, perceived happiness, and perceived QOL (Sirgy, 2010; Wang et al., 2021). Thus, Kim et al. (2013) in their studies focused on the impact of tourism development on locals’ satisfaction with several life domains, including health and safety, material, community and emotional wellbeing, and overall life satisfaction. The authors found that positive perceptions of economic impacts associated with tourism are positively correlated with locals’ satisfaction with material well-being, while positive perceptions of social and cultural impacts are positively related to community and emotional well-being respectively. Similarly, Ouyang et al. (2019) investigated how the residents’ perceptions toward a megaevent in the destination (Standard Chartered Hong Kong Marathon) influence their perceived QOL and subsequent support toward the event. Their results did not only confirm the significance of QOL in predicting support for the event but also indicated that the importance of improved QOL in explaining locals’ supportive behaviors increases over time. Perdue and Gustke (1991) employed objective QOL indicators reflecting population age distribution, housing quality, expenditure on education, per capita income, and health care quality across 100 counties in North Carolina. Their analysis confirmed that the relationship between certain indicators and tourism development in the destination varies. Thus, there is no association found between income, population age distribution and tourism development, while housing quality, overall education level, and available health care are significantly associated with higher levels of tourism development (Perdue & Gustke, 1991). Different results were obtained by Urtasun and Gutiérrez (2006) who confirmed a significant positive relationship between income levels and tourism development in the

75

destination. Similarly, Meng et al. (2010), drawing on the analysis of 31 provinces, confirmed that residents in the destinations with higher levels of tourism development have “better life” as reflected by economic, health, and education conditions. Overall, the findings within this research stream show that the effects of tourism development on both objective and subjective QOL vary and can be either positive or negative and moreover, are contingent on the destination development stage (Berbekova & Uysal, 2021). Drawing on the concept of tourism area life cycle (TALC), proposed by Butler (1980), Uysal et al. (2012c) note that the stage of tourism development (i.e. exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation, decline) will prompt changes in locals’ reactions and attitudes toward tourism in the destination and similarly, in the relationship between perceived tourism impacts and residents’ QOL. Moreover, this relationship may vary based on the type of tourism impact (i.e., social, economic, cultural, environmental) and the well-being domain (i.e., material, emotional, community) or overall life satisfaction (Kim et al., 2013). This further reiterates the importance of recognizing the heterogeneity factor when assessing destination performance and competitiveness.

Destination Performance There is no commonly accepted definition of destination performance in tourism literature as they may vary depending on the context and the research objectives. Some studies employ a generic perspective on performance as a process of assessing the destination’s efficiency in generating tourism demand (Hanafiah & Zulkifly, 2019). Other studies focus on a specific performance attribute, such as the number of arrivals, foreign exchange earnings, or tourism receipts (e.g., Ak{n, 2015; de la Peña et al., 2019). Despite the lack of a universal definition, the assessment of destination performance remains one of the most important areas in tourism research. Monitoring and managing the

76

performance of a destination is a crucial process in assessing efficient and effective use of available resources and serves as a basis for implementing short- and long-term strategic decisions relating to the destination development. The growing number of empirical studies on destination performance demonstrate the critical implications of such research (Goffi et al., 2019; Gómez-Vega et al., 2021; Hanafiah & Zulkifly, 2019; Kubickova & Martin, 2020; Oklevik et al., 2019; Salinas Fernández et al., 2020). The performance of a tourism destination is usually evaluated based on a set of specific indicators. As noted by Uysal and Sirgy (2019), the set of such indicators can be unique to the destination and is contingent on the available resources, tourism-related assets, and particular issues that the destination is facing (including economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism development). Similar to measures of QOL, destination performance can be assessed through both subjective and objective indicators. For instance, Baloglu et al. (2004) utilized an attribute-based destination performance measure in their study of Canadian tourists’ revisit intentions to Las Vegas. A list of destination attributes pertaining to Las Vegas was assessed by visitors on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1-Terrible to 7-Excellent). The authors confirmed three dimensions of destination performance, including: variety of activities/ entertainment, quality of product/environment, and value/diversity (Baloglu et al., 2004). Nonetheless, there are several commonly accepted objective measures of performance that are traditionally employed in both practice and research. Thus, for example, the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, n.d.) recognizes the following key performance indicators: number of tourist arrivals, tourism receipts, tourism expenditure, and international tourism exports, while World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) collects data on four measures including the total contribution of the travel and tourism industry to GDP, capital investment, domestic and visitors spending (WTTC, n.d.). Among the listed indicators, the number of tourist arrivals and tourism receipts are the most

A. Berbekova

prevalent measures utilized in tourism research (Assaf & Tsionas, 2015). However, many destinations today, confronted with a variety of challenges (e.g. overcrowding), are considering a broader list of measures, moving beyond conventional arrivals and receipts (Oklevik et al., 2019). Despite the recognized importance of widening the perspective on destination performance, only a few studies have implemented measures other than the traditional tourism arrivals and tourist expenditure (e.g., Croes et al., 2021). Luo (2018) notes that a mere economic perspective on destination performance is simplistic and doesn’t conduce to the sustainable development of destinations. Previous research demonstrates that disregarding critical drivers of destination performance may result in false conclusions. For instance, Assaf and Tsionas (2015) measured destination performance for 101 nations over 4 years (2008–2012) with the inclusion of destination quality. The authors used 20 indicators related to the quality of tourist infrastructure (e.g. ground infrastructure), human resource quality (e.g., availability of qualified labor), and environmental quality indicators (e.g., sustainability of tourism industry development). The study findings confirmed the importance of accounting for destination quality when evaluating performance. Thus, within the bigger picture, ignoring the quality aspects of tourism destinations may lead to a biased estimation of their actual performance (Assaf & Dwyer, 2013). Similarly, Hanafiah and Zulkifly (2019) analyzed the destination performance of 115 countries, considering the factors of infrastructure quality, destination and environmental management, tourism price, and globalization level, as well as the core and complementary tourist resources and attractions. The results demonstrated that while certain destinations may be viewed as competitive, their competitive advantages may not necessarily translate into actual performance. The authors note that for an accurate measure of destination performance, the unique features of the destination should be taken into account (Hanafiah & Zulkifly, 2019). The preceding discussion indicates that with few exceptions, studies on destination

Exploring the Link Between Quality of Life and Destination Performance

performance continually employ conventional measures to assess the success of the host region. Such unilateral perspective narrows the view on destination efficiency, thereby limiting potentially wide practical implications for destinations. In the next section, we review the reciprocity between quality of life measures and destination performance and discuss how QOL indicators can be incorporated in evaluating performance.

The Reciprocity Between Destination Performance and Quality of Life The potential mutual connection between tourism development and quality of life has been discussed in the tourism literature and the question of ‘what drives what’ has been addressed in some studies (e.g., Croes, 2012; Croes et al., 2021; Ridderstaat et al., 2016a). To this date, the answer to the question remains inconclusive, indicating that the connection between tourism and QOL is more intricate and convoluted and could vary contingent on the destination (Fu et al., 2020). Thus, Croes (2012) focused on examining the connection between tourism growth and human development (as measured by Human Development Index (HDI)) in Nicaragua and Costa Rica. The author concluded that for Nicaragua the reinforcing relationship was confirmed, suggesting that a better human development performance is associated with tourism growth. However, for Costa Rica, the same link was found unstable and abate over time, showing a “threshold effect” (Croes, 2012, p. 551). Similarly, the study from CárdenasGarcía et al. (2015) assessed the effect of tourism growth on economic development. Thereby, the authors conceptualized the economic development of a destination as encompassing several economic, environmental, and social-cultural dimensions. The study results demonstrated that while tourism activities may enhance economic development, the relationship holds only for developed economies. The inverse relationship (quality of life on tourism development) has been investigated in the literature as well (e.g., Croes et al., 2021;

77

Ridderstaat et al., 2014, 2016b). For example, Ridderstaat et al. (2016a) examined the interplay between economic growth (i.e. gross domestic product), quality of life (i.e. HDI), and tourism development (i.e. tourism receipts) in Aruba island. Their findings suggested that QOL has both direct and indirect effects (mediated through economic growth) on tourism development and the relationship between variables is non-linear. A recent study by Fu et al. (2020) took a case study approach and analyzed the relationship between tourism demand (i.e. number of arrivals), quality of life (HDI), and economic growth (real gross domestic product) for Hong Kong. The study focused on inspecting this triangle relationship for Hong-Kong, considering the heterogeneity of the top source markets. Thus, quality of life was found to have a positive impact on total tourism demand to Hong Kong, while both quality of life and tourism demand were associated with improvements in economic development. However, the interrelationship between the three variables varied depending on the tourists’ country of origin. Similarly, a study by Croes et al. (2021) focused on analyzing the relationship between tourism specialization, economic growth, and human development for Poland. The study has further addressed the research gap in the literature by exploring the conceptual connection between tourism specialization and human development drawing on A. Smith’s division of labor and Sen’s theory of capabilities. Tourism specialization was defined as a “dynamic concept affecting a country’s economic reorganization” (Croes et al., 2021, p. 2). The results suggested that for economies in transition (i.e. Poland) tourism specialization has a weak negative effect on human development while demonstrating a positive direct impact on the economy in a short term. As the discussion above demonstrates, the relationship between QOL and destination performance (i.e. tourism development, tourism growth) has been theorized in the literature and some studies alluded to the reciprocity and potential overlapping between these measures. However, substantiation of this argument lacks empirical investigation. In social indicators

78

A. Berbekova

research and other social sciences areas, academics have long proposed to implement QOL concepts in performance measures (Sirgy, 2012; Sirgy et al., 1982). Thus, Sirgy (2012) suggests that the incorporation of QOL variables will bridge the gap between extensive well-being research and public policy. One of the first studies that proposed a theoretical framework connecting QOL principles and performance was the conceptual study from Sirgy et al. (1982). The authors discussed the mutual connection between quality of life and marketing activities. Specifically, they argued that the effectiveness of certain marketing activities can be assessed by evaluating how these activities improve QOL on different levels (i.e. individual, group, societal, world). In a similar manner, this book chapter contends the notion that tourism destinations need to develop placespecific measures of performance that will reflect the conventional indicators (e.g., arrivals, receipts) in conjunction with quality of life indices. Box 1 Assessing Destination Performance Through Quality of Life

Berbekova et al. (2021) explored the reciprocity between five dimensions of objective quality of life indicators, measured through 16 indicators (e.g., gross domestic product, consumer expenditure, adult literacy rate, life expectancy, number of hospitals and clinics, population density, etc.), and five traditional destination performance measures (e.g. number of arrivals, receipts, visitor exports, domestic tourism spending, etc.) for 105 countries during the period of 1995–2018 through canonical correlation analysis. The findings suggested not only a presence of a mutual connection between these variables but also confirmed a strong interaction between the sets. Thus, the redundancy analysis revealed that 39.4% of the destination performance variance could be recovered from the quality of life indicators set, indicating an overlap between these variables. Similar patterns

were identified in the follow-up analysis of data subsets, including two 12-year periods (i.e., 1995–2006, 2007–2018) and four 6-year periods (i.e., 1995–2000; 2001–2006; 2007–2012; 2013–2018). Specifically, economic (e.g., gross income, consumer expenditure), education (e.g., adult literacy rate), health (e.g., number of hospitals and doctors), and safety (political stability) objective quality of life indices were established to be highly associated with destination performance measures. Such findings reiterate the notion discussed in this book chapter that certain quality of life indicators can be formally treated as destination performance measures. An additional analysis of the mutual connection between QOL and destination performance for three groups of countries (developed economies, economies in transition, and developing economies) confirmed the reciprocity with the highest overlap of the two sets for developed countries.

Uysal and Sirgy (2019) in their conceptualization of the convergence and overlap between QOL and performance note the importance of accounting for both objective and subjective measures of QOL. Thus, destinations’ economic, environmental, health, education, safety wellbeing, etc. are output or outcome indicators of tourism development in a wider context, that reflect residents’ overall life conditions (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). Such data should be supplemented by the residents’ perceived QOL that presents a subjective assessment of one’s satisfaction with life and life domains and may impact locals’ attitudes and supportive behavior toward tourism (Berbekova et al., 2021). In the same manner, Croes (2016) emphasizes the critical significance of combining the objective and subjective QOL, as similar objective conditions may prompt various reactions and experiences across residents. He further notes that quality of life (as reflected by combined measures) should be treated as a

Exploring the Link Between Quality of Life and Destination Performance

79

Fig. 1 Destination performance with quality of life indicators

necessary prerequisite of a destination’s success (Croes, 2016). Drawing on the previous discussion relating to the reciprocal relation between destination performance and QOL, a framework of destination performance, accounting for objective and subjective QOL is proposed. The framework is shown in Fig. 1. Figure 1 is a simplified representation of a comprehensive measure of destination performance, accounting for quality of life. It posits that destination performance can be expressed not only through conventional measures, but also should include objective and subjective indicators of well-being and quality of life. Thus, the performance of the host region can be assessed by evaluating the state of the economy, health and education sectors, environmental and

safety conditions, and also by gauging community residents’ perceived levels of well-being and QOL. The examples of indicators presented in Fig. 1 are by no means an exhaustive list of measures. As Fig. 1 depicts these combined indicators of performance are not only placespecific but are also dependent on the stage of tourism development in the destination. Thus, the challenge for destination management organizations is to develop measures of performance, reflective of particular issues faced by destinations on a given stage of the tourism life cycle (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). The composite measures of destination performance will vary from destination to destination. Moreover, the nature and the range of what indicators are included will differ as well. As such, there is no universal approach to

80

performance measures, incorporating QoL, at the destination level. Thus, the operationalization of the proposed combined measures may follow either formative or reflective measurement models (first- or second-order), depending on the set of indicators included. It should be also noted that the set of chosen indicators may be highly associated with each other, suggesting that they could be interchangeable (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). Analogous to the traditional performance measures (i.e. arrivals, receipts, contribution to GDP), the improvement and enhancement of both destinations’ objective conditions of quality of life and residents’ subjective life satisfaction, as a result of tourism development, is expected. Thus, the planning and development programs for the destination should target to decrease the discrepancy between the existing and desired levels of QOL. Following that, the destination performance will be evaluated based on the effectiveness of the implemented programs in improving objective life conditions and residents’ perceived quality of life. Uysal et al. (2020) note that planning and managing tourism destinations following the principles of ‘designing for quality of life’ will improve well-being for all tourism stakeholders (i.e. residents, tourists, industry employees), and also contribute to the enhancement of destinations’ livability.

Conclusion and Future Research Directions The significance of quality of life and well-beingrelated inquiries in tourism and hospitality is reflected in extensive research that has been documented in the past decades. Despite the affluent research stream, many questions remain unanswered. One area that has received little attention is the convergence of traditional performance measures and quality of life indicators, used to gauge the well-being of destination residents, tourists, and industry employees. This book chapter has followed the conceptualization of Uysal and Sirgy (2019) and focused on analyzing the mutual connection between quality of life and

A. Berbekova

destination performance. It provides an overview of destination performance and relevant quality of life research and discusses why it is critical to include QOL indices in performance assessment. The chapter further proposes a framework of destination performance that accounts for both objective and subjective indicators of well-being and acknowledges the key role of the tourism development stage in the destination. It is important to reiterate that the development of comprehensive destination performance measures with the inclusion of quality of life indicators should be placespecific. Each destination may require a unique set of indicators with an emphasis on a specific quality of life dimension (economic, environmental, socio-cultural, etc). For instance, Berbekova et al. (2021) did not find a strong interaction between environmental QOL indices and destination performance measures across 105 countries, nonetheless, this dimension can be customized as a unique variable for certain regions. Thus, the implementation and further evaluation of these measures will depend on a variety of contextual characteristics and as result, certain place-specific indicators should be operationalized (Berbekova et al., 2021). With the general shift toward recognizing the value of tourism in improving QOL and wellbeing, we observe more research inquiries that focus on the potential bilateral relationship between tourism development and QOL. The studies that explore the two-way causal relationship, in their overwhelming majority, employ the Human Development Index (HDI) as the proxy for quality of life. The HDI is a composite measure that consists of, health, education, and economic dimensions, measured through life expectancy at birth, mean of years of schooling and expected years of schooling, and gross national income per capita respectively. Considering that some of these studies analyze the link between HDI and other economic development proxies (e.g., gross domestic product), the appropriateness of HDI for investigating the impact on destination’s economy should be further investigated. Moreover, depending on the data availability, future studies should employ a wider range of objective indices reflecting several

Exploring the Link Between Quality of Life and Destination Performance

QOL dimensions in the destination. Such an approach will contribute to creating a more comprehensive measure of performance. Furthermore, consistent with the United Nations (UN) 2030 agenda for sustainable development, indicators reflecting sustainable development of the destination (e.g., promoting local communities’ culture, environmentally responsible use of natural resources) can be further implemented in the destination performance measurement. While this book chapter explores the reciprocity between QOL and performance on a macro level (e.g. tourism destination), the QOL indicators should be analyzed in relation to all stakeholders of the functioning tourism system (e.g. residents, tourists, and employees) (Uysal, 2019; Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). Future research should investigate how hospitality or tourism organizations’ performance corresponds with the tourists’ quality of life and employees’ quality of work life (QWL). Similarly, the focus should be on decreasing the discrepancies between the existing and desired levels of QOL (Sirgy et al., 1982). As previously stated, the COVID-19 health crisis has brought the issues of health and wellbeing to the fore of research in many academic fields. Thus, tourism and hospitality scholars focus on research that will explore ways in which tourism activities and experiences may enhance stakeholders’ QOL. In addition, this book chapter contends that QOL should be formally viewed as performance and efficiency measures. The implementation of quality of life indicators (either objective or subjective) will not only aid in determining a more comprehensive measure of performance but also contribute to an effective resource configuration for destinations and provide clear guidelines for policymakers. Furthermore, this mutual connection should be explored for hospitality and tourism firms to create efficiency measures that account for the well-being of their employees and customers.

81

References Ak{n, M. (2015). A novel approach to model selection in tourism demand modeling. Tourism Management, 48, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.11.004 Aleshinloye, K. D., Woosnam, K. M., Tasci, A. D. A., & Ramkissoon, H. (2022). Antecedents and outcomes of resident empowerment through tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 61(3), 656–673. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0047287521990437 Ali, M. B., Quaddus, M., Rabbanee, F. K., & Shanka, T. (2022). Community participation and quality of life in nature-based tourism: Exploring the antecedents and moderators. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 46(3), 630–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1096348020980094 Assaf, A. G., & Dwyer, L. (2013). Benchmarking international tourism destinations. Tourism Economics, 19(6), 1233–1247. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2013.0354 Assaf, A. G., & Tsionas, E. G. (2015). Incorporating destination quality into the measurement of tourism performance: A Bayesian approach. Tourism Management, 49, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman. 2015.02.003 Baker, M. A., & Kim, K. (2020). Dealing with customer incivility: The effects of managerial support on employee psychological well-being and quality-oflife. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, 102503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020. 102503 Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., Chen, S.-L., & Santos, J. (2004). The relationship between destination performance, overall satisfaction, and behavioral intention for distinct segments. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 4(3–4), 149–165. https://doi.org/ 10.1300/J162v04n03_10 Berbekova, A., & Uysal, M. (2021). Wellbeing and quality of life in tourism. In J. Wilks, D. Pendergast, P. A. Leggat, & D. Morgan (Eds.), Tourist health, safety and wellbeing in the new normal (pp. 243–268). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5415-2_10 Berbekova, A., Uysal, M., & Assaf, A. G. (2021). Toward an assessment of quality of life indicators as measures of destination performance. Journal of Travel Research, 00472875211026755. https://doi.org/10. 1177/00472875211026755 Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 24(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064. 1980.tb00970.x Cárdenas-García, P. J., Sánchez-Rivero, M., & PulidoFernández, J. I. (2015). Does tourism growth influence economic development? Journal of Travel Research, 54(2), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287513514297 Chen, Y., Cottam, E., & Lin, Z. (2020). The effect of resident-tourist value co-creation on residents’ wellbeing. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism

82 Management, 44, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jhtm.2020.05.009 Croes, R. (2012). Assessing tourism development from Sen’s capability approach. Journal of Travel Research, 51(5), 542–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287511431323 Croes, R. (2016). Connecting tourism development with small island destinations and with the well-being of the island residents. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jdmm.2016.01.007 Croes, R., Ridderstaat, J., Bąk, M., & Zientara, P. (2021). Tourism specialization, economic growth, human development and transition economies: The case of Poland. Tourism Management, 82, 104181. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104181 de la Peña, M. R., Núñez-Serrano, J. A., Turrión, J., & Velázquez, F. J. (2019). A new tool for the analysis of the international competitiveness of tourist destinations based on performance. Journal of Travel Research, 58(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287517746012 Diener, E. (2006). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(4), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10902-006-9000-y Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40(1), 189–216. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1006859511756 Farkić, J., Filep, S., & Taylor, S. (2020). Shaping tourists’ wellbeing through guided slow adventures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(12), 2064–2080. https://doi. org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1789156 Fu, X., Ridderstaat, J., & Jia, H. (Chenge). (2020). Are all tourism markets equal? Linkages between marketbased tourism demand, quality of life, and economic development in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 77, 104015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019. 104015 Goffi, G., Cucculelli, M., & Masiero, L. (2019). Fostering tourism destination competitiveness in developing countries: The role of sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 101–115. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.208 Gómez-Vega, M., Herrero-Prieto, L. C., & López, M. V. (2021). Clustering and country destination performance at a global scale: Determining factors of tourism Tourism Economics, competitiveness. 13548166211007598. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 13548166211007598 Hanafiah, M., & Zulkifly, M. (2019). Tourism destination competitiveness and tourism performance: A secondary data approach. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 29, 592–621. https://doi. org/10.1108/CR-07-2018-0045 Kara, D., Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, G. (2013). The effects of leadership style on employee well-being in hospitality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm. 2013.02.001

A. Berbekova Kim, H. (Lina), Sirgy, M. J., Uysal, M., & Kim, S.-E. (2021). Enhancing the quality of life of senior tourists: A theoretical perspective. Anatolia, 32(4), 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2021.1999752 Kim, H. (Lina), Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Kwon, N. (2018). The effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on employee well-being in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(3), 1584–1600. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJCHM-03-2016-0166 Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management, 36, 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012. 09.005 Kubickova, M., & Martin, D. (2020). Exploring the relationship between government and destination competitiveness: The TALC model perspective. Tourism Management, 78, 104040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2019.104040 Land, K. C., & Michalos, A. C. (2018). Fifty years after the social indicators movement: Has the promise been fulfilled?: An assessment an agenda for the future. Social Indicators Research, 135(3), 835–868. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1571-y Luo, W. (2018). Evaluating tourist destination performance: Expanding the sustainability concept. Sustainability, 10(2), 516. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10020516 Meng, F., Li, X., & Uysal, M. (2010). Tourism development and regional quality of life: The case of China. Journal of China Tourism Research, 6(2), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2010.481602 Michalos, A. C. (2015). Ancient views on the quality of life. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Ancient views on the quality of life (pp. 1–90). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16525-7_1 Oklevik, O., Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., Jacobsen, J. K. S., Grøtte, I. P., & McCabe, S. (2019). Overtourism, optimisation, and destination performance indicators: A case study of activities in Fjord Norway. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(12), 1804–1824. https://doi. org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1533020 Ouyang, Z., Gursoy, D., & Chen, K.-C. (2019). It’s all about life: Exploring the role of residents’ quality of life perceptions on attitudes toward a recurring hallmark event over time. Tourism Management, 75, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019. 04.032 Perdue, R. R., & Gustke, L. D. (1991). The effects of tourism development on objective indicators of local quality of life. Tourism: Building Credibility for a Credible Industry. Proceedings of the Travel and Tourism Research Association Twenty-Second Annual Conference, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Long Beach, California, June 9–13, 1991 (pp. 191–201). Ridderstaat, J., Croes, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2014). Tourism and long-run economic growth in Aruba. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 472–487. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1941

Exploring the Link Between Quality of Life and Destination Performance Ridderstaat, J., Croes, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2016a). The tourism development–quality of life Nexus in a small island destination. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514532372 Ridderstaat, J., Croes, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2016b). A two-way causal chain between tourism development and quality of life in a small island destination: An empirical analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(10), 1461–1479. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669582.2015.1122016 Salinas Fernández, J. A., Serdeira Azevedo, P., Martín Martín, J. M., & Rodríguez Martín, J. A. (2020). Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in the countries most visited by international tourists: Proposal of a synthetic index. Tourism Management Perspectives, 33, 100582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tmp.2019.100582 Sirgy, M. J. (2010). Toward a quality-of-life theory of leisure travel satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 49(2), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287509337416 Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life (Vol. 50). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-0074405-9 Sirgy, M. J., Kruger, P. S., Lee, D.-J., & Yu, G. B. (2011). How does a travel trip affect tourists’ life satisfaction? Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 261–275. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0047287510362784 Sirgy, M. J., Michalos, A. C., Ferriss, A. L., Easterlin, R. A., Patrick, D., & Pavot, W. (2006). The quality-oflife (QOL) research movement: Past, present, and future. Social Indicators Research, 76(3), 343–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-2877-8 Sirgy, M. J., Samli, A. C., & Meadow, H. L. (1982). The interface between quality of life and marketing: A theoretical framework. Journal of Marketing & Public Policy, 1, 69–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/30000008 Sirgy, M. J., & Uysal, M. (2016). Developing a eudaimonia research agenda in travel and tourism. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 485–495). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_32 UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization). (n.d.). Global and Regional Tourism Performance. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://www.unwto. org/global-and-regional-tourism-performance Urtasun, A., & Gutiérrez, I. (2006). Tourism agglomeration and its impact on social welfare: An empirical approach to the Spanish case. Tourism Management, 27(5), 901–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman. 2005.05.004 Uysal, M. (2019). Measuring tourism success – Alternative outcome variables: A perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR07-2019-0304 Uysal, M., Berbekova, A., & Kim, H. (2020). Designing for quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 83, 102944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102944

83

Uysal, M., Perdue, R., & Sirgy, M. J. (2012a). Prologue: Tourism and quality-of-life (QOL) research: The missing links. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 1–5). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94007-2288-0_1 Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2019). Quality-of-life indicators as performance measures. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. annals.2018.12.016 Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., & Perdue, R. R. (2012b). The missing links and future research directions. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 669–684). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2288-0_ 38 Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., Woo, E., & Kim, H. (Lina). (2016). Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tourism Management, 53, 244–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013 Uysal, M., Woo, E., & Singal, M. (2012c). The tourist area life cycle (TALC) and its effect on the quality-of-life (QOL) of destination community. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 423–443). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2288-0_25 Wang, S., Berbekova, A., & Uysal, M. (Muzzo). (2021). Is this about feeling? The interplay of emotional wellbeing, solidarity, and residents’ attitude. Journal of Travel Research, 60(6), 1180–1195. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0047287520938862 Wang, S., Berbekova, A., & Uysal, M. (2022). Pursuing justice and quality of life: Supporting tourism. Tourism Management, 89, 104446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2021.104446 Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. annals.2014.11.001 WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council). (n.d.). Power & performance rankings. Retrieved March 15, 2022, fro m https://www.wttc.org:443/ publications/2018/power-and-performance/ Yu, C.-P. (Simon), Chancellor, H. C., & Cole, S. T. (2011). Examining the effects of tourism impacts on resident quality of life: Evidence from rural midwestern communities in USA. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 11(2), 161–186. https://doi. org/10.1080/15980634.2011.11434643

Adiyukh Berbekova is an Assistant Professor of Tourism Management in School of Travel Industry Management, Shidler College of Business, University of Hawaii at Mānoa, USA Her research interests include quality of life and destination performance, crisis management in tourism. Email: [email protected].

Well-being for Everyone Involved in Tourism: An Invitation to Create a Destination Well-being Agenda Eva Vroegop and Rico Maggi

Introduction: “Time for a Change” This contribution proposes the promotion of wellbeing for everyone involved as an overall objective of tourism policy at the destination level, substituting the Destination Management Organization (DMO) driven development based mostly on the goal of maximizing economic value (Dredge, 2016) through tourist arrivals and overnight stays. Upon a critical evaluation of the literature, it proposes possible elements and structure of a research and policy agenda that enables (a) to understand how well-being for everyone involved in a destination can be achieved, and (b) to support the instauration and pursuit of a destination well-being policy. The motivation for this proposal lies in the observation that many alternative forms of tourism are developing, but fail to gain the necessary momentum to lead the industry towards the fulfillment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) relevant for and supported by the tourism industry. In the late 1980s, the Slow Food initiative was born in Italy and in the meantime has become a E. Vroegop (✉) Academy of Tourism, Fondazione Campus, Lucca, Italy e-mail: [email protected] R. Maggi USI Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

worldwide movement. Around the same time and stretching into the 1990s, eco-tourism, naturebased and community-based tourism and the more blurred concept of sustainable tourism emerged and continued to gain importance until today, with the most recent form being regenerative tourism. However, in quantitative terms these are still marginal forms of tourism on a global scale, including Italy, one of the world’s most visited countries, where city destinations like Venice, Florence and Rome suffer from overtourism, and classic beach destinations are constantly crowded and more or less credibly seeking to make their mass tourism more sustainable. What holds for Italy holds also for the main tourism destinations in the world, hence there is a need for research and policy that helps to redirect tourism from hedonic happiness as an overwhelming driver, to well-being that creates longterm satisfaction with life (SWL) linked to reaching life goals. Such an agenda should help, at least at a destination level, to move in the direction of SDGs number 8, 12 and 14 on inclusive and sustainable economic growth, sustainable consumption and production (SCP) and the sustainable use of oceans and marine resources, respectively (UNWTO, 2022). Namely, individual well-being may help to advance sustainable practices in a destination. In the hospitality workplace, for example, a higher quality of life (QOL) has been linked to a higher propensity to demonstrate green behaviors at the job (Su & Swanson, 2019).

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_7

85

86

Well-being is proposed here as the overall objective, with destination competitiveness becoming a subsidiary goal, and substituting sustainability which has initiated relevant alternative forms of tourism but without reaching the mainstream. Research and policy orientated towards destination well-being should pave the way for more and more destinations to accommodate these forms and initiate the transition towards regenerative destinations, gradually substituting non-sustainable tourism forms. Following Uysal and Sirgy (2019), destination well-being is here conceptualized as quality of life for everyone involved in a destination, specifically tourists, residents, and people working in hospitality and tourism. This is believed to be the appropriate goal, because it is englobing all aspects of individual life as well as the relations among individuals and groups and with the natural environment in which they are embedded. Tourism activities enable interactions between people and offer opportunities for building and strengthening personal relationships, which in turn can enhance the well-being of those participating in tourism (Chen et al., 2020a). Therefore, the pursuit of well-being for everyone involved must consider the interactions among all groups and with the natural environment, and always in both directions. The reflections presented in this chapter follow this logic of the interactions between the main stakeholder groups and the natural environment. In what follows, this chapter will first zoom in on destination well-being and interactions departing from existing research and underresearched questions in view of destination wellbeing. Based on this, elements and structure of a research agenda will be proposed with special attention to the heterogeneity within the groups of tourists, community residents, as well as hospitality and tourism workers, here treated as a generic category. The part includes considerations on an empirical strategy to understand, measure and monitor well-being and the various interactions. As is argued below, such a strategy will have to evaluate the well-being of everyone involved simultaneously, e.g., looking back on the past season. The chapter concludes

E. Vroegop and R. Maggi

with the implications of destination well-being as a goal for policy and governance on a local level including the role of the DMO.

Destination Well-being and Interactions: “The Challenge” In a review on research advances in destination well-being, Hartwell et al. (2018) conclude that further investigation in this emerging area is paramount to managing and marketing sustainable and competitive tourism destinations. Research efforts investigating the quality of life of community residents, tourists, or tourism workers have recently been extended by attempts to model well-being at the destination level. To achieve the overarching goals of increasing destination well-being and minimizing climate risks, Loehr et al. (2022) developed a Destination Ecosystembased Adaptation Framework (DEAF) based on Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) strategies that tourism players can use to generate various benefits for the surroundings in which they operate. Employing general systems theory to tackle climate change risks threatening the SocialEcological System (SES), they demonstrate the usefulness of DEAF in the case of a small Pacific Island. The authors relate the interconnected “four capitals”—natural, social, human, and financial/physical (OECD, 2015; Smith, 2018)— and objective well-being indicators (e.g., Greenhouse Gas Emissions and air pollution) to tourism in the Pacific. In their assessment of human capital, the security of natural resources is linked to employment opportunities, but the well-being of tourism employees as such is not addressed directly. While the main focus is on natural environment health and community well-being, tourists are considered as consumers for the income and employment they generate as well as for participation in natural environment restoration activities such as planting trees. Despite the fact that Loehr et al. (2022) concentrate on objective well-being, they emphasize that destination well-being incorporates both personal SWB and sustainable well-being between generations (Smith, 2018) of all elements that constitute a

Well-being for Everyone Involved in Tourism: An Invitation to Create a. . .

destination comprising the natural environment and community. Hence, the interconnectedness of the main stakeholder groups needs to be taken into account to assess destination wellbeing. Exploring and mapping the interactions between the key human and natural entities at destination level provides a logical starting point for evaluating destination well-being. Figure 1, containing the three main stakeholder groups, tourists, residents and tourism workers, and the natural environment will serve as a frame of reference to illustrate the various kinds of interactions and the gaps and opportunities in research as well as the challenges for tourism policy. Recently, Crotts et al. (2022) have been presenting a similar scheme, but just as overlapping spheres of measurement, while the one described here represents interacting groups embedded in the natural environment. With a focus on monitoring and increasing local tourism performance in developed settings, Crotts et al.

natural environment residents

tourists

2

5

1

desnaon well-being 4

7

6

3 tourism workers

Fig. 1 Destination stakeholder groups, the natural environment, interactions, and well-being. Legend: 1: Interaction tourists—natural environment; 2: Interaction residents—natural environment; 3: Interaction tourism workers—natural environment; 4: Interaction tourism workers—tourists; 5: Interaction tourists—residents; 6: Interaction residents—tourism workers; 7: Well-being of all three groups embedded in the natural environment (destination well-being)

87

(2022) proposed four pillars that accommodate various key performance indicators (KPIs). The “four pillar approach to sustainable tourism” (Crotts et al., 2022, p. 2) contains the visitor economy, satisfaction of the workforce, support of residents for tourism, and health of the environment. Examples of visitor economy KPIs include hotel and holiday rental occupancy rates, while the “resident attitudes towards tourism” sphere is measured by example indicators such as visitor density and flow. The rationale behind the approach taken by Crotts et al. (2022) is that tourism needs to enhance the destination’s economic health as well as residents’ quality of life in an environmentally responsible way. Hence, it seems that the economic benefits tourists bring and resident support for tourism activities constitute the main interest. According to Crotts et al. (2022), ongoing monitoring and management of the four pillars is required to move in this direction. The integration of the tourism workers as a third participant group in host-guest interactions (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019) is essential for the arguments presented here, not the last because in the literature on host-guest interactions this group reserves less attention than the generic one of residents. Note that while for the conceptual frame of interactions distinguishing the two groups of residents and tourism workers is sufficient, in the following diagnosis of research gaps, there is scope for more differentiation in two respects. Firstly, depending on the type of destination, a large share of tourism workers will also reside in the destination, and secondly, the generic term “tourism workers” refers to everyone involved directly in the production of the tourism services, be they employers, employees or self-employed. Considering potential interactions between the spheres, while acknowledging that enhancements in one of the pillars can have a beneficial influence on another, a paucity of research is identified regarding the interplay between the pillars and their metrics in terms of possible synergies (Crotts et al., 2022). This diagnosis is taken up here as a challenge to propose elements for a new

88

research agenda in view of destination wellbeing. While the scheme in Fig. 1 is largely selfexplanatory, it is essential to insist on the fact that all interactions are by principle two-way interactions, because this represents an essential feature of the arguments presented here. As argued below, the attention in research—but also in policy and the public discourse—is largely unequal between the various interactions and especially their direction, and this represents the motivation for new research and policy towards destination well-being. The following discussion will therefore touch upon all interactions and in both directions, starting with human-natural environment interactions and well-being. These interactions have been gaining momentum in environmental psychology, and recently also in tourism research (Qiu et al., 2021). Much work has concentrated on the biophilia hypothesis, which is the natural human tendency to emotionally connect with nature as a result of humanity’s dependence on natural resources throughout history (Wilson, 1984). A positive relationship has not only been found between feeling connected to nature and pro-environmental attitudes as well as behavior, but also between nature connectedness and psychological well-being (Capaldi et al., 2014, 2015). Besides, specific ways in which people engage with the natural environment may contribute to their overall life satisfaction, like for instance the frequency of outdoor recreational activities undertaken, participation in community activities restoring the local environment, and how people evaluate the psychological benefits of time spent outdoors (Biedenweg et al., 2017).

Research: “Where Are We?” Interaction 1: Tourists—Natural Environment In tourism, the human-nature relationship and (re)connection to nature have been explored in the context of outdoor adventure experiences,

E. Vroegop and R. Maggi

suggesting a reciprocal dependence between tourists and the natural environment that enables potential well-being benefits (Hanna et al., 2019). Several scholarly endeavors investigating humannature experiences and well-being have been undertaken in the realm of nature-based tourism (Azara et al., 2018), indicating varying levels of happiness by tourist activities, for instance visiting a park versus a beach (Bimonte & Faralla, 2015). Nature-based tourist activities such as visiting national parks have been related to mental health benefits such as positive emotions and recovery from stress (Buckley, 2020). Besides, particular visitor motivations like enjoying the natural environment and escaping from daily life have been linked to enhanced subjective wellbeing of hiking tourists (Kim et al., 2015). Furthermore, nature-based tourism experiences are found to represent a relevant share of people’s autobiographical memories after a trip. Moreover, freely recalled holiday experiences of a high intensity (active) and long duration in nature have been associated with a higher satisfaction with life as compared to holiday memories of episodes in urban and beach environments or involving the local community (Vroegop, 2023).

Interaction 2: Residents—Natural Environment Considering residents, a rich literature exists on the environmental impacts (e.g., environmental sustainability) that tourism has on residents’ perceived quality of life and community well-being (Kim et al., 2013). How residents interact with the natural environment in a tourism destination and how this influences their well-being has received little attention so far. In a non-tourism context, ample studies have been examining the relationship between the natural environment and people’s well-being. For instance, among residents in an urbanized setting, people’s connection to nature was found to moderate the link between the duration of green space visits and mental well-being outcomes (Oh et al., 2021).

Well-being for Everyone Involved in Tourism: An Invitation to Create a. . .

Interaction 3: Tourism Workers— Natural Environment When it comes to tourism professionals, important work has been done in the area of adventure tourism by Mackenzie on the relationship between the natural environment and adventure guide’s psychological well-being (Mackenzie & Raymond, 2020; Martínez & Mackenzie, 2022). The influence of the environment on tourism professionals’ well-being in different settings (i.e., other types of tourist attractions, accommodation, tourist transport at the destination) remains unexplored.

89

view of hospitality and tourism workers’ wellbeing. In a study on stress experienced by hotel employees, primary sources of work stress were work overloads and tensions with co-workers (O’neill & Davis, 2011). In turn, interpersonal issues were associated with negative physical health symptoms, lower satisfaction with their job, and a stronger intention to quit. Interestingly, guests were not among the main stressors. As an explanation, O’neill and Davis (2011) suggested that guests may provide positive mental comfort to hotel workers.

Interaction 5: Tourists—Residents Interaction 4: Tourism Workers— Tourists Much of the research on interactions between tourism workers and tourists has been developing around experience value, especially studying the concept of value co-creation at a destination level (Prebensen et al., 2012). In value co-creation, visitors “spend” resources such as their time, effort, and involvement in producing their own experience, which are valuable inputs in how they evaluate the overall value of their experience (Prebensen et al., 2013). As tourism experiences are depending to a large extent on interactions between hosts and guests, hospitality and tourism employees play a critical role in creating experiential value rather than just providing functional value in standardized services encounters (Sørensen & Jensen, 2015). When visitors co-create their experience together with a tourism service provider, this may translate into holiday experience satisfaction and loyalty towards the travel professional. Subsequently, vacation experience satisfaction as a result of a co-creation experience with a tourism worker may also affect satisfaction with the vacation impact on tourists’ general SWL (Mathis et al., 2016), which was confirmed also in the framework of communitybased tourism (Liang, 2022). In contrast, limited research has concentrated on the interaction between workers and tourists in

An important stream of literature exists on the host-guest relationship from the perspective of residents (hosts) regarding perceptions, attitudes, support for tourism as well as its development, and behavior (overviews from Sharpley, 2014; Tse & Tung, 2022a). Resident attitudes are considered directly relevant to tourists, as distinct tourist stereotypes can elicit different emotions in residents that may result in harmful behaviors towards visitors. For instance, when residents perceive tourists as rude, this can ruin host-guest relations through antisocial actions triggered in residents like threatening visitors, as well as diminishing prosocial behaviors during interactions with tourists (Tse & Tung, 2022b). This research interest has been and still is urged by issues of sustainability, crowding and overtourism, and more recently the COVID-19 pandemic. This very important research has however some serious flaws that need to be recognized to understand the whole complexity of interactions between destination hosts and guests. A first and minor flaw regards the relative scarcity of host-guest relationships on the wellbeing of the hosts (Giampiccoli et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2021), rather than their support for tourism. In the following section, host-guest interactions will be examined with the aim to comprehend possible connections to resident and tourist wellbeing. Different theories have been employed to better understand interactions between residents and

90

visitors in destination settings. In the literature on tourist-resident interactions, Social Exchange Theory (SET) is commonly used to examine how interactions between hosts and guests affect their attitudes. From an economic point of view, residents and visitors exchange resources, namely the “resource-space” that visitors consume during their stay against income for residents (Bimonte & Punzo, 2016). Furthermore, contact theory has been used to investigate occurrences of social distance and emotional solidarity (Joo et al., 2018). Social distance may affect how residents perceive tourism and tourism development in their community (Thyne et al., 2018). Residents may be more unwilling to communicate with tourists from culturally distant countries, thereby employing social distance as a coping strategy to avert potentially problematic relationships (Sinkovics & Penz, 2009). Much of the research efforts have employed a social distance scale for host-guest relations, which measures a list of hypothetical situations in which host-guest contact could take place (Thyne & Zins, 2003). Items on more intimate contact include “I would welcome them as friends or family”, “as a long-term guest”, or “marriage or living together”, while those on less intimate contact inquire among others “seeing them eating dinner at local restaurants and cafes”, “seeing them taking pictures of our own and local people”, or “taking a picture for them when asked” (Thyne et al., 2022). For residents, meeting and interacting with visitors who are perceived to be like them increases their propensity for a positive attitude towards the relationship. Reciprocal residenttourist relationships have been studied drawing on the interpersonal theory of attractiveness from social psychology. Host perceptions of visitors’ compatibility (how similar visitors are to the residents), financial capacity, responsible behavior (showing respect to the community, environment and traditions), and positive benefits at the local level (employment, infrastructure, facilities, culture) predicted residents’ satisfaction with the visitors as well as commitment to entice

E. Vroegop and R. Maggi

the same tourist market to visit the destination in future (G. Kim et al., 2023). Exploring the links between host-tourist interactions and residents’ subjective well-being, residents who are more satisfied with their life show more emotional solidarity towards visitors in how they welcome them, demonstrate sympathetic understanding, and feel emotionally close to tourists (Lai et al., 2021). Moreover, inhabitants higher in SWL are more inclined to interact with visitors to co-create value, showing more respect towards visitors and helping them satisfy their information needs (Lin et al., 2017). Interestingly, an inverse relationship has been observed between emotional solidarity and residents’ SWB, as well as co-creation and host SWB. Emotional solidarity of hosts with tourists (Wang et al., 2021) as well as co-creation experiences between residents and visitors have been associated with positive effects on residents’ emotional and subjective well-being. Hence, providing help to visitors is found to create value for residents in the form of increased SWL (Chen et al., 2020a). The most striking gap, identified “en passant” by Sharpley (2014), regards the almost total absence of research looking at host-guest interaction in the opposite direction, i.e., from the guest to the host. Interestingly, one of the few exceptions regards the research by Pizam et al. (2000) on long-term interactions with guests who are also working at different destinations in Israel during their stay. The more intense the interactions between guests and their hosts, the more satisfied these working tourists felt about their experience. Moreover, the change in tourist attitudes (towards the hosts, host country, and its inhabitants) was found to depend on intensity of the host-guest interaction as well as working tourists’ motivation (see also Fennell, 2006 and Heuman, 2005 on reciprocity in tourism, and Magrizos et al., 2021 on volunteer tourism). Therefore, both length of stay and intensity of the interaction between hosts and guests seem relevant for the well-being of both groups involved in the social host-guest relationship.

Well-being for Everyone Involved in Tourism: An Invitation to Create a. . .

While resident perceptions of tourism (and to a lesser extent tourists) in view of support for tourism development have been the focal point of previous research, future investigations of actual experienced interactions between residents and tourists—both in terms of interaction quantity and quality—could enrich our understanding of resident well-being.

Interaction 6: Residents—Tourism Workers In tourism destinations, restaurants and bars are among the typical locations where residents and tourism workers meet and interact as food and beverage places are not solely for touristic use (Choy, 1995). Looking closer at the resident interactions, scholars have developed a scale to explore the social distance between destination inhabitants. Key dimensions identified comprise the degree of interaction, familiarity, and support between community residents (Chen et al., 2020b). Moreover, a correlation was found between these three social distance factors and QOL employing a scale proposed by Woo et al. (2015). Therefore, the authors recommended further analysis of the association between community residents’ interaction quality and their wellbeing (Chen et al., 2020b). This is important as preliminary evidence suggests that among people working in hospitality and tourism at the destination, local residents, skilled migrant workers, and unskilled migrant workers may have distinct experiences and well-being levels (Choe et al., 2021). Another lack of research regards the tourism workers, for whom an interest develops only recently in the wake of the pandemics and flight (or non-return) of human resources from the sector given the working conditions (Kimbu et al., 2021). More research is needed examining the various social groups living and working side by side in tourism destinations, both on the quantity and quality of interactions and how these impact their subjective well-being.

91

Interaction 7: Well-being of All Three Groups Embedded in the Natural Environment (Destination Well-being) As implied by Fig. 1, destination well-being depends on all the interactions. The interplay of all the well-being effects of the single interactions as described will in its sum create the destination well-being. As Berbekova et al. (2022, p. 424) summarized the essence, “this focus on QoL as an outcome variable provides a profound understanding of the contributions of tourism to improving quality of life of those involved in the functioning tourism system”. The above findings on interactions have been summarized in a large “input-output” table, which is available from the authors. Not surprisingly, the interactions covered best in the literature regard the interactions in both directions between tourists and residents. Tourism workers are present in the co-creation literature, but clearly there are multiple opportunities for more research in all interactions with tourism workers. Interestingly, the natural environment is strongly present in the literature when it comes to impacts of tourists and residents, but gaps exist regarding the interactions in the other direction, namely what the natural environment does and could potentially give back to the three groups.

Elements for a Research Agenda: “Where Should We Look?” The above discussion demonstrates that there is ample scope for new research under the overall goal of well-being of everyone involved in a destination. In what follows, the argument focuses on the interaction among the groups, but not with the natural environment, when considering their heterogeneity. This is proposed on purpose as a contrast to the approach starting with the interactions with the natural environment. As is well known and documented in the literature, trying to achieve sustainability at destinations via the behavior of tourists towards the environment is a challenge, even for environmentally

92

E. Vroegop and R. Maggi

long

length of stay

around the world tour

slow tourism/trekking

all-inclusive beach tourism

short

city hoppers

regenerave tourism

community-based tourism

agritourism

cultural event visitors

heritage site visitors

indifference

empathy atude

Fig. 2 Classification of types of tourism according to length of stay and attitude (examples)

conscious tourists due to the attitude-behavior gap which will be more relevant than at the home of the tourists (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014). A reason might be that the natural environment does not feed back immediately on the tourists during a given season, but will affect returning guests and other visitors in future seasons. Therefore, the feedback loop is on the one hand deferred in time and on the other acting via the residents—an interesting aspect that might inspire some innovative research. Regarding options for future research, the idea here is not to elaborate a list of potential research projects, but in a first step, based on the heterogeneity of the three groups of tourists, residents, and tourism workers, illustrate the complexity of the field and hence the scope for innovative research. This will be followed in a second step by the sketch of a promising research strategy. For what concerns the heterogeneity of tourists in their behavior towards the residents, a promising structuring consists in distinguishing types of tourism according to the length of stay on the one hand, and the attitude of tourists towards the residents on the other, as proposed in Fig. 2. There is ample literature on the attitude of tourists versus the residents, and the argument here is

simply that the forms of tourism can identify tourist behavior, i.e., their interaction with the residents along the attitude dimension “indifference”—“empathy”. Regarding the other dimension, the relevance of length of stay for the intensity of the interactions seems obvious, however, while it has been discussed in an early article by Fennell (2006) on the scope for reciprocity in tourism, it does not appear to be an issue in empirical literature. In this context, it is interesting to note that the recent literature on slow tourism does indeed discuss the role of time but is with few exceptions focused on slow experiences of nature (Varley & Semple, 2015; Farkic & Taylor, 2019; Farkić et al., 2020). The latter find that “these experiences, such as canoeing, stargazing or foraging, are characterized by a slower passage of time, immersion in the natural world and a sense of belonging to small social groups” (Farkić et al., 2020, p. 1). Two exceptions are Oh et al. (2016), who discuss the immersion in local culture as a slow tourism motivation, and Chi and Han (2021) demonstrating the positive moderating effect of length of stay on destination attachment and loyalty in a recent paper on a slow urban tourism destination in China. Future research into the role

Well-being for Everyone Involved in Tourism: An Invitation to Create a. . .

of time and length of stay on host guest interaction might thus represent a promising enrichment of slow tourism research, and not only. The table does not intend to give an exhaustive classification of forms of tourism, nor does it pretend that the exact location of the different forms of tourism in the table be unequivocally clear. Rather, it is thought to invite researchers to target their empirical work regarding the form of tourism, with regard to a fruitful form of interaction of tourists with the residents, especially along the “long stay”—“empathy” diagonal. For example, whether the second home owners are to be located in the center, both in terms of attitude and length of stay is an open question, as is the attribution of this group to the tourists, rather than to the residents. Note that the intended message here is not that all destinations should move to regenerative tourism, but that research efforts should be dedicated to identify the scope for interactions enhancing well-being in all forms of tourism. In this respect, there is a need for empirical research into the elements characterizing slow tourism. With respect to the interaction between tourists and tourism workers, the only indication that seems worthwhile to consider is again the heterogeneity of the tourism workers, here used as a generic category. The different roles, attitudes, and behaviors on both sides, when distinguishing employees, employers and self-employed, or local, commuter and immigrant workforce should give ample opportunity for research under the well-being lens. Turning to the interaction in the opposite direction, reflecting on the heterogeneity of residents in their behavior towards the tourists, a logic similar to the one used for tourists applies. The reason is again that attitudes and behavior of residents towards tourists depends heavily on the frequency of interaction conceptualized here by their degree of involvement and exposure to tourism. While not surprisingly the existing literature takes account of the heterogeneity of the residents, this takes mostly the form of the presence of sociodemographic characteristics as control variables in a Structural Equation Model (SEM) or similar multivariate statistical analysis.

93

What is proposed here is an invitation to future research to consider this heterogeneity more systematically; taking account explicitly of the two dimensions introduced here, namely involvement in terms of market interaction with the tourists, on the one hand, and degree of exposure in terms of spatial co-presence in the physical space of the destination on the other. The first dimension is present in the literature (e.g., Moswete et al., 2008; Sharma & Dyer, 2009) but mostly in a binary form, identifying for instance “engagement in tourism—yes or no” (Qin et al., 2021) or “employed in the travel industry” (Thyne et al., 2022).” Overall, however, the rich literature on residents’ perception of tourism and tourists ignores this dimension, and hence the degree to which respondents might economically depend upon the development of tourism in their destination. Evidence suggests that community residents’ attitudes towards tourism and tourism development and how they evaluate their quality of life may differ according to the indicators used (Woo et al., 2015). This is the reason why it is proposed here to consider this dimension in future research and do so along a more extended, non-binary ordinal scale. An explicit integration of the economic engagement of residents in tourism will be key to cope with the balancing of economic, social and environmental interest (sustainability) as amply discussed in the recent “Research Agenda for Urban Tourism” (van der Borg, 2022). The second dimension, namely the exposure to tourism is proposed to be considered as spatial proximity of the residents to the presence of tourists. In Fig. 3 where the heterogeneity is illustrated with examples from an urban tourism destination this translates into proximity/distance from the city center or the main tourist attractions, respectively. Again, the idea is to consider an ordinal scale that goes beyond just the two categories city center and periphery, as seems to be the standard in the literature. An example of the opportunities offered here by geocoding and the use of spatial econometrics in the context of interaction between the environment and residents is provided for instance by Houlden et al. (2019).

94

E. Vroegop and R. Maggi

close

distance from city center

longme residents

owner bouque living above shop, resident hosng tourists at home

owners or top managers of accommodaon

majority of populaon

residents hosng tourists in their former city center house, employees of shops, restaurants

middle management and employees in tourism

farmer selling local food to hotels, restaurants, shops

low qualified staff in tourism commung from periphery or from abroad

rural community far

low

high involvement in tourism

Fig. 3 Classification of residents according to involvement and exposition (examples)

Like above in the case of the tourist heterogeneity, the table and the examples represent an invitation to consider research opportunities along this line of thinking, rather than pretending to represent the best way of classifying residents in a tourist destination. Considering the existing literature, the interesting new opportunities might arise when moving in the table away from the upper left corner to the lower right one, and in general researching medium to highly involved residents at some distance rather than the wellresearched “third parties” in the tourism hot spots. Hopefully, this attempt to introduce some order in the complexities of host-guest interactions will permit a rich stream of future research in the direction of well-being for everyone involved, opening research opportunities in multiple fields of tourism research, for many

empirical methods and diverse conceptions of well-being. It would be pretentious to indicate concrete themes within the frame offered above, but obviously, some approaches seem to be more promising to tackle the complexities inherent in the concept of well-being for everyone involved in a destination. For example, subjective wellbeing measures based on survey data and/or in-depth interviews seem more indicated than objective indicators based on secondary statistical information. Similarly, interactions on the finegrained level described above are more open to micro analysis than to an indicator driven system dynamics approach. Therefore, rather than empirical research applying advanced quantitative methods on secondary statistical data, innovation will hopefully come from increased use of mixed methods and experimental research.

Well-being for Everyone Involved in Tourism: An Invitation to Create a. . .

Given the background of the authors, a promising possible research strategy in terms of the theoretical take on subjective well-being, the research method and the data collection are laid out as an example in the following. Long-term subjective well-being is based on the ex-post evaluation of experiences. In validating the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS), Pavot et al. (1991) constructed a memory measure to assess people’s life satisfaction. Based on a memory recall task, they demonstrated that the difference between the number of recalled satisfying (positive) versus dissatisfying (negative) life events strongly correlated with global SWL. In a recent conversation at the Wellbeing Research and Policy Conference 2022, Daniel Kahneman, one of the authors of the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM), made a clear connection between memories and SWL in asserting that “. . . all we get to keep from our experience is our memories, so maximizing experience is a very difficult thing (. . .) it is very different from life satisfaction and what brings life satisfaction” (Wellbeing Research Centre University of Oxford, 2022). Human memory plays an important role in tourism and a plethora of studies has discussed various aspects of Memorable Tourism Experiences (MTEs) (J-H. Kim, 2010). Nevertheless, the link between memories and life satisfaction remains poorly understood in tourism. Larsen defines a tourist experience as “a past personal travelrelated event strong enough to have entered long-term memory” (2007, p. 15). Vacations are momentary episodes in people’s lives, and freely recalling these experiences from autobiographical memory generally elicits positive emotions when looking back (Vroegop, 2023). In the context of gastro-tourism, Kesgin et al. (2022) reported that tourism autobiographical memory has a significant influence on life satisfaction. Moreover, autobiographical memory mediated the relationship between consumption experience and satisfaction with life, as well as between life domain outcomes and SWL. The authors go on to conclude that remembered utility of a gastro-tourism consumption experience may be an important variable in people’s life

95

satisfaction equation. Rather than measuring visitors’ perceptions of their experience and instant hedonic effects on SWL, inserting autobiographical memory as a key determinant of life satisfaction provides a latent evaluation of the experience itself in terms of lasting eudaimonic well-being effects (Kesgin et al., 2022). Memory is a key theme in cognitive psychology, which aims to grasp the mechanisms by which the human brain experiences and makes sense of the world, and tourism research can benefit from recent developments in this field (Pearce & Packer, 2013; Scott, 2020). As a consequence, the requirement for an empirical approach is to evaluate well-being as a function of a recall for everyone involved and hence considering interactions. A set up that permits for this is to refer to a common time window or period for tourism workers, residents and tourists, and an obvious choice in the case of surveys seems to ask residents and tourism workers to respond looking back on the season just behind them, and tourists regarding their vacation during the same season. Despite the importance of seasonal factors influencing wellbeing at the destination level, their attributes have scarcely been studied (Bimonte & Faralla, 2016; Jeon et al., 2016). Looking back on the season consists in: (a) Measuring the momentary emotions evoked by a generic recall of the past season as well as of one or more specific moments and experiences during the past season; (b) An evaluation of the interaction with the other groups; (c) The measurement of subjective well-being While the measurements in (a) and (c) will use well-known metrics, the evaluation of the interactions takes an innovative form. To capture the quality of two-way interactions, using exclusively self-evaluations, like “. . . do you take care of the environment?”; “. . .are you being friendly/ do you communicate with the tourists?”, provokes a self-evaluation bias. The solution lies in consistently enquiring about the attitudes and behavior of the others. Examples might be, asking tourists whether according to them the residents

96

are taking care of the environment, or whether the local residents show respect towards them, are friendly, do they communicate. Apart from avoiding a bias this will offer the opportunity to identify discrepancies in the mutual evaluation that might reveal key for understanding wellbeing. The innovation proposed is hence to evaluate a season of interactions, by observing how the various groups “look back” on the tourism season just behind in a destination, evaluating the interaction with the other main destination groups and the natural environment—An important challenge in this is caused by the fact that while the groups of residents and tourism workers consist (roughly) of the same persons over the season, the tourists are continuously changing. However, this represents also an important opportunity, namely to analyze differences in the evaluation by tourists having spent their vacation at different moments during the past season. This kind of research, but much more in general a research strategy along the lines exposed above will foster understanding of the determinants of destination well-being, and hence have important policy implications at the destination level, providing at the same time instruments for its monitoring over time and across destinations. Naturally, the question arises, how it can be assured that a policy pursuing destination well-being as an overarching goal will be implemented, because in most cases this would imply a radical change of focus and hence would require a relevant policy change. As is argued in the following concluding paragraph on governance, this will not come about without a change in destination governance.

Governance: “How Do We Get There?” The discussion of destination governance starts from the Barcelona Declaration 2018 “Better Places to Live, Better Places to Visit” (NECSTouR, 2018) implying that QOL is a function of the development of a place. This clearly challenges the logic of a DMO, because the development of a place, albeit a tourism destination, and the pursuit of the quality of life of its

E. Vroegop and R. Maggi

inhabitants cannot be delegated to a tourism promotion agency, i.e., a DMO. This holds all the more, if as proposed here the overarching goal is the wellbeing of everyone involved, including non-resident tourism workers as well as visitors and tourists in their heterogeneity. In contrast to this, in the view of Crotts et al. (2022), when it comes to destination governance, the DMO is envisaged to take on the task to measure and govern the four pillars (visitor economy, resident support, workforce satisfaction, and environmental health) in cooperation with industry representatives and other stakeholders, such as the municipality’s division dealing with green space and leisure. These authors invite discussion as to which destination actors have to be engaged within the respective pillars, as well as how to transform the role of DMOs in a comprehensive way towards stewardship of the place in which it is operating. This invitation is taken up here, first by referring to Dredge and Jamal (2013, p. 557) who drew attention to how “fluid populations of tourists, residents, second home owners and recreationists, and transnational flows of labor and capital intersect to create and recreate the physical, social, economic and political characteristics of place”. In their view, drawing from a mobilities lens, destination regions are socially, politically, spatially and economically mobile. Boundaries between work and leisure, between home and away, between origin and destination and between tourist and resident are creating heterogeneous place identities that can give rise to conflicting values about the future. Furthermore, the global–local interplay of interests is contributing to fluid notions of local and regional; there is a pluralization of destination management activities as different sectors simultaneously engage in both complementary and contradictory actions; and communities of interest are continuously re-envisioning their values and directions (Dredge & Jamal, 2013). Moreover, “this fluidity is problematic for destination management undertaken within the confines of a DMO framework based on progressing industry values and interests” (Dredge, 2016, p. 350).

Well-being for Everyone Involved in Tourism: An Invitation to Create a. . .

The temptation is to respond to this with the St. Gallen model of variable geometries and overlapping business fields and portfolios of strategic visitor flows (Beritelli et al., 2015). But the stance taken here is that this leads astray, or rather exactly in the opposite direction of what is intended here. The dissolution or negation of a bounded territoriality will not permit political authorities to act as value driven representatives of their constituency, but transform them into market-oriented agencies. More importantly, independently from the management model applied, DMOs are not and cannot be an agent for change. Their core business is to promote (sell) the destination, even though there are increasing doubts on whether they can do that (e.g., Beritelli & Laesser, 2019). Being well aware that different DMO models exist around the world and that their mission might also include other goals than maximizing arrivals and overnight stays, the fact remains that these two statistics are the dominating KPIs measured for every destination on the planet. This implies that in practice, promoting arrivals and overnights stays represents the overarching goal, and hence even if more and more destinations design and promote sustainable products (see for instance Haid & Albrecht, 2021; Klimek, 2013), quantitative growth is what makes DMOs appear successful and competitive. What follows from the discussion is a need for a simultaneous change of the overarching goal and the governance of a tourism destination. The overarching goal being destination well-being as defined here, competitiveness becomes a

97

subsidiary goal, and the number of arrivals and overnight stays is a function of their quality in contributing to the overarching goal. Note that this in many leading destinations might imply de-growth in terms of quantity but growth in terms of quality, i.e. destination well-being. Whether the overall economic impact will be negative or positive, depends on willingness to pay for new forms of tourism experience and on price elasticity of demand. Because the overarching goal of well-being for everyone involved, and not only the tourists, cannot be credibly pursued by a DMO, the local communities through their political institutions have to take ownership. The simple transition to a new logic of governance proposed here is illustrated in Table 1. The spirit behind this logic of governance has been expressed by Uysal (2022) in his recent excellence lecture on Quality of life research in tourism: Emerging research challenges, new directions, and implications in Lucca, Italy, “if you have an overarching goal and consensus about tourism in the town hall, the rest is about logistics”. An important implication of this model is a return to territoriality as opposed to the St Gallen variable geometry model (which in the end is variable geography). The organization of the monitoring is a critical issue. If it is delegated to a dedicated political institution like the Italian “Osservatorio Turistico”, there is a serious risk of having these tourism observatories following their own political agenda, especially in strongly tourismdependent regions. This is why involvement of academic institutions either as a directly involved

Table 1 Transition to a new form of governance From 1. DMO promotes/sells the DESTINATION 2. Industry provides the services 3. Tourists arrive and produce the experience 4. DMO counts the arrivals/ overnight stays

To 1. LOCAL AUTHORITY sets the frame (objectives, regulation) to create a LOCATION to produce well-being for everyone involved (tourists, residents, tourism workers) 2. LOCAL AUTHORITY writes a service contract for the DMO/DMCs to promote the destination as a location of production pursuing well-being for all 3. Tourists arrive and co-produce the experience with the local industry and the residents 4. LOCAL AUTHORITY delegates monitoring to an academic body

98

agency, or in a supervisory function for private consulting companies, is indicated for reasons of credibility, independence, and quality of the analysis. Monitoring is key in this model, but relevant only to the extent that it provides relevant feedback to the authorities and DMO/DMCs. In the best case, such feedback does not only take the form of information and advice, but imply some form of dedicated response.

Conclusions This chapter has not been proposing a research agenda drafted as a result of scholarly discussion, but an engaged invitation to reflect on a necessary change of focus in research on tourism destinations, setting well-being of everyone involved as an overarching goal. This ambition implies a simultaneous consideration of the interactions of tourists, residents and tourism workers among themselves and with the natural environment. The screening of the literature according to these interactions permitted identifying relevant gaps in the research literature, especially regarding the well-being of tourism workers, as well as the feedback of the natural environment on all three groups. In its central part, this contribution proposes, firstly, a finegrained consideration of heterogeneity of the three groups in terms of involvement, exposure and engagement in view of interactions and wellbeing, and secondly, an example of an empirical strategy of looking back on the same season for everyone involved to evaluate well-being as a function of emotions evoked by memorized experiences. The contribution wraps up with the conclusion that the proposed change in goal requires an equivalent change in destination governance from the usual business and competitiveness perspective of DMOs to a public policy rooted in the political institutions of the territory and accompanied by an independent monitoring. Hopefully, this contribution will be understood by the research community to invest on the elaboration of a new research agenda, and by the political stakeholders and the industry as a

E. Vroegop and R. Maggi

provocative challenge to review the role of the DMOs as well as their own.

References Azara, I., Niccolini, F., Taff, B. D., Michopoulou, E., & Clarke, A. (2018). Introduction: Tourism, health and well-being and protected environments. In Tourism, health, well-being and protected areas (pp. 1–7). CAB International. Berbekova, A., Uysal, M., & Assaf, A. G. (2022). Toward an assessment of quality of life indicators as measures of destination performance. Journal of Travel Research, 61(6), 1424–1436. Beritelli, P., & Laesser, C. (2019). Why DMOs and tourism organizations do not really ‘get/attract visitors’: Uncovering the truth behind a cargo cult. IMP-HSG, University of St. Gallen. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9. figshare.9924428 Beritelli, P., Reinhold, S., Laesser, C., & Bieger, T. (2015). The St. Gallen model for destination management. IMP-HSG. Biedenweg, K., Scott, R. P., & Scott, T. A. (2017). How does engaging with nature relate to life satisfaction? Demonstrating the link between environment-specific social experiences and life satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 50, 112–124. Bimonte, S., & Faralla, V. (2015). Happiness and outdoor vacations appreciative versus consumptive tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 54(2), 179–192. Bimonte, S., & Faralla, V. (2016). Does residents’ perceived life satisfaction vary with tourist season? A two-step survey in a Mediterranean destination. Tourism Management, 55, 199–208. Bimonte, S., & Punzo, L. F. (2016). Tourist development and host–guest interaction: An economic exchange theory. Annals of Tourism Research, 58, 128–139. Buckley, R. (2020). Nature tourism and mental health: Parks, happiness, and causation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(9), 1409–1424. Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 976. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976 Capaldi, C. A., Passmore, H. A., Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Dopko, R. L. (2015). Flourishing in nature: A review of the benefits of connecting with nature and its application as a well-being intervention. International Journal of Well-being, 5(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10. 5502/ijw.v5i4.1 Chen, M., Zhang, J., Sun, J., Wang, C., & Yang, J. (2020b). Developing a scale to measure the social distance between tourism community residents. Tourism Geographies, 1–21. Chen, Y., Cottam, E., & Lin, Z. (2020a). The effect of resident-tourist value co-creation on residents’ well-

Well-being for Everyone Involved in Tourism: An Invitation to Create a. . . being. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 44, 30–37. Chi, X., & Han, H. (2021). Performance of tourism products in a slow city and formation of affection and loyalty: Yaxi Cittáslow visitors’ perceptions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(10), 1586–1612. Choe, J., O’Regan, M., Kimbu, A., Lund, N. F., & Ladkin, A. (2021). Quality of life perspectives for different social groups in a World Centre of Tourism and Leisure. Tourist Studies, 21(4), 615–637. Choy, D. J. (1995). The quality of tourism employment. Tourism Management, 16(2), 129–137. Crotts, J. C., Magnini, V. P., & Calvert, E. (2022). Key performance indicators for destination management in developed economies: A four pillar approach. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights, 3(2), 100053. Dredge, D. (2016). Are DMOs on a path to redundancy? Tourism Recreation Research, 41(3), 348–353. Dredge, D., & Jamal, T. (2013). Mobilities on the Gold Coast, Australia: Implications for destination governance and sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(4), 557–579. Farkić, J., Filep, S., & Taylor, S. (2020). Shaping tourists’ wellbeing through guided slow adventures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(12), 2064–2080. Farkic, J., & Taylor, S. (2019). Rethinking tourist wellbeing through the concept of slow adventure. Sports, 7(8), 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/ sports7080190 Fennell, D. A. (2006). Evolution in tourism: The theory of reciprocal altruism and tourist–host interactions. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(2), 105–124. Giampiccoli, A., Dłużewska, A., & Mnguni, E. M. (2022). Host population well-being through community-based tourism and local control: Issues and ways forward. Sustainability, 14(7), 4372. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su14074372 Haid, M., & Albrecht, J. N. (2021). Sustainable tourism product development: An application of product design concepts. Sustainability, 13(14), 7957. Hanna, P., Wijesinghe, S., Paliatsos, I., Walker, C., Adams, M., & Kimbu, A. (2019). Active engagement with nature: Outdoor adventure tourism, sustainability and well-being. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(9), 1355–1373. Hartwell, H., Fyall, A., Willis, C., Page, S., Ladkin, A., & Hemingway, A. (2018). Progress in tourism and destination wellbeing research. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(16), 1830–1892. Heuman, D. (2005). Hospitality and reciprocity: Working tourists in Dominica. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 407–418. Houlden, V., de Albuquerque, J. P., Weich, S., & Jarvis, S. (2019). A spatial analysis of proximate greenspace and mental well-being in London. Applied Geography, 109, 102036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2019. 102036 Jeon, M. M., Kang, M. M., & Desmarais, E. (2016). Residents’ perceived quality of life in a cultural-

99

heritage tourism destination. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11(1), 105–123. Joo, D., Tasci, A. D., Woosnam, K. M., Maruyama, N. U., Hollas, C. R., & Aleshinloye, K. D. (2018). Residents’ attitude towards domestic tourists explained by contact, emotional solidarity and social distance. Tourism Management, 64, 245–257. Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2014). The attitude–behaviour gap in sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 76–95. Kesgin, M., Önal, İ., Kazkondu, İ., & Uysal, M. (2022). Gastro-tourism well-being: The interplays of salient and enduring determinants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(9), 3253–3277. Kim, G., Duffy, L. N., & Moore, D. (2023). Importance of residents’ perception of tourists in establishing a reciprocal resident-tourist relationship: An application of tourist attractiveness. Tourism Management, 94, 104632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022. 104632 Kim, H., Lee, S., Uysal, M., Kim, J., & Ahn, K. (2015). Nature-based tourism: Motivation and subjective wellbeing. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(sup1), S76–S96. Kim, J. H. (2010). Determining the factors affecting the memorable nature of travel experiences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(8), 780–796. Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management, 36, 527–540. Kimbu, A. N., Adam, I., Dayour, F., & de Jong, A. (2021). COVID-19-induced redundancy and sociopsychological well-being of tourism employees: Implications for organizational recovery in a resource-scarce context. Journal of Travel Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287521105457 Klimek, K. (2013). Destination management organisations and their shift to sustainable tourism development. European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, 4(2), 27–47. Lai, H. K., Pinto, P., & Pintassilgo, P. (2021). Quality of life and emotional solidarity in residents’ attitudes toward tourists: The case of Macau. Journal of Travel Research, 60(5), 1123–1139. Larsen, S. (2007). Aspects of a psychology of the tourist experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 7–18. Liang, A. R. D. (2022). Consumers as co-creators in community-based tourism experience: Impacts on their motivation and satisfaction. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2034389. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311975.2022.2034389 Lin, Z., Chen, Y., & Filieri, R. (2017). Resident-tourist value co-creation: The role of residents’ perceived tourism impacts and life satisfaction. Tourism Management, 61, 436–442.

100 Loehr, J., Becken, S., Nalau, J., & Mackey, B. (2022). Exploring the multiple benefits of natural environmentbased adaptation in tourism for climate risks and destination well-being. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 46(3), 518–543. Mackenzie, S. H., & Raymond, E. (2020). A conceptual model of adventure tour guide well-being. Annals of Tourism Research, 84, 102977. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.annals.2020.102977 Magrizos, S., Kostopoulos, I., & Powers, L. (2021). Volunteer tourism as a transformative experience: A mixed methods empirical study. Journal of Travel Research, 60(4), 878–895. Martínez, E. V., & Mackenzie, S. H. (2022). Climate change and adventure guiding: The role of nature connection in guide well-being. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 946093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh. 2022.946093 Mathis, E. F., Kim, H. L., Uysal, M., Sirgy, J. M., & Prebensen, N. K. (2016). The effect of co-creation experience on outcome variable. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 62–75. Moswete, N., Thapa, B., & Toteng, E. N. (2008). Resident involvement and participation in urban tourism development: A comparative study in Maun and Gaborone, Botswana. Urban Forum, 19, 381–394. NECSTouR. (2018). Barcelona Declaration of Tourism and Cultural Heritage “Better Place to Live, Better Places to Visit”. Retrieved September 16, 2022, from https://necstour.eu/better-places-to-live-better-placesto-visit O’neill, J. W., & Davis, K. (2011). Work stress and wellbeing in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 385–390. OECD. (2015). How’s life? 2015: Measuring well-being. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from https://www.oecdilibrary.org/economics/how-slife_23089679 Oh, H., Assaf, A. G., & Baloglu, S. (2016). Motivations and goals of slow tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 55(2), 205–219. Oh, R. R., Fielding, K. S., Chang, C. C., Nghiem, L. T., Tan, C. L., Quazi, S. A., Shanahan, D. F., Gaston, K. J., Carrasco, R. L., & Fuller, R. A. (2021). Health and well-being benefits from nature experiences in tropical settings depend on strength of connection to nature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19), 10149. Pavot, W., Diener, E. D., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 149–161. Pearce, P. L., & Packer, J. (2013). Minds on the move: New links from psychology to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 386–411. Pizam, A., Uriely, N., & Reichel, A. (2000). The intensity of tourist–host social relationship and its effects on satisfaction and change of attitudes: The case of

E. Vroegop and R. Maggi working tourists in Israel. Tourism Management, 21(4), 395–406. Prebensen, N. K., Vittersø, J., & Dahl, T. I. (2013). Value co-creation significance of tourist resources. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 240–261. Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2012). Motivation and involvement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2), 253–264. Qin, X., Shen, H., Ye, S., & Zhou, L. (2021). Revisiting residents’ support for tourism development: The role of tolerance. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 47, 114–123. Qiu, M., Sha, J., & Scott, N. (2021). Restoration of visitors through nature-based tourism: A systematic review, conceptual framework, and future research directions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2299. Scott, N. (2020). Cognitive psychology and tourism – Surfing the “cognitive wave”: A perspective article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 49–51. Sharma, B., & Dyer, P. (2009). Residents’ involvement in tourism and their perceptions of tourism impacts. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 16(3), 351–371. Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management, 42, 37–49. Sinkovics, R. R., & Penz, E. (2009). Social distance between residents and international tourists— Implications for international business. International Business Review, 18(5), 457–469. Smith, C. (2018). Treasury Living Standards Dashboard: Monitoring intergenerational well-being. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://treasury.govt.nz/ sites/default/files/2018-06/smith-livingstandardsdashboard-jun18.pdf Sørensen, F., & Jensen, J. F. (2015). Value creation and knowledge development in tourism experience encounters. Tourism Management, 46, 336–346. Su, L., & Swanson, S. R. (2019). Perceived corporate social responsibility’s impact on the well-being and supportive green behaviors of hotel employees: The mediating role of the employee-corporate relationship. Tourism Management, 72, 437–450. Thyne, M., Watkins, L., & Yoshida, M. (2018). Resident perceptions of tourism: The role of social distance. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(2), 256–266. Thyne, M., Woosnam, K. M., Watkins, L., & Ribeiro, M. A. (2022). Social distance between residents and tourists explained by residents’ attitudes concerning tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 61(1), 150–169. Thyne, M., & Zins, A. H. (2003). Designing and testing a Guttman-type social distance scale for a tourism context. Tourism Analysis, 8(2), 129–135. Tse, S., & Tung, V. W. S. (2022a). Measuring the valence and intensity of residents’ behaviors in host–tourist interactions: Implications for destination image and

Well-being for Everyone Involved in Tourism: An Invitation to Create a. . . destination competitiveness. Journal of Travel Research, 61(3), 565–580. Tse, S., & Tung, V. W. S. (2022b). Understanding residents’ attitudes towards tourists: Connecting stereotypes, emotions and behaviours. Tourism Management, 89, 104435. UNWTO. (2022). Tourism and sustainable development goals. Retrieved August 25, 2022, from https:// tourism4sdgs.org/tourism-for-sdgs/tourism-and-sdgs/ Uysal, M. (2022, June 9). Excellence lecture on quality of life research in tourism: Emerging research challenges, new directions, and implications. Fondazione Campus, Lucca, Italy. Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2019). Quality-of-life indicators as performance measures. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 291–300. van der Borg, J. (Ed.). (2022). A research agenda for urban tourism. Edward Elgar Publishing. Varley, P., & Semple, T. (2015). Nordic slow adventure: Explorations in time and nature. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 15(1–2), 73–90. Vroegop, E. (2023). “Diving with turtles”: In search of nature in recalled vacation trip experiences and their influence on subjective well-being. In F. Niccolini, I. Azara, E. Michopoulou, J. R. Barborak, & A. Cavicchi (Eds.), Nature-based tourism and wellbeing: Impacts and future outlook. CABI. [forthcoming]. Wang, S., Berbekova, A., & Uysal, M. (2021). Is this about feeling? The interplay of emotional well-being, solidarity, and residents’ attitude. Journal of Travel Research, 60(6), 1180–1195.

101

Wellbeing Research Centre University of Oxford. (2022, October 7). Daniel Kahneman | Wellbeing Research & Policy Conference 2022, Oxford [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf8rLu6vKgM Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press. Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 84–97.

Eva Vroegop Ph.D., is Postdoctoral researcher in tourism and quality of life at the Academy of Tourism of Fondazione Campus in Lucca, Italy. Eva’s research interests include tourism well-being and quality of life, sustainable tourism, nature-based tourism, as well as cognitive and positive psychology approaches to understanding tourist behaviour. Email: eva.vroegop@campuslucca. it. Rico Maggi Ph.D., is Professor emeritus of the USI Università della Svizzera italiana, where he has been founding director of the USI Master in International Tourism and director of the Institute for Economic Research (IRE). His research regards transport economics, urban and regional development, and tourism with a focus on behavioural modelling. Currently, together with the first author he is engaged in a project on tourism and well-being at the Academy of Tourism of Fondazione Campus in Lucca, Italy. Email: [email protected].

Models of Family Leisure Time-Use: Implications for Family Interaction, Stress, and Resilience Jay A. Mancini

Introduction Family time-use is at the core of family wellbeing, since it reflects exactly how family members interact, how they learn about each other, and how they develop a collective understanding of who they are as a family. In this chapter I seek to discuss a set of elements that illuminate this significant aspect of family wellbeing. Note that the term “family” is used here in its broadest sense, including the nuclear family, extended families, family groups headed by married or unmarried persons, families with and without children, people defined as spouses or as partners, and heterosexual and LBGTQA families. My perspective includes the terms tourism, leisure, recreation, and time-use interchangeably, though it can rightly be argued there are important differences between them, as well as commonalities. Along the way I will present selected research findings on families and leisure, and also review several conceptual frameworks of relevance. I will then locate the family-leisure A version of the content in this chapter was first presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Council on Family Relations, Orlando, 2016. With thanks to Dennis K. Orthner, pioneer in research on the significance of leisure and time-use in the well-being of families. J. A. Mancini (✉) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

discussion in a larger framework centered on family stress, coping, and resilience, and ultimately cite implications for working with families. I am reminded of what Kelly (1978, p. 48) stated many years ago, that the “association and roles of the family are an inescapable element in the study of leisure.” And research has demonstrated that leisure satisfaction is substantially related to satisfaction with family life (Agate et al., 2009).

Family Leisure Research and Well-Being Outcomes: Selected Findings The leisure science literature is vast and consequently only a few relevant empirical and theoretical studies are included here. Sources chosen for inclusion in this chapter are largely centered on dimensions of family life, including the various contexts that influence families. Some findings are what you would expect to find from studies of individuals and families while other findings are less intuitive. All are instructive for understanding family time-use, family dynamics, and resilience. What families do with their time is largely influenced by resources available to them (Harrington, 2015), so that certain leisure and time-use opportunities and trends are out of reach for some number of families. Of importance is recognizing that types, styles, and patterns of

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_8

103

104

leisure activities may compete, and as such some come at the cost of others. For example, women teleworkers who largely participated in family leisure activities reported a lack of personal leisure time, which may be significant for restoring energy to fully participate in family life (Shaw et al., 2003). Studies on satisfaction as it involves leisure report that parents are often not satisfied with the time they spend with children and spouses, and women are more likely to want to improve the quality of family time and men are more likely to want more time with their spouses and children (Roxburgh, 2006), suggesting differing gender expectations and actual experiences. A parent’s role in the leisure experiences of children and youth, particularly as it involves physical activity, is significant for influencing child and youth leisure satisfaction (Xie et al., 2021). Family leisure is part of the work and family life balance equation, and touches on family structure regarding how many adult workers there are in a family. The shift from a traditional malebreadwinner to dual-earner and single-parent households, rather than changes in the length of the workweek per se, have created growing concern for balancing work and family (Jacobs & Gerson, 2001). Work-family conflict negatively effects adult psychological well-being, though how the adult thinks about and approaches leisure experiences introduces positive elements (Lin et al., 2019). To the matter of the nature of family leisure, it has been discovered that both mothers and fathers often experience indoor free time in very short, fragmented episodes, although fathers are more likely to have some longer periods of leisure (Beck & Arnold, 2009), which is relevant for understanding, if you will, how the nature of family leisure “doses” are good or less than good for families. Family leisure of course does not occur in a vacuum and certainly not the only means through which families interact. Moreover, all of these experiences related to time-use vary by individuals in the family, for example adolescents versus parents. Research shows that productive family time (e.g. homework) was related to lower emotional well-being, as was maintenance family time (e.g. household chores), but only when

J. A. Mancini

youth engaged in it with both parents (Offer, 2013). Family time is a protective factor as it involves adolescent risks when chosen by family members but not when it represents a default use of time (Crouter et al., 2004), which brings up yet another important dimension of understanding relational tourism and leisure; that of choice versus obligation or mandate. On average the relationship between family leisure involvement and family life satisfaction is stronger among parents than among children in the family (Zabriskie & McCormick, 2003), another testament to how outcomes vary across and between family members. Family scientists are often focused on matters of parent involvement (or parent remoteness) for overall family well-being. It has been found that parent involvement in adolescent media use is an important factor for positive variation in family functioning (Hodge, 2012), which is of particular significance in this era of social media, some of it undesirable. Gender, role, and position in a family, as well as life cycle position is always a consideration for understanding family tourism and leisure experiences. For example, women with strong preferences for out of home leisure activities tended to delay their first births (Becker & Lois, 2013), and father involvement in everyday and usual family leisure is a strong predictor of positive family functioning (Buswell et al., 2012). Not only does family leisure potentially support nuclear families but also has importance for multigenerational relations. For example, family leisure gives opportunities for generativity from grandparents to grandchildren, therefore building family legacy (Hebblethwaite, 2017; Hebblethwaite & Norris, 2011). And to the matter of exactly when family leisure occurs and what competes with it, research finds that weekend work was associated with significantly less shared leisure time on those days worked, in effect suggesting that “withdrawals” outstripped “deposits” as it involves spending time with family (Craig & Brown, 2014). Spending time together as a family has the potential for accomplishing important family goals, including establishing patterns of support for one another, as well as forming a family identity. A recent study on family vacations

Models of Family Leisure Time-Use: Implications for Family Interaction. . .

reports that vacations positively influence the life satisfaction of children, especially for middle and older adolescents (Xie, 2022). Overholt (2019) reports on fathers and their children doing outdoor adventure programs which encourages the ways in which and the depth with which they know one another. There is substantial variability in family and time use patterns, and individual and family demography has an important role. If “withdrawals” from family time outstrip “deposits” to family time, there may be a point where there are insufficient funds to pay what is needed for family life quality. Since parents are the “gatekeepers” for family activities inroads for supporting family leisure experiences must begin with them. Yet we find that normal and average pressures on parents, who are also adult workers in the family, are substantial and therefore making forward-thinking decisions about family leisure overshadowed. In order to frame multiple findings and multiple observations about relational tourism and family leisure we now turn to several ways of organizing seemingly disparate ideas, one focused on balance principles, a second centered on the intersection of family cohesion and dissonance, and a third grounded in a life cycle approach to how families spend time and ultimately what it means to them and for them.

Ways of Thinking About Families and Leisure: Theory and Theorizing A first step in moving toward either conducting research on families and time use or working with families more effectively as they navigate and negotiate their lives is to be conversant on ways of thinking about families and time use. For the purpose of this particular discussion I utilize three ways of thinking and framing ideas and for organizing research (Mancini, 2016). The first is called the Core and Balance Model (Zabriskie and colleagues), the second is the Model of Social Cohesion and Social Dissonance (Orthner and Mancini) , and the third the Life Cycle Model of Relational Tourism (Mancini, George, and Jorgensen). Each of these adds a distinctive element of our understanding how significant

105

leisure, time-use, and tourism are for family dynamics, and ultimately their well-being. Ways of thinking about family leisure time then informs what we observe about families, and how we then become helpful to families.

Core and Balance Model of Family Leisure Functioning Ramon Zabriskie and his colleagues at Brigham Young University (and elsewhere) have developed a rich program of theorizing and research on patterns of family leisure, as well as the meaning of family leisure and important outcomes for individuals and families (Buswell et al., 2012; Hodge et al., 2015; Zabriskie & McCormick, 2001, 2003). This core and balance approach is grounded in family systems theory, as well as more particular marriage and family theories (Townsend et al., 2017). The essential element of this framework are the terms core and balance. Core patterns provide predictable family leisure experiences that foster personal relatedness and family closeness. Balance patterns provide new experiences that provide input necessary for family systems to be challenged. In tandem, these two patterns are what families use to meet needs for stability and change, in effect, suggesting that families live their leisure lives at the intersection of core and balance activities. Examples of Core Activities are watching TV, videos and other media as a family, playing board games, playing together outdoors, building snowmen/women, and raking leaves and jumping in the pile together. Core Activities require little planning, are quite spontaneous and informal, and enhance interaction between family members. Balance Activities examples include family vacations, most outdoor recreation away from home (such as boating), special events, and trips to sporting events, theme parks, or bowling. Balance Activities typically occur less frequently, are more novel, many involve more complex skill development, require more resources, and usually are not home based. Activities that appear in both the core and the balance general categories are diverse at first glance but at second glance have

106

organizing and unifying characteristics. Note that both core and balance activities are usually rich in interaction of family members or at least have the potential for rich interaction (playing a board game in the case of the former, and attending a sporting even as an example of the latter). Generally, core activities would comprise daily life whereas balance activities would be elevated to a special status due to the necessity of planning (and less spontaneity). Though it should be noted, as one example, a family vacation likely contains any number of core activities. Though there may be some overlap in the general categories of core and balance, pivotal differences are seen on matters of how frequently an activity occurs or can occur (family vacations for example), whether a great deal of planning is involved, whether special equipment is required, how expensive or affordable an activity becomes, the level of spontaneity permitted, how novel an activity may be, and whether the activity requires particular skill development. Moreover, balance activities tend to be done outside of the home, whereas core activities are more likely confined to or typical of home. Over time the Core and Balance Model has been refined, as informed by various research studies. There are five main concepts in the model: Family leisure involvement (core and balance), family leisure satisfaction, family communication, family functioning (cohesion and adaptability), and an outcome of satisfaction with family life. Family leisure involvement is said to have a direct relationship with satisfaction with family but also has indirect relationships to family life satisfaction through satisfaction with leisure, level and nature of family communication, as well as the adaptability and cohesion characteristic of a family (Townsend et al., 2017).

Model of Social Cohesion and Social Dissonance Whenever family members are in contiguity there is potential for matters to go well, or for there to be strain. Multiple factors contribute to how well

J. A. Mancini

family leisure adds to or takes away from family well-being. Some years ago Dennis Orthner and I developed a model of family leisure that accounted for both social cohesion and social dissonance (Orthner & Mancini, 1980; Mancini & Orthner, 1982; Mancini, 1984; Orthner & Mancini, 1990; Orthner & Mancini, 1991; Orthner et al., 1994). The activity pattern elements of this model, discussed below, have been accessed in recent theoretical models about family interactions and leisure (for example, Melton’s Family Activity Model, 2017). I discuss this dichotomy of cohesion and dissonance because as families convene, as family members interact, and as relationships wax and wane, it is rather normal for there to be both high points and low points. This model accounts for possible family leisure outcomes by examining how time-use can be conceptualized, as well as how individuals and families either incur costs or gain benefits. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the essential elements of the Orthner and Mancini conceptualization of what potentially occurs during family interaction around leisure generally, and around tourism activities, in particular. Note that the organizing framework for understanding cohesion and dissonance includes leisure time, leisure activity, and leisure preferences. The model that Orthner and I developed is grounded in particular social and behavioral theories found in psychology and in sociology, including symbolic interaction theory, which provides an important dimension of the meaning we attach to activities of everyday life, including those considered leisure (this backdrop is explained extensively in Orthner & Mancini, 1980). But in brief, we define families as unities of interacting personality, along the lines of how Burgess thought of families; culture and the social milieu has a bearing on individual and family behaviors; family members define situations they experience, potentially quite differently; family members are significant others, for better or for worse; within families mutual feedback and communication are ongoing, whether based in behavior or expressed feelings.

Models of Family Leisure Time-Use: Implications for Family Interaction. . .

107

Table 1 Leisure behavior and social cohesion Leisure time

Leisure activity

Leisure preference

Required for relaxation, communication, conflict resolution, and sharing experience Can enhance family identity Family members can continually provide definitions of situations, give and receive feedback, and share meanings Individual activities May facilitate family cohesion indirectly by renewing individual for interaction Parallel activities Increase opportunity for mutual feedback and sharing more than individual activities Provide personal development and a sense of togetherness Can be important for adjustment and more productive communication Joint (collaborative) activities Family sociability exemplified Optimal communication and alternative role patterning may occur Increased insight into and empathy for needs of others Opportunity for tension release, for sharing of problems, and for coming to terms with other stressors Provide a forum in which family members are not obligated or expected to conform to typical family rules Pre-activity planning and post-activity recollection creates more opportunity for sharing and communication Cohesion is fostered when there is relatively close correspondence between behavior and preferences Close correspondence leads to leisure that will provide opportunities for productive communication, shared meaning, and feedback

Table 2 Leisure behavior and social dissonance Leisure time

Leisure activity

Leisure preference

Differences in individual schedules Dissatisfaction resulting from limited time Work time versus leisure time conflicts Constrained time may be potential point of conflict Individual activities May severely restrict role flexibility and family communication New information about one another may develop slowly Limits effective communication Parallel activities False impression of togetherness May represent compromise and not being fully satisfied Joint (collaborative) activities More opportunity for venting anger, bickering, and power struggle May be hard for some families to adapt to departure from everyday interaction patterns Conflicts over interests and preferences common Family sociability requires negotiation and compromise

Social Cohesion Cohesion in a family group, as well as dissonance for that matter, basically occurs within leisure

time, which is space allocated for family members to interact around what they consider to be leisure, broadly defined (this includes more particular spins of leisure such as tourism or recreation;

108

see Table 1). How time (minutes, hours, days and so on) is utilized and how much a person feels she/he is getting what they want out of time is fundamental. We are likely all familiar with the notion of “quality time” as contrasted with how time or quantity of time is spent in an activity and with others, including family members. Time is the fundamental framework in which activities of daily life occur. So the allocation of time to leisure activities is fundamental for the potential for experiencing relaxation, for communicating with family members around unusual activities, for potentially resolving conflicts, and for sharing the same experiences. There is also the potential for increasing family identity through shared experiences, in effect reinforcing family members sense of who they are as a family group. It is within time itself that family members can develop and share not only experiences but also meanings attached to experiences that give further importance to relationships. Leisure activity is a second element of significance, beyond time, as discussed above. We discuss three activity types, individual, parallel, and joint activities, each with differing levels of interaction associated with them. Each activity category has its merits. In the case of an individual activity, there is no requirement for others to be involved in order to consider it a successful experience. Reading for pleasure is a good example, taking a walk alone is another. How individual activities play into fostering cohesion and good outcomes for families is that they may represent a time for renewing an individual for future social interaction. This may be particularly the case for parents of younger children, or for any social interaction that requires energy and attention. A second activity category is parallel activities, which are those done in the presence of others but do not require social interaction for having a successful experience. Common examples are attending a sporting event or attending the theatre; we are surrounded by others but the focus is what is happening on the field or on the stage. Even so there are implications for family cohesion, in that these parallel activities do increase the opportunity for social interaction, communication and mutual feedback, and for sharing; in effect a

J. A. Mancini

sense of togetherness is present through sharing the same parallel event. Cohesion may be enhanced because the demands for social interaction are low but the opportunity for social interaction is high. The final activity category we cite are joint activities, which are those that require interaction for considering them successful experiences. Many games fall into this category, whether they be board games or sports such as tennis, or camping. Family interaction, or sociability as it were, is exemplified. Communication between family members is ongoing and expected, and as a result there is potential for changes in typical family roles to occur (for example, joint activities often put individuals on equal footing, as compared with hierarchies that may exist in families otherwise). Depending on the activity there is increased opportunity for understanding other family members, including their strengths and weaknesses, and ideally providing cause for empathy and the needs of others. It is also possible that joint activities, where collaboration (and trust for that matter) is almost always required, provides openings for a gateway for broader understanding of one’s family members. There is also another potential benefit of joint family leisure in that there may be more pre-activity planning required (this will vary but take a vacation for example which requires much planning) but on the other end there is likely more post-activity recollection that results, which may be quite important for family cohesion. Leisure preferences is the third framework element for understanding the potential for cohesion. In a family group, or in any group family or friend, there is always a range of preferences for how time is spent. Some of us are readers, others are mountain climbers, some of us are beach people and others of us are lake people. Enter into the equation how in a family individuals members are at very different ages and stages, aside from other factors that play into preferences for how time is used. With regard to cohesion, the more the gap between leisure preferences and how time in a family group is actually spent is narrow rather than wide (we also could call this leisure behavior), the more likely cohesion is

Models of Family Leisure Time-Use: Implications for Family Interaction. . .

fostered. It stands to reason that if this gap is narrow there is a more positive spirit across family members that the time is well-spent, and it could be expected that the experiences and its positive characteristics are shared; it would then be expected that the nature of family interaction during these experiences will be more on a positive side with family members communicating more productively and ultimately have shared meanings in addition to shared experiences. At the same time that leisure time, leisure activity, and leisure preferences can foster family cohesion, there is also the opportunity for matters to go quite poorly, that is, leading to dissonance rather than cohesion.

Social Dissonance The other side of the leisure behavior and related processes and outcomes is dissonance, that is, aspects of leisure experience that may lead to less than positive interactions and ultimate outcomes (Table 2). I have already discussed the essential framework of leisure time, leisure activity, and leisure preference, and the same frame applies to social dissonance. In thinking about the fundamental aspect called leisure time, there are easily four considerations from a dissonance perspective: differences in schedules, dissatisfaction resulting from limited time, fallout from the competition between work time and leisure time, and ultimately how that moves potentially in to conflict. In our current highly scheduled culture and society it is common for there to be differences in schedules as it involves collaborating on leisure activities that are family group oriented. Consequently a primary task is working toward melding schedules. What may underly that, however, is how family members feel about limited time, whether it is limited on accomplishing household tasks or figuring out family leisure experiences; as a result the process of reconciling competing schedules becomes more ripe for difficulties. The largest consumer of time in adulthood is work time, for even part-time work can consume parts of most days in the week, and full time work not only easily consumes five days a week but

109

often more (recall the earlier point in this chapter about how many people take their work on vacation). Ultimately family members must make decisions about, in general, how time will be spent once work obligations are met. There is another level of competition for family leisure that remains, for once outside work is dispensed with there is household work and maintenance activities that may impede leisure/recreation/tourism. Time that is constrained sets the stage for conflict between family members, especially if the time that remains is not commonly viewed as available, and moreover there is disagreement over how time should be spent. Moving on to leisure activity, recall we have generally categorized them as individual, parallel, and joint (which perhaps should be more descriptively referred to as collaborative activities). As to individual activities, there are three essential points: limits on family role flexibility and family communication, consequently relationship development may be effected, and generally there may be insults to family communication. Recall that an individual activity is usually done alone and there is little to no interaction with others. Moving to parallel activities, which are done with others but not requiring interaction, there is potential for a false sense of togetherness, and these activities may represent compromise and therefore not fully satisfying to participants. Take the example of attending sporting events, it is not uncommon for there to be varying levels of interest across family members; or take the example of activities that are done while on a family vacation, where seeing yet another museum in an historical city may be met with very different degrees of enthusiasm. Finally, there are joint activities, where interaction is required for the activity to be successful. These activities provide every opportunity for conflicts that may be in place to begin with to spill over into leisure activities; there may be expressed anger, bickering, and other aspects of power struggles. Partnering during leisure activity requires communication, cooperation, and respect, which may be difficult to accomplish in some relationships. Our final dimension of leisure behavior pertains to leisure preferences. Dissonance

110

J. A. Mancini

occurs to the degree what we do with time differs from what we would like to do with time. In a family group, differences in interests and preferences are common, therefore the odds of discontent or conflict increase. A good term for family members spending time together is family sociability, and effective and satisfying sociability requires negotiation and compromise.

Life-Cycle of Relational Tourism Model Several years ago I and my colleagues, Deepu George and Bryce Jorgensen, wrote about family leisure and tourism from a developmental family science perspective, discussing the relational tourism lifecycle of contexts, interactions, and transactions (Mancini et al., 2012). In this chapter use of the term relational tourism refers exclusively to family relationships, including family roles and interaction; there are other uses of the term relational tourism as it applies to relationships that may develop between individuals traveling who develop relationships with non-family members, whether they be fellow

travelers or people met at a travel destination. Within our family relational tourism framework we discussed six stages: formal organization opportunities and contexts; family advantage and opportunities; family action, deliberation, and planning; family participation and execution; reflection, reorganization, and reminiscence; and over the horizon planning and next steps. The Relational Tourism Model parses the tourism experience over time, and includes the range of benefits associated with its various stages. While this model was first articulated as focused on tourism, I feel the essential elements apply more generally to many leisure experiences which involve family groups. Table 3 summarizes the elements of relational tourism, which includes six stages and then discusses contexts, interactions, and transactions associated with each. This stage approach begins with the context of the tourism industry (or substitute leisure industry or recreation industry), noting that there is a range of choices that the industry provides, and the industry also helps shape what families desire and what they ultimately do (Formal organization opportunities

Table 3 The relational tourism lifecycle: contexts, interactions, and transactions Formal organization opportunities and contexts The range of choices families may have provided to them by the tourism industry.

Aside from choices, the influence the industry can have on families, either their aspirations or their behaviors.

Family advantage and opportunities Abilities families may have to actually participate in certain tourism activities. Opportunities determined by available time, available resources.

Family action deliberation and planning Weighing options for family travel and tourism, and accommodating individual family members. Coming to terms with competing needs and wants, making decisions, and finalizing a concrete scheme.

Family participation and execution Acting on the plan and accommodating individual travel and tourism behaviors of family members. Coming to terms with anticipated experiences and actual experiences.

Reflection, reorganization, and reminiscence Attaching meaning, importance, and satisfaction to the travel experience.

Over the horizon planning: next steps Starting the conversation on what the next travel and tourism experience might contain.

Making sense of the experience, recalling memorable events and interactions, and recalibrating future expectations.

Placing new thinking in the context of past experiences, determining what should be enhanced and what should be avoided.

Source: Mancini, J.A., George, D., & Jorgensen, B. (2012). Relational tourism: Observations on families and travel. In M. Uysal, et al., (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality of life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 309–320). NY: Springer Science+Business Media. Used with permission of the publisher

Models of Family Leisure Time-Use: Implications for Family Interaction. . .

and contexts). There are certain characteristics of families themselves which make it either easy or difficult to participate in certain activities because of abilities families have to engage in certain activities or because of constraints imposed by available time and other available resources (Family advantage and opportunities). Families must then weigh options for travel or tourism as they consider needs and desires of individual family members, and ultimately come to terms with competing needs within the family, making firm decisions and finalizing concrete plans (Family action, deliberation, and planning). Whatever plans the family decided on then turns to action (vacationing for example) and accommodates the travel and tourism feelings and behaviors of family members, and also reconciles what they anticipated the experience would be like with the actual experience (Family participation and execution). We then move to processes and stages that follow the actual leisure experience. First, families attach meaning, importance and some level of satisfaction to their now-past experiences, in effect making sense of the experience, ideally recalling memorable events and interactions, and likely as a result recalibrating future expectations of tourism experiences (Reflection, reorganization, and reminiscence). A final phase of the aftermath of leisure experiences has to do with the next conversation on future travel, which as context is the most recent leisure experience; there is new thinking grounded in the past, and likely a family has learned something about what they might like to replicate the next time, or be committed to avoid (Over the horizon planning and next steps). Though our 2012 paper discusses all of these in great detail, what I have presented are the core elements of this tourism and leisure experience lifecycle. Family leisure time has a life-cycle and therefore has multiple “leverage points” or “turning points”. Leverage points in regard to supporting family well-being, and turning points in regard to how families actually experience leisure, whether tourism, recreation, and another term for how discretionary time is spent.

111

Family Stress, Coping, and Resilience: Functions of Relationships So far I have discussed many research findings on family leisure, tourism, recreation, and time-use. An important take-away is how leisure, broadly defined, is integrated with the everyday life of families, as well as focusing on special events that contribute to family identity and enduring memories. Also discussed are three frameworks designed to provide a roadmap for understanding leisure. The Core and Balance Model is important for understanding how types of activities juxtapose, as well as for understanding fundamental family dynamics of family communication and functioning. The Model of Social Cohesion and Social Dissonance informs us about how there are two significant outcomes from activity patterns, and that both positive and negative outcomes can occur. The Life Cycle of Relational Tourism Model demonstrates the stages that typify ultimately what families do with their discretionary time. All of these frameworks point toward understanding family dynamics, including their vulnerabilities and their resilience. To understand family dynamics is to account for both vulnerabilities and resilience. In thinking about vulnerability consider it experiences, situations, or characteristics that expose a person or a family to negative outcomes and results. Vulnerability is associated with risk, and the more vulnerable a family is, the increased chances of poor results. Vulnerabilities can be internal to a family or can be external, and vulnerabilities can be chronic (ongoing) or acute (Boss et al., 2017). The Contextual Model of Family Stress (CMFS) is a way of thinking about family dynamics and well-being that accounts for a range of vulnerabilities (see Fig. 1). Originally developed by my colleague, Pauline Boss, the model as it relates to vulnerability and to resilience is explored recently in the newest edition of Family Stress Management: A Contextual Approach (Boss et al., 2017).

112

J. A. Mancini

Fig. 1 Contextual model of family stress. Source: Boss, P., Bryant, C., & Mancini, J.A. (2017). Family stress management: A contextual approach. (Third edition). Los Angeles: Sage. Used with permission of the publisher

Contextual Model of Family Stress In brief, the CMFS discusses stressor events that individuals and families may face, in effect, adversities. These adversities can be internal to a family (certain family changes may occur or individual family members may exhibit problems such as an addiction) or external (events that begin outside of the family such as a natural disaster or economic inflation or a pandemic). Beyond the matter of internal or external a stressor can be developmental or predictable (a birth in the family or retirement), or can be catastrophic or unexpected (a flood or an untimely death of a family member). Moreover stressors can be ambiguous (the actual facts of a situation are vague) or clear (a family knows what it is facing and likely know how it will

turn out), and also can be volitional (situations are sought out such as a job change or a wanted pregnancy), or nonvolitional (in the case of a divorce or being laid off from a job). Stressors can also be chronic, that is of long duration (such as certain diseases, or racial prejudice), or can be acute (many injuries that will eventually heal). Finally, stressors can be cumulative, in effect piling up increasing odds that a family is worn down by multiple stressors, or can be isolated, that is a single event with no other associated stressors. See Boss et al. (2017, chapter 2) for a more complete discussion. I mention these stressors and adversities because I will contend that the potential for leisure experiences is to assist in building the capacities of families to deal more effectively with adversity. Leisure on its own is certainly not a cure-all for family ills,

Models of Family Leisure Time-Use: Implications for Family Interaction. . .

113

but through what family members gain through what they do with discretionary time becomes important for their resilience (though keep in mind my earlier discussion of social dissonance). Figure 1 depicts the entire contextual model, and I include it as a reminder there is a range of potential influences on families that they have no say over (outer ring of the figure), as well as family characteristics they have more say about (the internal context which pertains to such things as who is in the family and who has what roles in the family; how families perceive and make sense of the experiences they have, both good and bad; and values and beliefs a family has about what it means to be a family). Inside these two rings is the schematic on what occurs in families as adversities occur and as they navigate dealing with stressors. This ABC-X Model of Family Stress developed from the research of Reuben Hill, as he studied military families in the aftermath of World War II (Hill, 1949). The A Factor is an event or situation a family must deal with, whereas the B Factor are the resources a family has to manage stressor events and situations. The C Factor is how a family perceives what they are facing, that is, the meaning they attach to an adversity and how it is viewed (this can vary as families view stressors in widely different ways; note the earlier discussion on types of stressor events). Finally, as the event unfolds, as family resources and abilities are activated, and as a family defines the situation they are facing, ultimately there are outcomes which could lead to a crisis (a family is disorganized) or to manageable stress. In my view what is pivotal for how this contextual model of family stress actually plays out with families has to do with the nature of relationships inside the family. What is common to all of the three leisure models discussed earlier is how relationships between family members develop, and how they are nurtured, or how they are stagnated, and how they become problematic.

imply regarding why family time-use is important and consequential. I also discuss them as a way to elaborate on the important B Factor (resources) in the contextual model. I am informed by the excellent research and theorizing of Robert Weiss (1974), as well as Cutrona and Russell (1987). Our own research program has used and adapted their framework and measures in research on adults and on adolescents (Mancini & Blieszner, 1992; Mancini et al., 2015). Weiss (1974) identified six relationship functions: Reliable alliance is knowing that one can count on receiving assistance in times of need; attachment is feeling intimacy and security; guidance is having relationships with people who can provide knowledge, advice and expertise; social integration is a sense of belonging to a group with whom one share common interests and social activities; reassurance of worth is being in relationships that confirm a sense of competence and esteem; opportunity for nurturance is being responsible for the care of others (see Mancini et al., 2015 for more detailed discussion). Consequently when thinking about the potential of family time-use for helping and supporting family members as individuals, these six dimensions break down that potential into component parts. Moreover, the strength of these relationships and viability of these functions then become a major family resource (B Factor) for wrestling with adversity. Central to all of this, whether the focus is stress in families, or how families deal effectively with stress, or with more fully understanding how relationships function and support individuals and families, is how individual family members are in interaction with others and the nature of that interaction. Therefore, a major context for family interaction is how time is spent, in particular time that is considered leisure or discretionary.

The Functions of Relationships

In this discussion I have set out a set of raw materials for understanding multiple intersections between how families use time and the quality of their individual and family life. The picture is

I discuss how relationships function as a way to further elaborate what the three leisure models

Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Implications

114

incomplete because I recognize that leisure time only partially influences ultimate family wellbeing; however, I contend that what families do in contiguity has significant spillover into other aspect of their lives, in effect, a resource that can be drawn on in times of adversity. This is potentially so because positive family interaction builds the capacity of individuals and families to rely on each other in times of stress. Of course, I do remind all that there is always potential for social dissonance, even as potential for social cohesion as family members interact. The Contextual Model of Family Stress reminds us of the many factors, both external and internal to a family, that contribute to the health vitality of a family, or that potentially undermine it. Even considering those cautions about realistically assessing what family leisure can accomplish, as well as its limitations, by and large family life is enhanced through leisure experiences. That being said, there are several important implications from this discussion on research findings from the leisure science literature, as well as the theoretical models focused on family leisure itself and on family dynamics and relationships.

Educational Interventions Family life education can have an important influence on how adults in families view family time, helping them realize it as a resource with payoffs for family identity and cohesion. Recall that many adults actually take work with them while vacationing, even though other family members are not happy about that. Family life education is a term the represents specific programs that are directed to one or more family members and focused on a significant aspect of family life. So for example, any number of programs seek to improve how family members interact. A particular focus on family leisure is an important educational element for families, especially those who may be less intentional about planning and implementing family leisure experiences. In fact, each of the family leisure models discussed

J. A. Mancini

earlier (Core and Balance, Social Cohesion and Social Dissonance, and Relational Tourism) provide a roadmap for pragmatic educational points. For example, Core and Balance suggests how different leisure activities fulfill different purposes for a family, Social Cohesion and Social Dissonance suggests how family leisure can be productive but also cautions of the drawbacks inherent, and Relational Tourism plots a clear pathway instructing how family leisure plays out over time and over experiences.

Therapeutic Interventions Couple and family therapy can have an important role in supporting the repair work that must go on in troubled families. Sometimes a new platform for interacting is what families need as they reconfigure how they interact and how they view each other. How time is spent as that reconfiguration occurs may be critical. A blanket recommendation to spend time together is not likely to be helpful for a family having severe difficulties but targeted advice on certain discretionary activities may assist in healing. For example, it may well be that stress an adult is feeling may be helped with her or him spending more time in more solitary activities, the idea being that solitary time can be restorative when meeting family demands. Or a family therapist may discover that a couple gets very competitive with each other when in a joint (collaborative) activity, in which case an intervention would center on what it is that furthers competition rather than actual collaboration. The earlier discussion of the multiple functions of relationships provide some guidance on what aspects of a particular relationship family time-use may support. For example, taking just one relationship function, social integration, which is a sense of belonging based on shared common interests, it seems that structuring leisure activities that in fact multiple family members have an interest in is likely to enhance this sense of being a valued and integral part of the family.

Models of Family Leisure Time-Use: Implications for Family Interaction. . .

Policy Interventions Among the many reasons why a substantial number of Americans do not vacation (therefore families are not vacationing) are those related to the nature of work, what employers provide, and what government demands/requires of the workplace. In many respects resilience is about external opportunities and barriers which are the gatekeepers on what is possible for families. Recall that an early stage from the Relational Tourism Model focused on organizations, and then focused on families themselves. Also recall the outer ring of the Contextual Model of Family Stress because it centered on the multiple external factors that affects families and over which they have little to no say. When adults think about getting balance in their lives, the two elements are work and family. And while they likely have a lot to say about how family life plays out, it is unusual to have much say as it involves work. Consequently, organizations that control employees’ lives, and their policies and practices, are vital for either a person feeling they can achieve that desired balance, or feeling defeated. I argue that such balance ultimately benefits both families and the organizations who employ family members. As one example of considering family matters, work, and policy and practice consider the application of the Contextual Model of Family Stress (CMFS) to organization effectiveness (Conley et al., 2016). This family science model was layered on to processes within organizations (factories, businesses, corporations, and so on). What can go on in an organization, such as layoffs, permeates family life and by the same token what goes on in a family permeates organization life (for example, transition to parenthood or a death in the family). Recall the B Factor in the CMFS, which are the resources available and activated when stressors are encountered; these resources include personal capacities of an employee and her/his social support network of family, friends, neighbors, and others. The essential point is that what occurs outside of work ultimately assists a worker to be better prepared to deal with issues within the

115

organization and better prepared to not let external issues negatively affect his/her work. More specific initiatives organizations can unfold in the interest of supporting families include, as two examples, flextime and telecommuting; perhaps of utmost importance is for organizations to take a hard look at what they are expecting of their employees that may unreasonably interfere with family life, which of course includes how families use time, especially discretionary time. If the era of Covid recedes it will be interesting to see how companies, which have had to be more flexible during the pandemic, have changed in more permanent ways as it involves employee flexibility.

People-to People Interventions At the end of the day, we live our lives in the company of others, including family members, friends, neighbors, and work associates. Given what we know about the power of social networks and interpersonal relationships, at the individual level we can encourage families we know to take the time to take a deep collective breath, step out of the fast lane, and take a little time with family. It is interesting how lives within a family can become so independent, and less linked, especially in families without younger children. Younger children become a necessary pivot point for families and this effects how families spend leisure time but as children become adolescents there is more necessary independence but it comes at the expense of family leisure time. I don’t mention this necessarily as a criticism of families but rather an observation of what occurs because as socialization unfolds there is the expectation of independence, of increasing divergence and decreasing convergence. Yet at the same time there remains the importance of family leisure experiences, if for no other reason than once we acquire a family we tend to stick with them for the remainder of our lives. So from a lifespan developmental perspective there is merit to encourage families to spend discretionary time together even as there are greater pulls for them to spend less time together. Regardless of family age and stage, it is reasonable to conclude that family

116

J. A. Mancini

leisure experiences continue to inform individual family members about each other, and ultimately provides them a resource to mobilize throughout their lives as they deal with adversity.

are the processes that occur and accrue as people spend time together, as they interact and transact, and as they manage difficulties that may result as well as embrace what brings them together.

Conclusion: The Merits and Promise of Family Leisure Time-Use

References

The current discussion has pulled together a set of ideas and research findings that coalesce around the merits of family time-use, particularly as it involves particular benefits to individuals and to families. Findings from the leisure/recreation/ tourism/time-use research literature are rich in explaining the complexities of discretionary activities, both patterns and structures, as well as processes and outcomes. What occurs outside of a family eventually permeates family life and then specifically effects how families spend time together, and under what conditions. Among other elements, the research literature notes the role gender has, how parents influence their children and adolescents, what family employment patterns mean, the range of effects on emotional well-being, as well as implications for intergenerational relationships. The three family leisure models I discussed suss and parse leisure activities as independent variables (influencers), as well as dependent variables (the influenced), and show how these patterns intersect and how they may provide differential benefits to individuals and to whole families. These models also show how family leisure is not a cure-all for what ails a family but does encourage certain benefits for family well-being. Even as time is something all families grapple with on a daily basis so are stressors, either minor ones that are dispatched with easily but also ones that can potentially cause major disruption in a family. I discussed a contextual model that accounts for the complexities of both external and internal family stressors which can then lead to stress and potentially to crisis. Of significance in the contextual model is the focus on resources, of which family time-use can be a significant source. The discussion of the functions of interpersonal relationships is important because these

Agate, J. R., Zabriskie, R. B., Agate, S. T., & Poff, R. (2009). Family leisure satisfaction and satisfaction with family life. Journal of Leisure Research, 41, 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2009. 11950166 Beck, M. E., & Arnold, J. E. (2009). Gendered time use at home: An ethnographic examination of leisure time in middle-class families. Leisure Studies, 28, 121–142. Becker, O. A., & Lois, D. (2013). Competing pleasures? The impact of leisure time use on the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 661–688. Boss, P., Bryant, C. M., & Mancini, J. A. (2017). Family stress management: A contextual approach (3rd ed.). Sage. Buswell, L., Zabriskie, R. B., Lundberg, N., & Hawkins, A. J. (2012). The relationship between father involvement in family leisure and family functioning: The importance of daily family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 34, 172–190. Conley, K. M., Clark, M. A., Vande Griek, O. H., & Mancini, J. A. (2016). Looking backward, moving forward: Exploring theoretical foundations for understanding employee resilience. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9, 491–497. http://journals. cambridge.org/abstract_S17554942616000456 Craig, L., & Brown, J. E. (2014). Weekend work and leisure time with family and friends: Who misses out? Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 710–727. Crouter, A. C., Head, M. R., McHale, S. M., & Tucker, C. J. (2004). Family time and the psychosocial adjustment of adolescent siblings and their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 147–162. Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (pp. 37–67). Jai Press. Harrington, M. (2015). Practices and meaning of purposive family leisure among working-and middle-class families. Leisure Studies, 34, 471–486. Hebblethwaite, S. (2017). The (in)visibility of grandparents in family leisure research: A call for expanded conceptualizations of family. Leisure Sciences, 39, 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01490400.2017.1333055 Hebblethwaite, S., & Norris, J. (2011). Expressions of generativity through family leisure: Experiences of grandparents and adult grandchildren. Family Relations, 60, 121–133. Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress: Adjustment to the crises of war separation and reunion. Harper.

Models of Family Leisure Time-Use: Implications for Family Interaction. . . Hodge, C., Bocarro, J. N., Henderson, K. A., Zabriskie, R., Parcel, T. L., & Kanters, M. A. (2015). Family leisure: An integrative review of research from select journals. Journal of Leisure Research, 47, 577–600. Hodge, C. J. (2012). The relationship between media in the home and family functioning in context of leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 44, 285–307. Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. (2001). Overworked individuals or overworked families? Explaining trends in work, leisure, and family time. Work and Occupations, 28, 40–63. Kelly, J. (1978). Family leisure in three communities. Journal of Leisure Research, 10, 47–60. https://doi. org/10.1080/00222216.1978.11969333 Lin, W., Chen, H., & Wang, Y. (2019). Work-family conflict and psychological well-being of tour leaders: The moderating effect of leisure coping styles. Leisure Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2019. 1671253 Mancini, J. A. (1984). Leisure lifestyles and family dynamics in old age. In W. H. Quinn & G. Hughston (Eds.), Independent aging: Family and social systems perspectives (pp. 58–71). Aspen. Mancini, J. A. (2016, March 11). Relational leisure and family dynamics: On the road to resilience [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the Southeastern Council on Family Relations, Orlando, FL, United States. Mancini, J. A., & Blieszner, R. (1992). Social provisions in adulthood: Concept and measurement in close relationships. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 47, P14–P20. Mancini, J. A., Bowen, G. L., O’Neal, C. W., & Arnold, A. L. (2015). Relationship provisions, self-efficacy and youth well-being in military families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 40, 17–25. Mancini, J. A., George, D. V., & Jorgensen, B. (2012). Relational tourism: Observations on families and travel. In M. Uysal et al. (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality of life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 309–320). Springer Science+Business Media. Mancini, J. A., & Orthner, D. K. (1982). Leisure time, activities, preferences, and competence: Implications for the morale of older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 1, 95–103. Melton, K. K. (2017). Family activity model: Crossroads of activity environment and family interactions in family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 39, 457–473. https://doi. org/10.1080/01490400.2017.133056 Offer, S. (2013). Family time activities and adolescents’ emotional well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 26–41. Orthner, D. K., Barnett-Morris, L., & Mancini, J. A. (1994). Leisure and family over the life cycle. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Handbook of developmental family psychology and psychopathology (pp. 176–201). Wiley.

117

Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1980). Leisure behavior and group dynamics: The case of the family. In S. E. Iso-Ahola (Ed.), Social psychological perspectives on leisure and recreation (pp. 307–328). Thomas. Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1990). Leisure impacts on family interaction and cohesion. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 125–137. Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1991). Benefits of leisure for family bonding. In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of leisure (pp. 289–301). Venture Publishing. Overholt, J. R. (2019). Role shifts and equalizing experiences through father-child outdoor adventure programs. Leisure Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01490400.2019.1627966 Roxburgh, S. (2006). “I Wish We Had More Time to Spend Together...” The distribution and predictors of perceived family time pressures among married men and women in the paid labor force. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 529–553. Shaw, S. M., Andrey, J., & Johnson, L. C. (2003). The struggle for life balance: Work, family, and leisure in the lives of women teleworkers. World Leisure Journal, 45, 15–29. Townsend, J. A., Van Puymbroeck, M., & Zabriskie, R. B. (2017). The core and balance model of family leisure functioning: A systemic review. Leisure Sciences, 39, 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2017. 133057 Weiss, R. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others (pp. 17–26). Prentice Hall. Xie, H. (2022). Family vacation and child’s life satisfaction: An analysis of 2009-2010 U.S. Health Behaviors in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Survey. Leisure Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2022. 2046524 Xie, H., Scott, J. L., & Caldwell, L. L. (2021). Parental influence on urban adolescents’ physical activity experience. Leisure Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01490400.2021.1986180 Zabriskie, R. B., & McCormick, B. P. (2001). The influences of family leisure patterns on perceptions of family functioning. Family Relations, 50, 281–289. Zabriskie, R. B., & McCormick, B. P. (2003). Parent and child perspectives of family leisure involvement and satisfaction with family life. Journal of Leisure Research, 35, 163.

Jay A. Mancini Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Human Development and Family Science at Virginia Tech, and formerly Haltiwanger Distinguished Professor of Human Development and Family Science at The University of Georgia. He received his doctoral degree from The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and M.S. degree from Kansas State University, both in family and developmental science. He is a Fellow of the National Council on Family Relations. Over his career his research and

118 theorizing have been related to the intersections of vulnerability and resilience, and focused on families in later life, military members and their families, and on communities and family well-being. For his career, he received over $23M in funding from state and federal agencies, and from private foundations. His research has appeared in frontline peer reviewed journals including: Journal of Leisure Research, Leisure Sciences, Journal of Marriage and Family, Journal of Gerontology, Journal of Family Theory and Review, Family Process, Family Relations, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, and Educational and Psychological

J. A. Mancini Measurement. He is the author, with Pauline Boss and Chalandra Bryant, of Family stress management: A contextual approach (third edition). He has received career achievement awards from The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (Distinguished University Alumni Award, and College of Human Environmental Science Career Award), and Kansas State University (Alumni Distinguished Research Award and Distinguished Career Award, both from the College of Health and Human Sciences). Email: [email protected].

Part II QoL from the Perspective of Tourists

Subjective Aspects of Quality of Life (QOL) Ruhet Genç

Introduction Tourism industry is a crucial part of the service industry where the travelers’ needs and preferences gain prominence. In contemporary world, views and wants of the visitors have become the driving force of the services and products offered in the tourism industry. In the tourism context, hospitality managers provide services to travelers with an aim of increasing their satisfaction, enhancing their positive feelings, and facilitating the overall well-being of tourists. Kotler (1986) argued that marketers should understand the “needs, wants and interests” (p. 16) of customers and provide them with services which focus on customer satisfaction, contentment, and well-being better than their competitors. He suggested that the extent to which marketing activities support the wellbeing of consumers influence marketing effectiveness. The diversity of consumers and the complexity of the consumer satisfaction concept have been acknowledged in recent years for the marketing attempts in the hospitality industry. Sirgy and Samli (1995) asserted that satisfaction of tourist needs is not sufficient for effective marketing of services and tourism products. In their account, keeping the mind the different R. Genç (✉) Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, Turkish German University, Istanbul, Turkey

dimensions of subjective well-being, an effective service marketing strategy should support at least one dimension of subjective well-being. In the era of consumer satisfaction and wellbeing, the concept of quality of life (QOL) has the potential to be central in the tourism industry. Although QOL is conceptualized on different grounds, it has infiltrated into the tourism context with an emphasis on “customer-focus” and, “the guests’ well-being and subjective experience”. Tourism activities have various points of intersection with individual QOL. Research demonstrates that tourism activities have a facilitating effect on individual QOL (CampónCerro et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2016; Jeon et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2015). Vacations refine the body and mind (Bushell & Sheldon, 2009), provide opportunities to communicate with others, satisfy social, cultural, and personal interests (Richards, 1999), gain skills, improve self-esteem, increase awareness of environment (Moscardo, 2009), enhance personal growth and identity development (Dolnicar et al., 2012; McCabe & Johnson, 2013). As these intersection points like identity formation implies, the concept of QOL is a highly subjective construction. People interpret and make meaning out of travel and tourism experiences through their individual lenses. It should be noted that not only QOL is influenced by the tourism experience, but QOL itself also plays a dominant role in the subjective evaluation of the tourism experience. Passing through this

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_9

121

122

subjective lens, leisure and travel turns into a facilitating experience for the individual QOL. All dimensions and features of a service or product in the tourism industry intersect with the individuals’ personal characteristics and ways of seeing the world. Understanding these subjective processes is vital for the tourism industry since as Sirgy (2001) suggested these insights illuminate designs of services or products which can function as a facilitator of QOL in customers’ lives. The present chapter will dwell on the subjective determinants of QOL in the tourism context. Tourists’ cognitions, emotions, personality structures and relational experiences in the destination place will be discussed as significant subjective determinants. Before going into an in-depth discussion on the topic, main concepts will be briefly introduced.

R. Genç

regardless of a normative standard or personal need (Diener & Suh, 1997). As the definitions above indicate, the QOL concept can vary along objective and subjective, normative, and individualized dimensions. Since the focus of the present chapter is “the subjective side” of the QOL concept, it needs to be clarified. Subjective QOL is a broad umbrella term that covers happiness, subjective well-being, and satisfaction with life (Sirgy, 2001). Studies on subjective QOL focus on personal experience and perceptions about one’s life quality. Sometimes, the term is used interchangeably with “subjective well-being” of individuals in the literature (Costanza et al., 2007). Neal and Gursoy (2008) provide a comprehensive and plain definition for subjective QOL and define it as the consumers’ perception of and satisfaction with his/her overall life. A brief review of QOL measures will make the objective-subjective distinction more explicit.

The Conceptualization of QOL The Definition of QOL

Quality of Life Measures

There is diversity and ambiguity in defining the term QOL. Over a hundred definitions have been provided in the literature, yet the QOL concept is still far from a clear formulation (Costanza et al., 2007). The difficulty with providing a clear definition partly stems from the fact that the concept is widely and inconsistently used, partly from the belief that the concept cannot be formulated exactly (Galloway, 2008). Awad and Voruganti (2012) suggested that through studying on different variables and constructs leads to different definitions of quality of life. A brief look at the frameworks by which QOL is defined helps to have an idea on what the concept is all about. These frameworks can be outlined as the normative view which highlights normative ideals of pursuing a satisfactory life (e.g., helping others according to religion); the preference satisfaction view which emphasizes the extent to which a service or product satisfies the customers’ needs, and the subjective experience view which prioritizes personal evaluation, perception, and experience of the consumer

There are two main approaches for measuring quality of life: Objective and subjective. These approaches imply a different conceptualization and understanding of the concept. The distinction between subjective and objective measures of QOL is made on the basis of their relation to customers’ “subjective awareness” (Veenhoven, 2002; p. 2). Objective indicators are not much subject to awareness of tourists and guests. For example, income level of an individual does not change in accordance with his or her perception. However, as the name implies subjective indicators of QOL are directly influenced by perceptual differences and subjective evaluations (Costanza et al., 2007; Galloway, 2008). Below objective and subjective measures of the QOL concept have been summarized (see Fig. 1).

Objective Measures of Quality of Life Objective measures of QOL utilize quantifiable social, economic, and health-related factors, such

Subjective Aspects of Quality of Life (QOL)

123

Fig. 1 Objective and subjective measures of QOL

as GDP per capita, life expectancy rates (Cummins, 2000). These measures provide a more reliable and valid assessment of the QOL concept, and offer a more bias-free, objective understanding. They can also be utilized to make local, national, and geographical comparisons and to broaden the scope of measurement devices (Diener & Suh, 1997). Objective measures of QOL have become a traditional method and found widespread appeal in assessment of diverse populations varying in age, sex, life conditions etc. (Costanza et al., 2007). However, these measures have been criticized on several grounds. One critique of the method highlighted that numerical results provided by these objective methods are hard to interpret and report (Cummins, 2000). Another critique is that these measures do not capture the diversity and complexity of consumers’ subjective and individualized experiences, thoughts, and perceptions (Costanza et al., 2007). The attributions of the individuals to their quality of life includes highly personalized thinking

processes, thus objective measures are not sufficient to explain the concept. This criticism brings the issue of subjective measures to the fore.

Subjective Measures of Quality of Life Subjective measures of QOL assess the personal life experience of individuals within social, economic, and health-related domains; and they utilize subjective indicators such as happiness or subjective well-being, taken by valid and reliable self-reports (Costanza et al., 2007; Diener & Lucas, 1999). Subjective measures of QOL focus on the extent to which a service or product make individuals feel satisfied. Researchers make use of open-ended questions such as “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?” in order to capture one’s subjective evaluations about life (Schwarz & Strack, 2003, p. 61). These measures focus on consumers’ individualized point of view and capture the diversity of consumer experiences.

124

R. Genç

However, subjective measures of QOL have also been subjected to criticism. Sirgy (2001) outlines several of them. The first one is that self-report measures risk the possibility of providing invalid and unreliable results which does not reflect the real experiences of tourists. Another critique is that individuals are likely to respond more positively than they would normally do to be more socially desirable in a socially desired manner in self-report measures which is called social desirability bias in the literature. Thus, subjective measures may not provide a realistic picture of consumers’ subjective experiences; instead, they may reflect socially expected standards and normative information.

The QOL concept is formulated and influenced by who the customer is, how he/she feels and thinks, how he/she evaluates a life situation, how he/she relates to the world and what personality traits he/she has. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the QOL concept in the tourism sector through a subjective lens. In the rest of the chapter, cognitions, emotions, personality, and relational experiences are discussed as subjective determinants of the QOL concept in the tourism sector.

Subjective Aspects of Tourist’s QOL

What Are Cognitions?

The conceptual definitions provided at the beginning of the chapter implicate that the concept of QOL is a highly individual and personal construction. QOL is an intricately linked concept with an individual’s life experiences and personal meaning making. Locating the QOL concept within an individual’s subjective experiential realm, the link between QOL and tourism industry can be re-examined. More recently, Sirgy (2001) added to this conceptualization a time framework. In Sirgy’s account, affects and cognitions are experienced within a given time period. They either subside within a short time or they are sustained. In their daily lives, people may experience several negative or positive effects and cognitions for a short time (Sirgy, 2001). For instance, if an individual feels angry as a reaction to a temporary conflict, his/her anger cools down within a short period after the resolution of this conflict. Sirgy (2002) suggests that the accumulation of feelings makes people have more enduring negative or positive affective and cognitive states, such as happiness or depression in the long run (see Fig. 2). For understanding the subjective determinants of QOL in the tourism context, affective and cognitive components of the term need to be explored in detail.

Cognitions are defined as thoughts and thinking processes (Taylor, 2005) and they thought to develop by dynamic interactions between genetic, biological factors and environmental experiences. In the formation of cognitions, experiences in one’s social and physical environment are vital for shaping the effects of genetic make-up (Taylor, 2005). People construct their cognitions, including thoughts, evaluations, meaning making processes on the basis of what they learn from their previous experiences and what they store in their memories (Goodson, 2003). Therefore, prior experiences are recorded and transformed into representations which shape one’s way of seeing things in life. Cognitions have different functions in an individual’s life. Since cognitions occupy a wide range of activities and processes, their functions vary accordingly. For instance, short term memory, being a vital aspect of the term cognition, provides the individual with a sense of awareness of the environment and constitutes the underpinnings of consciousness (Oakley, 2004). Another aspect is long-term memory which makes it possible to encode one’s prior experiences and sustains a continuous sense of identity. Cognitions also have integrative functions by which prior knowledge and experiences stored in short and long-term

Cognitive Dimension: Cognitions as the Subjective Aspect of Tourist QOL

Subjective Aspects of Quality of Life (QOL)

125

Fig. 2 Affective and cognitive components of QOL in the short and long run. Source: adopted from Sirgy (2002)

memories can be retrieved and utilized in real life circumstances (Goodson, 2003). Cognitions may also function as evaluative and interpretive thoughts which frame individuals’ way of seeing the world. People make sense of their environment and respond to new occurrences by utilizing earlier memories and related thoughts, attitudes. By this way, formerly constituted cognitions enable an adaptive response in a new situation the individual has not encountered before (Morra & Gobbo, 2008). For instance, a cognition stating that “people should be expressive and friendly in unfamiliar social environments” helps a newcomer to adapt to and

socialize in his/her new school or university and form good social relations. Sticking on the view that life is comprised of multiple domains of experience; cognitions regarding one’s self and others, social environment, family life and the like operate in individuals’ interactions with the world. These cognitions shape how an individual evaluates and feels about a current situation or event. Therefore, cognitions can be organized around different domains of activity, knowledge, and experience (Taylor, 2005). Understanding how cognitions develop and operate in one’s life is significant for tourism

126

context. As Veenhoven (2002) points out people’s personal ways of experiencing the world needs to inform practical steps taken to facilitate QOL in all sectors. In the tourism industry, cognitions are significant for several reasons. For one, people’s cognitions are involved in the perception and evaluation of services and products they consume. Second, travel-related cognitions go through the same processes of formation. Third, knowledge of how cognitions develop may prove useful in tourism industry to identify points of interference in ameliorating tourism services and products. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how cognitions develop and operate in the tourism context in order to enhance the tourism sector. For the purposes of the present chapter, three features of human cognitions are especially relevant which will be briefly explained. These may be outlined as: • Accumulation of experiences • Dynamism and openness to change • Excitation of feelings As mentioned above, cognitions are the ultimate outcome of previous experiences. They can be thought of as an envelope which contain and package earlier processes. All elements of cognitions are abstract inferences derived from former occurrences, relations, and early memories in life (Oakley, 2004). I am suggesting that within the tourism context; experiences of tourists in all tourism activities, such as transportation, accommodation, entertainment, are stored, processed, and transformed into tourism-related cognitions via abstraction. These cognitions shape the meaning of the tourism activity in an individual’s life and alter the way in which an excursion is anticipated to be like. Therefore, the accumulation of prior experiences within cognitions has significant repercussions for the tourism industry. Although cognitions function as the container of one’s domain-specific interactions in the environment, they are not static snapshots of life experiences (Taylor, 2005). Cognitions, being flexible and open to alterations, are formed and transformed throughout life. Thus, all cognitions have the potential to change in order to

R. Genç

incorporate new occurrences (Wright et al., 2006). Within the tourism context, dynamism and flexibility of cognitive elements are promising since this makes it possible to improve travel-related cognitions by offering satisfactory experiences. One feature which makes cognitions a powerful force in leading life decisions and meaning making processes is that cognitions generally trigger a particular emotion (Wright et al., 2006). For instance, a cognition stating that “the world is uncontrollable and unpredictable” is likely to be associated with feelings of anxiety and panic whereas thinking that “the world is predictable in some respects and unpredictable in some others” may facilitate feelings of comfort and agency (Wright et al., 2006). That is to say, when a thought comes to mind, it is likely to stimulate an affect. In turn the affect changes the cognition, and both change and reshape the output which is the tourism related behavior in this context. The importance of affects within tourism-QOL context will be delineated in detail in the next section. For now, it is significant to recognize the interconnectedness of cognitions and affects, and the necessity of viewing tourism-related cognitions as a whole.

Positive and Negative Cognitions From birth on, people face with satisfactory and unsatisfactory experiences which are both represented in mind. Good and pleasing interactions in different domains of life forms the basis of positive cognitions while bad, disappointing experiences facilitate the development of negative cognitions (Wright et al., 2006). Negative and positive cognitions may vary with respect to different domains of activity in life (Kahneman et al., 2003). For example, an individual may have positive cognitions about the social environment while holding negative cognitions about his/her family relations. Moreover, it is possible to have both positive and negative cognitions about the same life-domain (Bosque & San Martin, 2008). For instance, an individual may have negative thoughts about

Subjective Aspects of Quality of Life (QOL)

social relations at work while sustaining positive thoughts about one’s social relations in his/her neighborhood. Positive and negative cognitions exert contrasting influences on perception, evaluation, and information processing and thus, subjective well-being. Positive thoughts are likely to facilitate viewing an event in a positive light, attending to pleasant aspects of a situation and anticipating satisfactory experiences to happen (Wright et al., 2006). Positive cognitions, through their interconnections with positive effects, have the potential to ease one’s subjective sense of wellbeing. In contrast, negative cognitions result in pessimistic evaluations and negative anticipations of an occurrence. Information processing biased in favor of unpleasant aspects may deteriorate one’s subjective well-being which is directly associated with the QOL concept (Kahneman et al., 2003). Positive and negative cognitions are also operative in the tourism industry. Positive and negative tourism-related cognitions may involve a particular destination, a particular tourism service (e.g., accommodation, transportation etc.), a particular service provider (e.g., a hotel or hotel chain, an airline etc.) or the tourism services as a whole. Examples of positive tourism-related cognitions might be “Traveling is a good opportunity to entertain and relax”, “Hotel X provides me with all I need in an excursion” or “Destination A offers satisfactory experiences”. Examples of negative tourism-related cognitions may be “Tourism activities are an all-too-expensive means of relaxing”, “Traveling results in fatigue, rather than rest” or “No hotel can provide on-time, satisfactory experiences”. Reading through these examples, it is important to keep in mind that cognitions are strongly influential in altering information processing and decision making. Drawing on the notion that cognitions are dynamic and flexible, it is possible to assert that negative cognitions can be transformed into positive ones in order to improve one’s subjective well-being. The improved sense of well-being becomes observable, it changes the behavior.

127

This assertion introduces the next topic of discussion.

Cognitions as the Subjective Determinant of Tourist QOL In what ways, cognitions can be employed in improving tourist QOL? As explained in prior sections, cognitions are involved in all information processing, meaning making and evaluation tasks. Cognitions function as the primary frame of reference for interacting with and making sense of the world, as mentioned. Positive and negative cognitions bias shape attention, perception, interpretation in favor of pleasant and unpleasant occurrences, respectively. These features of cognitions provide a number of opportunities in the tourism context for advancing tourist QOL. For one thing, operations of positive and negative cognitions are significant in the tourism context in order to understand its association with QOL. As mentioned above, positive cognitions may facilitate a person’s subjective well-being while negative cognitions deteriorate it (Kahneman et al., 2003). In the tourism industry, providing satisfactory services may facilitate the formation of positive tourism-related cognitions and in turn improve tourist QOL. Thus, there is an indirect link between cognitions and tourist QOL. Providing good and pleasing services in the tourism industry can enhance positive tourismrelated cognitions and contributes to one’s overall well-being. Accumulation of satisfactory experiences in the tourism context may have a generalized effect and secure a sense of happiness in life, as Sirgy (2002) has pointed out before. Moreover, people who hold positive cognitions in one domain are likely to see current events and services in a positive light. Thus, with the formation of positive tourism-related cognitions, tourist QOL can be enhanced and sustained. Positive tourism-related cognitions also imply that tourism as a whole has a pleasant connotation for the individual. The meaning of tourism activities in one’s life, if positive, may facilitate his/her subjective well-being. For instance, if an

128

individual views traveling as an “escape from daily hassles” or as an “opportunity for relaxation and rest”, then tourism turns into a personally meaningful activity which helps him/her to endure and cope with daily challenges. Thus, enhancement of positive tourism-related cognitions such as “tourism is a good way to relax” or “tourism simultaneously provides rest and novelty” is a fundamental way for tourism industry to facilitate QOL. Identifying negative cognitions is also necessary in the tourism context since they may turn into obstacles for the advancement of tourist QOL. Tourism services should target negative cognitions and strive to turn them into positive ones. This could be done by presenting services which disconfirm negative expectations and information processing patterns.

Tourist Satisfaction and QOL Quality of life research has examined the relationship of the QOL concept with customer satisfaction. Although the intricate relation between tourists’ level of satisfaction and QOL has been suggested in the literature, it has not been a frequent topic of empirical research. Frisch (2005) interchangeably uses the concepts of life satisfaction and quality of life. He argues that an individual’s evaluation of his/her life and the resultant satisfaction reflect his or her life quality. There have been attempts to theorize about the tourist and life satisfaction concepts and to examine their relationship with QOL. One conceptual frame on life satisfaction which has found appeal in QOL research has been provided by the so-called bottom-up theory (Neal et al., 2007). The authors explain that in the theory, a person’s level of satisfaction in different domains of life like work, family influences his/her overall wellbeing and satisfaction in life. In the bottom-up theory, a satisfactory experience at work may increase one’s overall satisfaction with life or a dissatisfactory experience at home may decrease it In Neal et al.’s account (2007), the bottom-up theory implicates that an individual’s life has

R. Genç

many domains of activity and realms of experience which intersect to shape his/her overall satisfaction and quality of life. Tourism is one such domain of individual activity which influences affective and cognitive experiences of tourists. The authors suggest that satisfaction with tourism services has the potential to shape one’s subjective sense of quality in life. Neal et al. (2007) suggests that satisfaction with a tourism product or service can be transformed into satisfaction with the overall tourism experience, then into overall leisure life, then last but not least into satisfaction with overall life. Within this process, it is important to identify which domains contribute most to satisfaction with leisure life or life in general. The authors also take into account the tourists’ “individual and personal lenses” through which tourism products and services are perceived and evaluated. Neal, Uysal and Sirgy’s model has been demonstrated in Fig. 3. Neal et al. (2007), by presenting a model which focuses on both tourism services and tourists’ individualized views, challenges the assumption that satisfaction in tourism industry is short-lived and immediate. On the contrary, their model and research demonstrates that satisfaction with tourism services and products may have a long-term influence on satisfaction with overall life. Thus, enhancement of QOL could be achieved by tourism activities which provide pleasant and satisfactory experiences.

Cultural Influences on Cognitions and Tourist QOL Tourism and culture are highly intertwined processes which have reciprocal exchanges in contemporary world. Cultural tourism has found widespread appeal in recent years. Tourists have become interested in different cultural constructions, artifacts, and ways of seeing the world (Galloway, 2008). The intersections with different cultures highlight the fact that there are diverse cultural patterns in making sense of the world and looking at things.

Subjective Aspects of Quality of Life (QOL)

129

Fig. 3 Neal, Uysal and Sirgy’s model of tourist satisfaction. Source: adapted from Neal et al. (2007)

Culture is about how we are and how we interact with the world (Ginsberg, 2005). Culture denotes a common language, shared beliefs, values, and behaviors among a community and determines the perspectives taken in life (Hill, 2003). Thus, cultural background of an individual strongly shapes who an individual is, how he/she communicates with the world and in what ways he/she evaluates and processes events and situations in the environment. Being one of the driving forces in tourism context, culture influences different domains of tourist experience and hence, quality of life (Anderek & Jurowski, 2006). Culture exerts an influence on cognitions and their development (Hofstede, 2005). Children grow up and socialize in a particular culture in which they are born. Cognitions incorporating the values, beliefs, norms of one’s cultural group are learned and formed throughout life. These culture-bound cognitions shape the way new information is processed, interpreted, and recorded (Ross,

2004). The topic of culture-bound cognitions is elaborated on in the next section.

Culture as Software of the Mind: Culture-Bound Cognitions The term “software of the mind” has been first introduced by Hofstede who has been a prominent figure in the conceptualizations of culture. Hofstede (2005) defines culture as “the software of the mind” which implies that shared values, beliefs, experiences, and common language of the old generation are transmitted to the new one. By this way, an individual’s cognitions in the new generation are “programmed” by the cultural conduct of older generations. Cultural values, beliefs and appropriate behavior patterns are transformed into cognitions about life and social environment throughout development. These cognitions are thinking patterns which help to lead an adaptive life in a particular

130

cultural arrangement. These culture-bound cognitions alter how one attends to and processes events, and perceives the environment (Hofstede, 2005). In Hofstede’s (2005) account; culture varies in several dimensions such as individualismcollectivism, power distance, and masculinityfemininity and uncertainty avoidance. Along these dimensions, different cognitions and perspectives develop which incorporate the cultural values. In contemporary world, tourism has been a cross-cultural and international occupation by definition. To delineate the significance of culture-bound cognitions as a determinant of tourism-QOL link, how cultural values varying in these dimensions influence thinking patterns will be exemplified. Individualism-collectivism is a salient dimension for understanding the role of culture-bound cognitions in tourism-QOL link. Individualismcollectivism dimension is defined by an orientation to self or other (Hofstede, 2005). Individualism characterizes a cultural arrangement in which personal matters are prioritized rather than the gains of one’s cultural group. Independence, personal freedom, and “I” are defining values for individualistic cultures. Collectivism on the other hand, implies that group harmony and interpersonal relations are fundamental to cultural arrangement. People in collectivistic societies attach importance to the concept of “we”, to a sense of “togetherness” and put emphasis on the maintenance of harmonious relationships in one’s cultural group, rather than personal interests (Hofstede, 2001). Cognitions about life, interpersonal relations and social environment may vary in accordance with individualistic and collectivistic arrangements, which are significant to understand subjective aspects of tourism-QOL link. People in individualistic cultures may have cognitions like “My personal comfort is the most important thing in life”, “My preferences should be addressed to and my needs should be satisfied in service settings”, “I do not care about environmental and physical factors”, while in collectivist societies thoughts like “The comfort of my family is very important”, “Needs of my family members

R. Genç

and friends should be gratified in service settings”, “The characteristics of the environment and physical surroundings have significant meanings for me” can develop (Smith et al., 2005). For instance, a guest from a collectivistic society may feel gratified with a hotel which offers baby-sitting services and provides a space for children to enjoy and relax. Knowing that his/her children can enjoy their times in the hotel’s kids club, the guest may be able to relax and feel released since his/her primary concern would be addressed to. In contrast, guests from individualistic cultures may value the individualized aspects of the tourism services, such as room preference. Thus, tourism services for guests in individualistic and collectivistic cultures function in different ways to increase QOL. The dimension of uncertainty avoidance is also salient in tourism-QOL link. Uncertainty avoidance is defined as cultural meaning of uncertainty and the capacity to tolerate risk. People in cultures of high uncertainty avoidance prefer regularity, stability, certainty and loyalty while low uncertainty avoidance implies tolerance for risk taking, irregularity and change (Hofstede, 2001). Within tourism context, cultural perspectives on risk taking and uncertainty are influential in the development of related cognitions and tourist preferences. For instance, cognitions like “Predictable services satisfy one’s needs better”, “There should be standardized ways of presenting offers in service settings” can develop in cultures valuing uncertainty avoidance while in cultures of low uncertainty avoidance thoughts like “regularity turns into boredom at some point”, “change in life is joyful” are more prevalent. With respect to tourism services, people who avoid uncertainty may feel more comfortable with developing loyal bonds to a service provider and consistently prefer standardized services or products. In a hotel setting where regularity in ensured, such a guest may feel more comfortable and relaxed which may positively influence the perceived QOL. Another client who welcomes change and uncertainty may feel bored and unhappy in a similar setting, having a negative

Subjective Aspects of Quality of Life (QOL)

impact on his/her QOL over the short term and potentially the long term. Thus, through culturebound cognitions, the same setting may have both a negative and a positive impact on people of different cultures. Examples of culture-bound cognitions imply that cultural values, beliefs, and attitudes are highly involved in the perception, evaluation, and processing of life events. Shaping the perception of tourism services, these cognitions are vital points of intersection for tourism and the QOL concept.

Emotional Dimension: Emotions as the Subjective Determinant of Tourist QOL What Are Emotions? Affective experiences are vital for giving life meaning and for coloring individual perceptions, evaluations, and cognitions (Wright et al., 2006). For thousands of years, emotions have been a hot topic and numerous definitions of the term have been introduced. Today, complexity of emotional experiences has been recognized and integrative approaches have been suggested. Emotions can be defined as “behavioral, physiological and psychological reactions and states which come into consciousness in response to particular events and occurrences” (Robinson, 2005). Emotions are the primary means of interacting with and responding to the environment in early years of life. As innate capacities, emotions help the infant to make meaning out of the world long before symbolization skills and cognitions develop (Holodynski & Friedlmeier, 2006). Throughout development, emotions with different valences come to be attached to particular cognitions and organized around them. Adult emotions become more refined and regulated experiences with time (Robinson, 2005). In life, emotions have significant functions which facilitate the sustenance of gratifying experiences and survival in social and physical surroundings. According to Fischer and Mansted (2008), emotions function to build interpersonal

131

relations and to help the individual for maintaining group relations. Identifying emotions in self and other are vital to regulate social relations (Wright et al., 2006). Since social interactions are complex and integrative experiences, reading and expressing emotions provides people with a means of dealing with this complexity and adjusting to the environment. Emotions are also involved in learning new experiences all of which have a particular affective resonance for the individual. Like cognitions, emotions function to accumulate old and new experiences through imbuing them with personal salience and resonance (Robinson, 2005). In this way, emotions come to establish response patterns stimulated under certain conditions. The intricate link between emotions and cognitions grants emotions with more force to determine related behaviors (Robinson, 2005). Affective experiences act as motivators of behavior for the individuals. People may want to enumerate experiences which make them feel better while they may attempt to alleviate those which stimulate negative feelings (Izard, 1991). Therefore, people are driven by their affects, a fact which may have important implications for illuminating the subjective determinants of tourism-QOL link. Understanding how emotions are organized and how they function in life are vital for the tourism context for several reasons. One is that a good deal of tourism services is offered within interpersonal interactions which are imbued with emotional exchanges. For the tourism services to have a positive impact on the tourist QOL, emotional tone of interactions between service providers and guests needs to be managed. Second reason is that like all domains of activity in life, tourism activities also have emotional meaning for individuals, which directly influence the perceived QOL. The tonality of these emotions warrants more discussion.

Positive and Negative Emotions Like cognitions, affects can be positive and negative in valence. While affects like joy, happiness,

132

pride, affection, liking is deemed to be positive; anger, sadness, fear, shame, guilt feelings are categorized as negative (Sirgy, 2002). Initial attempts at theorizing tourist emotions have focused on bipolar conceptualizations. Within these accounts, consumption-related emotions are compiled along the dimensions of pleasantness and arousal level. However, in recent years a more sophisticated approach has been suggested to understand the role of positive and negative emotions in the consumption process (Lee & Jeong, 2009). Positive and negative emotional reactions are stimulated in particular situations on the basis of previous learning. While people learn that engaging in certain actions in life can facilitate positive emotional experiences, they also learn that there are unsatisfactory circumstances accompanied with negative emotional states (Robinson, 2005). Except the cases of character pathology and emotional disturbance, people seek positive experiences in their environment and avoid negative feelings (Haugtvedt et al., 2008). Negative and positive effects may be triggered as a response to different activities and circumstances in life. Researchers argue that determinants of positive affect and negative affects do not have to be same (Sirgy, 2002). For example, happiness is a positive emotional state that usually follows achievements or satisfaction in life domains while the lack of achievements may or may not lead to depression or anxiety. Another example is that; an individual may have positive feelings towards his/her work environment, while she/he may hold negative feelings regarding his/her social network. Positive and negative emotions have contrasting effects on one’s sense of subjective well-being. Like cognitions, emotions are involved in interpretation and processing of events, and they directly influence the sense of well-being and QOL (Sirgy, 2002). While positive affect may enhance the perceived QOL, negative affect may deteriorate it. Negative and positive affects also operate in the tourism context. People may have positive and negative feelings about the tourism services as a whole or a particular aspect of tourism.

R. Genç

Examples of positive tourism-related emotions can be “joy of traveling”, “happiness with sharing a relaxed pastime with family members”, “appeal for an interest in a particular cultural heritage”. Negative tourism-related emotions can be exemplified with “anxiety over traveling”, “anger for service mistakes” etc. These positive and negative tourism-related affects are subjective determinants which are directly involved in tourist QOL.

Emotions as the Subjective Determinant of Tourist QOL As explained, emotions color individual experiences in all domains of life. It is not possible to talk about a life event without mentioning the affective reactions it stimulated. So, how emotions are involved as a subjective determinant of QOL in tourism context? As the question suggests, it is crucial to understand the intricate link between emotions and QOL concept. One such attempt is made by Sirgy (2002) who suggests that high quantity and intensity of positive emotions and, low quantity and intensity of negative emotions have come to reflect high wellbeing and QOL. Consistent with Sirgy’s suggestions (2002), emotional experiences of tourists are significant aspects of tourism activities since emotions and their tonality throughout the consumption process potentially exert a strong influence on satisfaction of tourists and their perceived QOL. Affects have been shown to strongly shape tourist satisfaction with services since emotional experiences associated with the product or service colors its perception (Lee & Jeong, 2009). The role of emotions in motivating people has been mentioned. Pleasant emotions are appealing to individuals and individuals are motivated to go to these places which provide them with positive emotional exchanges. As explained, immediate positive reactions to a pleasing event have the potential to become the ground on which one’s satisfaction with life and QOL has been established (Neal et al., 2007). In a similar vein, displeasing experiences result in negative

Subjective Aspects of Quality of Life (QOL)

emotions, which deteriorate the QOL over the short or the long run. As a life domain, tourism can be directly mobilized to enhance one’s subjective wellbeing and QOL. Sirgy (2009) points out that tourism can function to directly enhance a tourist’s QOL by inducing positive affect in relation to leisure activities. Providing satisfactory services which address guests’ individual expectations helps to make them feel happy and satisfied. This temporary effect may be prolonged to transform into an established sense of happiness and QOL. Tourism can also function indirectly in Sirgy’s account (2009) by stimulating positive affect in the individual and influencing the life in general. The impact of negative emotions follows a similar path, resulting in immediate dissatisfactory experiences and a continuing sense of unhappiness. Identifying negative emotions and how do they get triggered in tourism settings is vital for facilitating tourist QOL. Exploration of the reasons behind negative emotions helps to find a way out of the vicious cycle of dissatisfaction. That is people feel dissatisfied, unhappy, or angry about a service, his or her processing tendencies are biased in accordance, resulting in more dissatisfaction.

133

applied to consumer satisfaction research (Diener & Suh, 1997). People have an ideal life condition in their mind. By comparing their current life condition with the ideal one, their satisfaction with life is determined. According to Diener and Suh (1997); if their appropriate and ideal life standards, achievements, or advantageous situations are far away from their current life conditions, they might be dissatisfied with life. If their expectations from life and current life are not very different, they probably are satisfied with life. As explained above, consumer satisfaction has been construed as a cognitive process, in which a comparative evaluation and conformationdisconfirmation of expectations have been carried out. However, recent research demonstrates that emotions are involved in the formation of satisfaction (Decrop, 1999). Therefore, it is possible to conceptualize consumer satisfaction as a cognitive-and-affective state which results from a particular experience (Bosque & San Martin, 2008). According to Haga et al. (2009) cognition was linked to “enhanced life satisfaction and positive affects and with lower levels of depressed mood and negative affect”.

Personality Dimension: Personality as the Subjective Determinant At the Intersection of Tourism Services of Tourist QOL and Emotions: Satisfaction in Life Consumer satisfaction has been a common topic of investigation in service industries and the hospitality industry. Although consumer satisfaction has been investigated from different perspectives, the current literature shows that satisfaction of tourists and consumers is based on individual perceptions (Bosque & San Martin, 2008). In the tourism industry, how the tourists evaluate and perceive a product or service becomes more prominent in consumer satisfaction research instead of objective qualities of the tourism product (Neal & Gursoy, 2008). Satisfaction in life is derived from a comparative evaluation process carried out through subjective lenses of the individual, which could be

Personality refers to organized, integrated, consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Personality, being an integrative term, compiles a number of traits, affective experiences, feeling patterns and behavioral tendencies (Livesley, 2001). Personality shapes how an individual evaluates and interprets life events and how she/he feels about them. The term personality also includes an individual’s overall sense of oneself in multiple domains of life like a self-concept in family life, work life, leisure life and so on. One’s self concept is influential in evaluating self-related experiences and in shaping the meaning of an experience in a particular life domain (Livesley, 2001).

134

The personality of a tourist, being a very complex term, is directly involved with his or her satisfaction in multiple domains of life, and thus tourist QOL. Personality exerts its influence on life through shaping affective and cognitive lenses by which people look at the world (Livesley, 2001). As a comprehensive and integrative structure, personality of the tourists can be regarded as one of the most sophisticated subjective determinants of tourist QOL. It is very difficult to deal with the personality of each guest in tourism settings, given the multiplicity and uniqueness of tourist experiences. However, commonalities are also found in ways of seeing things among people. For instance, years of social psychological research demonstrates that people are inclined to see themselves in a positive light. Feeling satisfied with life, in large part, depends on how positive one’s sense of self is and how consistent one’s experiences are with his/her self-view (Haugtvedt et al., 2008). The fact that people seek self-consistent and self-enhancing experiences have wider implications for the concept of QOL in tourism industry (Sirgy, 2002). If a guest holds positive views about herself, she is likely to have a positive outlook and comes to be satisfied with the services provided. On the other hand, a more negative outlook may hinder positive evaluations of the services. The link between personality, satisfaction, and tourist QOL is complex. There have been attempts to explain personality of tourists in literature. This point is explained in more detail below.

Psycho-centric vs. Allo-centric Tourists An initial attempt to conceptualize personality characteristics in tourism research have been made in 1970s by Plog. Plog’s framework, called psychographic profile approach, asserts that there are two profiles of passengers called psychocentric and allo-centric (Pearce, 2005). In Plog’s conceptualization, psycho-centric guests are more anxious, timid and do not like

R. Genç

adventure while allo-centric guests are characterized by a likeness with adventure and change. These tourist profiles also differ by their preferences. For instance, allo-centric tourists prefer independent travel; have an appeal for undiscovered and unpopular destinations and cultural heritages. On the other hand, tour packages are more interesting for psycho-centric tourists (Pearce, 2005). As Plog have pinpointed, tourists may vary in a dimension of anxiety and adventure, regularity, and change. What this conceptualization implies for the tourism-QOL link is that a similar service may have different meanings and exert a different influence on QOL for tourists who vary in their personality traits. For instance, a hotel located at the periphery of a city and surrounded by a calm, forestland facilitates the QOL of a psycho-centric tourist while having a contrasting effect for the QOL of an allo-centric one.

Psychopathology and QOL There has been a good amount of literature on psychopathology and QOL. Research shows that QOL is negatively related with depression and emotional and behavioral distress (Sirgy, 2002). The psychopathology may be characterized with low emotional mood, distorted cognitions that enhance psychopathology level and maladaptive behaviors. Considering the importance of cognitions and emotions on one’s sense of quality of life, it may be supposed that psychopathology level of an individual is highly influential on the sense of quality of life. In addition, economic conditions which are thought to be influential on people’s quality of life would decrease by an existing psychopathology. People who suffer from various disorders lose their ability to work or in part their productivity will decrease the level and chronicity of the psychopathology is another variable that will influence economical and psychological conditions of an individual. The chronicity of these problems is associated with lower levels of QOL (Sirgy, 2001). Psychotherapy and treatment with medication aims to decrease individual’s well-being by aiming to

Subjective Aspects of Quality of Life (QOL)

intervene their emotions and cognitions. In a study, antidepressant treatments have been demonstrated to improve one’s QOL (Rapley, 2003). Tourists’ pathological conditions may hinder the enhancing function of tourism settings for QOL. Psychopathological conditions are likely to result in negativity bias which refers to a tendency to attend to negative aspects of a stimulus and to interpret a neutral event negatively (Wright et al., 2006). For instance, a depressive or overly aggressive tourist may attend to imperfections in the service and evaluate it negatively or a tourist who has anxiety problems may feel more anxious during the tourism related activity and may evaluate his/her experiences as overwhelming and anxiety provoking. As a consequence, the role of tourism as a facilitator of tourist QOL comes to be limited by tourist’s level of well-being. It is possible to give service everyone in equal quality and equal standards, but it is not possible to affect every individual’s sense of quality of equally because of the subjective nature of quality of life understanding.

Relational Dimension: Tourist-Local People Interaction as the Subjective Aspect of Tourist QOL The significance of culture-bound cognitions and related affects has been mentioned in previous sections. As explained above, culture-bound cognitions develop in the minds of all individuals, which include tourists and local people. Thus, it is possible to construe tourist-local people interaction as a clash of varying culture-bound cognitions. How this clash is managed have implications for individual QOL. Tourism services are offered within a relational matrix of tourist-local people exchange. Since the quality of interactions between host and guest is significant, both tourists and residents’ perception of tourism activities are influential (Anderek et al., 2007). This idea brings forth the concept of resident QOL and the impact of tourism in shaping it. The interaction between local community and tourist will either increase

135

the tourist’s sense of quality of life or decrease it depending on both parties’ perceptions of the other party. If the local people view the tourists as unpredictable strangers in their home place, they will treat them badly. They may perceive tourist’s behaviors as dangerous and try to protect themselves by avoiding interaction and communication with them. Another inappropriate view that local people take is treating the tourists as a source of financial gain. The opposite direction of the relationship is important. Research demonstrates that tourism activities have a great amount of impact on residents’ QOL (Galloway, 2008; Liburd et al., 2012; Uysal et al., 2012). Tourism activities influence QOL of local people by several means such as providing employment opportunities, utilizing local products, organizing festivals (Anderek et al., 2007). Anderek and his colleagues highlights that the impact of tourism on resident QOL is not unitary. In their account, the facilitating function of tourism services differs by age, gender, social status and similar characteristics of residents. The link between tourism and resident QOL is important for the present discussion since it may indirectly influence the quality of services offered to tourists (Anderek et al., 2007). When the tourism offers in a destination have benefits for the local people and function to facilitate their QOL, it is more likely to have positive exchanges with tourists who are a part of the tourism industry.

Conclusion The subjective indicators of tourist’s quality of life are the issue of current chapter. In order to understand tourist’s quality of life and its subjective indicators, the concept of quality of life is briefly examined at the beginning. The concept has different components such as gross domestic product, life expectancy, happiness, job satisfaction etc. To measure an individual’s quality of life objective and subjective measures are used. Objective measures are quantifiable and observable for anyone such as unemployment rate, life expectancy. However subjective measures are for

136

highly personalized, subjective statements about one’s quality of life such as job satisfaction, sense of safety, overall satisfaction in life. Subjective indicators of quality of life will be investigated in different contexts. Tourism creates a domain of activity in people’s lives, and tourism activities have different meanings and connotations for individuals. These different connotations are caused by subjective differences within individuals as well as their subjective experiences. These meanings are strongly shaped by personal, subjective characteristics of tourists which include their cognitions, emotions, personalities, and relational experiences. These individualized meanings which are constructed by the intersection of subjective characteristics in tourism settings, influence tourist QOL. Cognitions which are products of previous experiences have great deal to this meaning making process, and cognitions are triggers of emotions. Positive cognitions about tourism related activity leads to positive emotions about the tourism experiences. Culture is played an important role that shapes individual experiences and cognitions. Culture as software of mind shapes individual’s life with a shared beliefs and values (Hofstede, 2005). Cultures are distinguished according to different dimensions. Collectivism-Individualism is one of the dimensional distinctions that has made in the literature. People from collectivistic cultures would prefer services that serve accordingly to different group’s preferences, whereas people from individualistic would concerns their selves more than the group, and services that supply individualistic demands would be more appropriate for them. Another dimension is uncertainty avoidance which means that the tolerance for uncertainty is relatively high (Hofstede, 2001). People who are from cultures where uncertainty avoidance is high; feel more secure and safe when the service provides certain and consistent mission. In addition, personality is a complex term that includes thoughts, emotions, and behavior patterns of an individual and it is important to overall life satisfaction about the life in general. In particular, satisfaction related to tourism related activity is also strongly connected to

R. Genç

personality traits. In tourism related research area two type of tourist personality is cited as being either allo-centric or psycho-centric. Psycho-centric tourists are anxious and timid, and they generally prefer to group activity whereas allo-centric tourists like excitement and generally prefer to involve in touristic activity alone. Psychopathology of a tourist is considered as another subjective indicator which decreases quality life of an individual. The tourists’ quality of life and residents’ quality of life is highly associated concepts. Local people’s quality of life would increase because of economical enhancement related to touristic activities and cross-cultural interactions. However, this interaction would decrease residents’ quality of life in some cases.

References Anderek, K., & Jurowski, C. (2006). Tourism and quality of life. In G. Jennings & N. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 136–142). ButterworthHeinemann. Anderek, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Vogt, C. A., & Knopf, R. C. (2007). A cross-cultural analysis of tourism and quality of life perceptions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15, 483–502. Awad, A. G., & Voruganti, L. N. P. (2012). Measuring quality of life in patients with schizophrenia, an update. PharmacoEconomics, 30(3), 183–195. Bosque, I. R., & San Martin, H. (2008). Tourist satisfaction: A cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 551–573. Bushell, R., & Sheldon, P. J. (Eds.). (2009). Wellness and tourism: Mind, body, spirit, place. Cognizant Communication Corporation. Campón-Cerro, A. M., Folgado-Fernández, J. A., & Hernández-Mogollón, J. M. (2017). Rural destination development based on olive oil tourism: The impact of residents’ community attachment and quality of life on their support for tourism development. Sustainability, 9(9), 1624. Chen, C. C., Petrick, J. F., & Shahvali, M. (2016). Tourism experiences as a stress reliever: Examining the effects of tourism recovery experiences on life satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 55(2), 150–160. Costanza, R., Fishera, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumansa, R., Danigelis, N. L., Dickinson, J., Elliott, C., Farley, J., Gayer, D. E., Glenn, L. M., Hudspeth, T., Mahoney, D., McCahill, L., McIntosh, B., Reed, B., Rizvi, A. T., Rizzo, D. M., Simpatico, T., & Snapp, R. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating

Subjective Aspects of Quality of Life (QOL) opportunities, human needs and subjective well-being. Ecological Economics, 61, 267–276. Cummins, R. A. (2000). Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model. Social Indicators Research, 52(1), 55–72. Decrop, A. (1999). Tourists’ decision-making and behavior processes. In A. Pizam & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Consumer behavior in travel and tourism (pp. 103–133). Hawoth. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Wellbeing: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213–229). Russell Sage Foundation. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216. Dolnicar, S., Yanamandram, V., & Cliff, K. (2012). The contribution of vacations to quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 59–83. Fischer, A. H., & Mansted, A. S. R. (2008). Social functions of emotions. In M. Lewis, J. M. HavilandJones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 456–465). Guilford Press. Frisch, M. B. (2005). Quality of life therapy: Applying a life satisfaction approach to positive psychology and cognitive therapy. John Wiley & Sons. Galloway, S. (2008, August 20–24). Culture and individual quality of life: Approaches for cultural research. In [Paper presentation] 5th international conference on cultural policy research, Istanbul, Turkey. Ginsberg, M. B. (2005). Cultural diversity, motivation, and differentiation. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 218–225. Goodson, F. E. (2003). The evolution and function of cognition. Routledge. Haga, S. M., Kraft, P., & Corby, E. K. (2009). Emotion regulation: Antecedents and well-being outcomes of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression in cross-cultural samples. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(3), 271–291. Haugtvedt, C. P., Herr, P., & Kardes, F. R. (2008). Handbook of consumer psychology. CRC Press. Hill, C. W. L. (2003). International business: Competing in the global market place. McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. SAGE. Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw Hill. Holodynski, M., & Friedlmeier, W. (2006). Development of emotions and emotion regulation (Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business Media. Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. Springer. Jeon, M. M., Kang, M. M., & Desmarais, E. (2016). Residents’ perceived quality of life in a culturalheritage tourism destination. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11, 105–123.

137 Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (2003). Wellbeing: The foundations of hedonic psychology. Russel Sage. Kim, H., Woo, E., & Uysal, M. (2015). Tourism experience and quality of life among elderly tourists. Tourism Management, 46, 465–476. Kotler, P. (1986). Principles of Marketing (3d ed.). Cliffs. Lee, S., & Jeong, M. (2009). Tourists’ emotional experiences with an event and their consequences. In International CHARIE conference-refereed track. Liburd, J. J., Benckendorff, P., & Carlsen, J. (2012). Tourism and quality of life: how does tourism measure up? In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 105–134). Springer. Livesley, J. (2001). Conceptual and taxonomic issues. In Handbook of personality disorders: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 3–39). Guilford Press. McCabe, S., & Johnson, S. (2013). The happiness factor in tourism: Subjective wellbeing and social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 42–65. Morra, S., & Gobbo, C. (2008). Cognitive development: Neo-Piagetian perspectives. CRC Press. Moscardo, G. (2009). Tourism and quality of life: Towards a more critical approach. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9, 159–170. Neal, J. D., & Gursoy, N. (2008). A multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 47, 53–62. Neal, J. D., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on traveler’s quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 154–163. Oakley, L. (2004). Cognitive development. Routledge. Pearce, P. L. (2005). Tourist behaviour: Themes and conceptual schemes (Vol. 27). Channel View Publications. Rapley, M. (2003). Quality of life research: A critical introduction. SAGE. Richards, G. (1999). Vacations and the quality of life: Patterns and structures. Journal of Business Research, 44, 189–198. Robinson, J. (2005). Deeper than reason: Emotion and its role in literature, music and art. Oxford University Press. Ross, N. (2004). Culture and cognitions: Implication for theory and method. SAGE. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (2003). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In I. D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61–84). Russel Sage. Sirgy, M. J. (2001). Handbook of quality-of-life research: An ethical marketing perspective (Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business Media. Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Springer. Sirgy, M. J. (2009). Toward a quality-of-life theory of leisure travel satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research.

138 https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287509337416. Online First. Sirgy, M. J., & Samli, A. C. (Eds.). (1995). New dimensions in marketing/quality of life research. Greenwood. Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., & Kağ{tç{baş{, Ç. (2005). Understanding social psychology across cultures: Living and working in a changing world. SAGE. Taylor, L. (2005). Introduction. In Introducing cognitive development (pp. 25–35). Psychology Press. Uysal, M., Perdue, R., & Sirgy, R. (2012). Handbook of tourism and quality of life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities. Springer. Veenhoven, R. (2002). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 58, 33–45. Wright, J. H., Basco, M. R., & Thase, M. E. (2006). Learning cognitive-behavior therapy: An illustrated guide. American Psychiatric Publications.

R. Genç Ruhet Genç, Ph.D., worked in various countries like the USA, Canada, Germany and France. By doing so he became aware of ‘thinking globally and acting locally’. After returning back to Turkey, he continued to his business venture and he has been serving as full-time Assoc. Prof at four different universities. During his academic life, he shared his experiences with students and other academicians. He specialized in management and strategy with special applications in logistics and tourism management. Between various courses he taught, cross-cultural management, business negotiations, and dispute solving methods were just a few to mention at this point which might be useful to strengthen his international ties. He is a full-time faculty member of Turkish-German University in Istanbul at the present time. Email: [email protected]

Quality of Life: Demographic, Psychological, Social and Cultural Components Ruhet Genç

Introduction In contemporary marketing strategies in service industries, the enhancement of customers’ subjective well-being has gained importance. Through the consumption of satisfactory services and products, which are subjectively valued most of the time, in tourism and other service industries, tourists look for possibilities to enhance their subjective well-being and QOL. One of the essential qualities of tourist consumption behavior is that it is motivated, and it embodies subjective psychological processes which have emotional and personal meaning for tourists. In other words, tourists engage in tourism activities because they are driven by a need, want or wish which call for gratification and they make subjective meanings out of this gratification process. The particular needs of the tourist at the particular time of tourism choices and their psychological organization in general influence their decisionmaking processes. It should be also considered that tourist decision making processes and satisfaction from the preferred service is mediated by various individual characteristics. Such characteristics include demographic, psychological, and socio-cultural factors. Demographic characteristics of an individual include variables such as age and gender R. Genç (✉) Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, Turkish German University, Istanbul, Turkey

whereas psychological characteristic of a person is most related to self-concept and self-image. Socio-economic characteristics of an individual include his/her nationality and the culture he/she lives in. Paying attention to the different factors that influence tourist behavior, it can be stated that tourism experiences have the potential to influence psychological well-being of the tourists, which can be (and is usually) defined as QOL. In this regard, this chapter aims to investigate the dynamic interaction of different personal and social characteristics that are active during destination choice and tourism activity. In order to have solid picture, motivational factors, the essential types of tourist consumption behavior and the dynamics of tourist satisfaction are mentioned as well. In the contemporary world, tourism activity has become the fundamental means of escaping daily hassles and having a rest (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004). It has been suggested that holidays provide people with a socially appropriate fantasy space which facilitate their sense of freedom and provide an unconstrained experiential realm (Wang, 2000). Travel and leisure activities offer opportunities for engaging in social relationships, learning new skills and knowledge, which in turn positively and strongly affects individual’s subjective well-being and QOL (Bernini et al., 2013; Cracolici et al., 2013; Dolnicar et al., 2011). For the purposes of the present chapter, the question to be posed is: “What is the relationship

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_10

139

140

between tourist consumption behavior and QOL?” Tourism, incorporating a wide range of activities, can be conceptualized as a consumption process. For instance, a tourist engages in a decision-making process to choose a destination and arrange accommodation prior to the trip as well as she plans his or her activities, chooses restaurants to eat and buys souvenirs for friends during the trip. All these activities embody material and non-material aspects of tourist consumption behaviors. It should be taken into account that most of these choices and behaviors are influenced by the motivations of the tourists as well as these motivations determine satisfaction level of tourists which is an important concept that should be considered in order to understand the tourism consumption behavior.

Tourist Behavior and QOL There is a consensus that tourism activities are important elements in the life of an individual: Involvement in tourism consumption has become a standard when one’s quality of life is evaluated (Richards, 1999). In the last decades, the meanings, and functions of tourism consumption for QOL of tourists has been more thoroughly investigated. It has been demonstrated that people have the opportunity to engage in social interaction, to follow their interests and to consolidate their identities through consumption of tourism services (Richards, 1999). Individual characteristics that influence tourist behavior and tourists’ quality of life can be considered under four categories. These categories include demographic characteristics, psychological characteristics, social and cultural characteristics of an individual (see Fig. 1 for an overview).

Demographic Variables, Tourist Behavior and QOL Age, Tourism and QOL In the tourist behavior literature, age is considered a significant variable that influence individual

R. Genç

motivation for touristic activity, expectancies, and consumption behavior. As a major topic of research interest, tourist behavior in relation to the specific age group is investigated by different researchers and children under ages of 12 are the youngest group which gets significant attention from researchers (Genç, 2009). Pearce (1993) suggests that children have the potential of changing the preferences of their parents for destination places and their consumption behavior patterns during tourism activities. Tourism services that provide different alternatives for familial concerns such as activities which include all family members or special entertainment for children would more likely be the choice of tourists who are parents (Pearce, 2005). For example, resorts are preferred mostly by families (Choi et al., 2010) since they offer various play areas, special pools, special menus for children, and babysitting facilities (Obrador, 2012). Satisfaction of children needs from accommodation to entertainment may be another factor that enhances both parents and children subjective well-being and QOL in tourism activity. Not only the children would benefit from the services provided, but also the parents who would see their children happy. They would feel more comfortable while taking care of the needs of their children and they would have more time for themselves, which would probably result in more satisfaction and feeling better. University students are another special group which has particular interests in tourism activities; as a result, their tourism choices can be significantly different from other tourist groups. In recent decades, as an increasing number of students have enrolled in foreign study programs, student travel market has grown (Castillo et al., 2017). Students generally engage in education focused tourism activities which enhance their academic achievement as well as they arrange their holidays according to their academic schedule, like making use of spring breaks as sources of refreshment (Swarbrooke & Horner, 1999). Academic improvement and increased sense of competence in education focused travels would be the main desire for the former group. Taking a break in the dense academic schedule would increase positive feelings

Quality of Life: Demographic, Psychological, Social and Cultural Components

141

Fig 1 Tourist consumption behavior and QOL

in the latter group which lead to an increase in the motivation for academic work and a sense of well-being. Older people have started to become another important group of tourists as their population increases in the contemporary world, especially in industrialized countries. Shaw and Williams (2002) state that old people prefer long term tourism activities which would be less exhaustive for

them. In this regard, tourism services and activities can be adapted to needs of this group. Further research can also identify the specific needs of older people and hospitality managers who aim to have advantages for the competition in the market can make use of these findings both to provide new services and facilitate changes in the existing ones.

142

The Role of Gender on Tourism Activity As in many of the other areas in the world, masculine point of view is dominant in tourism activities and places. A brief look into the tourism market would suggest that hotels, restaurants, night shows, “red light districts” and night clubs are mostly for men’s service. Traveling women are biased in the sense that they are related to the man next. Westwood et al. (2000) noted that a woman told in an interview that she is always assumed to be the secretary, wife or mistress of the male next to her instead of an independent business traveler. Hospitality managers should be aware of these biases and aim not to reproduce them. Relating to the traveling woman as an individual on her own right would provide a more positive atmosphere for the woman tourist, increase satisfaction, and therefore result in positive evaluation about the services. Shaw and Williams (2002) suggest that women prefer tourism activities which provide physical and mental relaxation as well as social interaction. Even though cultural norms enhance some activities such as shopping for women, and some other such as sports for men; Small (2003) proposed that older women who can get out of cultural norms of femininity have better holiday experiences than the others. These findings demonstrate that there would be major gender differences in terms of tourism preferences and satisfaction from the tourism activity. However, the issue should be considered in future research.

Nationality, Social Status and QOL It has been acknowledged that tourists of different nationalities engage in different their consumption behaviors. For example, it is supported that Italians are the most social tourist group and French prefer adventure-oriented tourism (Pearce, 2005). In this regard, it could be a good idea to consider the nationality of the tourist groups to offer services which are most likely to enhance their sense of well-being. The relational patterns

R. Genç

in the original culture, the tendencies and preferences of the tourists should be considered in the service process. Even though they may appear minor, the details in the interaction process and the way the service is offered can create disturbances in the enjoyment or they can increase the level of satisfaction and positive feelings. Tourism behavior can also vary according to the social status of the tourist. First, social status is the basis for the distinction between various products and services (R{zaoğlu, 2003). People usually tend to choose the destination, the accommodation, and the tourism services which they believe to be congruent with their social status. Hospitality managers need to consider the social status of the tourists to offer distinguished and valued services. The tourists are likely to evaluate their experiences not only on the basis of what they see and what they are offered; but also, on the basis of what is omitted in the hospitality process. Social status is also important if the hospitality manager aims to attract a specific group of tourists. Identifying and understanding of the socio-economic profiles of the potential tourists is an important part of creating advertisements and developing publicity campaigns (Shaw & Williams, 2002). On the other hand, people could wish to have the consumption patterns of upper social groups and marketing strategies could make use of these desires (Genç, 2009). Prior to the publicity campaigns, it should be thoroughly decided which groups of consumers are aimed: After this decision, it would be easier to come up with creative ideas which enable the activation of the desires and needs of the potential tourists. Another influence of social status on the tourism behavior is that there are also differences in the same social group (R{zaoğlu, 2003) and this fact needs special attention. Even though social status of the tourist influences the consumption behavior, it is not the ultimate determinant on its own right. For example, the size of the family or the number of working people may vary in the members of a social status group (Genç, 2009). The desires of a social group should be examined

Quality of Life: Demographic, Psychological, Social and Cultural Components

both prior to the visit; but the hospitality manager should be ready to come up with solutions regarding the differences of the same social group. Enjoying the tourism activity is a micro-process which takes places within the individual and within the dynamics of the family. Industrialization of the tourism service is therefore impossible and the ability to provide practical solutions to consumer demands is an important component of hospitality management. Tourism is a process in which the surrounding factors influence the individual; but at the same time, it is still the tourist who enjoys (or does not enjoy) the tourism experience.

Psychological Characteristics of Tourists and QOL When the individual chooses a destination place to spend the holiday, she also chooses a social setting in which the consumption process will take place. In this regard, her evaluation of herself influences the destination choice; but at the same time as she consumes, she will be a part of social interaction and reproduce the social qualities. It should be taken into account that the tourist as an individual will also be an object in social contexts both prior to, during and after the travel. Wherever there is interpersonal interaction about the tourism experience, the tourist becomes an image in the social context. In this regard tourism experience is an individual experience which appears in a social context and activates social interaction and as a result the main psychological process related to tourism revolves around the concept of self. The literature provides practical information about the role of the self in the tourism experience. Beerli et al. (2007) point to four aspects of identity in consumer behavior research: These are how one sees himself and how he ideally wants to be, how one is seen by others and how he wants to be seen by others. Every consumer behavior therefore includes a construction and reconstruction of psychological organization. When one consumes, there is the recognition and realization of a gap between the present experience and the

143

ideal image which is projected into the future. As the individual changes his or her self-evaluation constantly, to which consumption contributes significantly, it can be argued that consumption behavior cannot be conceived as a fixed pattern. In a similar vein, Ahuvia (2005) mentions that consumed services have two significant functions for the self: One is to express it and the other to transform it into a more idealized form. Through consumption of services, individuals may secure an expressive, comfortable, and desired identity in their lives. It is important to note that consuming services are both an individual and social phenomenon which has repercussions for actual and ideal self-constructions (Sirgy, 1982). Sirgy (1982) mentions that individuals consume services which are congruent with their identities that provides a space for psychological development and self-presentation in the social domain. Hong and Zinkhan (1995) showed that consumption processes can be influenced by actual and ideal self-definitions of the individual. This finding can be applied to tourism settings in the sense that these definitions mentioned can have an impact on the type of vacation and destination choice (Beerli et al., 2007). It has been demonstrated that when tourists visit places which are congruent with their self-definitions and if these places help them consolidate their identities, they are likely to be satisfied with the destination (Chon, 1992). In that sense, it is important to carry out a process in which a wellmatch between the self-image of the tourists and what tourism product they consumed is made (Sirgy & Su, 2000). Litvin and Car (2003) looks for the association between destination image/self-image and destination image/ideal self-image congruity with a cross-cultural sample. Results indicate that the congruency between destination image and selfimage is correlated with visitor satisfaction. In addition, they put individualism/collectivism dimension as a moderating factor between selfimage and destination image. It is supported that people from individualistic cultures such as West Europe reports more satisfaction if the destination image is individualistic. These findings suggest that cultural factors are important elements which

144

contribute to the construction of a self-image. As another example how self-image influences the choices in tourism, Lopez-Bonilla and LopezBonilla et al. (2009) talk about the “postmodern tourist” who is especially different in the sense that she does not rely on travel agencies for the holiday and prefers new places instead of old ones. Postmodern tourist is different as she does not prefer traditional ways of enjoying a holiday; but still, the postmodern quality of experience enables a relatively coherent identity to flourish, which is marked by the constant desire for new experiences in new areas. Similarly, Curtin (2010) notes that tourist who seek experience in wildlife tend to see themselves different than other tourists. From these examples, it can be concluded that how one sees himself is a crucial determinant of tourism activity. How one sees himself or herself in relation to others result in the different expectations in tourism activity. The tourists can expect a destination image consistent with his ideal self-image or she can attempt to express his individuality and difference in her tourism choice. Postmodern approaches highlight the dynamic links among what is consumed, who is the consumer and what the consumption process is like (Ahuvia, 2005). Ahuvia (2005) mentions that consumption of services and products in the contemporary world grants individuals an opportunity to construct and consolidate a consistent identity and to explore their selves. What people like to do, where they go, with whom they spend their time, what they own help them to define their selves as individuals (Belk, 1988). People in contemporary world are inclined to strengthen their identities through their behaviors and consumption is thought as a form of verification of the identity (Litvin & Goh, 2002). Interestingly, from their interviews with tourists in a national UK park, McCabe and Stokoe (2004) concluded that tourists tried to present their visit as “natural”, as if it is something that separates them from masses and sets them as individuals. The interview shows that how important the authenticity factor in tourism has become. Tourists aim to make meaning of their experience as a “real” event; not a constructed and

R. Genç

pre-determined scenario which has been influenced by the market and advertisement. All of these findings and narration support the idea that consumption behavior means more than the gratification of certain needs; but instead it has become a form of self-expression and contributes to construction and validation of the self. In this sense, a hypothetical young man from Western Europe, visiting India in order to know better the Indian culture provides a good example. He reports that his ideal self includes being more spiritual than people from his own culture. His tourism experience includes self-expression, verification of self-image and identity. He would feel satisfaction, happiness and calmness as a result of his tourism experiences, and it would be an experience for him unique to that place and time. The support for such cases is evident in the literature. Belk (1988) noted that activities, services, and products which have defining roles for one’s self-image involve positive emotional meanings for the individual. He highlights that by consuming these services and products, feelings of satisfaction, compassion, and loyalty gain importance. Similarly, different studies suggest that when people are asked to think about those possessions and services they feel emotionally attached, they tend to report feeling happy and compassionate (Schultz et al., 1989). In this sense, it can be suggested that tourism choices as indicators of self-image are evaluated and valued in subjective terms. Even though contemporary postmodern world enhances different identities, different experiences and different consumption behaviors, there are still commonalities. From their ethnographic study with the Israeli backpack tourists who go to India for spiritual experience, Maoz and Bekerman (2010) concluded that there is not a solidly distinct difference between the religious tourist, pilgrim, and the recreational tourist. In the postmodern world, people can make various meanings of the same experience and can identify themselves with those different meanings. In the contemporary world, even death and disaster related experiences can be constituted as a tourism experience, which is categorized under the label of “dark tourism”; Stone and Sharpley

Quality of Life: Demographic, Psychological, Social and Cultural Components

(2008) offered that this kind of tourism enabled the tourist the reconstruction of an individual meaning system to contemplate mortality and existence. Another important factor that influences the tourism experience and satisfaction is the selfconsistency motive. This motive leads the tourists to look for tourism products and services which have consumer profiles similar to themselves. Sirgy and Su (2000) stated that social and demographic factors along with psychographic characteristics of tourists are involved in the formation of their self-images and making of tourism decisions. For instance, a tourist who defines himself as environmentally sensitive is likely to choose destinations which are known with their natural beauties and magnificence. It can be suggested that by consuming self-consistent tourism products, tourists secure their identities, consolidate who they are and reduce psychological discordance. Among other motives mentioned by Sirgy and Su (2000) involve social impacts of tourism consumption behavior on the life of tourists. The authors mention that social consistency and social approval motive, which are influential in tourism consumption behavior, in turn influence one’s identity formation process and QOL. Social consistency motive lays emphasis on how an individual is viewed by others in the social domain. Tourists also tend to maintain their self-image in the eyes of others consistently and consume tourism services in accordance with it. Similarly, social approval motive leads tourists to make consumption decisions which will be accepted by their reference groups. In this sense, an example of reference groups’ tourists can look for approval can be socioeconomic class. For instance, Schiffman and Kanuk (2004) mentioned that upper-middle class tourists are likely to prefer popular destinations and accommodate in luxurious hotels. Tourists who belong to upper middle classes take consumption choices such as this as reference points in their own decision making. In that way, their social image is kept consistent and approved by other members. On the basis of these findings, it can be asserted that tourist consumption behavior is both an indicator

145

and a regulator of one’s social standing. Through making consumption choices in tourism activities, tourists consolidate a social image in the eyes of others which grants them a sense of acceptance and belonging, facilitating their psychological well-being and QOL. Additionally, studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between satisfactory tourism experiences, perceived improvements in QOL and future loyal behaviors (Kim et al., 2012, 2015; Lam & So, 2013; Lee et al., 2014; Lin, 2014). When tourists observe that of a particular travel practice has enhanced their QOL, they show loyal behaviors such as revisiting the travel destination, recommending the tourism activity, repurchasing the same products or services.

Social Characteristics Up to now, it has been noted that individuals pay attention to the way they exist and how they are perceived in the social context. They prefer consumption behaviors which are congruent with these ideas and ideals they have about themselves. In addition, they want to be around those who they perceive as similar to themselves. These are some important examples of the relationship between the social context and psychological processes and behavioral outcomes. In addition, people feel themselves connected to different social groups and they may aim to show, both themselves and to others, that they are in harmony with group through their consumption choices (Moore et al., 2005). In this sense, QOL of the tourists is likely to increase when they feel they strengthen their social bonds. Being in an appropriate interaction with those who the individual feels attached to is an important aspect of everyday life; therefore, its reproduction in the tourism experience will increase the likelihood for satisfaction. Providing social benefits in addition to individual pleasures from tourism activity is a type of behavior most tourists are likely to engage in. Such social benefits may include an increase in the self-esteem, positive evaluation of the social group and context the individual belongs to and a more optimist projection about

146

the future. As a result, offering services which are congruent with the social influences on the tourist is an important task that the hospitality manager must deal with.

Cultural Characteristics Cultural background of the tourist influences the tourists both prior to the tourism activity and during the tourism experience. Values, attitudes, and norms, which can be considered the main elements of the culture, have an impact on the type of tourism activity the tourist tends to choose. On the other hand, the evaluation of the tourism experience by the tourist is influenced by the cultural factors. First of all, the level of openness to different cultures is an important factor in the way the tourist interacts with other people in the destination place. The individuals who are extremely ethnocentric (who believe that the norm of the culture he lives in is the norm) or prejudiced about other cultures are likely to have lower levels of satisfaction. It is also an indicator how the tourist would evaluate the quality of interaction. An individual from an individualistic culture can see daily interactions of collectivist cultures as transgressions and violations of personal boundaries. However, it can also be the case that another individual from an individualist culture can feel friendly and close to those who are not paying extreme attention to the clearly defined interpersonal norms. On the other hand, people from collectivist cultures can view individualistic patterns of manners as indicators of arrogance. Another individual can feel relaxed as a result of enjoying the sense of being on his own and peace.

Tourist Motivation Along with psychological, social, cultural and demographical factors, motivation for tourism activity is conceptualized as a step for expectation formation which provides satisfaction from

R. Genç

tourism experiences. Gnoth (1997) states that expectations of a tourist are extremely important because it is influential on choice processes and perception of experiences. In addition, at the time of tourism activity, tourist expectation forms basis for satisfaction. Del Bosque et al. (2009) suppose that the factors which influence tourist expectation reside within the experiences of the individual and image of destination places. The motivation theories usually have the common conceptual framework which assumes that tourist motivation depends on the balance between personal characteristics, needs of individual and social/conditional circumstances (Pearce, 1993). One of the early motivation models is Iso-Ahola’s (1980) intrinsic motivation model for tourist behavior. It provides structured general themes to understand tourist motivation with an emphasis on underlying dynamics: According to the model, main motivation for tourism activity stems from leisure needs of an individual which are shaped by social and conditional factors. Another model that proposed by Cohen (1978) specifies bidirectional need spectrum that determines motivation for tourism activity. In this model, curiosity for new experiences locates at the one hand whereas fear of new experiences is at the other. This model points out that tourism activity may affect quality of life adversely if fear dimension is predominant for the individual. Another approach to motivational aspects of tourist behavior suggests that travel and tourism activity for an individual is a product of being “pushed” by internal factors or being “pulled” by tourism destination properties (Dann, 1981). Push factors are considered as internal and had more affective components whereas it is suggested that pull factors are associated with external factors such as special aspects of destination places (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Within this framework, it is argued that an individual is pushed by internal factors if he/she prefers to engage in touristic activity for relaxation and resting purposes. On the other hand, it can be suggested that another individual who travels in order to see ruins of an

Quality of Life: Demographic, Psychological, Social and Cultural Components

ancient civilization is pulled from external factors. In addition, a causal relationship between loyalty and motivation is pointed by Yoon and Uysal (2005): They argued that loyalty to a destination place increases the motivation of the individual for tourism activity specifically at the chosen destination. This motivation is related to push factors rather than being related to pull factors. The loyalty to specific destinations, motivation and tourist behavior association is a new topic in tourist behavior and it can be a fruitful area for further research. At the same time, these associations have valuable implications to have a better picture about tourist behavior, motivation, and quality of life. Swarbrooke and Horner (1999) propose a more comprehensive model that emphasizes the uniqueness of individual experiences. They mention two types of motivators in their model: The factors that lead a person to make a touristic activity are the first type. These motivating factors are discussed under six categories: cultural, physical, emotional, personal, personal development and status. As an example, it can be said that different alternatives that lead an individual to go on a holiday or touristic activity for relaxation purposes, for self-development purposes or for visiting a friend (for details, see Fig. 2). In addition, the individual factors which have a major influence on tourist motivations are personality, lifestyle, past experiences related to tourism activity, past life incidents, perceptions of one’s strength and weaknesses and self-images. It is supposed that the motivators may change in time parallel to change in life circumstances: having a child, worsening health and changing in economic income are considered examples of factors that influence motivators (Swarbrooke & Horner, 1999). In this regard, an outgoing individual from middle class who used to travel to the destinations popular for its sea-and-sand and night clubs can have changes in his motivations to have a tourism activity. It is possible that after having a family and child, this individual can look for an economical quiet destination place in which the family relations will be consolidated via nature walks, beach activities and rest.

147

Tourist Satisfaction Satisfaction is the process through which the increase in subjective well-being is identified and understood by the individual. It can be suggested that satisfaction is the natural result when one concludes that he or she is feeling better than prior to the travel. However, the definition of satisfaction is not clear: Drawing from an extensive survey, Giese and Cote (2000) proposed three elements of satisfaction: affective response related to tourism activity, evaluation of product service and expression before and after choice of destination places. Some researchers have applied customer satisfaction theories to tourist satisfaction research. It is suggested that the attributes of the destination constitute a significant element of tourist satisfaction as well as dissatisfaction, as in the example of consumer satisfaction in many cases of consumption instances (Pizam et al., 1978). In this regard, Rust et al. (1995) claim that overall impression of a tourist should be investigated in order to understand different dynamics of tourist satisfaction. Recently, cognitive-affective nature of tourist satisfaction is recognized by many researchers, it is hypothesized that not only cognitive aspects of satisfaction such as expectations, beliefs, and attitudes but also affective experience of tourist play significant roles in tourist satisfaction level (Oliver & Westbrook, 1993). Del Bosque and San Martin (2008) have conducted a study that investigates various cognitive-affective factors that influence tourist satisfaction. The results indicate the image that was founded prior to the trip has significant effects on expectations and loyalty and this further implies that tourist destination image is effective on choice processes. In addition, it is demonstrated that the image is not associated directly to tourist satisfaction, rather expectation mediates between destination image and tourist satisfaction. Secondly, positive expectation has positive significant effect on tourist satisfaction. Individuals rely on destination image and past experiences in terms of expectation formation which is directly and significantly associated with tourist satisfaction. Third

148

R. Genç

Fig. 2 Elements of tourist motivation. Adopted from Swarbrooke, J. & Homer, S. (1999). Motivators. Consumer Behavior in Tourism. Butterworth-Heinemann

argument is that emotions are important for both beliefs prior to the travel and post-experiences evaluation. The capability to gratify the needs of tourists in the destination place is a significant predictor of satisfaction and enhancement of positive emotions. Positive and negative emotions at the time of tourism experiences are highly influential in satisfaction formation since the enjoyment of the tourist depends on their subjective

experiences. The findings of the study are in harmony with previous literature on tourist satisfaction. Moreover, importance of emotions on tourist satisfaction is highlighted from a cognitive-affective model. Another important outcome of the study is that tourist loyalty is highly influences by tourist satisfaction (for details, see Fig. 3). Earlier in the literature, Oliver (1999) supposed that loyal consumers would

Quality of Life: Demographic, Psychological, Social and Cultural Components

149

Fig. 3 Estimates of a cognitive-affective model. Adapted from Del Bosque and San Martin (2008)

experience high levels of satisfaction, but he notes that it is hard to indicate that satisfaction is always a precursor of loyalty. Genç (2009) proposes that socio-cultural conditions, attitudes, and tourists’ past experiences are different aspects that influence the association between satisfaction and loyalty.

Material and Immaterial Aspects of Tourism and QOL The ways tourists benefit from tourism experience include both objective and subjective means. In the subjective sense, tourism activities are viewed as an escape from daily hustles and stresses in contemporary world. It has been noted that tourists find an opportunity to relax and to get away from their daily routine lives during the consumption of tourism services and products. In the literature, it has been also demonstrated that having a holiday influences the subjective well-being by facilitating positive feelings which endure after the holiday is over (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004). Similarly, Neal et al. (2007) state that by granting tourists with a sense of satisfaction, these tourism activities potentially improve their QOL. They mention that a state of satisfaction can turn into a more stable mood state of happiness by accumulation of gratifying experiences and thus, abolish psychological

stresses one faces with in life. Instead, tourists can attain a more relaxed and happy state through ongoing impact of gratifying tourism consumption in their lives (Neal & Gursoy, 2008). Consumption of tourism services provides socialization opportunities for tourists both among themselves and with different cultural groups (Galloway, 2008). Cultural tourism particularly has been on the rise among tourists who want to meet with different cultures. As an example of the cultural factors in tourism, Yeoman et al. (2007) showed that authenticity plays as a key role for Scottish tourism market and evaluated how it could be provided for the visitors. Tourists engaging in cultural tourism activities and consuming local products find a way to learn different perspectives on matters in life. Gaining flexibility and tolerance may be a psychological side effect of the social interaction taking place in cultural tourism settings. Therefore, tourist consumption behavior may improve one’s subjective well-being through providing social conduct and meeting with differences in the tourism destination. Souvenir consumption is another type of consumption behavior which potentially influences QOL. Souvenirs materialize the tourism experience: In a way, it summarizes the destination place. In addition, it enables the memory of the tourism experience to be accessed more easily: One of the reasons that tourists frequently enjoy

150

buy souvenirs from destination places is to remember the enjoyment they had during their trip. It should be kept in mind the material existence of the souvenir also has a social meaning: Through the possession of souvenirs, tourists prove to others, as well as themselves, that they have been in the destination place. Research suggests that tourists are motivated by different levels of willingness to buy souvenirs (Swanson & Horridge, 2004). It has been demonstrated that tourists who generally tend to buy local products are motivated to engage with the inhabitants and culture of the destination place while those who travel for the purpose of outdoor activities are less likely to engage in souvenir consumption (Litirell et al., 1994). As the tourist walks around to buy souvenirs, he or she is likely to talk to the sellers who are probably from the host community and negotiate about the price. The souvenir is meaningful to the tourist only if he or she finds a meaning or a quality to remember in the destination place. For the tourist who is engaged in outdoor activities, instead of the cultural context, what is likely to be important is the activity opportunities provided by the destination place, Recently, tourism services have come to be viewed as a non-material commodity whose value is influenced by interpersonal aspects. In this regard, Trauer and Ryan (2005) argued that the quality of the relationship between visitors can even act as the primary determinant of the quality of tourism experience. In this regard, providing a positive atmosphere in which the visitor can freely interact becomes an important element of hospitality management. Clarke (2008) addresses the experiential aspect of tourism services and highlights the modern uses of travel packages or tourism activities as gifts. He emphasizes the sense of common sharedness accompanying experiential gifts such as trips to a particular destination place and he discusses the role of this quality of sharedness in the formation and sustenance of interpersonal relations. Clarke’s (2008) thoughtful discussion on tourism services as experiential gifts suggests that the concept of tourist consumption behavior has expanded. Through the consumption of physical

R. Genç

and psychological aspects of tourism services, QOL of tourists could be enhanced by a variety of ways: One has been mentioned by Clarke (2008) that the facilitating impact of these services in the social and interpersonal domain enhances one’s sense of well-being and QOL.

Conclusion The present chapter reviews factors which influence tourist behavior and tourist quality of life. The interaction between individual characteristics and the sense of quality of life is considered together in order to delineate the relation between tourism, personal characteristics of a tourist and quality of life. In tourism industry, the range of customer characteristics is wide. The age of tourist is influential at the date, length, and type of destination services. Gender is considered as an important variable that affect the choice of tourists. It should be considered that the satisfaction of women from tourist activity and sense of QOL increases if the biases toward women in destination places decrease. The socio-economic class and nationality of tourists have also an effect on tourist choice behavior. People try to stay in their own class norms and be socially approved. The tourist behavior and evaluation of tourism experience are highly influenced by one’s own culture. The psychological aspects of tourist behavior and its relation to QOL are discussed in detail throughout the chapter. The self-image of an individual is expressed and verified in tourist consumption. People do not always make consumption choices according to their selfimage but also their self-ideals. The congruence between one’s self-image and destination image seems to play an important role in destination choice process. It is easy to see that tourism has great potential to enhance the quality of life of individuals via psychological means. People have tendency to choose destinations or touristic services in accordance with their selfconcept. In addition, social image that a person holds influences indirectly his/her touristic behavior choice. The underlying motives of choice

Quality of Life: Demographic, Psychological, Social and Cultural Components

behavior are generally detected as being socially approvable and socially preferable. On the other hand, motivations and expectations of the individual tourist influence preferences as well as the satisfaction. The material exchange during touristic activity such as souvenir consumption, and non-material experiences such as positive interpersonal interaction are other processes which contribute to quality of life. All these factors, which are consolidated with the psychological background of individual and service-related stimuli, lead to a specific type of tourism activity. This activity, in turn, verifies and validates these underlying self and social images. Therefore, tourism indirectly increases the sense of wellbeing, as well as the quality of their life. As tourism enables escaping from daily hassles; relaxing and establishing social interaction, the increase in the QOL of the tourist emerges during tourism activity.

References Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers’ identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 171–184. Beerli, A., Meneses, G. D., & Gil, S. M. (2007). Selfcongruity and destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3), 571–587. Belk, W. R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. The Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. Bernini, C., Guizzardi, A., & Angelini, A. (2013). DEA-like model and common weights approach for the construction of a subjective community well-being indicator. Social Indicators Research, 114, 405–424. Castillo, M. I., Rodríguez, M. I., & López-Guzmán, T. (2017). The important role of the international college students as a motor for promotion and development of international educational tourism as modality within the language tourism. Pasos, 15(2), 471–480. Choi, H. Y., Lehto, X., & Brey, E. T. (2010). Investigating resort loyalty: Impacts of the family life cycle. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20(1), 121–141. Chon, K. (1992). Self-image/destination image congruity. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 360–366. Clarke, J. (2008). Gifts of tourism: Insights into consumer behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 529–550. Cohen, E. (1978). Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 18–35. Cracolici, M. F., Giambona, F., & Cuffaro, M. (2013). Family structure and subjective economic well-being:

151

some new evidence. Social Indicators Research, 118, 433–456. Curtin, S. (2010). Managing the wildlife tourism experience: The importance of tour leaders. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(3), 219–236. Dann, G. M. (1981). Tourism motivations: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2), 187–219. Del Bosque, I. R., & San Martín, H. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 551–573. Del Bosque, R. I., Martin, H., Collado, J., & Salmones, M. G. (2009). A framework for tourist expectations. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3, 139–147. Dolnicar, S., Yanamandram, V., & Cliff, C. (2011). The contribution of vacations to quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 59–83. Galloway, S. (2008). Culture and individual quality of life: Approaches for cultural research. Retrieved from: https://iccpr2008.yeditepe.edu.tr Genç, R. (2009). Uluslararas{ Otel ve Restoran Yönetiminde İnsan. Beta. Giese, J. L., & Cote, A. J. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 1–27. Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holiday taking and the sense of well-being. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 103–121. Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 283–304. Hong, J. W., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1995). Self-concept and advertising effectiveness: The influence of congruency, conspicuousness, and response mode. Psychology & Marketing, 12(1), 53–77. Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1980). The social psychology of leisure and recreation. I.M. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers. Kim, J. H., Ritchie, J. B., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences. Journal of Travel research, 51(1), 12–25. Kim, H., Woo, E., & Uysal, M. (2015). Tourism experience and quality of life among elderly tourists. Tourism Management, 46, 465–476. Lam, D., & So, A. (2013). Do happy tourists spread more word-of-mouth? The mediating role of life satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 646–650. Lee, D.-J., Kruger, S., Whang, M.-J., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2014). Validating a customer well-being index related to natural wildlife tourism. Tourism Management, 45, 171–180. Lin, C.-H. (2014). Effects of cuisine experience, psychological well-being, and self-health perception on the revisit intention of hot spring tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(2), 243–265. Litirell, M. A., Baizerman, S., Kean, R., Gahring, S., Niemeyer, S., Reilly, R., & Stout, J. (1994). Souvenirs and tourism styles. Journal of Travel Research, 33(1), 3–11.

152 Litvin, S. W., & Goh, H. K. (2002). Self-image congruity: A valid tourism theory. Tourism Management, 23(1), 81–83. Litvin, S. W., & Kar, G. H. (2003). Individualism/collectivism as a moderating factor to the self-image congruity concept. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(1), 23–32. Lopez-Bonilla, L. M., Lopez-Bonilla, J., & s. M. (2009). Postmodernism and heterogeneity of leisure tourist behavior patterns. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31(1), 68–83. Maoz, D., & Bekerman, Z. (2010). Searching for Jewish answers in Indian resorts: The postmodern traveler. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2), 423–439. McCabe, S., & Stokoe, E. H. (2004). Place and identity in tourists’ accounts. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 601–622. Moore, R., Moore, M. L., & Capella, M. (2005). The impact of customer-to-customer interactions in a high personal contact service setting. The Journal of Service Marketing, 19(6), 482–491. Neal, J. D., & Gursoy, N. (2008). A multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 47, 53–62. Neal, J. D., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on traveler’s quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 154–163. Obrador, P. (2012). The place of the family in tourism research: Domesticity and thick sociality by the pool. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 401–420. Oliver, R., & Westbrook, R. (1993). Profiles of consumer emotions and satisfaction in ownership and usage. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 6, 12–27. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence customer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44. Pearce, P. L. (1993). Fundamentals of tourist motivation. Channel View. Pearce, P. L. (2005). Tourist behaviour : Themes and conceptual schemes. Channel View. Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with a destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 5(2), 314–322. Richards, G. (1999). Vacations and the quality of life: patterns and structures. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 189–198. R{zaoğlu, B. (2003). Turizm Davran{ş{. Detay Yay{nc{l{k. Rust, R. T., Zahorik, A. J., & Keininghan, T. L. (1995). Return on quality. The Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 58–70. Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2004). Consumer behavior (8th ed.). Pearson. Schultz, S. E., Kleine Ill, R. E., & Kernan, J. B. (1989). These are a few of my favorite things: Toward an explication of attachment as a consumer behavior construct. Advances in Consumer Research, 16(1), 359–366.

R. Genç Shaw, G., & Williams, A. M. (2002). Critical issues in tourism: A geographical perspective (2nd ed.). Blackwell. Sirgy, J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, selfcongruity, and travel behavior: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 340–352. Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300. Small, J. (2003). The voices of older women tourists. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(2), 31–39. Stone, P., & Sharpley, R. (2008). Consuming dark tourism: A thanatological perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 574–595. Swanson, K., & Horridge, P. (2004). A structural model for souvenir consumption, travel activities and tourist demographics. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 372–380. Swarbrooke, J., & Horner, S. (1999). Consumer behaviour in tourism. Butterworth-Heinemann. Trauer, B., & Ryan, C. (2005). Destination image, romance and place experience—an application of intimacy theory in tourism. Tourism Management, 26(4), 481–491. Wang, N. (2000). Tourism and modernity: A sociological analysis. Pergamon. Westwood, S., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. J. (2000). Gender-blind marketing: Businesswomen’s perceptions of airline services. Tourism Management., 21, 353–362. Yeoman, I., Brass, D., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Current issue in tourism: The authentic tourist. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1128–1138. Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45–56.

Ruhet Genç, Ph.D., worked in various countries like the USA, Canada, Germany and France. By doing so he became aware of ‘thinking globally and acting locally’. After returning back to Turkey, he continued to his business venture and he has been serving as full-time Assoc. Prof at four different universities. During his academic life, he shared his experiences with students and other academicians. He specialized in management and strategy with special applications in logistics and tourism management. Between various courses he taught, cross-cultural management, business negotiations, and dispute solving methods were just a few to mention at this point which might be useful to strengthen his international ties. He is a full-time faculty member of Turkish-German University in Istanbul at the present time. Email: [email protected]

Travel Behavior of the Elderly and Quality-of-Life Joanna Zielińska-Szczepkowska

Introduction At present, elderly tourism and its varied aspects are more and more widely reflected in the literature (Alén et al. 2012; Balderas-Cejudo et al., 2016; Filipe et al., 2021; Głąbiński, 2014, 2015, 2016; Górna, 2015; Graja-Zwolińska & Spychała, 2012; Kazeminia et al. 2013; Kociszewski, 2012, 2020; Kowalczyk-Anioł, 2013; Le Serre et al., 2013; Nimrod & Rotem, 2010; Otoo et al., 2020; Patuelli & Nijkamp, 2016; Prayag, 2012; Śniadek, 2006; Śniadek & Zajadacz, 2010; Woo et al., 2016). Scholarly interest in the issue stems from the progressive ageing of most societies in the world. Currently, Japan, Finland and Italy are the countries with the oldest populations. Greece, Korea, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain are among the fastest ageing countries in the OECD. Outside the OECD, the most precipitous ageing is observed in Brazil, China and Saudi Arabia (OECD, 2020). It is estimated that by 2050 the population of people aged 60 and over will have reached 2.1 trillion people (OECD, 2020), and although societies across different regions of the world are ageing at different rates, it is proceeding at a particularly high pace in European countries, J. Zielińska-Szczepkowska (✉) Department of Economic Policy, Institute of Economics and Finance, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland e-mail: [email protected]

where older people (aged 65 and above) account for 19.7% of the total. Forecasts for the European Union reveal the magnitude of the demographic processes, as people aged 65 and over will already constitute 28.5% of EU citizens in 2050. The historically unprecedented increase in the proportion of the elderly is beginning to be noticed in many areas of socio-economic life, including tourism. In such circumstances, the task of determining the needs, motives and tourism-related behaviors of elderly becomes crucially important, not only in theoretical but also in the practical dimension. Tourism and travel literature has been experiencing a considerable amount of growth in the number of studies specifically focusing on the elderly tourist market since 2000 (Pezeshki et al., 2019). Until recently, the elderly were not perceived as a promising segment of the tourism market. This situation is slowly changing, but as time goes by, the industry still fails to understand the needs of the elderly market and often considers it a homogenous segment in terms of demographics, lifestyle, health, psychological and sociological patterns of behavior (Balderas-Cejudo et al., 2016). Given the still insufficient understanding of the tourism needs of the elderly, this chapter seeks to define them as recipients of tourism services, examining their motivations, needs, quality of life vs the tendency to travel while drawing on selected studies in the field. The issue is studied in a theoretical, analytical and conceptual approach, employing methods of

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_11

153

154

J. Zielińska-Szczepkowska

critical analysis of pertinent literature, document analysis and heuristic methods.

Definitions of the Elderly The literature on the subject does not advance an unambiguous definition of the term “elderly person” (Le Serre, 2008), and the multiplicity of terms associated with the description of the elderly population is a major issue (Jang & Ham, 2009; Patterson, 2018). According to González et al. (2009), the heterogeneity of this age group is so extensive that there is no universal consensus regarding their description. According to Patterson (2006), designations such as pensioners or simply the elderly were commonly used in developed countries, at least until recently. Autumn of life, late adulthood, old age and retirement age can also be used interchangeably in relation to old age. However, many new labels have been coined to refer to the very group of elderly persons and particular phases in the life cycle. One could begin to speak of the third and fourth ages, whereby the level of psychosocial activity and lifestyle provided the criterion for the division (Steuden, 2012). Collins and Tisdell

(2002) and Lawson (2004) argue that the elderly can be divided into three life stages: empty nesters, young elderly and elderly (Table 1). Other designations encountered in the literature include pre-retirement (Tongren, 1980), third age (Nikitina & Vorontsova, 2015), fourth age (Laslett, 1989), the silent generation (Chen & Shoemaker, 2014; Moschis & Ünal, 2008), baby boomers (Chen & Shoemaker, 2014), post-silver group (Nielsen, 2014), empty nesters/young elderly, woopies (Patterson, 2006; Tiago et al., 2014). Also, new terms have entered use in marketing literature, e.g. older market (Carrigan et al., 2004), maturing market (Wang et al., 2007), 50+ market (Silvers, 1997) and elderly market (Balderas-Cejudo et al., 2016; Nielsen, 2014). In recent years, researchers studying elderly tourism have increasingly referred to this generation as the elderly (Kim et al., 2015), silver century/ centenarians (Nikitina & Vorontsova, 2015) and elderly travellers (Balderas-Cejudo et al., 2016). It may be noted that certain researchers have chosen to recognise lower age thresholds (even persons over 50) as elderly, resulting in substantial confusion in the literature. Other disciplines, such as gerontology, have been more consistent in defining old age, determining that elderly are

Table 1 Division of elderly based on three distinct stages in life Life stage Empty nesters

Age group 55–64 years

Young elderly

65–79 years

Elderly

80 years and above

Characteristics – Working persons, whose children have left home and are no longer dependent on their parents, or childless persons – Have sufficient financial resources (high and stable income) to meet their needs – Travel shorter but more frequently – Many have recently retired and have abundant leisure time – Highly health-conscious – An absence of serious health problems encourages travel activity – Willing to spend more on quality goods and services – People in their late retirement phase – Their health may be deteriorating, hence increasing the need for health care or retirement homes – This group travels less or very little, preferring domestic destinations

Implications on elderly tourism – Are interested in traveling abroad – Are eager to enjoy city breaks – Care about health is associated with wellness tourism – Are interested in experience tourism – Realize their travel dreams that they were not able to undertake before—such as traveling to remote parts of the world – Enjoy spending time traveling with friends – Combine travel with health and body care, such as culinary tourism, health tourism etc. – Are willing to undertake short domestic trips – Are looking for an offer tailored to the elderly and disabled, with full board, comfortable accommodation, convenient transportation, pilot care, etc. – Often travel with caregivers (family, friends)

Source: own elaboration based on Collins and Tisdell (2002) and Lawson (2004)

Travel Behavior of the Elderly and Quality-of-Life

only persons who have reached the retirement age of 65 and above. In the USA, for instance, people eligible for Social and Security Pension and Medicare would qualify as such (Patterson, 2018). In Europe, the retirement age varies from country to country. This is evident, e.g. in Germany, where new early retirement schemes allow citizens to retire at a younger age with a relatively minor reduction in regular pay (Buehler & Nobis, 2010). In Poland, on the other hand, retirement age is differentiated by gender, with men reaching it at 65 and women 5 years earlier (Grześkowiak et al., 2021). Researchers increasingly note that the age criterion may prove to be an unreliable predictive factor of consumer behavior of the elderly (Ruys & Wei, 2001), as there are significant differences between a person’s subjectively perceived age and their actual date of birth (Faranda & Schmidt, 2000). According to Meiners and Seeberger (2010) and Patterson (2018), many elderly feel that they are 7–15 years younger than their chronological age. Such subjective feelings have a major impact on the activities the elderly undertake, as reflected in the aforementioned studies on elderly tourism. A constructive extension of the previous approach also involves a shift from the yardstick of specific age limits to viewing the elderly population from the standpoint of so-called cohorts. This concept, used in demography, denotes a set of individuals who are linked by a demographic event, such as being born in the same year (Szatur-Jaworska et al., 2006). Two cohorts predominate in the population of contemporary (European and American) elderly. The first of these is the silent cohort which, according to Pendergast (2010), consists of people born between 1925 and 1942. However, with respect to active life of the elderly, the most important cohort is the more numerous generation of the so-called post-war baby boom, described in the literature as baby boomers. However, just as with the threshold of old age, various concepts have been advanced to define the timeframe of the baby boomer generation. Based on demographic indications, Wrzesień (2007) claims that the term describes Americans born between 1946 and

155

1957, whereas the United States Census Bureau identifies baby boomers with the period from 1946 to 1964. The elderly who make up this cohort display certain characteristics that set them apart from their predecessors. First and foremost, they are the first generation born after the end of the war, which is why their youth was subject to different principles than their parents, not only economically but also culturally. The baby boomer generation (American, Japanese, Western European, Australian) are characterized in the literature as well-educated persons who undertake frequent travels, with ample financial capacities and resources enabling tourism (Kowalczyk-Anioł, 2013). Inhabitants of the former socialist bloc countries (e.g. Poland) also qualify in this generation but, importantly, the latter group is not quite identical in terms of values with the Western European or American counterparts, yet as Śniadek (2007) notes, they do share much in common (e.g. the level of education, attitude to fitness and beauty).

Elderly Travellers A growing interest in the elderly travel market is now being seen worldwide (Jang & Wu, 2006). According to Meiners and Seeberger (2010), the elderly traveller segment is a substantial untapped market as well as an important driving force for the tourism industry. This is due to the fact that elderly are increasingly wealthier, healthier, more active and have more free time than their predecessors (Horneman et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2003). Furthermore, Otoo and Kim (2020) show in their study that the elderly tourism market may have a positive impact on seasonality, as it offers a solution to bridge the gap between lean and peak tourist seasons. Studies of tourism activity among elderly have been ongoing for several decades around the world, and researchers have been able to provide detailed characterizations of elderly travellers (Table 2). Elderly tourists often have a significant financial surplus thanks to their life savings (Bai et al., 2001; You & O’Leary, 1999). Many of

156

J. Zielińska-Szczepkowska

Table 2 General characteristics of elderly travellers Authors Bai et al. (2001); Jang and Ham (2009) Batra (2009) Norman et al. (2001) Gronek (2019); Otoo and Kim (2020) Zsarnoczky (2016) Muller and O’Cass (2001); Woo et al. (2016) Widiyastuti and Ermawati (2019); ZielińskaSzczepkowska (2021)

Characteristics • They have sufficient spendable income • Elderly prefer to travel accompanied • Safety is a priority to them • Because they have a lot of free time, they can travel in any season • They are willing to expand their time spent at the destination, even at multiple times • They can be considered as “curious” tourists • They take each other’s opinion and recommendations into account seriously

them are willing to spend substantial sums of money on travelling abroad (Bai et al., 2001; Teaff & Turpin, 1996). A number of researchers have also conducted comparative analyses of older travellers with other age groups, revealing a considerable discrepancy between younger and older age groups in their travel styles, travel preferences and the nature of travel activity in which they engage (Jang & Ham, 2009; Kociszewski, 2020). The unique and specific needs of the elderly differ from what younger individuals seek, particularly in terms of health (Otoo & Kim, 2020) and income (Lassen & Moreira, 2014). Moreover, elderly’ tastes, preferences and lifestyles are unlike those of the younger age groups. Since elderly are also more attached to past experiences, their sentimentality is very often highlighted in research (Cleaver et al., 1999). Elderly require more information and more time when making travel decisions. In addition, they are particularly demanding and even picky as consumers in the tourism market (Śniadek, 2006).

Travel Behavior of the Elderly Motivation is a major determining factor in tourist behavior (Wong & Musa, 2014). A growing interest in the tourism behavior of the elderly has been noticeable since the 1980s (Norman et al., 2001; Pestana et al., 2020; Romsa & Blenman, 1989; Tongren, 1980; Zimmer et al., 1995). The tourism sector, recognizing a great potential for expanding the offer addressed to elderly, has

been making attempts to segment the market to their advantage (Panasiuk, 2014). For their part, researchers hoping to meet these needs conduct studies on elderly tourists and make efforts to establish pertinent categories while taking into account the following factors: demographic and psychological characteristics (Horneman et al., 2002), lifestyle (Muller & O’Cass, 2001), level of education and income (Jang & Ham, 2009). To date, empirical studies concerning the travel behavior of the elderly have employed a series of socio-demographic variables (e.g. age, sex, educational level, income level etc.), as well as subjective variables relating to economic status and health, so as to draw a distinction between those elderly who travel and those who do not. One of the most internationally widespread concepts to account for the development of tourism activity is the theory of pull and push factors (Chen & Wu, 2009; Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1981; Iso-Ahola, 1982; Klenosky, 2002; Lee, 2009; Uysal & Hagan, 1993; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994). The division into ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors relative to motivation was advanced by Dann (1977) who put forward an answer to the question “what induces tourists to travel?”. According to the researcher, the pull comprised all external factors which draw a tourist to a particular place, such as tourist assets, tourist infrastructure, accessibility, safety, advertising, quality of service (Alejziak, 2012; Jang & Wu, 2006). Push factors, on the other hand, include internal prompts resulting from the predispositions of the actual tourist: their values, experiences and desires, such as sentimentality, the desire to

Travel Behavior of the Elderly and Quality-of-Life

escape from the hustle and bustle of the city, etc. (Huang & Tsai, 2003; Jang & Wu, 2006; Norman et al., 2001; Sangpikul, 2008; Wu, 2003). Hence, people travel because they are ‘pushed’ by internal factors and ‘pulled’ by external factors (Uysal et al., 2008). The push forces inspire the tourist to leave their place of residence and seek an unspecified direction of travel (Głąbiński, 2018). The above concept has been widely applied in research on the tourism activity of elderly. Some of the leading empirical studies on push and pull factors in the elderly tourism market are those conducted by You and O’Leary (1999), Norman et al. (2001), Huang and Tsai (2003), Wu (2003), Wang (2005), Jang and Wu (2006) and Sangpikul (2008). The push factors encouraging the elderly to leave their place of residence included visiting family and friends, novelty-seeking, improving knowledge, escape from everyday life, rest and relaxation, interpersonal contacts, increased selfesteem, social and cultural role, sport and health. Good public transportation, hygiene, security, good weather, arts and cultural activities, natural surroundings, tourist infrastructure, budget dining and accommodations, people, historical and natural attractions, availability of services and shopping activities have been qualified as the pull factors. According to Widiyastuti and Ermawati (2019), travel decisions of the elderly are influenced by both internal factors based on the elderly’s personal needs and abilities (e.g. spiritual needs, health-related needs and their health as such, work, financial resources, meeting people) and external factors associated with the destination (e.g. compatibility of the destination with the health of the elderly). Numerous studies have attempted to determine the motivations of elderly tourists to travel (Fleischer & Pizam, 2002; Horneman et al., 2002; Huang & Tsai, 2003; Jang & Wu, 2006; Otoo et al., 2020; Woo et al., 2016). These encompass a wide range of human behaviors and experiences, such as relaxation, excitement, social interaction with friends or family, adventure, status, age, and escape from routine or stress (Alén et al., 2012; Chen & Wu, 2009; Fleischer & Pizam, 2002; Huh, 2006; Jang & Ham, 2009;

157

Nyaupane & Andereck, 2008; Wu, 2003; Zielińska-Szczepkowska, 2021). When analysing elderly relative to their participation in tourism, one should draw attention to the most common motivations behind engaging in such an activity. These are generally defined as socio-psychological motives that predispose an individual to travel (Uysal et al., 2008). Many previous studies suggest that motivation reflects psychological needs and desires that influence individual behavior (Dann, 1981; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). Fleischer and Pizam (2002), Alen et al. (2017), Zambianchi (2017) and ZielińskaSzczepkowska (2021) observe that the elderly generally travel to visit family or friends, to seek novelty, to find knowledge, to escape from daily activities or to participate in social life. It follows from a study by Huang and Tsai (2003) that relaxation, meeting new people and spending time with family are the foremost motivations for older tourists. These individuals also attach considerable importance to safety, hygiene and cleanliness of the accommodation (Jang & Wu, 2006). Learning new skills, as Zambianchi (2017) points out, promotes the enjoyment of new experiences and improves self-esteem in elderly. Numerous studies conducted on elderly tourism attempt to establish the factors which restrict travel and engender negative attitudes towards tourism activities. Understanding the constraints of leisure and tourism can help one to identify why older people are unwilling to travel (Chen & Wu, 2008). Constraints are usually defined in the literature as “obstacles, barriers, limitations, hindrances, restrictions and other factors placed on individuals by themselves or by culture, society or the environment” (Edginton et al., 2002, p 240). Several studies on travel constraints have been concerned exclusively with the elderly (Lee & Tideswell, 2005; Patterson, 2006). Their findings suggest that it is crucial to identify the barriers that prevent elderly from travelling. Lee and Tideswell (2005) and Fleischer and Pizam (2002) studied travel constraints among older people and found that absence of social networks, scarcity of information, physical and emotional costs, low energy levels, disability and

158

insufficient funds were the most commonly cited travel barriers among elderly tourists. In turn, research by Grzelak-Kostulska et al. (2011) demonstrates that negative perceptions of tourism activities among the elderly may stem from what their environment suggests and other external factors. Health problems often adversely affect the financial well-being of the elderly as it entails incurring medical expenses. These are often exacerbated by the concern among family and friends that elderly’s health may deteriorate while travelling. In order to understand the leisure behavior of elderly, it needs to be looked at from a specific perspective, i.e. satisfaction of needs which are characteristic of that period of life. According to Spyrka-Chlipała (2014), the necessity to satisfy needs motivates people to act, lends meaning and purpose to their existence. The elderly are also by no means devoid of particular, individual desires and needs. One of the seminal concepts relating to the hierarchization of human needs was advanced by A. Maslow (1943). Needs involving tourism and recreation are classified as higher-order needs. However, Grabowski (2011) underlines that as social roles change, life experiences are

J. Zielińska-Szczepkowska

gained, and financial stability is achieved, the pyramid of needs for elderly is realigned. In his opinion, the needs associated with physiology, safety and esteem coexist and can only be realized when the pursuit of need is supported by the fulfilment of another, not necessarily in a hierarchical order, but in a reciprocal fashion. It follows that the most frequent motives for elderly tourists are knowledge-seeking, rest and relaxation, social interaction, actualisation and nostalgia. Furthermore, human needs change as their life enters its successive stages. According to Miler-Zawodniak (2012) and Spyrka-Chlipała (2014), higher-order needs develop later than lower-order needs. Bearing the above in mind, Maslow’s pyramid was transformed into the house of elderly’s needs (Fig. 1). Researchers characterizing expectations of the elderly argue that the mosaic of their needs demonstrates a particularly conspicuous pattern of pursuing goals and dreams, with a simultaneous increase in the amount of leisure time. Gronek (2019) emphasises that the temporal structure of people aged 60+ is distinct from other age groups. One of its features is relatively sample free time, which, depending on the age

Fig. 1 Maslow’s needs hierarchy vs. the house of elderly’s needs (after: Grabowski, 2011; Grzelak-Kostulska et al., 2011; Miler-Zawodniak, 2012; Spyrka-Chlipała, 2014)

Travel Behavior of the Elderly and Quality-of-Life

and professional activity of the individual, accounts for 23.1 to 25.5% of a day, i.e. from about 5 hours and 33 minutes to 6 hours and 7 minutes. In comparison, leisure time available to persons aged 18–59 amounts to 15.7–19.7% of a day, with the smallest proportion in the group of professionally active people aged 35–44. For those entering old age, a sudden excess of free time may, on the one hand, become a source of boredom, emptiness, loneliness and utter dissatisfaction with life, but on the other, creative use of time—travelling for instance—may be the best solution to maintain good health and a sense of well-being until late in one’s life.

Elderly Tourism and Quality-of-Life Quality of life (QOL) is defined as a multi-faceted phenomenon that eludes an unambiguous definition. The standard of living and QOL are indicative of needs and remain inextricably linked to economic circumstances and lifestyles (Bąk & Szczecińska, 2016; Uysal et al., 2020). Kurowska (2011) notes that QOL cannot be studied without defining the standard of living. The latter is most often associated with the efforts to satisfy one’s needs through the purchase of specific goods or services; conversely, QOL serves to satisfy needs by virtue of developing one’s personality. The concept of QOL is reflected in research on the tourism activities of the elderly (Kim et al., 2021). Having reviewed conceptualisations of QOL in the elderly, Fernandez-Ballesteros (2011) described a variety of components affecting the QOL of elderly, which included objective factors such as ageing rates, housing infrastructure, pension schemes as well as individual factors characteristic of a given person: education, socio-economic status and health. One theory which effectively elucidates the QOL issue is the bottom-up spillover theory (Sirgy & Lee, 2006). Its essential premise is that life satisfaction is a composite of many different factors, which can include social life, material welfare, leisure time, work life, and others as well (Sirgy et al., 2010). Overall life satisfaction may be situated at the last rung of the satisfaction

159

hierarchy. According to Sirgy et al. (2011), specific travel experiences contribute to positive or negative outcomes in different domains of life (e.g. family, love, social involvement, culture, physical well-being etc.) and thus translate into QOL. In a study concerned with the elderly, Brown et al. (2004) undertook a comprehensive review of gerontological literature to identify major components of life satisfaction such as health, relationships with others, family relationships, emotional well-being, independence, leisure, mobility and autonomy. Another study identified six main factors that bear on life satisfaction in elderly: social/recreational wellbeing, psychological well-being, psychological well-being, cognitive well-being, spiritual wellbeing and environmental well-being (KelleyGillespie, 2009). Zsarnoczky (2016) put forward yet another division of factors which affect the well-being of the elderly (Fig. 2), arguing that a number of elements are involved in good ageing, i.e. economic factors, personal factors, social factors, behavioral factors, health services, social services and physical factors. Determining the level of QOL of a particular elderly requires examining their life and surroundings from their own perspective. Subjectivity is important in assessing the QOL of the elderly because activities and needs tend to be re-evaluated and reprioritized at this stage; for instance, i.e. income security during retirement is no longer an urgent issue since benefits are assured (Grześkowiak et al., 2021). Behaviors of the elderly today are oriented towards active ageing. At present, active ageing is expected to have a positive impact on the ageing society regardless of the health or limited independence of the elderly (Kubicki, 2012). Research conducted by Nimrod and Rotem (2012) and Alen et al. (2017), shows that being an engaged and active elderly fosters improved well-being, which is consistent with the theory of active ageing. This is because one of the key roles of leisure is to develop an ability to cope with changes in one’s life and the potentially adverse aftermath of ageing. Several studies on the leisure activities of elderly have determined that increased

160

J. Zielińska-Szczepkowska

Fig. 2 Factors of successful aging (after Zsarnoczky, 2016)

participation in leisure activities increases life expectancy, improves health and improves QOL in older age (Earl et al., 2015; Nimrod & Rotem, 2012; Uysal et al., 2016; Zhang & Zhang, 2018). Van der Meer (2008) found that people engage in leisure activities to participate in social life, which exerts a positive impact on their well-being. Recently, much attention has been devoted to studying tourism as a means to enhance the QOL (Neal et al., 2007). According to Nimrod and Rotem (2012), travelling can challenge older people to plan ahead, solve unexpected problems and successfully confront new situations. Travel experiences among elderly contribute to changes in their self-perception as well as change how they are perceived by others. Thus, travelling boosts elderly’ sense of independence and freedom and proves to be an excellent means of improving self-esteem (Alen et al., 2017).

Conclusions By means of an overview, this chapter examined the available literature concerned with travel behavior of elderly tourism and QOL. In particular, attempts have been made to define an elderly person as a consumer of tourism services before discussing the motivations, preferences, needs and limitations of elderly tourists, the types of tourism activities they undertake, and their impact on QOL. It would follow from the review that in order to characterize old age and define its limits, one should not only rely on quantitative categories but also acknowledge the qualitative aspects. Hence, the perception of the contemporary elderly should go beyond their registered age to approach them more broadly, i.e. as a wider generation of people who are already

Travel Behavior of the Elderly and Quality-of-Life

conventionally referred to as “old” but who are still active in many spheres of everyday life. Being heterogeneous, the elderly market is so extensive and diverse that it may include people aged from 50 to 100. Such a large age bracket naturally entails tremendous diversity among older people in terms of health, general state, mental well-being, socio-economic, social, family and ethnic circumstances. Thus, the attitudes and expectations of elderly travellers are highly varied and require constant monitoring—whether by researchers or tourism service providers—in order to best meet the needs of this demanding segment. The review of pertinent studies suggests that there is a correlation between the motivations of elderly tourists, their leisure satisfaction and overall life satisfaction. Physical recreation and tourism represent specific instances of activity which, in the case of elderly, proves an effective and constructive way to spend leisure time, as well as a factor promoting well-being and mental health. It is worth adding that WHO, Member States and Partners for Sustainable Development Goals developed the Global Strategy and Action Plan for Ageing and Health for 2016–2020, which found its continuation in the WHO programme The Decade of Healthy Ageing 2020–2030. The aforementioned strategy lists the determining factors involved in active ageing, which include: health and social care, behavioral factors, individual factors, external environment, as well as social and economic factors (Rudnicka et al., 2020). It may be readily anticipated that the demand for tourism among the elderly will continue to grow since it is regarded as an important aspect of elderly’ lives and has also been demonstrated to improve mental and physical well-being, while travel experiences lead to greater life satisfaction. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to major changes in leisure activities, both locally and globally, exerting a severe impact on the tourism market (Berbekova et al., 2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on elderly travel is a particularly interesting issue for future research. During the pandemic, tourism

161

and travel were kept to a minimum. Domestic tourism is expected to be the first to recover from the shutdown, leading to major changes in travel flows. High-density cities that depend on festival and event tourism are at a disadvantage, whereas centres in rural areas have an advantage here. The results of mentioned study by Zielińska-Szczepkowska (2021) show that elderly are very keen on travelling to small towns and rural areas. Interesting questions in the context of further development of the elderly tourism market that researchers and the tourism sector may find worthwhile to consider include: (1) which destinations and tourist attractions will benefit from the COVID-19 crisis with respect to elderly tourism development; (2) how will the demand for urban and rural tourism change in the recovery phase; and (3) how important is health safety when organizing tourist travel for elderly? It is also important for researchers, policy makers and the tourism industry to answer the following questions: what do we have to offer people of elderly age, what do elderlies themselves expect, how can we fulfill their wishes, how can we stimulate their activities, how can we encourage activity and how can we use this activity in the tourism business. The problem of aging is global, and in large countries like China, elderly (over 60) will number several hundred million in 10 years. It is worth noting that Chinese tourism is growing rapidly and Chinese tourists are increasingly important for many European markets. This is another research topic worth considering. The problem of preparing tourist products for elderly is also worth studying in future research areas. The tourism industry should change the perception of elderly. These are not just single people with modest incomes, content with an average level of service. These are increasingly people with extensive travel experience, familiar with the world, spending more money on travel than younger and working people. Elderly have leisure time, knowledge and are willing to travel with loved ones. Together with family, friends, elderly constitute a small tourism group, and the tourism industry should be prepared for such

162

multi-generational groups. Relatively few studies have looked at leisure-related mobility in later life, especially in terms of successful aging. These areas will require an answer in the near future.

References Alejziak, W. (2012). Determinanty i zróżnicowanie społeczne aktywności turystycznej (Studia i Monografie 56). AWF. Alén, E., Dominguéz, T., & Losada, N. (2012). New opportunities for the tourism market: Senior tourism and accessible tourism. In M. Kasimoglu (Ed.), Visions for global tourism industry—Creating and sustaining competitive strategies. Intech. Alen, E., Losada, N., & De Carlos, P. (2017). Understanding tourist behavior of senior citizens: Lifecycle theory, continuity theory and a generation approach. Ageing and Society, 37(7), 1338–1361. Bai, B., Jang, S., Cai, L., & O’Leary, J. (2001). Determinants of travel mode choice of senior travelers to the United States. Journal of Hospitably and Leisure Marketing, 8(3), 147–168. Bąk, I., & Szczecińska, B. (2016). The use of multicriteria taxonomy in the study of objective quality of life in Polish voivodeships. Folia Oecnomica Stetinensia, 16(1), 7–20. Balderas-Cejudo, A., Rivera-Hernaez, O., & Patterson, I. (2016). The strategic impact of country of origin on senior tourism demand: The need to balance global and local strategies. Journal of Population Ageing, 9, 345–373. Batra, A. (2009). Senior pleasure tourists: Examination of their demography, travel experience, and travel behavior upon visiting the Bangkok metropolis. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 10, 197–212. Berbekova, A., Uysal, M., & Assaf, A. F. (2021). A thematic analysis of crisis management in tourism: A theoretical perspective. Tourism Management, 86. Brown, J., Blowling, A., & Flynn, T. N. (2004). Models of quality of life: A taxonomy and systematic review of the literature review. Report Commissioned by the European Forum on Population Ageing Research/ Quality of Life. Buehler, R., & Nobis, C. (2010). Travel behavior in aging societies comparison of Germany and the United States. Transportation research record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2182, 62–70. Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I., & Wright, J. (2004). Shopping for a better world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21, 401–417. Chen, C., & Wu, C. (2008). How motivations, constraints, and demographic factors predict seniors’ overseas

J. Zielińska-Szczepkowska travel propensity. Asia Pacific Management Review, 14(3), 301–312. Chen, C., & Wu, C. C. (2009). How motivations, constraints, and demographic factors predict seniors’ overseas travel propensity. Asia Pacific Management Review, 14, 301–312. Chen, S. C., & Shoemaker, S. (2014). Age and cohort effects: The American senior tourism market. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 58–75. Cleaver, M., Muller, T. E., Ruys, H. F. M., & Wei, S. (1999). Tourism product development for the senior market, based on travel-motive research. Tourism Recreation Research, 24, 5–11. Collins, D., & Tisdell, C. (2002). Age-related lifecycles: Purpose variations. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 801–818. Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 408–424. Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4, 184–194. Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8, 187–219. Earl, J. K., Gerrans, P., & Halim, V. A. (2015). Active and adjusted: Investigating the contribution of leisure, health and psychosocial factors to retirement adjustment, leisure sciences. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 37(4), 354–372. Edginton, C. R., Jordan, D. J., DeGraaf, D. G., & Edginton, S. R. (2002). Leisure and life satisfaction: Foundational perspectives (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Faranda, W. T., & Schmidt, S. L. (2000). Segmentation and the senior traveler: Implications for today’s and tomorrow’s aging consume. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 8(2), 3–27. Fernandez-Ballesteros, R. (2011). Quality of life in old age : Problematic issue. Applied Research in Quality of life, 6, 21–40. Filipe, S., Barbosa, B., & Santos, C. A. (2021). Travel motivations and constraints of Portuguese Retirees. Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 32(4), 591–603. Fleischer, A., & Pizam, A. (2002). Tourism constraints among Israeli Seniors. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 106–123. Głąbiński, Z. (2014). Wybrane aspekty aktywności turystycznej seniorów w świetle badań jakościowych metodą zogniskowanych wywiadów grupowych. In B. Walas & J. Sobczuk (Eds.), Ewolucja podaży i popytu w turystyce (pp. 69–94). Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Turystyki i Ekologii. Głąbiński, Z. (2015). The application of social survey methods in analysing the tourist activity. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 27, 51–65. Głąbiński, Z. (2016). Analysing the tourism activity of seniors by applying the method of participant observation. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 33, 55–70. Głąbiński, Z. (2018). Uwarunkowania aktywności turystycznej seniorów przyjeżdżających do

Travel Behavior of the Elderly and Quality-of-Life Innsbrucka, Krakowa i Szczecina. Turystyka Kulturowa, 4, 46–62. González, A. M., Rodríguez, C., Miranda, M. R., & Cervantes, M. (2009). Cognitive age as a criterion explaining senior tourists’ motivations. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(2), 148–164. Górna, J. (2015). Preferencje i aktywność turystyczna Polaków w wieku 50+. Prace Naukowe Akademii i im. Jana Długosza w Częstochowie, 15(1), 153–166. Grabowski, J. (2011). Europe Senior Tourism. Turystyka społeczna czy turystyka grupy społecznej? In A. Stasiak (Ed.), Perspektywy i kierunki rozwoju turystyki społecznej w Polsce. Wydawnictwo WSTH w Łodzi. Graja-Zwolińska, S., & Spychała, A. (2012). Aktywność turystyczna wielkopolskich seniorów. In A. Rapacz (Ed.), Wyzwania współczesnej polityki turystycznej. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 259, 54–63. Gronek, U. (2019). Zasoby i sposoby wykorzystania czasu wolnego przez osoby w wieku 60 plus. Studia i Prace WNEiZ US. Nauki o zarządzaniu i jakości, 56, 53–63. Grzelak-Kostulska, E., Hołowiecka, B., & Kwiatkowski, G. (2011). Problemy aktywności turystycznej seniorów. In A. Stasiak (Ed.), Perspektywy i kierunki rozwoju turystyki społecznej w Polsce. Wydawnictwo WSTH w Łodzi. Grześkowiak, A., Przybysz, K., Peternek, P., & Stanimir, A. (2021). Turystyka pokolenia 65+ w określaniu jakości życia seniorów. In Pokolenie 65+. Perspektywa społeczno-ekonomiczna. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu. Horneman, L., Carter, R. W., Wei, S., & Ruys, H. (2002). Profiling the senior traveler: An Australian perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 23–37. https:// www.imserso.es/imserso_01/envejecimiento_activo/ vacaciones/index.htm. Accessed on 18 Feb 2022 Huang, L., & Tsai, H.-T. (2003). Study of senior traveler behavior in Taiwan. Tourism Management, 24, 561–574. Huh, C. (2006). A study of changes in patterns of travel behavior over time: A cohort analysis approach. PhD Michigan State University. Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9, 256–262. Jang, S. S., & Ham, S. (2009). A double-hurdle analysis of travel expenditure: Baby boomer seniors versus older seniors. Tourism Management, 30, 372–380. Jang, S. S., & Wu, C. (2006). Senior travel motivation and the influential factors: An ex-amination of Taiwanese seniors. Tourism Management, 27, 306–316. Kelley-Gillespie, N. (2009). An integrated conceptual model of quality of life for older adults based on a synthesis of the literature. Applied Research in Quality of life, 4(3), 259–282.

163 Kim, H., Sirgy, M. J., Uysal, M., & Kim, S. (2021). Enhancing the quality of life of senior tourists: a theoretical perspective. Anatolia, 32(4), 537–552. Kim, H., Woo, E., & Uysal, M. (2015). Tourism experience and quality of life among elderly tourists. Tourism Management, 46, 465–476. Kim, J., Wei, S., & Ruys, H. (2003). Segmenting the market of West Australian senior tourists using an artificial neutral network. Tourism Management, 24, 25–34. Klenosky, D. B. (2002). The ‘pull’ of tourism destinations: A means-end investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 385–395. Kociszewski, P. (2012). Produkty turystyki kulturowej dla seniorów—ewolucja i rewolucja (?). In B. Włodarczyk & B. Krakowiak (Eds.), Kultura i Turystyka wspólne korzenie (pp. 293–308). Regionalna Organizacja Turystyczna woj. łódzkiego. Kociszewski, P. (2020). Seniorzy jako istotny segment rynku usług turystycznych—założenia teoretyczne. In Skalska, T. (Ed.), Kociszewski, P., Koskowski, M., Segmentacja rynku turystycznego: wybrane aspekty. Akademia Finansów i Biznesu Vistula, Szkoła Główna Turystyki i Hotelarstwa Vistula. Kowalczyk-Anioł, J. (2013). Różnice pokoleniowe w turystyce polskich seniorów—baby boomers versus pokolenie przedwojenne. In R. Pawlusiński (Ed.), Współczesne uwarunkowania i problemy rozwoju turystyki. Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Kubicki, P. (2012). Uczestnictwo ludzi starych w życiu środowiska lokalnego. In P. Błędowski, B. SzaturJaworska, Z. Szweda-Lewandowska, & P. Kubicki (Eds.), Raport na temat sytuacji osób starszych w Polsce. Instytut Pracy i Spraw Socjalnych. Kurowska, A. (2011). Wskaźniki społeczne w polityce społecznej. Historia, teoria i zastosowanie w praktyce. Difin. Laslett, P. (1989). A fresh map of life: The emergence of the third age. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Lassen, A. J., & Moreira, T. (2014). Unmaking old age: Political and cognitive formats of active ageing. Journal of Aging Studies, 30, 33–46. Lawson, R. (2004). Patterns of tourist expenditure and types of vacation across the family life cycle. In A. Pizam & Y. Mansfield (Eds.), Consumer behavior in travel and tourism (pp. 431–447). Haworth. Lee, S. H., & Tideswell, C. (2005). Understanding attitudes towards leisure travel and the constraints faced by senior Koreans. Journal of Vacations Marketing, 11(3), 249–263. Lee, T. H. (2009). A structural model to examine how destination image, attitude and motivation affect the future behavior of tourist. Leisure Sciences, 31, 215–236. Le Serre, D. (2008, January 17–19). Who is the senior consumer? Paper presented at the international congress “marketing trends” Venice, Veneza, Italy. Le Serre, D., Legoherel, P., & Weber, K. (2013). Seniors’ motivations and perceived risks: A cross-cultural

164 study. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 25, 61–79. Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. Meiners, N. H., & Seeberger, B. (2010). Marketing to senior citizens: Challenges and opportunities. The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, 35(3), 293–328. Miler-Zawodniak, A. (2012). Teorie potrzeb jako współczesne teorie motywacje. Obronność—Zeszyty Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania i Dowodzenia Akademii Obrony Narodowej, 4, 101–116. Moschis, G. P., & Ünal, B. (2008). Travel and leisure services preferences and patronage motives of older consumers. Journal Travel Tourism Marketing, 24, 259–269. Muller, T. E., & O’Cass, A. (2001). Targeting the young at heart: Seeing senior vacationers the way they see themselves. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7, 285–301. Neal, J. D., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers’ quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 154–163. Nielsen, K. (2014). Approaches to seniors’ tourist behavior. Tourism Review, 69(2), 111–121. Nikitina, O., & Vorontsova, G. (2015). Aging population and tourism: Socially determined model of consumer behavior in the “senior tourism” segment. Procedia— Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 845–851. Nimrod, G., & Rotem, A. (2010). Between relaxation and excitement: Activities and benefits gained in retirees’ tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12, 65–78. Nimrod, G., & Rotem, A. (2012). An exploration of the innovation theory of successful ageing among older tourists. Ageing and Society, 32(3), 379–404. Norman, W. C., Daniels, M. J., McGuire, F., & Norman, C. A. (2001). Whiter the mature market: An empirical examination of the travel motivations of neo-mature and veteran-mature markets. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 8, 113–130. Nyaupane, G. P., & Andereck, K. L. (2008). Understanding travel constraints: Application and extension of a leisure constraints model. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 433–439. OECD, Elderly Population (Demography). (2020). Available from https://doi.org/10.1787/8d805ea1-en. Accessed 19 Jan 2022. Otoo, F., & Kim, S. (2020). Analysis of studies on the travel motivations of senior tourists from 1980 to 2017: progress and future directions. Current Issues in Tourism, 23, 393–417. Otoo, F., Kim, S., & Choi, Y. (2020). Understanding senior tourists’ preferences and characteristics based on their overseas travel motivation clusters. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(2), 246–257.

J. Zielińska-Szczepkowska Panasiuk, A. (2014). Dimensions of offers on the tourist market. Rozprawy Naukowe Akademii Wychowania Fizycznego we Wrocławiu, 46, 119–128. Patterson, I. (2006). Growing older. Tourism and leisure behavior of older adults. CABI. Patterson, I. (2018). Tourism and leisure needs of older travellers. Tourism and leisure behavior in an ageing world. CABI. Patuelli, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2016). Travel motivations of seniors: A review and a meta-analytic. Tourism Economics, 22, 847–862. Pendergast, D. (2010). Getting to know the Y generation. In P. Benckendorff, G. Moscardo, & D. Pendergast (Eds.), Tourism and generation Y (pp. 85–97). CAB. Pestana, M. H., Parreira, A., & Moutinho, L. (2020). Motivations, emotions and satisfaction: The keys to a tourism destination choice. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 16, 1–9. Pezeshki, F., Ardekania, S. S., Khodadadib, M., Almodarresia, S. M. A., & Hosseinic, F. S. (2019). Cognitive structures of Iranian senior tourists towards domestic tourism destinations: A means-end chain approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 39, 9–19. Prayag, G. (2012). Senior travelers’ motivation and future behavioral intentions: Case of nice. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29, 665–681. Romsa, G., & Blenman, M. (1989). Vacation patterns of the elderly German. Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 178–188. Rudnicka, E., Napierała, P., Podfigurna, A., Męczekalski, B., Smolarczyk, R., & Grymowicz, M. (2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) approach to healthy ageing. Maturitas, 139, 6–11. Ruys, H., & Wei, S. (2001). Senior tourism. In N. Douglas, N. Douglas, & R. Derrett (Eds.), Special interest tourism. Wiley. Sangpikul, A. (2008). Travel motivations of Japanese senior travellers to Thailand. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10, 81–94. Silvers, C. (1997). Smashing old stereotypes of 50-plus America. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 303–309. Sirgy, M. J., Kruger, P. S., Lee, D., & Yu, G. (2011). How does a travel trip affect tourists’ life satisfaction? Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 261–275. Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, D. (2006). Macro measures of consumer well-being: A critical analysis and research agenda. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(1), 27–44. Sirgy, M. J., Widgery, R., Lee, D., & Yu, G. (2010). Developing a measure of community well-being based on perceptions of impact in various life domains. Social Indicators Research, 96(2), 295–231. Śniadek, J. (2006). Age of seniors—A challenge for tourism and leisure industry. Studies of Physical Culture and Tourism, 13, 103–106.

Travel Behavior of the Elderly and Quality-of-Life Śniadek, J. (2007). Konsumpcja turystyczna polskich seniorów na tle globalnych tendencji w turystyce. Gerontologia Polska, 15(1–2), 21–30. Śniadek, J., & Zajadacz, A. (2010). Senior citizens and their leisure activity: understanding leisure behavior of elderly people in Poland. Studies in Physical Culture and Tourism, 17(2), 193–204. Spyrka-Chlipała, R. (2014). Uwarunkowania i struktura potrzeb życiowych seniorów. Roczniki Teologiczne, LXI, 1, 235–247. Steuden, S. (2012). Psychologia starzenia się i starości. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Szatur-Jaworska, B., Błędowski, P., & Dzięgielewska, M. (2006). Podstawy gerontologii społecznej. Oficyna Wydawnicza ASPRA-JR. Teaff, J., & Turpin, T. (1996). Travel and the elderly. Parks and Recreation, 31(6), 16–19. Tiago, M. T. P. M. B., Couto, J. P. D. A., Tiago, F. G. B., & Faria, S. M. C. D. (2014). Grey tourism patterns: Evidences in Europe tourism & ageing. Conference abstract book (p. 7). Estoril Congress Centre. Tongren, H. N. (1980). Travel plans of the over 65 market pre-and post-retirement. Journal of Travel Research, 19, 7–11. Uysal, M., Berbekova, A., & Kim, H. (2020). Designing for quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 83(2020). Uysal, M., & Hagan, L. A. (1993). Motivations of pleasure travel and tourism. In M. Kahn, M. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds.), Encyclopedia of hospitality and tourism (pp. 798–810). Van Nostrand Reinhod. Uysal, M., & Jurowski, C. (1994). Testing the push and pull factors. Annals of Tourism Research, 21, 844–846. Uysal, M., Li, X., & Sirakaya-Turk, E. (2008). Push-pull dynamics in travel decisions. In Handbook of hospitality marketing management (pp. 412–439). Heinemann. Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., Woo, E., & Kim, H. L. (2016). Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tourism Management, 53, 244–261. Van der Meer, M. J. (2008). The sociospatial diversity in the leisure activities of older people in the Netherlands. Journal of Aging Studies, 22(1), 1–12. Wang, K.-C., Chen, J. S., & Chou, S.-H. (2007). Senior tourists’ purchasing decisions in group package tour. Anatolia, 18, 23–42. Wang, Y. (2005). An exploratory study of travel constructs in mature tourism. PhD South Carolina University. Widiyastuti, D., & Ermawati, H. (2019). Travel motivation factors of elderly in Yogyakarta City: Push and pull factors. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 256, 1–9. Wong, K. M., & Musa, G. (2014). Retirement motivation among ‘Malaysia My Second Home’ participants. Tourism Management, 40, 141–154.

165 Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2016). A measure of quality of life in elderly tourists. Applied Research Quali-ty Life, 11, 65–82. Wrzesień, W. (2007). Czy pokoleniowość nam się nie przydarzy? Kilka uwag o współczesnej polskiej młodzieży. Nauka, 3, 131–151. Wu, C. E. (2003). An exploratory study of Taiwanese seniors’ travel motivations and travel behavior. Ph.D. thesis. Kansas State University. You, X., & O’Leary, J. T. (1999). Destination behavior of older UK travellers. Tourism Recreation Research, 24, 23–24. Zambianchi, M. (2017). Positive aging, positive psychology and tourism. A challenging new area of investigation? Almatourism—Journal of Tourism, Culture and Territorial Development, 8(15), 1–15. Zhang, L., & Zhang, J. (2018). Impacts of leisure and tourism on the elderly’s quality of life in intimacy: A comparative study in Japan. Sustainability, 10(12), 4861. Zielińska-Szczepkowska, J. (2021). What are the needs of senior tourists? Evidence from remote regions of Europe. Economies, 9(4), 1–22. Zimmer, Z., Brayley, R. E., & Searle, M. S. (1995). Whether to go and where to go: identification of important influences on senior and decisions to travel. Journal of Travel Research, 33, 3–10. Zsarnoczky, M. (2016). The new hope for the EU—Silver economy. In Conference paper, conference: RSA conference—Building bridges: Cities and regions in a transnational world at Graz.

Joanna Zielińska-Szczepkowska, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Department of Economic Policy. She earned her master’s degree in economics from the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, and her Ph.D. degree in economics from the University of Gdansk in 2015. Her current research interests are broad and include EU regional policy, tourism economy, cross-border tourism, tourism specialization, senior tourist behavior and rural tourism development. She is author and co-author of many books and journal articles in these areas. She is involved in several tourism research projects and has obtained university and governmental research grants. She is a specialist of institutions implementing EU funds in Poland, and also an expert of the European Commission in the field of cultural heritage. Email: [email protected]

Gender-Based Differences in Medical Tourists’ Destination Preferences and Their Perception of Quality of Life Derya Sivuk

Introduction Tourism is considered as one of the world’s largest and fastest-rising and most competitive industries in the twentieth century (Dabaghi et al., 2021). People participate in tourism activities for many different purposes. Since ancient times, people have been traveling to improve their health. Among the health tourism types, medical tourism has emerged as one of the most important topics worldwide. It is a phenomenon and industry which is rapidly expanding and undergoing dynamic change (Henson et al., 2015). While wealthy patients from developing countries, went to medical centers in Europe and USA for medical treatment starting from the eighteenth century, this trend reversed in the late twentieth century. With the globalization of communication and transportation technologies, less wealthy people from developed countries have started to travel to developing countries for medical treatment in the twenty-first century (Fetscherin & Stephano, 2016). Medical tourism means that participants go overseas chiefly to obtain high-quality medical treatments provided with affordability, and accessibility (Lee & Kim, 2015). Medical tourism is a concept that combines health care with the pleasure of D. Sivuk (✉) Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ankara Hac{ Bayram Veli University, Ankara, Turkey e-mail: [email protected]

traveling. Traveling patients aim to improve their health or get rid of their illness completely (Dabaghi et al., 2021). The WHO (1998) defines quality of life as “individuals’ perceptions of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and about their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns”. It is a broad-ranging concept incorporating in a complex way the person’s physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, personal beliefs, and their relationships to salient features of the environment. Economic growth and social changes greatly improve people’s living standards. According to needs-based approaches, quality of life includes the satisfaction of individuals’ desires (Noll, 2002). The fulfillment of medical services can enhance tourists’ perceived wellbeing and promote future behavioral intentions (Saiprasert et al., 2021). Medical tourism is growing rapidly in the world and it is important to investigate factors that may affect medical tourist preferences by researchers. Literature on medical tourist’s experiences (e.g. Crooks et al., 2010), preferences (e.g. Arora & McHorney, 2000; Say et al., 2006; Sibi & Abraham, 2017), and motivations (Adams et al., 2015; Cameron et al., 2014; Henson et al., 2015) is very rich. However, there have been limited studies that have focused on medical tourists’ preferences and their effects on their overall quality of life. Thus, this chapter

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_12

167

168

addresses the medical tourism literature to better understand medical tourists’ decision-making concerning gender. Therefore, the objectives of this chapter are as follows: (1) to explain medical tourism; (2) to examine the factors driving medical tourism destination preference; (3) to explore the economic impacts of medical tourism; (4) to put forth gender differences in medical tourism preferences; and (5) to examine impacts of medical tourism on medical tourist’s quality-of-life. First, the chapter provides an overview of the extant literature relating to medical tourism preferences. The study gives recommendations to medical tourists. In addition, this study will be useful for stakeholders interested in medical tourism (for instance, insurance companies, travel agencies, hotel businesses, food and beverage businesses, and hospitals) to determine the preferences of tourists.

Medical Tourism Medical tourism, by reforming the traditional health care industry (Gill & Singh, 2011) has rapidly exploded in the tourism industry and its awareness has increased (Dabaghi et al., 2021). It describes the private purchase and arrangement of medical care by patients across international borders (Johnston et al., 2012). It has been defined in different ways by different researchers. Connell (2006) defined medical tourism as “a niche that has emerged from the rapid growth of what has become an industry, where people travel often long distances to overseas countries to obtain medical, dental and surgical care while simultaneously being holidaymakers, in a more conventional sense”. Medical tourism defined by Lee and Spisto (2007) as a “travel activity that involves a medical procedure or activities that promote the wellbeing of the tourist”. Bookman and Bookman (2007) defined it as travel to improve one’s health, medical tourism is an economic activity that entails trade in services and represents the splicing of at least two sectors: medicine and tourism. Another definition for medical travel by ESCAP (2009) is “the

D. Sivuk

international phenomenon of individuals traveling, often great distances, to access healthcare services that are otherwise not available due to high costs, long waiting lists or limited healthcare capacity in the country of origin, has been increasing in the Asian Pacific region”. Based on the above definitions, it is possible to define medical tourism as “the travel of individuals to another country to receive medical treatment or service from their permanent residence”. Medical tourism packages include transportation, accommodations for the medical tourist and travel companion, local ground travel, coordination of medical itinerary, post-surgical care, travel site seeing, and entertainment (Sandberg, 2017). Moreover, the tourist areas allow the patient to enjoy a remedial holiday due to the calmness of the low season and the quality of the tourist facilities (Martinez et al., 2008). It is known that the treatments available in overseas countries are cosmetic surgery (breast, face, liposuction), dentistry (cosmetic, reconstruction), cardiology/cardiac surgery (bypass, valve replacement), orthopedic surgery (hip and knee replacement, resurfacing, joint surgery), bariatric surgery (gastric bypass, gastric banding), IVF/reproductive system (IVF, gender reassignment), organ and tissue transplantation (organ transplantation; stem cell), neurosurgery, cancer treatment, eye surgery, diagnostics, stem cell therapies, dental implant and checkups and others (Bies & Zacharia, 2007; Gill & Singh, 2011; Lee & Spisto, 2007; Lunt & Carrera, 2010). Countries around the world are competing for medical tourists and offering special packages to prioritize medical tourism in their tourism marketing efforts (Sandberg, 2017). It has grown in several countries such as Thailand, India, Malaysia, and Singapore and people from other countries have started to travel to these countries. These are known as well-established medical tourism destinations that attract large numbers of foreign patients and generate significant income from the services provided (Connell, 2006; Horowitz & Rosensweig, 2008). For example, Thailand is known as the most popular destination for cosmetic surgeries, Singapore is best

Gender-Based Differences in Medical Tourists’ Destination Preferences. . .

known for complex surgical procedures, India is best known for its specialization in cardiac surgeries, and Malaysia has been gaining popularity in modern healthcare infrastructure and the presence of highly skilled medical professionals (Aljumah et al., 2020). Guru et al. (2022) found that India offers value for money, whereas Singapore and Thailand are preferred destinations for quality and technology. In addition, medical tourism is developing day by day in European and Latin American destinations. Countries have started to cooperate with medical tourism companies and intermediary institutions (Connell, 2013). Investing in health infrastructure by the government and private sector, having international accreditation and patient flow, saving medical costs, having political stability and tourism infrastructure, being successful in health services, following medical technology, and Singapore of internationally trained and experienced medical resources highlights these destinations (Sandberg, 2017).

The Factors Driving Medical Tourism Destination Preference Medical tourism, where patients travel overseas for operations, has grown rapidly in the past decade, especially for cosmetic surgery (Connell, 2013). Only highly motivated individuals will travel long distances for medical treatment (Marlowe & Sullivan, 2007). Destination preference is defined as the extent to which the tourist favors a certain type of destination in comparison to other destinations (Obaid, 2014). In the literature, there are many different reasons for people from different host countries to choose a medical tourism destination. See Table 1. So, what are the factors that motivate patients to travel abroad for medical treatment? From this assessment, we can conclude that some important factors (e.g. high costs, long waiting lists, quality, availability and accessibility, medical restrictions. . .etc.) cause an increase in demand. Based on this evaluation, important medical tourism drivers are explained below.

169

Cost Cost and affordability have often been discussed as potential motivations for patients to participate in medical tourism (Crooks et al., 2010). The preference for cross-border health services by the patient to access the service at a more affordable cost compared to the price in his own country is explained as the economic dimension of medical tourism, and the costs in developed countries have the tendency to increase the demand for medical tourism (Aniza et al., 2009). Researchers (Abd Mutalib et al., 2016; Bies & Zacharia, 2007; Connell, 2006; Crooks et al., 2010; Dabaghi et al., 2021; Fetscherin & Stephano, 2016; Henson et al., 2015; Johnston et al., 2012; Kaboor & Somashekar, 2018; Kumar et al., 2012; Lee & Kim, 2015; Martinez et al., 2008; Menvielle et al., 2011; Moghimehfar & Nasr-Esfahani, 2011; Moon & Rigg, 2020; Oesterle et al., 2013; Ratnasari et al., 2021; Sarwar et al., 2012; Smith & Forgione, 2007; Zolfagharian et al., 2018) show that cost is an important factor in medical tourism destination preferences. The study by Sarwar et al. (2012) confirms the existence of a very strong relationship between medical tourists’ perceptions of destination selection and cost. While modern equipped hospitals serve patients from poor neighboring countries in some parts of the world, they also provide low-cost medical tourism services to patients from highly developed countries (Horowitz & Rosensweig, 2008). Long Waiting Lists Although cost is main the determinant of decision-making to travel abroad, having to wait for long periods to get treatment in developed countries is making this transition happen quickly (Gill & Singh, 2011). Studies (Abd Mutalib et al., 2016; Bies & Zacharia, 2007; Connell, 2006; Dabaghi et al., 2021; Henson et al., 2015; Martinez et al., 2008; Menvielle et al., 2011) have shown that another reason for medical tourists to choose destinations is long waiting lists. According to the research conducted by Mc Kinsey and Company; 15% of patients prefer to receive treatment abroad in a shorter time compared to the waiting times in their own country (McKinsey Report, Ehrbeck et al., 2008).

170

D. Sivuk

Table 1 The factors driving medical tourism destination preference Author/date Smith and Forgione (2007)

Crooks et al. (2010)

Glinos et al. (2010) Gill and Singh (2011) Moghimehfar and NasrEsfahani (2011) Wongkit and McKercher (2013)

Oesterle et al. (2013) Hanefeld et al. (2015) Lee and Kim (2015) Henson et al. (2015) Fetscherin and Stephano (2016)

Kaboor and Somashekar (2018) Zolfagharian et al. (2018) Zarei et al. (2020) Moon and Rigg (2020) Medhekar and Wong (2020) Çapar and Aslan (2020) Ratnasari et al. (2021)

Factors driving medical tourism decision – Specific characteristics: economic conditions, political climate, and regulatory policies – Health-care facilities: costs, hospital accreditation, quality of care, and physician training – Push factors (cost, wait times) and pull factors (quality, language, religion, the political climate of countries or regions, and opportunity to take a vacation) – Motivations (e.g., procedure-, cost-, and travel-based factors motivating patients to seek care abroad) – Risks (e.g., health and travel risks) – First-hand accounts (e.g., patients’ experiential accounts of having gone abroad for medical care) – Availability, affordability, familiarity and perceived quality – Competent doctors, high-quality medical treatment facilities, and prompt medical care when needed are the three most important decision-making factors – Cost, distance, lack of expertise, tourist attractions, legal and moral restrictions, and religious ethical issues – Quality, reputation, availability, confidentiality, international accreditation, supplementary services, recommendations and comments from other patients, long waiting periods, favorable previous experiences with a medical service provider, language barrier, insurance coverage – Cost, access and quality, culture, social factors, and institutional environment factors – Distance, costs, expertise, and accessibility of treatment – Distance, cost, language, economy, competency of medical technology, and culture – Medical costs, patient privacy concerns, medical restrictions, foreign destination desirability, tourist attractions, and service quality assurance – Country environment (e.g. stable exchange rate, low corruption, cultural similarity, overall positive country image, language similarity, safe to travel to the country, stable economy) – Tourism destination (e.g. popular tourist destination, exotic tourist destination, weather conditions, attractiveness of the country as a tourist destination, any cultural and natural attractions) – Medical tourism costs (e.g. low cost of treatment, lower healthcare costs, low cost of accommodation, low costs to travel, affordability of airfares) – Facility and services (doctor’s training, doctor’s expertise, high healthcare quality indicators) – The quality of treatment, location of the resort, authentic medicines, price, facilities, and ambiance, and personal service – Domestic medical costs, patient privacy concerns, medical restrictions, foreign destination desirability, tourist attractions, and service quality assurance – Religion, quality and standards of medical services, marketing, advertising channels, etc. – Cost, service quality, facilities, etc. – Information search, surgery waiting time, hospital employees, hospital precision, and quality accreditation – Accessibility of health care service, level of security and safety, quality of health care service, level of hygiene, the potential of savings-low cost, and tourism opportunities – Trust, communication interactions, excellent service, affordable medical costs, modern medical technology, holistic service, increased patient expectations, short distances, and an interesting tourism object

Quality Studies (Dabaghi et al., 2021; Gill & Singh, 2011; Henson et al., 2015) have revealed that quality is another important factor in medical

tourists’ destination selection. Medical tourism enables patients to receive medical services quickly and conveniently through travel, at

Gender-Based Differences in Medical Tourists’ Destination Preferences. . .

lower prices and, oftentimes, at better quality than they could in their native countries (Yu & Ko, 2012). According to the results of the research conducted by McKinsey & Company on 49,980 patients; 32% of those who travel for medical purposes prefer to go to more developed countries than their own countries to receive better quality treatment (McKinsey Report, Ehrbeck et al., 2008). Some destinations advertise themselves as “Health Cities” or “Biomedical Cities”. For instance, Singapore has been promoted as a center for biomedical and biotechnological applications since 2001. At the same time, Dubai Health Care City (DHCC) has been a planned health city established to prevent patients from leaving the Middle East for medical tourism and has come to the fore with quality rather than cost (Lunt et al., 2011). Quality services can lead to customer satisfaction, satisfied customers can be retained, and only retained customers can become loyal to the service providers (Kaboor & Somashekar, 2018). In this context, medical institutions that provide quality service today appear to be an important factor in terms of meeting the expectations and satisfaction of tourists and increasing their loyalty to the institution and the country. Availability and Accessibility Researchers (Dabaghi et al., 2021; Gill & Singh, 2011; Henson et al., 2015) found that availability and accessibility are also important drivers for medical tourism. Johnston et al. (2012) found that while Canadian medical tourists are often thought to be motivated by wait times for surgery, cost and availability of procedures were common primary and secondary motivations for participants, demonstrating that motivations are layered and dynamic. Medical Restrictions Medical restrictions in the home country tend to sway patients toward medical tourism (Zolfagharian et al., 2018). The fact that some transactions are prohibited due to the legislation limiting the medical service in the country of origin expresses the legal dimension of medical tourism. Taking into consideration the fact that abortion and organ transplantation

171

practices are prohibited in some countries, this service can only be obtained in the destination country as an example. In addition to these factors, medical patients’ desire to combine vacation with treatment opportunities (Heung et al., 2010; Medhekar & Wong, 2020), the country’s accredited health organizations (Rollyson, 2010), and health insurance problems in the country of residence lead medical tourists to receive treatment in a different destination. Moreover, reasons such as health tourists wanting to visit those health tourism destinations, which are also famous in terms of tourism in the world, or not being able to find treatment opportunities in their own countries, motivate them to receive health tourism services in another country. It is important for tourists to feel comfortable while receiving treatment, trust healthcare providers, and speak the same language. While receiving health care in another country, the health care provider must respond to the cultural expectations and show respect to certain religious practices (Glinos et al., 2010).

Economic Impacts of Medical Tourism The differentiation of expectations and needs, difficult living conditions, increased stress, and workload is important factors that affect human health. People have traveled for different reasons since the earliest times of history. People wishing to get away from the negativities of their environment and relax, tend to travel and evaluate alternative types of tourism. In this context, health tourism has positive effects in terms of improving the health of individuals and providing them with the opportunity to gain health and wellness. Medical tourism is an emerging industry that has been booming in current years and it has changed into a more globalized industry with the public coming to regard it as a new type of tourism (Dabaghi et al., 2021). Many countries in the world show significant economic development potential in medical tourism (Lunt & Carrera, 2010), and therefore interest in medical tourism is increasing (Sag & Zengul, 2019). The

172

development and growth of this tourism sector emphasize many contemporary themes as a rapidly growing industry that is primarily developed for its economic potential. Medical tourism, which is seen as the driving force of economic growth, has positive effects on the country’s economy. Among these, medical tourism revenues improve the balance of payments of a country, increase employment opportunities in the health sector and related sectors, create income, improve access and quality of local health services in developing countries, create foreign exchange supply, increase gross national product, improving infrastructure and superstructure and eliminate interregional economic imbalances (Aref, 2011; Beladi et al., 2019; Heung et al., 2010; Khizindar, 2012; Kozak et al., 2017). Tourism has long been viewed as a tool for economic development (Khizindar, 2012). Medical tourism provides investment and tax gain with the foreign currency that medical tourism brings to the country (Bookman & Bookman, 2007). For this reason, national government agencies promote medical tourism in their own countries. Countries including Thailand, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Hungary, Poland, and Malta take advantage of their medical tourism advantages by participating in international fairs and doing promotional activities. Countries see these activities as part of their official economic development and tourism policy (Lunt et al., 2011). Enabling the tourism sector, strategic planning, public-private partnerships, marketing and brand strategies, technology and innovation, accreditation, governance, and human capital development are competitive elements in Singapore’s success. Singapore’s differentiation strategy, Thailand’s best-cost provider strategy, India’s diversification strategy, and cost leadership have driven their advanced medical tourism system (Ebrahim & Ganguli, 2019). The medical tourism industry is developing all over the world, but there is an inconsistency between the revenues and the number of tourists. According to the 2018 statistics created by the UNWTO with the records of 150 countries, 1.4 billion people traveled around the world as

D. Sivuk

tourists (https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10. 18111/9789284421152). In the study published by the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and the European Travel Commission (ETC) in 2018, the medical tourism market is between $ 45.5 billion and $ 72 billion (Patients Beyond Borders), according to another source (https:// www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/ 9789284420308) 100 reported as billions of dollars. The medical tourism market is expected to generate $28 billion in revenue by the end of 2024 and grow by 8.8% between 2018 and 2024 (Medical Tourism Statistics and Facts/HealthTourism.com. https://www.health-tourism.com/ medical-tourism/statistics/).

Gender Differences in Medical Tourism Preferences Tourist behavior is a concept used to describe the decision-making process of tourists when consuming the products offered by a touristic destination. This process includes the same stages compared to the process of consumer behavior, which starts with product selection, decisionmaking, and finally consuming the selected product (Rohman, 2020). The process of destination decision-making is one of the most important topics in the research of consumer behavior in tourism (Deri et al., 2017). In the context of socio-political change patient involvement in decision making has become an important issue for health professionals and an understanding of and responsiveness to individual patient’s preferences is important in improving the quality of care provided (Say et al., 2006). Hanefeld et al. (2015) found that the decision of where a medical tourist seeks treatment can be broken down into a four steps process the decision to seek treatment privately, the decision to travel abroad, the choice of the destination country, and the choice of provider with networks cutting across this decision (see Fig. 1). Tourist decision-making processes and satisfaction from the preferred service are mediated by various individual characteristics such as demographic (e.g. age, gender), psychological

Gender-Based Differences in Medical Tourists’ Destination Preferences. . .

173

Fig. 1 Medical tourist decision-making process

(e.g. related to self-concept and self-image), and socio-cultural factors (Genç, 2012c). Gender has been one of the most common forms of segmentation used by marketers in general and advertisers in particular. In general, although men and women differ in their information processes and decision-making, this difference is widely accepted in most societies (Kim et al., 2007). The relationship between gender and medical tourism destination preference has been examined and mixed results were generated from these studies. Some studies (Adzam et al., 2016; Han et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2014; Meng & Uysal, 2008; Say et al., 2006; Vieregge et al., 2007) found that gender is an important factor in consumer behavior. While yet other studies (Lupton, 1997; Mohsin & Ryan, 2004; Obaid, 2014) find no significant gender differences in decision making. Lin et al. (2014) reported that among demographic variables, gender is the main indicator of consumer behavior. Han et al. (2018) studied the promotion of health tourism products for domestic tourists. Regarding gender, there was a significant difference in health tourism preference

but no significant difference concerning participation. Another study done by Adzam et al. (2016) examined the gender differences in tourism destination choices in Malaysia. The study found that gender differences had some influence on tourist preferences and the justifiability of destination decisions. This finding strengthens the theory by Bem and Spence that gender is significantly linked to different consumer variables such as leisure activities and preferences including tourism destination choices. Musa et al. (2012) investigated travel behavior among inbound medical tourists in Kuala Lumpur. Study findings showed that most of the respondents were female and their main travel motivation factors were ‘value for money’, ‘excellent medical services’, ‘supporting services’, ‘cultural similarity’, and ‘religious factor’ in descending order of importance Vieregge et al. (2007) examined preferences and attributes of the tourists in Thailand. The study finds significant differences in hotel and destination preferences based on gender, profession, nationality and age. Say et al. (2006) found that patients’ preferences are influenced by

174

demographic variables; women are quite consistently found to prefer a more active role in decision making. Meng and Uysal (2008) found that significant gender differences exist in the perceived importance of destination attributes and travel values when potential nature tourists consider destination choices. After controlling for demographic and travel behavior variables, such as age, marital status, education, household income, preference of price quote, and length of stay, most gender differences remain significant. Ryan et al. (1998) reported that one of the reasons men and women may want different things from a tourism experience is that they are ‘getting away from’ different things in the home environment. The fact that men and women are different is commonly acknowledged in most societies (Kim et al., 2007). On the other hand, Thompson et al. (1993) studied preferences for involvement in medical decision-making and found that there were no gender differences in preferences. Mohsin and Ryan (2004) examined the associations between socio-demographic variables and destination choice and found no significant relationship. Another study done by Lupton (1997) found that factors such as social class and age or generation group appear to continue to shape the ways that laypeople approach the medical encounter, while other factors such as gender and ethnicity seem not to be as influential. Finally, Obaid (2014) found that tourists’ demographics (gender, age, marital status, and education) have no significant influence on their perceptions of both destination loyalty and preference. As seen from the literature review on the topic, there are mixed findings about medical tourism destination choice and gender. Generally, males and females are more likely to differ in information processes and decision-making (Adzam et al., 2016). Jaapar et al. (2017) found that female tourists placed higher importance on dental care information access compared to male tourists. Arora and McHorney (2000) found that women were more likely to be active, which is consistent with their being more active in seeking care and asking questions during visits. Collins and Tisdell (2002) found that gender is a major

D. Sivuk

influence on travel demand. It was found that men tended to travel more often than women for business and work-related travel, but women traveled more often for leisure purposes, including travel to visit friends and relatives. Meng and Uysal (2008) determined that men were most motivated by physical activities and having fun, whereas women were most motivated by having a relaxing and restful time.

Impacts of Medical Tourism on Medical Tourist’s Quality-of-Life Quality of life is the level of well-being and happiness felt by the individual or the community as a whole (Mamirkulova et al., 2020). Quality of life (QOL) is a very popular topic, frequently used in daily conversation but is indeed highly complex. Because life satisfaction is thought to be on top of an attitude hierarchy, it is influenced by satisfaction with life domains such as satisfaction with community, family, work, social life, health, and so on (Sirgy & Cornwell, 2002) Although quality of life is a complex, multidimensional, and subjective concept and it means different things to different people, the search for quality of life is an ambiguous human drive that motivates much tourism activity, particularly the one associated with outdoor leisure, rejuvenation, relaxation, and inspiration and also with and in this way, preventing health problems to stay well in balance both physically and mentally (Quintela et al., 2016). Moreover, subjective well-being or individual quality of life is the determinant of customer loyalty (Rohman, 2020). In the era of consumer satisfaction and wellbeing, the concept of quality of life (QOL) has the potential to be central in the tourism industry. Although QOL is conceptualized on different grounds, it has infiltrated into the tourism context with an emphasis on “customer-focus” and “the guests’ well-being and subjective experience” (Genç, 2012a). A medical traveler/tourist (MT) is a person who travels overseas alone or with a companion, seeking diagnostic, non-surgical, and surgical procedures for improving health, quality of life, and positive healthcare

Gender-Based Differences in Medical Tourists’ Destination Preferences. . .

outcomes with tourism opportunities (Medhekar & Wong, 2020). The motivations for patients’ travel for treatment are different. For example, in recent years, there has been an increase in self-confident young tourists (both women and men) who want to improve their health, wellbeing, strength, vitality, and beauty (Lubowiecki-Vikuk, 2016). Quality of life indicators has been explained by different researchers. Bonsjak et al. (2011) explained the model explaining the post-visit destination loyalty decisions. In this model, seven criteria were created to improve the quality of life of tourists: self-adaptation, functional harmony, hedonic harmony, leisure harmony, economic harmony, safety compliance, and moral harmony. According to Kim (2002) quality of life has been categorized into five domains; material well-being, community well-being, emotional wellbeing, and health and safety well-being. The primary aim of medical tourists is to enhance their physical life qualities (Genç, 2012b). Cummins (1996) identified seven major QOL domains: material well-being, health, productivity, intimacy, safety, community, and emotional wellbeing. Sirgy et al. (2011) measured life domains using 13 life domains relevant to tourists’ wellbeing as social life, leisure and recreation, family life, love life, arts and culture, work-life, health and safety, financial life, spiritual life, intellectual life, self, culinary life, and travel life. Smith and Puczkó (2009) state that: “Travel can contribute to all aspects of health if we consider the physical and mental benefits of rest and relaxation, the social aspects of mixing with other tourists and local people, and the intellectual stimulation that can come from learning about new places” (in cited Puczkó & Smith, 2012). Throughout their lifetimes, people play a variety of roles in their families and in society, so their lives evolve through different areas or domains (Lončarić et al., 2015). In accordance with the above, it can be concluded that health care institutions that improve patients’ health, help in their rehabilitation, or provide preventative health care, together with companies that offer leisure and relaxation, have a positive effect on the quality of life and life

175

satisfaction of patients. In this respect, specialty hospitals for medical rehabilitation contribute significantly to the quality of life of their patients and guests (Lončarić et al., 2015). Tourist’s quality of life and travel experiences were investigated by researchers (Dolnicar et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2015; Lee & Tideswell, 2005; Lončarić et al., 2015; McCabe & Johnson 2013; Neal et al., 2004, 2007; Sirgy et al., 2011). Neal et al. (1999, 2004) revealed that travel/ tourism trip experiences have an impact on the overall life satisfaction of leisure travelers. Another study done by Dolnicar et al. (2012) found that vacations contribute to the QOL of the majority of people and that QOL means different things to different people at different points in their life, representing an individual and dynamic concept. McCabe and Johnson (2013) found that tourism contributes to social tourists’ well-being. There are greater effects in some areas including psychological resources, leisure, and family life domains contributing to social well-being. Social tourists have lower levels of SWB than the general population. Kim et al. (2015) found that leisure life satisfaction and satisfaction with travel experience are significant predictors of quality of life. In addition, leisure life satisfaction and satisfaction with travel experience did significantly affect revisit intention. Lončarić et al. (2015) studied establishing how patients perceive the influence of the services of a specialty hospital for medical rehabilitation on their physical quality of life and life satisfaction. Results of the research showed that staying in a specialty hospital for medical rehabilitation significantly improves the physical quality of life of patients which is reflected in life satisfaction and customer satisfaction. Tavitiyaman and Saiprasert (2020) studied the well-being perception of senior tourists (only 42% have overseas medical experiences) from countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, China, the United States, Malaysia, and Thailand. The findings of the study showed that senior residents have a more positive perception of well-being (e.g. response to needs and social wellbeing) in overseas medical destinations compared with Hong Kong.

176

D. Sivuk

Neal et al. (2007) developed a model describing the impact of tourism services on travelers’ quality of life (QOL). The satisfaction experienced with life events within the leisure domain “spills over” upward vertically to the most superordinate domain (life in general), thus influencing life satisfaction. The spillover model suggests that satisfaction in one domain of an individual’s life extends into other areas (Schalock & Begab, 1990). This theory posits that satisfaction with a consumption experience is affected housed in concrete psychological domains. This effect varies from the most concrete domains to the most abstract—the most abstract being satisfied with life overall (overall sense of well-being). This spillover of effect between the most concrete to the most abstract is mediated by effects housed in various life domains (e.g., family life, leisure life, work-life, financial life, health life, love life, and so on). That is, affect related to a consumption experience (e.g., satisfaction with a specific tourist trip) contributes to affect in the various life domains, which in turn, influences satisfaction with life at large (Sirgy et al., 2011). Aside from contributing to economic and physical well-being, it is suggested that medical travel enhances the psychological QOL of the tourists. On the other hand, medical tourism can negatively affect the tourist’s quality of life. Anxiety caused by receiving medical treatment in a foreign country can negatively affect the healing process, a serious complication that occurs during the treatment process may cause demoralization, failure to provide accurate and clear information about the patient may cause a delay in the intervention, non-compliance with hygiene conditions may lead to complications and cause wrong practices (Genç, 2012b).

defined medical tourism as a “term used to refer to a travel activity that involves a medical procedure or to activities that promote the wellbeing of tourists”. Medical tourists can travel abroad for both medical treatment and well-being activities. In the tourism literature, as seen above, there are many studies examining the relationships between tourist/resident preferences and quality of life. This study mainly focused on medical tourists’ preferences and their effects on the overall quality of life concerning gender. Sociodemographic variables not only reflect holiday behavior but also play a role in customer complaint behavior and service quality perceptions (In cited Mohsin & Ryan, 2004). Gender has been accepted as a functional factor in tourism, especially for market segmentation (Adzam et al., 2016). With the rapidly changing business environment and customer demands, medical travel for health purposes is booming. In this context, it is considered important that medical service providers transform and implement new business models to meet the demand of foreign patients (Dang et al., 2020). By understanding consumer behavior during the decision-making process and the travel itself, company managers can create effective marketing strategies. It is also important to determine the main factors that affect their destination choice (Deri et al., 2017). In the medical tourism industry, a limited number of studies have focused on medical tourists’ preferences and their perceptions of their overall quality of life. Therefore, this chapter deals with this issue from a gender perspective. This chapter is expected to provide key players of the medical tourism industry with useful information in strategic planning.

Conclusion

References

Traveling to improve one’s health has become a common practice in recent years. Although health is the most valuable asset of someone, it is not limited to a physical dimension (Aydin & Karamehmet, 2017). It also includes spiritual and mental dimensions. Lee and Spisto (2007)

Abd Mutalib, N. S., Ming, L. C., Yee, S. M., Wong, P. L., & Soh, Y. C. (2016). Medical tourism: ethics, risks, and benefits. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, 50(2), 261–270. Adams, K., Snyder, J., Crooks, V., & Johnston, R. (2015). Tourism discourse and medical tourists’ motivations to travel. Tourism Review, 70(2), 85–96.

Gender-Based Differences in Medical Tourists’ Destination Preferences. . . Adzam, A., Aziz, H., Syazwani, F., & Kelvin, Y. (2016, November 16–17). Gender differences in tourism destination choice in Malaysia. In 3rd Kanita postgraduate International conference on gender studies, University Sains, Malaysia. Aljumah, A., Nuseir, M. T., & Islam, A. (2020). Impacts of service quality, satisfaction and trust on the loyalty of foreign patients in Malaysian medical tourism. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(2), 451–467. Aref, F. (2011). The effects of tourism on quality of life: A case study of Shiraz, Iran. Life Science Journal, 8(2), 26–30. Arora, N. K., & McHorney, C. A. (2000). Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Medical Care, 38, 335–341. Aniza, I., Aidalina, M., Nirmalini, R., Inggit, M. C. H., & Ajeng, T. E. (2009). Health tourism in Malays{a: The strength and weaknesses. Journal of Community Health, 15(1), 7–15. Aydin, G., & Karamehmet, B. (2017). Factors affecting health tourism and international health-care facility choice. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 11(1), 16–36. Beladi, H., Chao, C. C., Ee, M. S., & Hollas, D. (2019). Does medical tourism promote economic growth? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 58(1), 121–135. Bies, W., & Zacharia, L. (2007). Medical tourism: Outsourcing surgery. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7-8), 1144–1159. Bonsjak, M., Sirgy, M. J., Hellriegel, S., & Maurer, O. (2011). Postvisit destination loyalty judgments: Developing and testing a comprehensive congruity model. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5), 496–508. Bookman, M. Z., & Bookman, K. R. (2007). Medical tourism in developing countries (pp. 1–229). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 0-230-60006-9. Cameron, K., Crooks, V. A., Chouinard, V., Snyder, J., Johnston, R., & Casey, V. (2014). Motivation, justification, normalization: Talk strategies used by Canadian medical tourists regarding their choices to go abroad for hip and knee surgeries. Social Science & Medicine, 106, 93–100. Çapar, H., & Aslan, Ö. (2020). Factors affecting destination choice in medical tourism. International Journal of Travel Medicine and Global Health, 8(2), 80–88. Collins, D., & Tisdell, C. (2002). Gender and differences in travel life cycles. Journal of Travel Research, 41(2), 133–143. Connell, J. (2006). Medical tourism: Sea, sun, sand and. . . surgery. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1093–1100. Connell, J. (2013). Contemporary medical tourism: Conceptualisation, culture and commodification. Tourism Management, 34(2013), 1–13. Crooks, V. A., Kingsbury, P., Snyder, J., & Johnston, R. (2010). What is known about the patient’s experience of medical tourism? A scoping review. BMC Health Services Research, 10(1), 1–12.

177

Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domain of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos. Social Indicator Research, 38, 303–328. Dabaghi, H., Tabataba’i-Nasab, S. M., & Ardakani, S. S. (2021). Customer experience management in medical tourism (case study: Iranian hospital’s medical tourists). Journal of Islamic Marketing, 13(1), 198–226. Dang, H. S., Nguyen, T. M. T., Wang, C. N., Day, J. D., & Dang, T. M. H. (2020). Grey system theory in the study of medical tourism industry and its economic impact. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), 961. Deri, L., Bozic, S., & Saslic, S. (2017). Analysis of gender differences in destination decision-making: The case study of Zakynthos Island. Megatrend Revija, 14(1), 47–62. Dolnicar, S., Yanamandram, V., & Cliff, K. (2012). The contribution of vacations to quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 59–83. Ebrahim, A. H., & Ganguli, S. (2019). A comparative analysis of medical tourism competitiveness of India, Thailand and Singapore. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 67(2), 102–115. Ehrbeck, T., Guevara, C., & Mango, P. D. (2008). Mapping the market for medical travel. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1–11. ESCAP. (2009). Medical travel in Asia and the Pacific. Challenges and opportunities. United Nations and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Fetscherin, M., & Stephano, R. M. (2016). The medical tourism index: Scale development and validation. Tourism Management, 52, 539–556. Genç, R. (2012a). Chapter 9. Subjective aspects of tourists’ quality-of-life (QOL). In Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 149–167). Springer. Genç, R. (2012b). Chapter 11. Physical, psychological, and social aspects of QOL medical tourism. In Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 193–207). Springer. Genç, R. (2012c). Tourist consumption behavior and quality-of-life. In Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 135–148). Springer. Gill, H., & Singh, N. (2011). Exploring the factors that affect the choice of destination for medical tourism. Journal of Service Science and Management, 4, 315–324. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2011.43037. Published Online September 2011. http://www. SciRP.org/journal/jssm Glinos, I. A., Baeten, R., Helble, M., & Maarse, H. (2010). A typology of cross-border patient mobility. Health & Place, 16(6), 1145–1155. Guru, S., Sinha, A., & Kautish, P. (2022). Determinants of medical tourism: Application offuzzy analytical hierarchical process. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 17. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-082021-1173

178 Han, J. S., Lee, T. J., & Ryu, K. (2018). The promotion of health tourism products for domestic tourists. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(2), 137–146. Hanefeld, J., Lunt, N., Smith, R., & Horsfall, D. (2015). Why do medical tourists travel to where they do? The role of networks in determining medical travel. Social Science & Medicine, 124, 356–363. Henson, J. N., Guy, B. S., & Dotson, M. J. (2015). Should I stay or should I go?: Motivators, decision factors, and information sources influencing those predisposed to medical tourism. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 8(1), 4–14. Heung, V. C., Kucukusta, D., & Song, H. (2010). A conceptual model of medical tourism: Implications for future research. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(3), 236–251. Horowitz, M. D., & Rosensweig, J. A. (2008). Medical tourism vs. traditional international medical travel: A tale of two models. IMTJ—International Medical Travel Journal, 3, 3–30. Jaapar, M., Musa, G., Moghavvemi, S., & Saub, R. (2017). Dental tourism: Examining tourist profiles, motivation and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 61, 538–552. Johnston, R., Crooks, V. A., & Snyder, J. (2012). “I didn’t even know what I was looking for”: A qualitative study of the decision-making processes of Canadian medical tourists. Globalization and Health, 8(1), 1–12. Kaboor, A., & Somashekar, C. (2018, January). Customer perception towards health tourism in Karnataka. IJEMR, 8(1), 2249–8672. Khizindar, T. M. (2012). Effects of tourism on residents’ quality of life in Saudi Arabia: An empirical study. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21(6), 617–637. Kim, K. (2002). The effects of tourism impacts upon quality of life of residents in the community. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. Kim, D. Y., Lehto, X. Y., & Morrison, A. M. (2007). Gender differences in online travel information search: Implications for marketing communications on the internet. Tourism Management, 28(2), 423–433. Kim, H., Woo, E., & Uysal, M. (2015). Tourism experience and quality of life among elderly tourists. Tourism Management, 46, 465–476. Kozak, N., Kozak, M.A., Kozak, M. (2017). Genel Turizm İlkeler-Kavramlar, Ankara, Detay Yay{nc{l{k, 19. Bask{. Kumar, S., Breuing, R., & Chahal, R. (2012). Globalization of health care delivery in the United States through medical tourism. Journal of Health Communication, 17(2), 177–198. Lee, C., & Spisto, M. (2007, April). Medical tourism, the future of health services. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on ISO (Vol. 9000, pp. 1–7). Lee, J., & Kim, H. B. (2015). Success factors of health tourism: cases of Asian tourism cities. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 1(3), 216–233.

D. Sivuk Lee, S. H., & Tideswell, C. (2005). Understanding attitudes towards leisure travel and the constraints faced by senior Koreans. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(3), 249–263. Lin, J. H., Lee, S. J., Yeh, C., Lee, W. H., & Wong, J. Y. (2014). Identifying gender differences in destination decision making. Journal of Tourism & Recreation, 1(1), 1–11. Lončarić, D., Lončarić, D., & Markovic, S. (2015, April). Health tourism, customer satisfaction and quality of life: The role of specialty hospitals. In 3rd international scientific conference tourism in Southern and Eastern Europe. Lubowiecki-Vikuk, A. (2016). Participation in medical tourism versus physical activity of patients after liposuction: what are the concerns about health and quality of life? Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research, 69(1), 29–42. Lunt, N., & Carrera, P. (2010). Medical tourism: assessing the evidence on treatment abroad. Maturitas, 66(1), 27–32. Lunt, N., Smith, R., Exworthy, M., Green, S. T., Horsfall, D., & Mannion, R. (2011). Medical tourism: Treatments, markets and health system implications: A scoping review. OECD, Directorate for Employment Labour and Social Affairs. https://www.oecd.org/els/ health-systems/48723982.pdf (20.03.2018). Lupton, D. (1997). Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter. Social Science & Medicine, 45(3), 373–381. Mamirkulova, G., Mi, J., Abbas, J., Mahmood, S., Mubeen, R., & Ziapour, A. (2020). New Silk Road infrastructure opportunities in developing tourism environment for residents better quality of life. Global Ecology and Conservation, 24, e01194. Marlowe, J., & Sullivan, P. (2007). Medical tourism: the ultimate outsourcing. Human Resource Planning, 30(2), 8–10. Martinez, D., Ferriol, P., Tous, X., Cabrer, M., & Prats, M. (2008). Virtual health platform for medical tourism purposes. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 137, 269. McCabe, S., & Johnson, S. (2013). The happiness factor in tourism: Subjective well-being and social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 42–65. Medhekar, A., & Wong, H. Y. (2020). Medical travellers’ perspective on factors affecting medical tourism to India. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(12), 1295–1310. Medical Tourism Statistics and Facts | Health-Tourism. com. https://www.health-tourism.com/medical-tour ism/statistics/. Erişim Tarihi: 07.02.2020. Meng, F., & Uysal, M. (2008). Effects of gender differences on perceptions of destination attributes, motivations, and travel values: An examination of a nature-based resort destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(4), 445–466. Menvielle, L., Menvielle, W., & Tournois, N. (2011). Medical tourism: A decision model in a service

Gender-Based Differences in Medical Tourists’ Destination Preferences. . . context. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 59(1), 47–61. Moghimehfar, F., & Nasr-Esfahani, M. H. (2011). Decisive factors in medical tourism destination choice: A case study of Isfahan, Iran and fertility treatments. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1431–1434. Mohsin, A., & Ryan, C. (2004). Determinants of destination choice: The role of socio-demographic variables. Tourism Recreation Research, 29(3), 27–33. Moon, J., & Rigg, J. S. (2020). Analyzing medical tourism pull factors: A Korean American perspective of the homeland. Consortium Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 22(1). Musa, G., Thirumoorthi, T., & Doshi, D. (2012). Travel behaviour among inbound medical tourists in Kuala Lumpur. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(6), 525–543. Neal, J. D., Sirgy, M. J., & Uysal, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure travel/tourism services and experience in satisfaction with leisure life and overall life. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 153–163. Neal, J. D., Sirgy, M. J., & Uysal, M. (2004). Measuring the effect of tourism services on travelers’ quality of life: Further validation. Social Indicators Research, 69(3), 243–277. Neal, J. D., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers’ quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 154–163. Noll, H. (2002). Social indicators and quality of life research: background, achievements and current trends. In G. Genov (Ed.), Advances in sociological knowledge over half a century (pp. 151–181). ISSC. Obaid, M. A. (2014). Destination loyalty and preference to Oman: Examining the influences of tourists’ demographics. Journal of Association of Arab Universities for Tourism and Hospitality, 11(3), 140–152. Oesterle, A., Johnson, T., & Delgado, J. (2013). A unifying framework of the demand for transnational medical travel. International Journal of Health Services, 43(3), 415–436. Puczkó, L., & Smith, M. (2012). An analysis of tourism QOL domains from the demand side. In Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 263–277). Springer. Quintela, J., Costa, C., & Correia, A. G. (2016). Health, wellness and medical tourism: A conceptual approach. Enlightening Tourism: A Pathmaking Journal, 6, 1–18. Ratnasari, R. T., Gunawan, S., Pitchay, A. A., & Mohd Salleh, M. C. (2021). Sustainable medical tourism: Investigating health-care travel in Indonesia and Malaysia. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 1–10. Rohman, F. (2020). Determining adventure tourist loyalty: Mediating role of tourist satisfaction and quality of life. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(10), 255–265. Rollyson, S. (2010). The globalization of health care: A study of medical tourism (1st ed., pp. 1–37).

179

Ryan, M., Henley, N., & Soutar, G. (1998). Gender differences in tourism destination: Implications for tourism marketers. Sag, I., & Zengul, F. D. (2019). Why medical tourists choose Turkey as a medical tourism destination? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights. https://doi. org/10.1108/JHTI-05-2018-0031 Saiprasert, W., Xu, B., & Tavitiyaman, P. (2021). The relationships among perceived medical quality, wellbeing perception, and behavioral intention: A comparison between domestic and overseas medical destinations. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 1–26. Sandberg, D. S. (2017). Medical tourism: An emerging global healthcare industry. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 10(4), 281–288. Sarwar, A. A., Manaf, N. A., & Omar, A. (2012). Medical tourist’s perception in selecting their destination: A global perspective. Iranian J Publ Health, 41(8), 1–7. Say, R., Murtagh, M., & Thomson, R. (2006). Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient Education and Counseling, 60(2), 102–114. Schalock, R. L., & Begab, M. J. (1990). Quality of life: perspectives and issues. American Association on Mental Retardation. 241 pages. Sibi, P. S., & Abraham, S. (2017). Wellness tourism-an analysis of tourist preferences and perceptions in Puducherry. JOHAR, 12(2), 61. Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2002). How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 59, 79–114. Sirgy, M. J., Kruger, P. S., Lee, D. J., & Yu, G. B. (2011). How does a travel trip affect tourists’ life satisfaction? Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 261–275. Smith, P. C., & Forgione, D. A. (2007). Global outsourcing of healthcare: a medical tourism decision model. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 9(3), 19–30. Smith, M. K., & Puczkó, L. (2009). Health and wellness tourism. Butterworth Heinemann. Tavitiyaman, P., & Saiprasert, W. (2020). Medical quality and well-being perception of senior tourists. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management, 15(2), 30–38. Thompson, S. C., Pitts, J. S., & Schwankovsky, L. (1993). Preferences for involvement in medical decisionmaking: situational and demographic influences. Patient Education and Counseling, 22(3), 133–140. Vieregge, M., Phetkaew, P., Beldona, S., Lumsden, S. A., & DeMicco, F. J. (2007). Mature travelers to Thailand: A study of preferences and attributes. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13(2), 165–179. Wongkit, M., & McKercher, B. (2013). Toward a typology of medical tourists: A case study of Thailand. Tourism Management, 38, 4–12. World Health Organization (WHO). (1998). Programme on mental health: WHOQOL user manual (No. WHO/HIS/HSI Rev. 2012.03). World Health Organization.

180 Yu, J. Y., & Ko, T. G. (2012). A cross-cultural study of perceptions of medical tourism among Chinese, Japanese and Korean tourists in Korea. Tourism Management, 33(1), 80–88. Zarei, A., Feiz, D., Maleki Minbashrazgah, M., & Maleki, F. (2020). Factors influencing selection of medical tourism destinations: A special niche market. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 13(sup1), 192–198. Zolfagharian, M., Rajamma, R. K., Naderi, I., & Torkzadeh, S. (2018). Determinants of medical tourism destination selection process. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(7), 775–794.

D. Sivuk Derya Sivuk, Ph.D, is a professor in the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ankara Haci Bayram Veli University. She graduated in 2002 from Gazi University. She received her PhD degree from Gazi University. She has extensive experience in human resource management, health care, and tourism management with respect to gender. She teaches courses on human research management, health tourism, and gender. She has published numerous articles on the national and international journals. Email: [email protected]

Risks and Benefits of Medical Tourism in Terms of Quality of Life: Physical, Economic, Psychological and Social Aspects Ruhet Genç

Introduction Improved health is one major outcome of the tourists’ activities. People choose tourism-related activities to spend their leisure time with joy and fun, to relax, to escape from daily hassles and works, etc. (Page, 2009): Holidays need to perform a positive function in the post-modern society linked to reinvigoration of mind, body and soul, enjoyment, entertainment together with a wide range of needs associated with the imagery of holiday-taking. (p. 149)

It is suggested that tourism non-deliberately improves the health and psychological wellbeing of the individual. As the constitution of the World Health Organization states (2005; McNamee & Parry, 1990) “health is a complete state of mental, physical and social well-being” (p. 91—italics mine). Quality of life/well being and health are reciprocally related terms as in order to have physical health one should also have psychological well-being and vice versa. Within the last decades, tourists deliberately prefer touristic activities that would improve their health. High costs, long waiting lists and, legal prohibitions on medical procedures, operations and surgeries lead many patients to search for alternative health care services abroad. Patients prefer to undergo medical treatments (e.g., R. Genç (✉) Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, Turkish German University, Istanbul, Turkey

fertility treatment), procedures such as prosthesis operations, surgeries (e.g., orthopedic and cardiac, cosmetic and bariatric, eye, arthroplasty, tissue and organ transplantation), denture care and denture prosthesis, diagnostics and checkups (De la Hoz-Correa et al. 2018) in other countries, such as Israel, Turkey, Hungary, China, India, etc. Today, the global medical tourism market growing at an estimated rate of 15–20%, with inbound patient flows highest in Mexico, Southeast, and South Asia. According to Patients Beyond Borders, the medical tourism market size was $74–92 billion in 2019. Approximately 21–26 million people around the world, traveled abroad for health care and spent an average of $3550 per visit on medical-related costs, crossborder and local transport, inpatient stay and accommodations. In the context of medical tourism, the main motivation of the medical tourist is to enhance physical well-being: This is especially unique as tourism literature emphasizes motivations mostly of different types, such as leisure, escaping from everyday hassles and works (Torkildsen, 1999). Medical tourists and their caregivers may not pay attention to touristic facilities of the medical tourism destination; they may focus on the treatment related facilities that would enhance the physical well-being and QOL of the patient. The physical outcomes of medical tourism activities can be easily observable from the health parameters of the patient. From this perspective, QOL of the

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_13

181

182

tourists is the main motivation and main expected outcome for medical tourism activities. This chapter emphasizes both advantages and disadvantages of medical tourism in shaping QOL of tourists, discussing the place of medical tourism within the context of tourism and QOL literature.

Conceptualization of Medical Tourism Definition of Medical Tourism Health tourism was defined as touristic activities in which tourists’ main motivation is utilizing health services by going to leisure settings (Goeldner, 1989). Examples of health tourism are even evident in the history of Ancient Greek: It was suggested that, in order to get medical treatment and to be involved in the healing process people traveled to Epidaurus where it was believed that Asclepius—the healing god of Greeks—resides (Bookman, 2007). For generations, people have always traveled to other countries for spas or sanitariums to improve their health. However, traveling abroad for medical procedures and treatment has not been prevalent until the 1980s (Horowitz et al., 2007). In the 1980s, medical travel became popular and preferable, people started to travel to medical centers, hospitals in other countries for getting medical

R. Genç

care and even treatment. This form of health tourism is called medical tourism (see Fig. 1), The health tourism does not only consist of medical tourism; but also includes illness prevention tourism, to which wellness and specific illness prevention tourism belong. The distinguishing feature of medical tourism in the health tourism categories is that the primary aim of medical tourism is to access medical interventions for ongoing physiological problems. The intervention is time specific, it is given when the person is needed, and hence medical tourism provides an improvement in the illness phase. By contrast, illness prevention tourism serves the purpose of improvement in general psychological and physiological wellbeing and aims to intervene in the pre-illness period. It should be also noted that medical tourism is viewed as an outsourcing activity in which patients utilize medical treatment in health facilities abroad (York, 2008). It is supposed that medical tourism is a rapidly developing “new form of niche tourism” (Connell, 2006; p. 1094). It can be a good idea to focus on different parts of medical tourism to have a better understanding of the concept. In the first place, this type of tourism is mainly influenced by the type of disease/illness. Different countries serve different treatment opportunities depending on service

Fig. 1 Medical tourism. Source: adapted from Mueller and Kaufmann (2001; p. 4)

Risks and Benefits of Medical Tourism in Terms of Quality of Life: Physical. . .

specialization areas. Another main important factor is the economic characteristics of the treatment services as well as the service’s quality. Therefore, guidance of the tourists/patients before and during the medical tourism activity is crucial in order to maintain appropriate intervention (York, 2008). When a destination is determined, medical center in the tourism destination should be contacted. Physicians in the country of origin should send the medical records or any other information necessary for advanced treatments/ operations to physicians and patient care teams in the destination site. Appropriate travel arrangements be handled; for example, some patients need special arrangements for airplanes.

183

local settings (Turner, 2007). In many countries, the costs of plastic surgeries, dental care and hair transplants are not paid for by the social security system anymore. Even for insured citizens, health insurance companies usually do not pay for some medical procedures, such as cosmetic dental surgery in countries such as UK or Australia. Social security companies encourage tourists about going abroad for surgeries. Thus, for an individual without health insurance (or even for lots of individuals with health insurance) the cost of the medical procedure would be lower depending on the country that individual goes for treatment.

Increased Waiting List for Medical Procedures

Motivations of Medical Tourists Literature suggests that there are several motivations of tourists to prefer medical tourism: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Increased bureaucratic work Issues with health insurance Increased waiting list for medical procedures Low cost and increased quality of medical services in medical tourism destination 5. Information technologies and enhanced communication with medical centers/physicians in other countries

Increased Bureaucratic Work Compared to popular destinations of medical tourism, there is much more bureaucratic work for recording and reporting the medical information of the patient in the country of origin (Turner, 2007). Receiving treatment in another country is expected to decrease the bureaucratic work of the patient.

Issues with Health Insurance It should be kept in mind that many people are not insured. Insured people might also have to pay high amounts of money for health care in their

The time from diagnosis to treatment has great importance in the process of decision-making for medical travel. Statistics from different countries provide good examples of long waiting times to gain access to treatment. Canadians need to wait for 9.4 weeks for medical services after taking an appointment from a specialist (i.e., physician, surgeon) (Esmail & Walker, 2005). It takes 25.3 weeks for orthopedic surgery, 20.9 weeks for plastic surgery, 7.1 weeks for gynecologic examination, 2.6 for medical oncology specialists, and 1.0 week for urgent cardiovascular surgery (Esmail &Walker, 2005). Hence, in England and Canada, patients must wait for a couple of months for surgery (except for life-saving ones). By traveling to another country for treatment waiting time for intervention is expected to decrease, correspondingly, improvement in health conditions is foreseen.

Low Cost and Increased Quality of Treatment and Medical Care in Medical Tourism Destinations The low cost of treatment and medical procedures in medical tourism destinations is a significant source of tourists’ motivation for medical tourism (Turner, 2007). This issue is held in detail within the context of economic QOL of medical tourists.

184

Another significant concern for medical tourists is the internationally accredited quality of healthcare facilities and providers (Burns, 2015; Finch, 2014; Lunt et al., 2016). In past, since the low cost of treatment implies a low quality of medical services, many patients were not willing to involve in medical tourism activities. As a result of the awareness of the potential of medical tourism for sustainable tourism, hospitals and physicians in the medical tourism destinations have tried to improve their quality of treatment, surgeries, medical practice, and medical care.

Information Technologies and Enhanced Communication with Medical Centers/Physicians in Other Countries Via the internet, tourists can learn about accredited centers in other parts of the world (Turner, 2007). They can contact physicians or surgery teams in these hospitals or centers and can arrange their appointments via the internet; even options of pre-payment are available.

Legal and Medical Standardization of Medical Tourism Health care activities in many medical tourism destinations are standardized by gaining accreditation from international health organizations (Turner, 2007). Hospitals/health care centers in the medical tourism destinations try to create a high standard for their medical service quality without increasing the cost of medical care to gain a competitive advantage over their Western counterparts. For some medical centers or hospitals in medical tourism destinations, the main difference between their medical care/service and Western medical care/service is the wage provided to physicians. Medical tourism destinations have the advantage of the low wage for physicians, nurses and other health care service providers over Western hospitals and medical centers.

R. Genç

There are several international organizations for the accreditation of health care facilities on an international basis (http://www.health-tour ism.com/medical-tourism/industry-certifications/ ). International Society for Quality in Health Care (ISQua) and The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) are some examples of international accreditation organizations. There are also regional and country-based organizations that provide international accreditation to health care facilities abroad. Joint Commission International (JCI) and Community Health Accreditation Program (CHAP) are well-known organizations in the USA. JCI provides accreditation for health care centers abroad which are particularly in service of medical tourism. In Europe, European Society for Quality in Healthcare (ESQH) is a similar organization. In Canada, Accreditation Canada, formerly called as Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation (CCHSA), in UK Trent Accreditation Scheme (TAS), in Australia The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) are other such institutions. The number of hospitals that have JCI accreditation is 32 in Turkey. India and Singapore have 13 hospitals that have the JCI accreditation whereas this number is 5 in Malaysia and 3 in Thailand. Some organizations also provide certification to control the license of the physicians. American Board of Medical Specialists (ABMS) is one of these accreditation organizations for physicians in the USA. ABMS involves several specialty boards, such as American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Neurological Surgery, American Board of Ophthalmology, American Board of Plastic Surgery, American Board of Surgery. These boards provide certificates to physicians who have proven their expertise in their specialty. In Europe, there is European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) association for the standardization of several European nations’ (e.g., Austria, Denmark, France, Germany etc.) medical organizations that provide certificates and licenses to physicians. In the UK, physicians’ and doctors’ licenses and certificates are controlled by the General Medical Council (GMC) in collaboration with UEMS (Table 1). Many

Risks and Benefits of Medical Tourism in Terms of Quality of Life: Physical. . .

185

Table 1 International and regional organizations for the accreditation of health care facilities and accreditation of physicians/surgeons Accreditation of health care facilities

Accreditation of physicians

International organizations International Society for Quality in Health Care, ISQua The International Organization for Standardization, ISO Regional organizations Joint Commission International, JCI (USA) Community Health Accreditation Program, CHAP (USA) Accreditation Canada, or Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation, CCHSA (Canada) Trent Accreditation Scheme, TAS (UK) The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards, ACHS (Australia) European Society for Quality in Healthcare, ESQH (Europe) American Board of Medical Specialists, ABMS (USA) General Medical Council, GMC (UK) European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS)

medical tourism destinations send their physicians or other medical specialists to USA or EU to obtain these certifications.

Quality of Life and Medical Tourism Physical Quality of Life and Medical Tourism As mentioned above, the primary aim of medical tourists is to enhance their physical life qualities through interventions conducted in hospitals of medical tourism destinations. Even though successful surgeries, treatment or medical care leads to improved health and increased quality of life; there are still incidents in which negative outcomes of medical tourism on the physical health of medical tourists occur. Several works have presented that poor communication between medical centers abroad and home country disrupts the continuity of medical care, usually stemming from inadequate documentation (Chen & Wilson, 2013; Gomez & Singh, 2013), and patients are more vulnerable to severe condition when there is a complication (Carrera & Lunt, 2010). For example, one study investigated patients who were examined in a given medical center in the USA and went to other countries for transplantation surgeries between 2002 and 2006 (Canales et al., 2006). Researchers identified ten

patients who underwent kidney transplantation in other countries (i.e., Pakistan, China, Iran). Three of the ten patients expressed their intention was having a medical intervention in another country. Researchers identified fatal infections among four patients as a complication of the transplantation. Two acute rejection cases occurred, and one patient died because of transplant rejection. Researchers argued that there was a lack of communication between surgery team in medical tourism destination and postoperative care team, which causes major missing information about the health condition of the patient and in turn leads to such adversities. Similarly, although dental tourism provides a cost-effective dental treatment option for patients, problems might emerge as a result of gaps in the follow-up of the dental patients. After dental treatment or surgery, patients need to go abroad for a second or even third session as a follow-up. However, patients might have limited time available, and the cost of traveling can be quite high, which can serve as factors that make follow-ups unlikely. In addition, it should be noted that further dental health complications (e.g., dental abscesses) can emerge after traveling long distances (Gibbons, 2002). Many dental tourists, as a result, are followed-up in their home countries (Turner, 2008). Local dentists might have to deal with the follow-up of these dental procedures without having proper and adequate

186

knowledge of the prior interventions. Moreover, there might be risky situations for some patients after dental treatment and without the information about these risks; local dentists could try to intervene with the complications of the dental procedures which sometimes result in worsening the patients’ situation (Asai & Jones, 2007). Missing information on the patient’s condition leads to delayed intervention of any complications (Canales et al., 2006). Different countries have different epidemiological profiles (Green, 2008). The epidemiological profile of the medical tourism destinations usually differs from that of the local community, making the medical tourists vulnerable to infections. A study demonstrated that a kidney transplant patient might contract tuberculosis, pneumonia, HIV, urinary tract infection, wound infection, and hepatitis B from a kidney transplant procedure abroad (Anker & Feeley, 2012). Also, the risk of infections is three times higher among all surgeries operated internationally, accompanied by a higher rate of antibioticresistant pathogens (Nelson, 2014). Besides, protocols for infection control varies between different countries. This results in the variability in quality control of the hospitals and medical centers in medical tourism destinations. Therefore, quality control standards for hospital/food/ water hygiene, organ donation and blood transfusion can be different among hospitals of medical tourism destinations, which can result in a decrease in the treatment outcomes of the medical tourists. Another main problem is substandard and unreliable outcome results of the medical treatments conducted abroad (York, 2008). In many cases tourists can be satisfied by the health outcomes and their subjective experience of life quality might improve. Nevertheless, in the big picture, the quality of the health care activities is not a well-known and well-defined phenomenon. The possibility of malpractice in medical tourism is a critical issue that should be kept in mind (York, 2008). Legal regulations in order to protect medical tourists’ health vary across countries and professions and they are specific to those

R. Genç

countries. The under-developed legal regulation is a risk factor that can account for malpractices. In the contexts where malpractice is harshly punished and in medical centers which have accreditation from a well-known international organization; adversities still could come into existence. Individual differences in terms of psychological acknowledgment of the disorder or individual health condition before the disorder are important factors in treatment phases. The travel itself may have negative effects on the individual regarding these variables (York, 2008). In this sense, the effects of travel become more evident if the distance between two destinations is long: For example, professionals suggested that long-haul air travel can cause embolism. A medical profession deals with issues during travel namely travel medicine (Page, 2009). Travel medicine is related to health education (for example, professionals provide information and advice for healthy sunbathing), accident and emergency medicine, the spread of diseases through tourists (epidemiology), tourist safety, and ergonomics. Travel medicine provides tourists medical advice before travel to minimize the health risks of travel. Medical tourists can utilize guidance from travel medicine specialists before medical travel.

Economic QOL and Medical Tourism The cost of medical procedures changes depending on the country which provides the services. Medical procedures are costly in the United States, UK, France, Italy and Japan. Hence, medical tourists from these countries who seek cheaper medical procedures and health care abroad can save up to 40–60% with the lower labor cost in most Asian countries which causes the lower cost of medical treatment and services (Sultana et al., 2014). Most preferred destinations for medical tourism include Costa Rica, India, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey (Sandberg, 2017). Table 2 presents varying costs of the same medical procedures in several countries as of 2021 (Medical Tourism Association, 2021).

Source: Medical Tourism Association (2021)

USA Thailand Colombia Mexico India

Cardiac and vascular surgery Coronary bypass surgery Heart valve replacement $123,000 $ 170,000 $ 17,188 $ 21,188 $ 11,200 $ 20,000 $ 15,000–35,000 $ 10,000–35,000 $ 7000 $ 11,500–8500 Angioplasty $ 28,200 $ 10,938 $ 11,700 $ 5000–12,000 $ 5500–6200

Neurosurgery Spinal fusion surgery $ 110,000 $ 9500 $ 27,000 $ 16,000 $ 12,000

Table 2 Comparative costs of some medical procedures in the USA, Thailand, Colombia, Mexico and India Orthopedic surgery Hip replacement $ 40,364 $ 7813 $ 8000 $ 13,500 $ 14,000–7000

Hip resurfacing $ 28,000 $ 7000 $ 8000 $ 12,000 $ 8800

Knee replacement $ 35,000 $ 6563–12,500 $ 8000 $ 12,500 $ 6000–12,000

Risks and Benefits of Medical Tourism in Terms of Quality of Life: Physical. . . 187

188

These prices demonstrate the costeffectiveness of medical tourism. The quality of economic life would increase due to this type of cost-effective medical procedures in different countries. In addition, a new way of marketing is applied in different countries: Package programs. In Turkey, as one of the appliers of the package program strategy, several accredited hospitals offer outbound tourists lasik eye surgery (eye surgery with laser technology) packages which include services such as pre-surgery examinations and tests, lasik surgery to two eyes, first treatment after the surgery, first check-up in Istanbul and counseling services for the tourist, and transportation services (tourists are taken from airport and transferred to hotel and the hospital). After patient’s eye returns to a state of normal functioning, hospital provides a city seeing and English counseling services. For coronary bypass surgery, a package involves pre-op and examinations, coronary bypass surgery, one night stay in intensive care unit, two night’s stay in the hospital room, medical care after surgery and the first check-up, and transportation between airport-hotel-hospital, sightseeing and English guidance services. Medical tourism, hence, has an economic advantage by combining both treatment and joy-oriented sides of the tourism. It has been noted that the amount of money and time that a patient would save is an important factor to consider and prefer medical tourism. It should be kept in mind that the link is not that direct all the time. The time passing while a patient is waiting for the treatment has indirect economic effects as well: Research demonstrated that long time for medical services put off patients to be functional at work, decreasing their level of income and in turn the productivity of their countries (Esmail & Walker, 2005). For instance, in Canada, valuing only hours lost during the average work week, the estimated cost of patients waiting for care was about $2.8 billion, corresponding to an average of about $2254 for each of the estimated 1,224,198 Canadians waiting for treatment in 2020. This estimate only refers to the costs of the patients’ individual waiting for treatment and excludes the costs of

R. Genç

care provided by family members, their lost productivity due to difficulty or mental anguish, non-monetary medical costs, such as the increased risk of mortality or adverse events that result directly from long delays for treatment (Day, 2013). There are cases in which the patient must wait for medical care and this situation sometimes keeps the primary caregivers of the patients off the work for some period (Esmail, 2006). Primary caregivers usually look after the patients, they take care of their nutrition, health condition, transportation to the hospital, etc. As long as the patient waits for medical treatment, primary caregivers of the patients have to take care of their patients. There are even instances in which they are forced to quit their jobs and not respond to occupational opportunities. They might continue working, yet the emotional burden of the illness of the loved one might reduce their productivity.

Psychological QOL and Medical Tourism Aside from contributing to economic and physical well-being, it is suggested that medical travel enhances the psychological QOL of the tourists. Biological interventions such as operations and medical treatments have psychological impacts on the individuals who receive these kinds of medical intervention (Hollandwort, 1988). One study reported that cancer patients need touristic activities to “bridge the gap between illness and everyday life, providing a mechanism for enabling a patient to return to a sense of normality even if only for a defined period of time” (HunterJones, 2005; p. 77). In a way, patients escape from their everyday life, in which cancer encompasses the very major course. Research showed that cancer patients prefer medical travel with this motivation, particularly in pre-diagnosis and diagnosis stages of cancer. Figure 2 shows the Medical Tourist Lifecycle model which presents how different groups of patients change their medical tourism participation at different stages of cancer. Based on the mental attitudes of cancer patients, these groups are MTL

Risks and Benefits of Medical Tourism in Terms of Quality of Life: Physical. . .

189

Fig. 2 Types of medical tourists. Source: adapted from Hunter-Jones (2005; Figure 1; p. 79)

Suppresser (positive avoidance; illness is denied, MTL Explorer (fatalism; illness is accepted), MTL Recipient (helpless-hopelessness; patient is unable to cope), MTL Innovator (fighting spirit; illness is embraced); MTL Industrialist (anxious preoccupation; constant thoughts about illness) (Greer et al., 1979). Waiting for surgery list, high cost of treatment/ surgeries, dysfunctionality due to symptoms related to illness lead to the demoralization of the patients and their caregivers (Turner, 2007). They have to deal with severe symptoms of illness while worrying about the time the patient is going to have the surgery/treatment, the outcomes of the treatment, paying the cost of treatment, etc. In severe/life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, the illness itself is the main source of demoralization or depression for both patient and his/her family members. They need to be supported financially and psychologically in the diagnosis and treatment stage of the illnesses. In medical tourism when the biological adjustments are directly aimed at, the psychological well-being of the tourists is also indirectly

aimed to change. Medical problems generally lead to stress and anxiety for the person because of both physiological and treatment-related problems (Luebbert et al., 2001). The uncertainty about the length of the time between diagnosis and treatment, the length of the healing process, and the post-treatment process could increase stress and anxiety of the person. In the first place, the clarification of the information about the illness/disease and the information about the process gives some relief to the patient. Then, knowledge about the procedures gives the person a sense of control which is important for an individual’s psychological well-being. The postintervention period is also important for the person to reduce his/her anxiety and to feel better him/herself. The psychological improvement would also be visible if the process provides enough comfort and a sense of control for the person. Although medical tourism seems to be effective in reducing psychological distress related to illness and good for medical tourist’s well-being, there are still some personal factors that can

190

influence the medical tourist quality of life, negatively. Receiving medical treatment in a foreign country would be anxiety-provoking for some patients because of the idea that being away from home is dangerous. Some people may think that they cannot get enough care and attention in a country other than their own. Psychological adversities negatively influence the healing process, this type of distress and possible anxietyprovoking conditions should be minimized. In addition, any severe complications, which emerge following the treatment at the medical destination or during the trip back to home country, can cause higher demoralization of the patient and family members. This is mostly because these people are usually warned about the possible complications (such as emboli, and infections) related to long-haul trips or medical centers in the medical tourism destination. They usually decide on going abroad for treatment by themselves sharing the responsibility of possible complications. In most cases, family members tend to blame themselves for allowing the patient to go to another country for treatment instead of waiting in the local medical center. Moreover, although medical tourism activities generally have a beneficial effect on the psychological problems of the patients, patients might not be motivated to be in medical tourism activities because of demoralization after the diagnosis stage of the illness. They may think that any treatment would not help them in dealing with the illness and hence reject to have treatment at all. Or, they might not be confident about their physical abilities to travel, stay in other countries for treatment or make benefit from the treatment/ medical care offered in the medical travel destination. They may fear having long-haul trips by thinking that they cannot cope with physical difficulties related to traveling (Hunter-Jones, 2005). In this sense, it should be noted that patient demoralization can influence the tendency to consume medical tourism services. Sometimes, attitudes toward people in the medical tourism destination might lead potential medical tourists not to select treatment abroad (Hunter-Jones, 2005). Medical tourists’ prejudice on race, religion, or skin color (or the prejudice of

R. Genç

the host community toward the potential medical tourists) might reduce the motivation of medical tourists for traveling. The stigma attached to the disease of the patient can also play role in the social isolation of the patient in general and diminish motivation for medical tourism in particular (Thomas, 1998). Medical travel planners should be aware of demoralization-related and attitude-related hesitations about medical travel and encourage these patients by motivating them and their family members. All these examples provide evidence that psychological variables both influence the medical tourism experience and are influenced by it as an outcome. Another aspect of the relationship between psychological QOL and medical tourism is that people are likely to engage in tourism activities to have a more positive psychological state and mood. Various medical tourism centers offer psychological intervention programs such as rehabilitation programs and yoga-meditation programs. Israel, India, and Thailand are the forthcoming countries in that area of tourism. Israel provides drug dependency rehabilitation program which aims to deal with dependency issues which last approximately eight months. In India, sleep disturbances and loss of consciousness are aimed to cure with the help of successful application of neuroscience techniques. The psychological relaxation and elimination of distress can be provided by yoga and meditation. It is considered a powerful tool for relaxation and reduction of psychological distress (Woolery et al., 2004). The principles of yoga have been in service to humanity for thousands of years. It holds the assumption of the integrity of mind and body and that the relaxation of mind and body go hand in hand. Many people prefer to participate in this activity in their domestic country whereas some people choose to visit other destinations, especially sites related to philosophical aspects of yoga, for this activity. Yoga and meditation are generally considered under the umbrella of wellness tourism (Smith & Kelly, 2006). However, it can be applicable in rehabilitation purposes after physical illnesses or psychological disturbances. Both yoga and meditation can be considered in the grey area between

Risks and Benefits of Medical Tourism in Terms of Quality of Life: Physical. . .

wellness and medical tourism, they may be preferred either for personal growth or as a component of treatment. Another popular alternative intervention is acupuncture which China is famous for. According to the World Health Organization acupuncture is effective for the treatment of 28 different psychological and physiological diseases (Zhang, 2003), depression and headaches being just a few examples. China gets the attraction from medical tourists for many years for this traditional healing technique which is considered to contribute a lot to psychological well-being and the quality of life of the tourist. The increasing interest in the relationship between the body and the mind suggests that the tourism manager of the new era can not be indifferent to these aspects of tourism.

Legal, Ethical and Social Conditions: QOL of Local People and Medical Tourism Healthcare Equity in Destination Countries Medical tourism can be beneficial to local people at the tourism destination (Turner, 2007). First, it vitalizes tourism activities and tourist input. However, local people at the tourist destination can face economic inequality and problems with local health services creating inequality in healthcare distribution, especially in developing countries (Bustamante, 2014; Qadeer & Reddy, 2013; Turner, 2007). As a significant monetary resource, medical tourism may lead to the development of a two-tiered health system where hightechnology medical instruments and facilities and well-trained healthcare professionals become exclusive to medical tourists while local underprivileged patients suffer worse accessibility to healthcare services (Reisman, 2015). Additionally, healthcare providers may leave public hospitals when offered higher remuneration and lighter workloads in the private sector, which would eventually change the standards of the public healthcare sector by decreasing the ratio

191

of healthcare providers-to-patients and elevating the costs of healthcare (Chen & Flood, 2013; Deonandan et al., 2012; Snyder et al., 2015). One study has concluded that about 54% of the medical institutions, 75% of the hospitals, 51% of the hospital beds, 75% of the dispensaries, and 80% of all qualified doctors are in the private sector in India (Sehgal & Hooda, 2015).

Organ Transplantation and Organ Trafficking Organ transplantation has become an established practice which is an effective and life-saving treatment for end-stage organ failures. According to Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation’s data (2021), every year more than 150,000 solid organ transplants are practiced, which is estimated to constitute less than 10% of the global need. With the COVID19 pandemic having aggravated the discrepancy between organ demand and supply, global transplants decreased by 18% (Aubert et al., 2021). Transplant tourism is another striking example in this regard: One of the major drawbacks of transplant tourism is organ trafficking. In organ trafficking, wealthy patients buy organs (i.e., kidney graft, liver graft, etc.) from poor people residing in another country. Organs procured from a poor living donor are transplanted to patients and the donor is paid for his donation (Budiani-Saberi & Delmonico, 2008). In most severe cases, the organ is procured via threat, force, fraud, or deception of the living donor person. It is stated that organ trafficking is: the recruitment, transport, transfer, harboring or receipt of living or deceased persons or their organs by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving to, or the receiving by, a third party of payments or benefits to achieve the transfer of control over the potential donor, for the purpose of exploitation by the removal of organs for transplantation (The Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism, 2008; p. 1228).

192

Some illegal organizations enhance organ purchases within specific destinations in the world (Budiani-Saberi & Delmonico, 2008). According to reports by WHO (2007), for at least 5% of organ transplants, organ procurement is obtained through organ trafficking. For that reason, medical tourism is seen as the major source of organ trafficking and organ commercialization in the world. Some countries have made legal regulations against organ trafficking. For example, in Iran, it is forbidden for its citizens to donate organs to foreigners or received organ donations from them (Ghods & Nasrollahzadeh, 2005). The organ trafficking issue was held in ‘International Summit on Transplant Tourism and Organ Trafficking’ which was conducted in 2008, in Istanbul, Turkey. Final reports of the summit were reviewed in “The Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism” (2008). The Declaration of Istanbul states that illegal organ selling/ commercial decreases the well-being of the people in the host community. It argues that transplant tourism is appropriate only if the organ sources provided to medical tourists are sufficient for the patients in the local community. Otherwise, transplant tourism becomes organ trafficking by exploiting the impoverished resources of the local patients. Furthermore, cooperation between the international organizations and the countries most affected by organ trafficking has been created to end any violation of human rights. For instance, the Mexican government has adopted agreements and treaties in cooperation with the United Nations, regional institutions, and national institutions of other States and NGOs to combat organ trafficking in Mexico (Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal (CDHDF), 2015).

Possible Solutions to Problems Encountered in Medical Tourism As stated throughout the chapter, various types of difficulties might emerge throughout the medical tourism process. As an example of social

R. Genç

difficulties, patients might face communication difficulties, which reduce their participation in medical tourism activities (Hunter-Jones, 2005). The main challenge for medical tourists is to understand the language of people in the medical tourism destination. From the airport to the accommodation place and the hospital, patients have to communicate with people from a foreign country, who may not be English speakers. In the worst scenario, physicians of the medical tourism destination misunderstand the patient/or medical record of the patient due to problems in understanding the language of the medical tourist, which might even result in inappropriate treatment/surgery or fatal mistakes. Travel agents and medical tourism planners should support both medical tourists and physicians for appropriate communication of the medical record and presenting symptoms of the patient. Obtaining travel insurance from insurance companies is an obstacle for medical travel (Hunter-Jones, 2005). The health insurance of medical tourists may not cover additional health expenses in the medical tourism destination which results in a decrease in the economic quality of life of the patients. One solution is to choose economic medical tourism packages of the hospitals/medical centers of the medical tourism destinations. American Medical Association (2008) revealed a guideline medical tourism for patients, physicians, insurers and other related groups in order to ensure the safety of patients. This guideline states that; • Patients should take into account international accreditation of the medical centers abroad. They need to choose those centers and institutions that have international accreditations by globally known organizations, such as the Joint Commission International, the International Society for Quality in Health Care. • Health care managers should provide information to patients on their legal rights in the countries they go for the medical procedures and care.

Risks and Benefits of Medical Tourism in Terms of Quality of Life: Physical. . .

• Patients are also to be informed about possible risks of medical tourism in general. They particularly should have information about the adversities of traveling long hours within the context of their current health condition and following the medical procedures. • Health care managers should organize and budget the follow-up medical care before the patient goes on medical travel in order to handle the coordination of the health care of the patient. • Besides the coordination of the health care management team, health insurance should cover follow-up health care costs of the patients within the medical travel package. • Health care managers should get information about medical tourism destination’s healthcare centers’ and institutions’ accreditation, and physicians’ licensing before patients’ travel. Following the medical procedures abroad, these centers and institutions should inform the local health care management team about the outcome of the procedures conducted abroad. The records of the medical procedures and medical care should be in a standardized form. For example, records of the patients are required to be kept in accord with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidelines. • For ethical concerns, AMA (2008) recommends that patients should voluntarily select the medical tourism option. This option also should not deter patients to utilize other alternative medical procedures. Health ministries in most of the health tourism destinations necessitate new regulations in public health regulations. The declaration of the second congress of International Health Tourism (2009) suggests the institutionalization of health tourism activities under the division of the health ministry. All organizations that are dealing with health tourism activities need to be under the control of governmental health institutions. Their medical activities should be standardized under international accreditation for the safety of patients. It conceptualizes health tourism as a positive force

193

for enhancing the overall life quality of the world and overall tourism activities. In order to enhance the quality of life of the tourists, tourists should be informed to keep their all health documents (such as medications applied to the patient before or after the dental surgeries) or surgery reports conducted abroad (Leggat & Kedjarune, 2009). Information sheets could be utilized in any surgical/medical emergencies (American Dental Association, 2006). Emergency kits can be procured for tourists that are traveling after surgeries abroad (Kedjarune & Leggat, 1997). For dealing with organ trafficking, The Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism (2008) recommends standard protocols for oversea organ donation and transplant tourism across each country. All organ donation and organ transplantation conducted overseas should be recorded. Health professionals, the public, and the patients should be educated on the pros and cons of transplant tourism and facts of organ trafficking. Informed consent from donors and medical tourists should be taken.

Conclusion Medical tourism is known as traveling across different destinations along the world in order to obtain health-related interventions being mainly either treatment or rehabilitation directed and it has been attractive for many people across the world. As providing “health” is the main target of medical tourism, the quality of life is highly connected to an individual’s health conditions. Medical tourism has a dual effect on individuals’ adjustment, firstly by direct intervention to the physiological state of the individuals and secondly by indirect influence on their psychological well-being. Considering the financial properties of the medical tourism make the picture clearer, the whole picture shows itself behind the quality of life criteria. The medical intervention’s price is generally lower in many medical tourismoriented countries such as China, India, Israel

194

and Turkey than the many European countries and USA. Traveling along destinations in order to reach health care services sometimes becomes more cost-effective than receiving treatment in a domestic country. New marketing strategies are emerged to regulate and standardize the financial part of this type of tourism. The time passing from diagnosis to treatment is an important factor that contributes positively or negatively to the healing processes. In many countries, people generally wait a list of other people until an adequate medical procedure and intervention are appropriate. If the time has probable adverse effects on the individual’s current health conditions, searching for other options became a dominant strategy which is used by patients or patients’ caregivers. Medical tourism is an attractive opportunity both for patients and patients’ caregivers in this situation as it is cheaper than the services in the country of origin and it also provides other activities than the health care itself. The increasing demand for medical tourism and the human flow toward the new medical location brings the risk of malpractice. In order to decrease risk factors associated with malpractice, standardization of procedures is needed to be applied wide-spread in the medical tourism host countries. The accreditation of local healthcare services is a significant protector of both tourists’ health and local health workers’ work conditions. The legal and ethical issues related to medical tourism would be better acknowledged if the standardizations of procedures and accreditations of health care services were managed. In the long run, standardization and commercialization of medical tourism will increase the number of medical tourists (Connell, 2006). Developed countries such as USA face increasing problems with social security and health systems (Turner, 2007). It is argued that as long as these problems prevail, medical tourism is expected to increase in the following decades. Successful outcomes of surgeries conducted overseas and increased support of insurance companies for medical tourists will increase the medical tourism trend in the world.

R. Genç

It has been suggested that as primary research questions, medical tourists’ physical QOL, health status and morbidity rate should be examined and the effectiveness of the medical tourism should be investigated in the long run. Further research can also focus on questions like the effects of legislative regulations on medical tourism, posttreatment recalls of the medical tourism experience both from the perspective of the patient and the medical care team on the destination site, effects of travel on the physical well-being in the medical tourism process, etc. Future research on the financial well-being of the individual stands out as another fertile area. Studying the relationship between patient satisfaction and financial costs, the experiences of patients who went abroad to receive treatment are among the subjects that researchers can work through.

References American Dental Association. (2006). Dental care while travelling. Journal of American Dental Association, 137(6), 928. American Medical Association (AMA). (2008). New AMA guidelines on medical tourism. Anker, A. E., & Feeley, T. H. (2012). Estimating the risks of acquiring a kidney abroad: a meta-analysis of complications following participation in transplant tourism. Clinical Transplant, 26(3), E232–EE41. Asai, R. G., & Jones, K. D. (2007). Am I obliged to treat a patient whose need for emergency care stems from dental tourism? Journal of American Dental Association, 138(7), 1018–1019. Aubert, O., Yoo, D., Zielinski, D., Cozzi, E., Cardillo, M., Dürr, M., et al. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic and worldwide organ transplantation: a population-based study. Lancet Public Health, 6(10), E709–E719. Bookman, M. (2007). Medical tourism in developing countries. Springer. Budiani-Saberi, D. A., & Delmonico, F. L. (2008). Organ trafficking and transplant tourism: A commentary on the global realities. American Journal of Transplantation, 8(5), 925–929. Burns, R. L. (2015). Medical tourism opportunities and challenges: Illustration from US-India trade. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 8(1), 15–26. Bustamante, A. V. (2014). Globalization and medical tourism: the North American experience; Comment on “Patient mobility in the global marketplace: a

Risks and Benefits of Medical Tourism in Terms of Quality of Life: Physical. . . multidisciplinary perspective”. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 3(1), 47–49. Canales, M. T., Kasiske, B. L., & Rosenberg, M. E. (2006). Transplant tourism: outcomes of United States residents who undergo kidney transplantation overseas. Transplantation, 82(12), 1658–1661. Carrera, P., & Lunt, N. A. (2010). European perspective on medical tourism: the need for a knowledge base. International Journal of Health Services: Planning, Administration, Evaluation, 40(3), 469–484. Chen, L. H., & Wilson, M. E. (2013). The globalization of healthcare: implications of medical tourism for the infectious disease clinician. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 57(12), 1752–1759. Chen, Y. Y., & Flood, C. M. (2013). Medical tourism’s impact on health care equity and access in low- and middle-income countries: making the case for regulation. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(1), 286–300. Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal (CDHDF). (2015). Derechos Humanos en Mexico y America Latina. Connell, J. (2006). Medical tourism: Sea, sun, sand and surgery. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1093–1100. Day, B. (2013). The consequences of waiting. In S. Globerman (Ed.), Reducing wait times for health care: What Canada can learn from theory and international experience (pp. 45–75). Fraser Institute. De la Hoz-Correa, A., Muñoz-Leiva, F., & Bakucz, M. (2018). Past themes and future trends in medical tourism research: a co-word analysis. Tourism Management, 65, 200–211. Deonandan, R., Green, S., & van Beinum, A. (2012). Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(12), 742–745. Esmail, N. (2006). The private cost of public queues in 2005. Health Care Fraser Forum, 17–21. Esmail, N., & Walker, M. (2005). Waiting your turn: Hospital waiting lists in Canada (15th ed.). Fraser Institute. Finch, S. (2014). Thailand top destination for medical tourists. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 186(1), E1–E2. Ghods, A. J., & Nasrollahzadeh, D. (2005). Transplant tourism and the Iranian model of renal transplantation program: ethical considerations. Experimental and Clinical Transplantation, 3(2), 351–354. Gibbons, A. J. (2002). Aviation dentistry. In A. R. C. Cummin & A. N. Nicholson (Eds.), Aviation medicine and the airline passenger (pp. 142–146). Arnold. Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation. (2021). International report on organ donation and transplantation activities. Retrieved July 06, 2022, from http://www.transplant-observatory.org/wp-con tent/uploads/2021/06/GODT2019-data_web_updatedJune-2021.pdf

195

Goeldner, C. (1989). 39th congress AIEST: English workshop summary. Revue De Tourisme, 44(4), 6–7. Gomez, C. A., & Singh, N. (2013). Donor-derived filamentous fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 26(4), 309–316. Green, S. T. (2008). Medical tourism—A potential growth factor in infection medicine and public health. Journal of Infection, 57(5), 429. Greer, S., Morris, T., & Pettingale, K. W. (1979). Psychological response to breast cancer: effect on outcome. Lancet (London, England), 2(8146), 785–787. Hollandwort, J. G., Jr. (1988). Evaluating the impact of medical treatment on the quality of life: A 5-year update. Social Science & Medicine, 4, 425–434. Horowitz, M. D., Rosensweig, J. A., & Jones, C. A. (2007). Medical tourism: Globalization of the healthcare marketplace [review]. Medscape General Medicine, 9(4), 33. Hunter-Jones, P. (2005). Cancer and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 70–92. International Health Tourism Congress. (2009). The declaration of the second international health tourism congress. Retrieved from http://www.saglikturizmi. org.tr/II.USTKSonuBildirisiTR.pdf Kedjarune, U., & Leggat, P. A. (1997). Dental precautions for travellers. Journal of Travel Medicine, 4(1), 38–40. Leggat, P., & Kedjarune, U. (2009). Dental health, ‘dental tourism’ and travelers. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 7, 123–124. Luebbert, K., Dahme, B., & Hasenbring, M. (2001). The effectiveness of relaxation training in reducing treatment-related symptoms and improving emotional adjustment in acute non-surgical cancer treatment: a meta-analytical review. Psycho-Oncology, 10(6), 490–502. Lunt, N., Horsfall, D., & Hanefeld, J. (2016). Medical tourism: a snapshot of evidence on treatment abroad. Maturitas, 88, 37–44. McNamee, M., & Parry, J. (1990). Notes on the concept of health. In J. Long (Ed.), Leisure, health and well being. Proceedings of the leisure studies association annual conference. Leeds Polytechnic. Medical Tourism Association. (2021). Medical tourism FAQs. 2021, Medical Tourism Association, 2021, 2021. Mueller, H., & Kaufmann, E. L. (2001). Wellness Tourism: Market analysis of a special health tourism segment and implications for the hotel industry. Quelle: Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7, 5–17. Nelson, R. (2014). Infectious risks of medical tourism. The Lancet. Infectious Diseases, 14(8), 680–681. Page, S. J. (2009). Current issue in tourism: the evolution of travel medicine research: a new research agenda for tourism? Tourism Management, 30, 149–157. Qadeer, I., & Reddy, S. (2013). Medical tourism in India: perceptions of physicians in tertiary care hospitals. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine: PEHM, 8, 20.

196 Reisman, D. (2015). The economics of health and medical tourism. In N. Lunt, D. Horsfall, & J. Hanefeld (Eds.), Handbook on medical tourism and patient mobility (pp. 82–91). Edward Elgar. Sandberg, D. S. (2017). Medical tourism: an emerging global healthcare industry. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 10(4), 281–288. Sehgal, S., & Hooda, S. (2015). Emerging role of private sector in Indian health care delivery market: Trends, pattern and implications, intern report. Institute for Studies in Industrial Development (ISID). Smith, M., & Kelly, C. (2006). Wellness tourism. Tourism Recreational Research, 31(1), 1–4. Snyder, J., Crooks, V. A., Johnston, R., Adams, K., & Whitmore, R. (2015). Medical tourism’s impacts on health worker migration in the Caribbean: five examples and their implications for global justice. Global Health Action, 8, 27348. Sultana, S., Haque, A., Momen, A., & Yasmin, F. (2014). Factors affecting the attractiveness of medical tourism destination: An empirical study on India-review article. Iran Journal of Public Health, 43(7), 867–876. The declaration of Istanbul on organ trafficking and transplant tourism. (2008). Clinical Journal of American Society of Nephrology, 3, 1227–1231. Thomas, P. (1998). An outdoor adventure program as therapy. Dissertation in education, University College of North Wales. Torkildsen, G. (1999). Leisure and recreation management (4th ed.). E & FN Spon. Turner, L. (2007). ‘First world health care at third world prices’: Globalization, bioethics and medical tourism. Biosocieties, 2(3), 303–325. Turner, L. (2008). Cross-border dental care: ‘dental tourism’ and patient mobility. Journal of Canadian Dental Association, 204, 553–554.

R. Genç Woolery, A., Myers, H., Sternlieb, B., & Zelter, L. (2004). A yoga intervention for young adults with elevated symptoms of depression. Alternative Therapies, 10(2), 60–63. WHO. (2005). Constitution of the world health organization.. Retrieved June 01, 2023 from https://www.who. int/about/governance/constitution WHO. (2007). The general agreement on trade in services (GATS): Objectives, coverage and disciplines.. Retrieved June 01, 2023, from http://www.wto.org/ York, D. (2008). Medical tourism: The trend toward outsourcing medical procedures to foreign countries. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28(2), 99–102. Zhang, X. (2003). Acupuncture: Review and analysis of reports on controlled clinical trials. World Health Organization.

Ruhet Genç, Ph.D., worked in various countries like the USA, Canada, Germany and France. By doing so he became aware of ‘thinking globally and acting locally’. After returning back to Turkey, he continued to his business venture and he has been serving as full-time Assoc. Prof at four different universities. During his academic life, he shared his experiences with students and other academicians. He specialized in management and strategy with special applications in logistics and tourism management. Between various courses he taught, cross-cultural management, business negotiations, and dispute solving methods were just a few to mention at this point which might be useful to strengthen his international ties. He is a full-time faculty member of Turkish-German University in Istanbul at the present time. Email: [email protected]

Well-Being and Aesthetic Journeys: Motivations for Cosmetic Surgery Tourism Erdogan Koc and Ahu Yazici Ayyildiz

Introduction As the Greek philosopher, Aristotle’s (384–322 BC) quote “personal beauty is a greater recommendation than any letter of reference” suggests, the beauty of a person may be significantly influential professionally. The well-being of a person consists of not only physiological well-being but also psychological well-being. Among other things, psychological well-being also depends on satisfaction with one’s appearance. The individuals may be interested in improving their appearance, i.e. their level of beauty or attractiveness for a wide variety of personal and social, as well as professional advantages. The word aesthetic comes from the Greek word ‘aisthētikos’, meaning “relating to perception by the senses”. The root of the word is ‘aisthesthai’ and it means to ‘perceive’, while the word ‘aisthēta’ refers to ‘perceptible things’ (Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2022). However, the meaning of aesthetic that is used today, i.e. the philosophical study of beauty and taste, comes from eighteenth century German. Since ancient E. Koc (✉) Bahcesehir University, Faculty of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] A. Y. Ayyildiz Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Kusadasi, Aydin, Turkey e-mail: [email protected]

times, people have always been interested in travelling for health and beauty purposes. For instance, the health complexes and spas built by the Sumerians near the hot springs circa 4000 BC attracted visitors from different parts of Mesopotamia. Later the Egyptians and the Greeks visited the hot springs and baths for health and beauty purposes. With the developments in transportation and medicine, travelling for health and beauty purposes has become easier and more accessible for people. Today, the medical or health tourism market has grown to become a major economic sector. The size of the world medical tourism market was $102.6 billion in 2020, and with the estimated compound annual growth rate of 10.8% between 2021 and 2030, its size is expected to reach $286.1 billion by the year 2030 (Precedence Research, 2022). Table 1 shows the number of cosmetic surgeries in the top ten countries, the aesthetic surgeries per 100 people in the population, and the number of plastic surgeons in the country (STATISTA, 2020). The countries having the highest proportion of foreign patients/ visitors are Thailand (33.2%), Mexico (22.5%), and Turkey (19.2%) (ISAPS, 2019). According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2020), though the cosmetic surgery market is dominated by women (92% of all cosmetic surgeries), the males’ interest in cosmetic surgeries is growing rather fast. In terms of the age distribution, 13-19-year-olds consisted 15% of the market, while the 20–29 olds, 30–39-year-

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_14

197

198

E. Koc and A. Y. Ayyildiz

Table 1 Cosmetic surgeries in top ten countries Country USA Brazil Germany Japan Turkey Mexico Argentina Italy Russia India

Number of cosmetic surgeries in 2020 4,667,931 1,929,359 1,157,138 1,058,198 945,477 860,718 850,840 830,868 621,600 524,064

Population 331,002,651 212,559,417 83,783,942 126,476,461 84,339,067 128,932,753 45,195,774 60,461,826 145,934,462 1,380,004,385

Number of cosmetic surgeries per 100 people 1.41 0.91 1.38 0.84 1.121 0.67 1.88 1.37 0.43 0.04

Number of plastic surgeons 7000 5843 1541 2707 1300 1749 2000 1200 2000 2400

Source: STATISTA (2020). Countries with the largest total number of cosmetic procedures in 2020. Accessed 15 January 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/293356/leading-countries-by-total-number-of-cosmetic-procedures/

olds, 40–54-year-olds, 55–69-year-olds, and 70 years old and above represent 18%, 17%, 14%, 14%, and 20% of the market respectively. The motivations of people for having cosmetic surgeries may change according to age. While the young usually tends to have cosmetic surgeries to have something they do not have, e.g. to have a beautiful nose by nose reshaping (rhinoplasty), the older people tend to have cosmetic surgeries to get back something they had, e.g. to remove the crow’s feet around the eyes and get their old unwrinkled faces back. This is why rhinoplasty surgeries constitute more than 50% of all cosmetic surgeries for people between the ages of 13–19, while for the 40–54 years old age group face-lift, eye-lid type of facial surgeries and procedures constitute about 50% of all surgeries/ procedures(American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2020). Hence, as mentioned below, among older people the motivation to have cosmetic surgeries may be more to do for professional reasons, i.e. to find or maintain one’s current job (Koc, 2021). According to Majeed et al. (2017), about 33% of medical tourists prefer to undergo aesthetic procedures or surgeries. According to research (American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, 2017) the percentage of people who considered having cosmetic surgeries more than doubled (30–70%) between the years 2013 and 2017. In certain countries, aesthetic surgeries tend to comprise a greater proportion of the medical tourism

market. For instance, cosmetic surgery tourists could be as high as 85% of Australian medical tourists (Connell, 2011). In the UK the annual growth rate of people travelling for aesthetic procedures is 20% (Holliday et al., 2015). According to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS, 2020), the top five most common cosmetic surgeries in the world are breast augmentation, liposuction, eyelid surgery, abdominoplasty (cosmetic surgical procedures to improve the shape and appearance of the abdomen), and rhinoplasty (surgeries relating to the re-shaping of the nose), botulinum toxin (i.e. Botox injections), hyaluronic acid (non-surgical procedures to soften facial lines and furrows), non-surgical fat reduction, hair removal, photo rejuvenation (treatments tackling redness and brown spots on the face). As a segment of medical tourism, aesthetic tourism involves activities relating to the aesthetic, health, and psychophysiological wellbeing of patients/customers and comprises invasive and non-invasive procedures aimed at improving physical attractiveness (LozanoRamirez et al., 2021; Martínez-Chaves, 2016). The aesthetic tourism packages comprise services related to travel, hospitality, and trips, including entertainment and aesthetic procedures/surgeries (Lunt et al., 2010). Given the fact that there is a significant move from the GIT (General and Interest Tourism) (e.g. sun, sand, and sea tourism) to SIT (Special

Well-Being and Aesthetic Journeys: Motivations for Cosmetic Surgery Tourism

Interest Tourism) (e.g. culinary tourism, medical tourism), many countries such as Turkey, Greece, Spain, etc. are overly dependent on GIT (Koc & Altinay, 2007), and the growth potential of specific niches such as aesthetic tourism is significant, there is need to have a good understanding of the main motivations of customers, guests or patients who may be interested in these services. While the unfulfilled desires of people to become more beautiful may make them unwell, the fulfillment of these desires may make them feel well. As mentioned above, well-being consists of not only physiological well-being but also psychological well-being. Hence, a study of the main motivations of people to engage in aesthetic or cosmetic procedures or surgeries may be worthwhile from the perspective of health and well-being tourism. Based on the above, this chapter investigates the needs and motivations of people who may be interested in taking part in well-being and medical tourism for aesthetic procedures, cosmetic or plastic surgeries. Understanding the needs and motivations of customers/tourists/patients may have significant competitive advantage implications at the micro level, for businesses to develop effective and efficient marketing mix elements, and also at the macro level for governments, ministries, and government agencies to better support the development of this niche market for the development of competitive destinations in their respective regions or countries.

The Influence of Beauty and Attractiveness on People People have always been interested in their appearance for utilitarian purposes. The attractiveness or the beauty of a person, in general, causes others to behave in a positively biased way towards them (Frevert & Walker, 2014; Villi & Koc, 2018). Physical appearance and attractiveness influence people’s perceptions and decisions in a wide variety of situations and instances such as their evaluations of crime, work and school performance, social status,

199

success in political candidacy, etc. (Frevert & Walker, 2014). Physical attractiveness may even influence the satisfaction of customers with a service (Söderlund & Julander, 2009), and how customers respond to service failures, depending on the appearance of the service staff (Villi & Koc, 2018). Attractive people tend to get higher grades in school (Judge et al., 2009), are more likely to be hired in job interviews (Johnston, 2010; Griskevicius et al. 2012; Toledano, 2013), and get better paid in their jobs (Salter et al., 2012; Toledano, 2013), and have a higher chance of winning in the elections (Cialdini, 2009; Rosar et al., 2008). Physical attractiveness influences people regardless of their gender, education, and culture (Villi & Koc, 2018). Research shows that even 6, 9, and 12-month-old babies prefer to approach more attractive strangers compared with unattractive strangers (Kuraguchi et al., 2020; Langlois et al., 1991). Since almost it is common knowledge that beauty and attractiveness pay back, many people are increasingly becoming interested in aesthetic procedures/operations, and with a desire to travel for these procedures/ operations.

The Reasons for Travelling for Aesthetic Procedures: Aesthetic Tourism The reasons to travel for aesthetic procedures/ surgeries are primarily the long waiting lists and higher costs in the home country, the availability of affordable high quality medical care, lower prices, and the availability of engaging in touristic activities in the destination country (Kemppainen et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2018). Also, in general, with the aging population in western societies, while demand has increased for aesthetic surgeries, the rising demand in these countries has led to price increases and reduced the availability or access to aesthetic surgeries in these countries (Pereira et al., 2018). When people encounter high prices and long waiting periods for aesthetic surgeries, they tend to turn to other countries, where they could have their

200

cosmetic surgeries, without having to wait long periods, and could have their surgeries at much lower costs. For instance, for a wide variety of cosmetic surgeries tourists/patients visiting Turkey for aesthetic surgeries may have to pay only about one third of the prices they would normally pay in countries such as the UK and the USA (Mendes, 2016). Moreover, in addition to these low prices, tourists/customers may enjoy cultural or beach holidays for as long as a week, as a bonus. Additionally, by travelling abroad the patients or tourists may have access to a wider range of surgical operations, and choose countries that specialise in particular types of surgeries (e.g. while S. Korea and Columbia are famous for liposuction, Turkey is famous for hair transplants), and the availability of touristic activities, before or after the surgery, depending on the nature of the surgery (Kemppainen et al., 2021). Additionally, there has been reluctance among surgeons in western countries such as the USA due to the rise in procedural malpractice premiums to perform especially high risk surgeries, (Franzblau & Chung, 2021). Hence, there has been a decline in the aesthetic procedures undertaken in the US and the UK (Pereira et al., 2018; Thacoor et al., 2019). As a result, certain countries are becoming important destinations for aesthetic tourism. For instance, in Europe Turkey, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Serbia have become the favoured countries due to the best combination of low prices, well-trained physicians, high standard care, informative and trustworthy internet presence, and no or reduced language barriers (Klein et al., 2017).

The Main Motivations of Customers to Engage in Aesthetic Procedures and Aesthetic Tourism It was stated above that an individual may increase her/his feeling of psychological wellbeing by increasing his satisfaction with her/his appearance. It was also stated that since the ancient Sumerians of circa 4000 BC, the ancient

E. Koc and A. Y. Ayyildiz

Egyptians, and Greeks people have always been interested in looking more beautiful or attractive. Today, with more direct measures such as medical procedures and surgeries, people are increasingly more interested in trying to improve their appearances. Many people share their best photos, sometimes photos with filters and effects so as to be able to look confident and impress others. The motivations of people to have aesthetic procedures/surgeries may be analysed from a wide variety of perspectives including Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, t, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, self-determination, prospect theories, self-concept, and personality.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory, Intrinsic-Extrinsic Motivation, Self-Determination Theory, and the Prospect Theory The feeling of well-being can be described as a state of balance, equilibrium, or homeostasis. An imbalance arising due to an unsatisfied physiological or psychological need, a feeling of deprivation, creates tension in the individual (Koc, 2021). Without the tension, caused by an unsatisfied need, human beings may not be fully aware of their needs, and without the need satisfaction, people may have not survived. For instance, all human beings know that they need to eat a certain amount of food and drink a certain amount of liquid daily to survive. However, if people had not felt the tension, arising as a consequence of the feeling of deprivation, i.e. if the tension due to hunger or thirst did not occur, they may not have been motivated to satisfy these needs and they may not have survived. This is probably why the satisfaction of all needs relating to survival (satisfying hunger, quenching thirst, and socializing) and reproduction (sex) are pleasurable, and failing to satisfy these needs causes tension in human beings. Had the satisfaction of these needs not been pleasurable, and the failure to satisfy these needs had not created tension, people may not have been motivated to satisfy needs and they may have failed to survive and reproduce.

Well-Being and Aesthetic Journeys: Motivations for Cosmetic Surgery Tourism

The motivation to have an aesthetic surgery may relate almost to all of the needs in Maslow’s needs hierarchy such as physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualisation needs (Koc, 2013; Maslow, 1943). Firstly, the physiological needs, i.e. the needs for shelter, water, food, warmth, rest, and health, and the safety needs, driven by the motivation to survive, may relate to the appearance of human beings. As stated above, people tend to behave positively towards beautiful and attractive people and help them satisfy their physiological and safety needs. For instance, human beings are generally more affectionate, caring, and supportive towards babies compared with elder people. Likewise, most people find a kitten cuter than a cat, and a puppy cuter than a dog (Koc, 2021). The finding of babies, kittens, puppies, etc. and consequently being more affectionate and caring towards them is like an untold marketing campaign for reproduction on earth. Also, most plants bloom in order to perpetuate themselves. Flowers attract pollinators so that they can set seeds to produce a new generation. In other words, flowers bloom to attract bees and insects, which then, can carry pollen from one flower to another and help fertilize the growing fruits and seeds. Hence, the blooming of flowers can also be considered as a marketing activity, as the appearance of flowers attracts bees and insects for the reproduction of plants. From the perspective of physiological needs, and the reproduction of human beings, a better appearance may influence others to become more affectionate, caring, and sexually attracted towards that individual (Gray, 1992; Koc, 2021). According to Kenrick and Griskevicius (2013) exposure to fear (risk) increases individuals’ tendency to engage in social behaviour, i.e. being with, or part of a group, and conforming to the group. This is because since the early ages human survival depended on being together with others. Even primitive human beings realised that they were unable to survive on their own and they started to form social relationships with others to cope with the risks and uncertainties present in the environment (Koc, 2020). The level of attractiveness of someone increases her/his social acceptance by others (Fareri & Delgado, 2014;

201

Leary, 2010). Hence, although it may not be seen as apparent, the primitive drive behind increasing beauty and attractiveness may be to do with increasing chances of survival, through the satisfaction of social needs. Although for primitive human beings, belonging to a group was needed for physical reasons to survive (Harari, 2016), even today belonging to a group and establishing social relationships are still important, though perhaps not so much physiologically, but psychologically to survive. Belonging to a social group and having good social relationships increase the chances of survival and extend life expectancy (Erber & Erber, 2017; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015). The demand for any type of tourism activity starts with motivation (Sharpley, 2008), conditioned by a need. The motivation a person has can be extrinsic, arising from outside to get an external reward, or intrinsic, the individual engages in an activity mainly because s/he enjoys it and gets personal satisfaction out of it (Cini et al., 2013). Most of the driving force behind engaging in aesthetic tourism activities may be extrinsically motivated to be liked, accepted, and appreciated by others. Even though people may state that they are engaging in aesthetic tourism activities for personal reasons, for intrinsic motivation, in the end, the main motivation rests on being liked, accepted, and appreciated by others (Heitmann, 2011). The self-determination theory, another leading theory of motivation, emphasises the importance of the interconnection of the above intrinsic and extrinsic motivations as a means of motivation to reach an objective. The self-determination theory is about people’s innate growth tendencies and innate psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2017). According to the self-determination theory for maintaining psychological growth, integrity, and well-being people need to satisfy three key psychological needs, namely autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2019). In other words if or when an individual’s needs for autonomy, competence, or relatedness are satisfied then s/he may have an environment that supports her/his positive psychological growth and wellbeing.

202

Individuals may believe that aesthetic surgeries and procedures may increase their autonomy by having liberty or control over their lives (Välimäki et al., 2004). Also, the individuals may believe that aesthetic surgeries may increase their competence in their interactions with other people and the feeling of belonging and being significant in the eyes of others (Ryan & Deci, 2019; Välimäki et al., 2004). Some of the needs people have may be in contrast with one another. For instance, while social needs force people to be similar to a group, status or prestige needs force people to be different from the group. Hence, while the satisfaction of social needs is to do with cooperation, the satisfaction of status or prestige needs is to do with competition. The status needs also have to do with the ability to increase people’s chances of survival and reproduction. When someone is more attractive than the others, the others in the group tend to show more interest in her/him. Thus, the individual may increase her/his chances to be able to choose people from a group, not only for reproduction purposes but also for having a more secure and stable life. According to Maslow (1943), selfactualisation is about one’s becoming the “best version of herself/himself”, or the desire to become “become everything that one is capable of becoming”. The becoming of one’s best version of oneself, and becoming everything that one is capable of becoming may also involve physical appearance. Consequently, people may aspire to look better and better, and engage in various cosmetic surgeries. For instance, several newspapers reported that singer Cher is alleged to have ribs surgically removed to improve her appearance (Davis, 2013). As explained below, the recent population trends and developments taking place in the economy are also fostering the interest in aesthetic operations. For instance, the world population, in general, is aging at a fast rate (He et al., 2016), and the fact that old people are not very much preferred in the service sector (AARP, 2020; Edmonds, 2007; Honigman & Castle, 2006), a sector is dominating the world economy, people are increasingly becoming more interested

E. Koc and A. Y. Ayyildiz

in aesthetic operations for professional purposes. From this angle, the risks relating to taking cosmetic surgeries to look younger at work may be explained from the perspective of the Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The Prospect Theory, put forward Kahneman and Tversky (1979), explains human beings’ decisions relating to economics and finance, and it has a predominant influence on a wide variety of consumer decisions, including cosmetic surgeries. The theory stipulates that people, in general, except for certain individuals such as the gamblers, place greater importance on “not losing”, i.e. loss aversion, than “winning”. Kahneman and Tversky (1979) explain that for some individuals the pain from losing $1000 may not be compensated with the pleasure of earning $1000. The individual may expect a higher level of compensation, such as $2000. Also, as the Prospect Theory stipulates that individuals would be more likely to take risks to avoid losses than to achieve gains, people may switch from risk aversion to risk-seeking (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). In service dominant economies as people get older, their likelihood of finding new jobs and maintaining their present jobs may be more difficult as service businesses (e.g. banking and financial services, tourism and hospitality, health, education, etc.) tend to put a special emphasis on the service providers’ appearance (Edmonds, 2007; Honigman & Castle, 2006). The growth of the service sector has been phenomenal over the past decades, and in several countries, such as the US, Russia, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, etc. both the contribution of the service sector to the country’s economy and overall employment in the country is well above 60% (World Fact Book, 2022). However, as stated above, at the same, the population in the world has been aging fast. For instance, the median age in the OECD countries is currently about 40 (OECD, 2020). Furthermore, more than 60% of people aged between 45 and 74 years old have experienced age-related discrimination at work (AARP, 2020). Based on this background the number of aesthetic operations for professional purposes has increased significantly.

Well-Being and Aesthetic Journeys: Motivations for Cosmetic Surgery Tourism

According to Maisel et al. (2018) more than half of the people’s (54,8%) main motivation in the United States to engage in aesthetic surgeries was to look good at work, i.e. for professional reasons. About 27% of the people stated that they had cosmetic surgeries to remain competitive in their professional field (Maisel et al., 2018). However, attributing the cause to engage in aesthetic surgeries to professional reasons may be based on sublimation, or rationalisation, an excuse, as a psychological defense mechanism. When people have a conflict between their id (uncontrollable desires—i.e. in this case the potential desire to look good for the opposite sex) and their superego (the society’s norms etc. disapproving of people’s too much concern for their appearance, i.e. being vain) they resort to a psychological defense mechanism, called sublimation (Koc, 2021). In sublimation, people transform their socially unacceptable impulses (paying too much attention to one’s appearance in the form of taking cosmetic surgeries) into socially acceptable actions or behaviour (having cosmetic surgery for professional reasons) (Koc, 2021; Russell, 2021). Also, psychologically people may not wish to be known that their appearance is not natural, i.e. their appearance was enhanced by cosmetic surgery. Also, as in high power distance cultures, the individuals may be more status and prestige oriented, people in these cultures, e.g. Turkey, Japan, and Brazil (Koc, 2020), may be more likely to engage in cosmetic surgeries for professional, as well as social reasons to increase their prestige in the society. Research shows that these above countries rank among the top ten countries worldwide with the highest number of cosmetic surgeons per capita (ISAPS, 2020). The number of plastic surgeons in these three countries constitutes 22.6% of all the plastic surgeons in the world (ISAPS, 2020). As a final note, it needs to be kept in mind that, in addition to professional, social, and certain personal reasons, there may specific reasons to have aesthetic surgery. For instance, Labadie et al. (2021) found that among people who had major medical illnesses such as chronic myelogenous leukemia, breast cancer, prostate cancer,

203

advanced cervical cancer, graft versus host disease, advanced thyroid cancer, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, etc. are more likely to seek after cosmetic surgeries to maintain their physical and mental well-being and to become comfortable in social settings so that they could reintegrate into society and reinvigorate their relationships, without standing out or looking sick.

The Self-Concept and Personality According to the Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) people usually compare and evaluate themselves in relation to others with a view to develop and improve themselves. Selfconcept can be defined as an evaluation of one’s self in relation to others (Koc, 2021; Malik et al., 2020). Self-concept rests on four evaluations, namely the actual self, how a person sees herself/himself; the ideal self, how a person wishes others to see herself/himself; actual-social self, how others see the person; ideal-social self, how the individual wishes the others to see herself/ himself (Javornik et al., 2021). One’s dissatisfaction with any aspect of her/his appearance, e.g. her/his nose, eyelids, hair, etc. reflects a discrepancy, a gap between the actual self/actual social self and the ideal self/ideal social self. If the person is not content with any element of his appearance such as her/his nose, weight, etc., s/he may undergo cosmetic surgeries to remove the discrepancy or close the gap between her/his ideal and actual self-concept. The “Body Cathexis/Self Cathexis Scale”, developed by Jourard and Secord (1955) measures one’s reactions and attitudes toward her/his body based on the discrepancy or the gap between the ideal and actual self-concept. The “Body Cathexis/Self Cathexis Scale” shows the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction one feels towards various parts and aspects of their own body (Jourard & Secord, 1955). Depending on the motivation, the individual, s/he may engage in the use of basic cosmetics such as the use of shampoos, facial creams, etc. on the one hand of the continuum, or s/he may plan to have complicated cosmetic surgeries at the other end of the

204

continuum. Hence, all aesthetic surgeries can be said to occur as a consequence of a discrepancy between the actual self and the ideal self. It is not only humans that try to look better for the opposite sex, as primates and several species engage in a number of actions to increase their eligibility to be chosen as mating partners (Call & Tomasello, 2020). For instance, male orangutans try to look larger by puffing out parts of their bodies and raising their, as female orangutans prefer larger and stronger looking male orangutans (Call & Tomasello, 2020). Griskevicius et al. (2012) claimed that the proportion of women to men in a city determined the level of testosterone men had in a particular city, and this level, in turn, influenced the fact that whether men were able to pay for or not their credit card bills or not. In towns where the proportion of women is relatively low, males spend more on clothes, sports cars, etc. to be able to look attractive to women and be able to compete with other males (Griskevicius et al., 2012; Sagarin, 2005). In places where the ratio of men to women is too high, men are more likely to reduce their savings by as much as 42% and increase their credit card debts by as much as 84% (Durante et al., 2011; Kenrick & Griskevicius, 2013). Likewise, in places where the proportion of one gender is low compared with the other, people from the opposite gender may be expected to spend more money on being more attractive and engage in aesthetic procedures/surgeries. Koc (2021) argues that the relatively high rate of cosmetic surgeries among Lebanese and Persian women, the extent of the use, and the level of knowledge relating to make-up and cosmetics among women in these countries, may be attributable to the fact that the proportion of males low due to high death incidents occurred in the wars took place in these regions. Research also shows that during economic crises, women are more likely to reduce their expenditures on necessities (food and drinks), while they increase their spending on cosmetics (Durante et al., 2011). In addition to the influence of self-concept, i.e. the gap between the actual- and ideal selfconcept, another factor influencing people’s

E. Koc and A. Y. Ayyildiz

tendency towards aesthetic operations may be their personality characteristics (Koc, 2021). For instance, people who have attention to social comparison, self-monitoring, and selfconsciousness (Koc, 2021) may be more likely to be interested in aesthetic operations. Of course, the degree of the personality characteristic (e.g. a very high level of extraversion or a medium level of extraversion) or the level of a felt need by the individual consumer, may cause differences in the preferences of customers/patients. According to research (Ferraro et al., 2005; Milothridis et al., 2016; von Soest et al., 2006), personality characteristics such as low levels of selfmonitoring, agreeability, openness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability tend to be the negative predictors for an interest in cosmetic surgeries, high levels of these personality characteristics tend to be high predictors of interest in cosmetic surgeries. Also, high body orientation, showing people’s interest in their image, tends to be a positive predictive factor for someone to undergo cosmetic surgery (Ferraro et al., 2005; von Soest et al., 2006). Additionally, a low score on the “Body Cathexis/Self Cathexis Scale” may also show an interest in cosmetic surgeries. The type of cosmetic surgery an individual is likely to have may also be influenced by her/his personality characteristics. For instance, Qian et al.’s (2021) study in China found that people with neuroticism as a personality characteristic were more likely to undergo and demand rhinoplasty, whilst face contour treatment was commonly associated with extraversion, than with, psychoticism and neuroticism. Mahmoudi et al. (2021) found that personality characteristics may also influence satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a particular type of cosmetic surgery. It was also found that while there was a positive relationship between patients/customers’ level of agreeableness and openness as two personality characteristics and their level of satisfaction with the rhinoplasty surgeries they had, neuroticism showed a negative correlation with their level of satisfaction with the rhinoplasty surgeries they had (Mahmoudi et al., 2021).

Well-Being and Aesthetic Journeys: Motivations for Cosmetic Surgery Tourism

Marketing of Aesthetic Operations and Aesthetic Tourism: A Discussion Based on the above explanations regarding the motivations of people, marketers may develop appropriate marketing mix (product, price, place, promotion, people, process, and physical evidence) strategies (Koc & Yazici Ayyildiz, 2022). The customers/patients, based on their high level of ideal self-concept, and the gap between their ideal and actual self-concepts, may develop extremely high or even unrealistic expectations (Solomon et al., 2017). Likewise, the need they are trying to satisfy, e.g. whether it is based on social needs such as belonging and affiliation, status needs such as prestige, or their personality characteristics may influence the expectations they develop and their level of satisfaction. Also, it needs to be borne in mind that the satisfaction with the aesthetic tourism journeys would be based on the harmonious marriage of the two distinct groups of activities, i.e. medicine and tourism by the business establishment. All of the sub-services that collectively make up the aesthetic tourism service need to be organised, coordinated and controlled in a way that all activities flow smoothly without any service failures. Through the preparation of detailed service blueprints, all service providers can become aware of all the potential customer/patient behaviours at each phase and be prepared for most eventualities. The service blueprints and rehearsal of service encounter scenarios for the sub-activities that make up the service can play a significant role in ascertaining a high level of service quality and reducing the likelihood of service failures (Koc & Yazici Ayyildiz, 2021). Aesthetic tourism patients/customers may be persuaded by the use of different strategies and models such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984; Shahab et al., 2021). According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984) depending on customers’ motivation and ability, their elaboration likelihood may be high or low. This, in turn, would determine the route through which

205

persuasion may occur. When the elaboration likelihood is high, they may be expected more to engage in cosmetic surgeries for professional reasons, and they may go through the central route. Thus, their attitude change and persuasion may require more cognitive effort and persuasion may depend on extensive consideration of the message arguments (Kitchen et al., 2014). In this case, the provision of facts and data may be more relevant for persuasion. However, when the elaboration likelihood is low, people may be more likely to be persuaded through the peripheral route. In the instance of a low level of elaboration, the quality of the arguments may not play an important role, as the persuasion would not require much cognitive effort. When the elaboration likelihood is low, peripheral cues such as the source credibility and certain heuristics may play a more important role (Kitchen et al., 2014). Hence, the practitioners may be recommended to understand whether their customers/patients may be more likely to be persuaded through the central or the peripheral route based on their personal, social, and cultural characteristics. Also, depending on the type of cosmetic surgery (e.g. breast augmentation, liposuction, eyelid surgery, abdominoplasty, and rhinoplasty) the route to persuasion may change, practitioners are recommended to find which route may be more effective for which type of surgery and for which type of customers/patients. Furthermore, the marketers need to understand that the satisfaction of the patients/tourists may not be sufficient in certain cases, the accompanying family members (e.g. a husband, wife, mother, daughter, etc.) and friends, who participate in the aesthetic journey, need to be satisfied as well.

Marketing of Aesthetic Operations and Aesthetic Tourism: Practical Recommendations There is a growing need to understand the perceptions, needs, motivations, attitudes, and behaviours of people who may engage in aesthetic tourism activities. This is primarily due to the increasing competition in the aesthetics

206

tourism market, both from the perspective of individual businesses and counties and or regions. There are two forces driving competition in the aesthetics tourism market. Firstly, at the micro level, many hospitals, clinics, and individual doctors are becoming interested in this market filling their idle capacity, reducing the influence of seasonality, and increasing their market base. To this end, they are forming agreements, partnerships, and alliances with tour operators and tourism and hospitality businesses. Secondly, at the macro level, governments, ministries, and local authorities increasingly support health and hospitality establishments, provide coordination and incentives to enhance present aesthetic tourism destinations, and develop new ones due to the economic and employment benefits of aesthetic tourism. The following case study provides recommendations for the development of the city of Aydin in Turkey. The Development of an Aesthetics Tourism Destination: Aydin

Aydin is a city located in the Aegean Region of Turkey. Aydin houses some of the world-famous touristic destinations such as Kusadasi and Didim. Famous touristic attractions such as the Ephesus, Temple of Artemis (one of the Seven Wonders of the World), and House of Virgin Mary are in the close vicinity of Aydin. Aydin is also known as Civilisation Valley, houses ancient civilisations and cities such as Tralleis, Magnesia, Aphrodisias (where Aphrodite lived) Nysa, Alabanda, Dydima (where the Temple of Apollon is) Panionion, Anaia, Alinda, Amyzon, Piginda, Harpasa, Mastaura, Pygale, and Orthosia. Moreover, Aydin, with 17 state hospitals and several private hospitals, health centres, and clinics is planned to be a health tourism destination. There are also about 40 5 Star Hotels in Aydin. Every year about 650 cruise ships dock in Kusadasi Port in

E. Koc and A. Y. Ayyildiz

Aydin, bringing in about 750 thousand tourists. Aydin competes with domestic health and aesthetics tourism destinations such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Bursa, as well as international destinations. Below are some of the recommendations made by Ahu Yazici Ayyildiz, one of the co-authors of this chapter, to develop Aydin as a health and aesthetics tourism destination, at the Health Tourism Workshop held at Kusadasi, Aydin: To ensure there are regular and frequent domestic and international flights to the nearby airport in Izmir in the winter season have talks with the management of airlines and the ministry of transportation in Turkey To organise aesthetic tourism conferences and symposiums in the region To organise festivals and carnivals associated with the region and aesthetics tourism. For instance, The Temple of Aphrodite, the Greek Goddess of Beauty, is in Aphrodisias, an ancient city in the Karacasu district of Ayd{n province in turkey. Also, many Ancient Greek doctors, e.g. Alexander of Tralles (Aydin), lived in Aydin. Moreover, Aydin is one of the richest regions in the world in terms of hot springs. Festivals and carnivals can be organised with these above themes

To attract celebrities to the region for aesthetic operations and to ensure that these events are covered in social and traditional media

To organise competitions relating to aesthetics tourism to promote the region internationally To eliminate the service quality problems and the lack of coordination regular meetings can be organised with the participation of all public and private stakeholders

(continued)

Well-Being and Aesthetic Journeys: Motivations for Cosmetic Surgery Tourism

To encourage investors to set up new aesthetic tourism establishments in the region. To provide incentives for the establishment of hospitals and health centres geared toward aesthetics tourism To provide consultancy support to health institutions and ensure that they get JCI (Joint Commission International) accreditation

To hold regular coordination meetings to better integrate the transportation system between the city centre and districts of Aydin

To provide extensive foreign language, health tourism certificate programs, and various relevant courses through public education centres

To provide information through brochures and organising meetings to promote aesthetics tourism to tourists visiting the region for cultural and sun and sea tourism. Ensuring that the officials representing Ayd{n province go to health tourism activities abroad (fairs etc.) and preparing action plans according to these feedbacks To establish a coordination and control unit and to ensure that the problems faced by visitors who come to the region for aesthetics tourism are resolved quickly

To develop various health and aesthetic tourism product packages and to ensure that they are promoted as separate products

Recommendations for Future Research Aesthetics to tourism, though an infant segment, is a fast developing market within health or wellbeing tourism. Hence, there is a need for several research studies to understand the potential customers and the aesthetics tourism processes.

207

Researchers may be recommended to carry out research to identify the most common service failure gaps experienced by the visitors. Based on the outcome of this research improvements can be made to the aesthetics and tourism components of aesthetics tourism. As service robots provide (Yazici Ayyildiz et al., 2022) provide homogeneous and standardised services in tourism and hospitality establishments, the attitudes of aesthetics tourism visitors towards the service robots may be investigated. Researchers may also investigate which types of aesthetics tourism activities such as hair transplants, liposuction surgeries may be paired with which type of tourism activities such as sun and sea holidays, cultural holidays, etc. Based on the outcome of these studies better product packages may be designed and offered to the visitors.

Conclusion Aesthetic tourism is a fast-growth market segment within the medical tourism market. It is based on the need to reach and or maintain the psychological well-being of the customers/ patients. This chapter explained the aesthetic tourism phenomenon from the consumer behaviour and marketing perspectives and discussed the main motivations of people to engage in aesthetic/cosmetic procedures or surgeries. It was explained that though the main motivations of the customers/patients may be based on all of the needs in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, particularly the social needs, the prestige needs, and the self-actualisation needs may be particularly relevant. It was also explained that a significant proportion of aesthetic surgeries took place for professional purposes. The chapter explained the main motivations of people to have aesthetic surgeries with reference to certain theories such as the Prospect Theory. The Prospect Theory stipulates that people would be more likely to take risks to avoid losses than to achieve gains and switch from risk aversion to riskseeking. It was also explained that the discrepancy between the ideal and actual self-concept

208

could be one of the important determinants of individuals’ engagement in aesthetic operations.

References American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) AARP (2020). The economic impact of age discrimination. https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/ surveys_statistics/econ/2020/impact-ofagediscrimination.doi.10.26419-2Fint.00042.003.pdf (Accessed 15.01.2022). American Society of Dermatologic Surgery. (2017). ASDS consumer survey on cosmetic dermatologic procedures. https://www.asds.net/MedicalProfessionals/Practice-Resources/ASDS-ConsumerSurvey-on-Cosmetic-Dermatologic-Procedures. Accessed 15 Jan 2022. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. (2020). Cosmetic surgery trends. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/ documents/News/Statistics/2020/cosmetic-proceduretrends-2020.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2022. Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (Eds.). (2020). The gestural communication of apes and monkeys. Psychology Press. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence (5th ed.). Pearson. Cini, F., Kruger, S., & Ellis, S. (2013). A model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on subjective well-being: The experience of overnight visitors to a national park. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 8(1), 45–61. Connell, J. (2011). Medical tourism. CABI. Davis, K. (2013). Reshaping the female body: The dilemma of cosmetic surgery. Routledge. Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Hill, S. E., Perilloux, C., & Li, N. P. (2011). Ovulation, female competition, and product choice: Hormonal influences on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 921–934. Edmonds, A. (2007). ‘The poor have the right to be beautiful’: cosmetic surgery in neoliberal Brazil. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 13(2), 363–381. Erber, R., & Erber, M. (2017). Intimate relationships: Issues, theories, and research. Psychology Press. Fareri, D. S., & Delgado, M. R. (2014). Social rewards and social networks in the human brain. The Neuroscientist, 20(4), 387–402. Ferraro, G. A., Rossano, F., & D’Andrea, F. (2005). Selfperception and self-esteem of patients seeking cosmetic surgery. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 29, 184–189. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison process. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Franzblau, L. E., & Chung, K. C. (2021). Impact of medical tourism on cosmetic surgery in the United States. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, 1(7), e63. Frevert, T. K., & Walker, L. S. (2014). Physical attractiveness and social status. Sociology Compass, 8(3), 313–323.

E. Koc and A. Y. Ayyildiz Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships. HarperCollins. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Ackerman, J. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & White, A. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 69. Harari, Y. N. (2016). Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. Random House. He, W., Goodkind, D., & Kowal, P. (2016). US census bureau, International population reports, P95/16-1, an aging world: 2015. US Government Publishing Office. Heitmann, S. (2011). Tourist behaviour and tourism motivation. Research Themes for Tourism, 31–44. Holliday, R., Bell, D., Cheung, O., Jones, M., & Probyn, E. (2015). Brief Encounters: Assembling Cosmetic Surgery Tourism. Social Science and Medicine, 124, 298–304. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. Honigman, R., & Castle, D. J. (2006). Aging and cosmetic enhancement. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 1(2), 115. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). (2019). Latest global survey from ISAPS reports continuing rise in aesthetic surgery worldwide. https://www.isaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ ISAPS-Global-Survey-2019-Press-Release-English. pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2022. ISAPS Global Survey Results. (2020). https://www.isaps. org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ISAPS-Global-Sur vey_2020.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2022. Javornik, A., Marder, B., Pizzetti, M., & Warlop, L. (2021). Augmented self—The effects of virtual face augmentation on consumers’ self-concept. Journal of Business Research, 130, 170–187. Johnston, D. W. (2010). Physical appearance and wages: Do blondes have more fun? Economics Letters, 108(1), 10–12. Jourard, S. M., & Secord, P. F. (1955). Body cathexis and the ideal female figure. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50(2), 243–246. Judge, T. A., Hurst, C., & Simon, L. S. (2009). Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 742. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291. Kemppainen, L., Koskinen, V., Bergroth, H., Marttila, E., & Kemppainen, T. (2021). Health and wellness-related travel: A scoping study of the literature in 2010-2018. SAGE Open, 11(2), 21582440211013792.

Well-Being and Aesthetic Journeys: Motivations for Cosmetic Surgery Tourism Kenrick, D. T., & Griskevicius, V. (2013). The rational animal: How evolution made us smarter than we think. Basic Books. Kitchen, J. P., Kerr, G., Schultz, D., McColl, R., & Pals, H. (2014). The elaboration likelihood model: review, critique and research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), 2033–2050. Klein, H. J., Simic, D., Fuchs, N., Schweizer, R., Mehra, T., Giovanoli, P., & Plock, J. A. (2017). Complications after cosmetic surgery tourism. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 37(4), 474–482. Koc, E. (2013). Power distance and its implications for upward communication and empowerment: Crisis management and recovery in hospitality services. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(19), 3681–3696. Koc, E. (2020). Cross-cultural aspects of tourism and hospitality: A services marketing and management perspective. Routledge. Koc, E. (2021). Tüketici Davran{ş{ ve Pazarlama Stratejileri. Seckin Yayincilik. Koc, E., & Altinay, G. (2007). An analysis of seasonality in monthly per person tourist spending in Turkish inbound tourism from a market segmentation perspective. Tourism Management, 28(1), 227–237. Koc, E., & Yazici Ayyildiz, A. (2021). An overview of tourism and hospitality scales: Discussion and recommendations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 5(5), 927–949. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI06-2021-0147 Koc, E., & Yazici Ayyildiz, A. (2022). Culture’s influence on the design and delivery of the marketing mix elements in tourism and hospitality. Sustainability, 13(21), 11630. Kuraguchi, K., Taniguchi, K., Kanari, K., & Itakura, S. (2020). Face preference in infants at six and nine months old: The effects of facial attractiveness and observation experience. Symmetry, 12(7), 1082. Labadie, J. G., Poon, E., & Alam, M. (2021). Patients with major medical illness seek cosmetic procedures to preserve a healthy appearance and avoid looking ill. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 86(4), 878–883. Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 27, 79–84. Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging. Handbook of Social Psychology, 2, 864–897. Lozano-Ramirez, J., Ramos, K., Ahumada-Tello, E., & Lopez-Regalado, M. (2021, July). The role of digital marketing for aesthetic tourism: Understanding tourist behavior. In International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics (pp. 649–656). Springer. Lunt, N., Hardey, M., & Manion, R. (2010). Nip, tuck and click: Medical tourism and the emergence of wen-based health information. The Open Medical Informatics Journal, 4(1), 1–11.

209

Mahmoudi, S., Gheisari, R., & Rabbanizadeh, M. (2021). Role of positive thinking and personality traits in predicting satisfaction with nasal surgeries. Journal of Research and Health, 11(1), 45–52. Maisel, A., Waldman, A., Furlan, K., Weil, A., Sacotte, K., Lazaroff, J. M., Lin, K., Aranzazu, D., Avram, M. M., Bell, A., Cartee, T. V., Cazzaniga, A., Chapas, A., Crispin, M. K., Croix, J. A., DiGiorgio, C. M., Dover, J. S., Goldberg, D. J., Goldman, M. P., . . . Alam, M. (2018). Self-reported patient motivations for seeking cosmetic procedures. JAMA Dermatology, 154(10), 1167–1174. Majeed, S., Lu, C., & Javed, T. (2017). The journey from an allopathic to natural treatment approach: A scoping review of medical tourism and health systems. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 16, 22–32. Malik, A., Merunka, D., Akram, M. S., Barnes, B. R., & Chen, A. (2020). Self-concept, individual characteristics, and counterfeit consumption: Evidence from an emerging market. Psychology & Marketing, 37(10), 1378–1395. Martínez-Chaves, D. (2016). Turismo médico: Generalidades para su comprensión integral. Turismo y Sociedad, 19, 137–161. Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. Mendes, A. (2016). Medical tourism and the rise of ‘plastic surgery cults’ in Turkey. Journal of Aesthetic Nursing, 5(1), 32–33. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (2022). Merriam-Webster Incorporated. Accessed 15 Jan 2022. Milothridis, P., Pavlidis, L., Haidich, A. B., & Panagopoulou, E. (2016). A systematic review of the factors predicting the interest in cosmetic plastic surgery. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery, 49(03), 397–402. OECD (2020). Ageing and employment policies—statistics on average effective age of retirement. Available at www.oecd.org/els/emp/average-effective-age-of-retire ment.htm. Accessed 16 Jan 2022. Pereira, R. T., Malone, C. M., & Flaherty, G. T. (2018). Aesthetic journeys: a review of cosmetic surgery tourism. Journal of Travel Medicine, 25, 1–8. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81. Precedence Research. (2022). Medical tourism market size to hit US$ 286.1 billion by 2030 [20.01.2022]. https:// www.precedenceresearch.com/customization/1360. Qian, H., Ling, Y., Wang, C., Lenahan, C., Zhang, M., Zheng, M., & Shao, A. (2021). A correlative study between personality traits and the preference of site selection in cosmetic treatment. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 752. Rosar, U., Klein, M., & Beckers, T. (2008). The frog pond beauty contest: Physical attractiveness and electoral success of the constituency candidates at the North

210 Rhine-Westphalia state election of 2005. European Journal of Political Research, 47(1), 64–79. Russell, J. (2021). Sublimation and superego: Psychoanalysis between two deaths. Routledge. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2019). Brick by brick: The origins, development, and future of self-determination theory. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 6, pp. 111–156). Elsevier. Sagarin, B. J. (2005). Reconsidering evolved sex differences in jealousy: Comment on Harris (2003). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 62–75. Salter, S. P., Mixon, F. G., Jr., & King, E. W. (2012). Broker beauty and boon: a study of physical attractiveness and its effect on real estate brokers’ income and productivity. Applied Financial Economics, 22(10), 811–825. Shahab, M. H., Ghazali, E., & Mohtar, M. (2021). The role of elaboration likelihood model in consumer behaviour research and its extension to new technologies: A review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 664–689. Sharpley, R. (Ed.). (2008). Tourism, tourists and society (4th ed.). ELM. Söderlund, M., & Julander, C. R. (2009). Physical attractiveness of the service worker in the moment of truth and its effects on customer satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(3), 216–226. Solomon, M. R., White, K., Dahl, D. W., Zaichkowsky, J. L., & Polegato, R. (2017). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. Pearson. STATISTA. (2020). Countries with the largest total number of cosmetic procedures in 2020. https://www. statista.com/statistics/293356/leading-countries-bytotal-number-of-cosmetic-procedures/. Accessed 15 Jan 2022. Thacoor, A., van den Bosch, P., & Akhavani, M. A. (2019). Surgical management of cosmetic surgery tourism-related complications: current trends and cost analysis study of the financial impact on the UK

E. Koc and A. Y. Ayyildiz National Health Service (NHS). Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 39(7), 786–791. Toledano, E. (2013). May the best (looking) man win: The unconscious role of attractiveness in employment decisions. Cornell HR Review. Retrieved from Cornell University, ILR School site: http://digitalcommons.ilr. cornell.edu/chrr/48/ Välimäki, M., Leino-Kilpi, H., Grönroos, M., Dassen, T., Gasull, M., Lemonidou, C., Scott, P. A., & Benedicta, M. (2004). Self-determination in surgical patients in five European countries. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36(4), 305–311. Villi, B., & Koc, E. (2018). Employee attractiveness and customers’ service failure perceptions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(1), 41–60. von Soest, T., Kvalem, I. L., Skolleborg, K. C., & Roald, H. E. (2006). Psychosocial factors predicting the motivation to undergo cosmetic surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 117, 51–62. World Factbook, 2022: CIA World Factbook. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/theworldfactbook/countries Yazici Ayyildiz, A. Y., Baykal, M., & Koc, E. (2022). Attitudes of hotel customers towards the use of service robots in hospitality service encounters. Technology in Society, 70(2), 101995.

Dr Erdogan Koc is a professor of services marketing at Bahcesehir University, Faculty of Economics Administrative, and Social Sciences, Turkey. He specializes particularly in the behavioural aspects of services marketing and his publications focus primarily focuses on the human element (both as consumer and employee) in tourism and hospitality. Apart from his academic, teaching, and research, activities he provides consultancy and training services for the service sector businesses. Dr Ahu Yazici Ayyildiz is an associate professor of marketing at Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Tourism, Turkey. She specializes in services marketing and digital marketing in tourism and hospitality.

Self-Identification with Tourism Experiences, Hedonic–Eudaimonic Consumption Deniz Karagöz and Selin Kama

Introduction The relationships between tourism and identity concepts are frequently discussed and examined in tourism research (Bell & Lyall, 2002; Breathnach, 2006; Cohen, 2010; Crompton, 1979; Desforges, 1998; Michael et al., 2019). Some of the most fundamental questions about identity for researchers trying to understand and explain tourist behavior are “Who am I?”, “Where do I fit in?”, “Who should I be?”. The extended self has found an important place in both marketing and tourism research with Belk’s proposition that products and services represent the identities of individuals, in accordance with the desire to “find oneself” through consumption behavior. The extended self is based on the notion that transferable or untransferable assets that are owned by a person are an indicator of one’s identity (Belk, 1988, p. 139). On the other hand, Campbell (1994) expresses this notion as, “It is just as true to say that the self is established through consumption as much as it is true to say that consumption expresses the self.” As Davidson emphasizes, many researchers who D. Karagöz (✉) Department of Tourism Management, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] S. Kama Department of Tourism Management, Bitlis Eren University, Bitlis, Turkey

examine tourists’ travel experiences unite in the need to understand how people incorporate travel experiences into their search for self-identity (2005, p. 31), and many researchers, continue to struggle on how best to operationalize the term “identity” in itself (Bond & Falk, 2013). In tourism research, the phenomenon of identity has generally focused on “social identities” within the framework of social identity theory and self-expression; the expression of one’s own identity to others. While the researchers note that identities are not static and do not have a permanent structure, the relationship of the individual with the product or activity can focus on the question of “Who am I?” in the context of the relationship with leisure and tourism activity, from the perspective of personal identity. As this study examines individuals’ identification with their travel experiences, it focuses on Cohen’s (2010) view of “patterned and purposeful integration of true self with travel experience” from the perspective of personal identity. It is widely accepted that a leisure travel context can foster personal identity studies (Desforges, 2000; Neumann, 1992; Noy, 2004). However, there is little evidence of the consequences of individuals’ identification with travel experiences that are coherent and consistent with their extended personal identity (Cohen, 2010). Therefore, this study examines the context between self, personal identity and travel experiences in depth through the concept of self-

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_15

211

212

identification, in relation to hedonia and eudaimonia. In modern psychological research, the questioning of the place of happiness in a good life has led the wellbeing concept to be searched in two categories; hedonia and eudaimonia (Kashdan et al., 2008; Huta & Waterman, 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Hedonia is characterized by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain (Huta, 2015; Huta & Waterman, 2014; Ryan et al., 2008). Conversely, eudaimonia is associated with self-knowledge and understanding, meaning of life, and discovering the true self (Huta & Waterman, 2014; Lengieza et al., 2019; Vada et al., 2019). The main purpose of these inquiries is to define the source of a good life or a welllived life (Huta & Waterman, 2014) through the cognitive foundations of wellbeing by emphasizing the degree of the hedonia and eudaimonia dimensions (Nawijn et al., 2012; McMahan & Estes, 2011). Studies show that the only thing that individuals have control over is goals and choices, and the feeling of success or wellbeing consists of efforts that cannot be interfered with (Huta, 2013). While individual identities allow for determination of these goals and choices, they are also effective in shaping two dimensions of wellbeing. Moreover, unlike philosophers, social scientists try to understand the relationships between variables by examining wellbeing with empirical research rather than an ethical questioning of the nature of a good life (Huta & Waterman, 2014). As a result of this, hedonia and eudaimonia, which can be encountered in all discourses of daily life and activities, have became known with an influence on shaping motivation, engagement, satisfaction and happiness, with its meaningful and transformative effects on travel experiences (Smith & Diekmann, 2017). In tourism research, hedonia and eudaimonia are considered as concepts that contribute to the purpose of understanding and encouraging people’s potential, increasing pleasure and developing relationships (Garcês et al., 2018). Tourists develop hedonia and eudaimonia depending on the challenges, evolution of the world in a better direction (for example sustainability) or the

D. Karagöz and S. Kama

pursuit of entertainment (Seligman, 2002). In this respect, it is important to determine the impact of visitors’ construction and maintenance of their identities by connecting with self-defining activities on hedonia and eudaimonia.

Literature Self-Identification with Travel Experiences According to the self-categorization theory, since the self is not always experienced in terms of personality or individual differences, it is stated that the self does not reflect a permanent personality structure (Onorato & Turner, 2004). Therefore, the theory focuses on a distinction between self identity (the personal self) and social identity (the collective self) (Onorato & Turner, 2004). Social identity is the “attributed or assigned identities positioning others as social objects” (Collinson & Hockey, 2007, p. 383). On the other hand, personal identity is the conscious awareness of one’s own existence that distinguishes the individual from others (Burke & Stets, 2009). According to social identity theory, the individual acquires his/her identity by referring to others, and identity is about emphasizing points of similarity with certain groups and differences with others (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Brewer (1991) explains the concept of social identity with the model of optimal distinctiveness. Accordingly, if there is too much differentiation in the process of reaching individual identity, the individual tries to be a part of a larger collective structure, so he/she chooses to identify with categories at the level of inclusiveness where the need for differentiation and assimilation is equal. Based on the suggestion that behavior is influenced by the desire to verify one’s own image, it is stated in tourism research that individuals use leisure and tourism activities to convey their identities to others. Social identity referring to ‘us’ and ‘them’ is “the categorization of the self into more inclusive social units that distinguish one individual from others in a particular social context” (Brewer, 1991, p. 476).

Self-Identification with Tourism Experiences, Hedonic–Eudaimonic Consumption

However, identity theory states that for individuals, the categorization process is driven by roles, not groups. The self take a role, and the role provides meanings and expectations that integrate with the self (Burke & Tully, 1977). These meanings and expectations, in turn, provide the standards that guide behavior or role performance (Burke, 1991; Burke & Reitzes, 1981). Identity theory is a broader theory that not only the need for a predetermined group, but is sufficient to capture the influence of various aspects of individual behavior in relation to selfmessage, process, product/activity, and focal activity (Taylor, 2010). In this case, it provides a useful basis for understanding the individual’s self-identification with travel activities. While acquiring an individual identity, the individual can find the opportunity to define him/herself in connection with the world perceived in social life. At this point, the individual is in an effort to acquire a different identity apart from the individuals she/he perceives as the other, acting especially with the emphasis on difference. In this context, it is necessary to consider the special characteristics of the individual who is in search of personal identity, such as psychological characteristics, and physical and mental abilities, which are based on the feeling of being personally unique (Özdil, 2017). Jenkins (1996, p. 29) defines the self as “the reflexive sense of each individual’s own special identity towards others in terms of similarity and difference”. Therefore, the construction of one’s own identity is also related to self-differentiation and desired/targeted role goals. In this sense, individuals can construct and maintain their own identities by connecting with self-defining activities. This forms the basis of this study. It is possible to find the foundations of the concept of self-identification in Waterman’s eudaimonic identity theory and self-congruence theories in psychology. The concept of selfidentification is based on the eudaimonic identity theory developed by Waterman (1990, 2011) depending on the concepts of eu (good) and daimon (spirit) from Aristotle and the personality theory of Erickson. Waterman (1993, 2008, 2011) is the one most likely to influence identity

213

research based on the fact that a person begins to discover and recognize his or her daimon or true self through focusing on self-defining activities (personal salient identity-related activities) by using interests, talents and abilities. Therefore, the eudaimonistic identity perspective provides a basis for understanding the connection between identity experiences and a set of self-defining activities (Mao et al., 2016). According to the eudaimonistic identity theory, if the activity that individuals are interested in offers the opportunity for self-actualization, the individual experiences self-identification through an activity (Bosnjak et al., 2016). Similarly, Schlenker defines self-identification as the process, means, or outcome of fixing and expressing one’s identity through privately selfreflecting and publicly self-disclosing and selfpresenting (Schlenker, 1986, p. 55). Selfidentification is the process, means, or result of presenting oneself as a particular type of person, and therefore determines one’s identity. Identifying and expressing identity involves systematically describing and categorizing one’s self, bringing out relevant evidence and experiences (Schlenker, 1986). Tourists identify and present themselves by assuming a specific role or forming an identity. In other words tourists participate in the travel experience, define themselves, play certain roles and develop selfconcept. Creating a portrayal of role identity has its own satisfaction in the present and in the construction of the self (Kelly, 2019). A person’s activities are purposeful and, in turn, these goals are organized around one’s self-definitions, rather than being chosen and changed voluntarily. Waterman et al. (2003) suggest that when individuals engage in activities that define their identity, they are most likely to experience intense participation and a special cohesion in activities. The key point here is the activityrelated feature that is potentially relevant for identity development (Mao et al., 2016). According to self-adaptation theory, people choose to buy and use goods and services that have a user image consistent with their self-image (Sirgy, 1985). Doing so allows consumers to reinforce their own personal identity and their

214

own view of themselves (their self-concept). Consumers achieve “self-congruity” by displaying positive attitudes towards brands that are perceived as similar to self-concepts (Sirgy, 1985). The self-consistency motive refers to an individual’s tendency to behave consistently with respect to their own opinion. Individuals are motivated to hold a set of beliefs about themselves, and act to reinforce their self-concept (for example, to buy and use goods and services). Therefore, individuals focus on and identify with self-defining activities that are most likely to affect their actual identities. Social cognitive learning theory examines the self as a functioning system by transforming one’s self-perception into knowledge. It can be said that self-image congruence is based on cognitive learning (Kihlstrom & Klein, 1994) because such a matching also necessitates the formation of cognitive schemas. The selfschemas that are formed are activated in certain consumption situations and these schemas should be related to the self-concept of the consumer. Self-identification serves to organize the person in these schemas. In general, “an act of selfidentification requires that the preferred experience or situation (for example, an adventure travel experience) be placed in a category” (Strauss, 1959, p. 19). For example, for an individual who defines his/her identity as risk-taking, adventure-loving, and achievement-oriented, the characteristics of the adventure travel experience (e.g. high risk, challenge, etc.) will be compatible with the individual’s self-schemas and, in this case, it is possible to identify self with this adventure travel experience that is compatible with the self-scheme. The tourism experience is defined as the result of various physical, psychological, intellectual and emotional reactions subjectively perceived by tourists (Andrades & Dimanche, 2018). For this reason, the tourism experience can be interpreted as a source of search for inner meaning and personal development (Andrades & Dimanche, 2018; MacCannell, 1976; Mannell & Iso-Ahola, 1987). Havitz and Dimanche (1999) emphasized that leisure contexts often provide individuals with meaningful experiences and

D. Karagöz and S. Kama

opportunities to reveal their true identities. Selfidentification is associated with the realization of tourists’ potential and the consistency between their true selves and their tourism experiences. When a psychological perspective to the nature of tourism experiences, and the eudemonic identity theory is employed as a foundation, then the definition of the concept of self-identification within tourism literature can be extended as “the aims which a tourist tries to achieve (for example, self-development or self-actualization), and the match between the desire to reveal and express his/her true-self and the tourism experience”. According to Waterman et al. (2003), when individuals engage in activities that reflect their personalities, they are likely to experience an intense involvement and a special fit with the activities. Similarly, Dimanche and Samdahl (1994) suggested that involvement is related to the self-identification nature of leisure behavior. Involvement reflects the degree to which a person devotes him or herself to an activity or associated product. In addition, involvement refers to the strength or extent of the cognitive link between the self and the stimulus object/activity. This is indicated by expressions stressing the extent of an object’s relatedness, connections or engagement to an individual’s self concept, needs, and values as determinants of involvement (Kyle & Chick, 2002, 427). The leisure literature provides significant empirical evidence that confirms the relationship between self-identification and travel activities. In these studies, empirical evidence reveals that self-identification is important in enhancing travel experiences and promoting positive behavioral intentions (Hultman et al., 2015; Lochrie et al., 2019; Stokburger-Sauer, 2011; Tussyadiah et al., 2011). For example, Stokburger-Sauer (2011) showed that selfidentified travelers are more likely to have a more positive attitude towards the destination and more likely to revisit and promote the destination. Alrawadieh et al. (2019) found that selfidentification is a predictor of both overall satisfaction and visitor engagement. In other words, the researcher found that tourists who identify with a heritage site benefit more from their experience and therefore experience a higher level of

Self-Identification with Tourism Experiences, Hedonic–Eudaimonic Consumption

satisfaction in their visits. In addition, Lee et al. (2016) determined that the nature of involvement is effective in establishing the self-identity of individuals in their relationships with a film festival.

Eudaimonia Eudaimonia, which is among the subjects of positive psychology, can be defined within the framework of the strict standards of philosophers such as Aristotle and Kant. According to Kant, eudaimonia helps the individual to understand the inner world and to focus on self-actualization and to determine the level of full functionality (Ryan & Deci, 2001). This state of full functionality is defined as a rough ideal (Waterman, 1993). Eudaimonia is based on the premise that the individual chooses a lifestyle that is fully and self-sufficiently dependent on reasonable right behavior patterns by seeing how happy a person can be compared to others and doing right things that make him or her worthy of being happy (Irwin, 1991; Lenoir, 2016, p. 53). Therefore, eudaimonia reveals the sacred aspect of life based on ethical principles. Aristotle states that, “eudaimonia is the most pleasurable of human experiences, therefore human beings should listen to the call of living with a higher virtue by rejecting pleasure seeking” (Kashdan et al., 2008). According to researchers, this view guides the conclusions in research on wellbeing that people are happier when they engage in meaningful pursuits and virtuous activities. Wellbeing originating from eudaimonia develops when the individual has the ability to act freely, brings his or her own experiences together by becoming conscious of one’s own best or personal perfection, improves memory, and lives in harmony with life goals and objectives (Waterman, 1993, 2008). The definition of wellbeing from a eudaimonic perspective is directed by suppressing, disclosing, dividing and controlling the emotions needed for the individual to reach full functionality (Ryan & Deci, 2001). For this reason, the strong relationship between tourism and eudaimonia (Filep & Pearce,

215

2013; Knobloch, et al., 2017) helps tourists to express themselves, gain personal development skills, develop awareness and a sense of harmony, and cognitive development beyond temporary feelings and thoughts (Filep, 2016). It is associated with providing wealth and inspiration (Huta, 2015; Sirgy & Uysal, 2016). Although the sense of wellbeing obtained from the experience of simple pleasures will disappear in the short term, eudaimonic experiences, that include activities that are good for the individual by nature, provide long-term or long lasting wellbeing (McMahan & Estes, 2011). According to Ryan et al. (2008), motivations internalized by the individual in eudaimonic life are also effective in achieving long-term and permanent wellbeing as tourists. This acquisition shows that eudaimonic effects increase the quality of life of tourists beyond the hedonic pleasure of their experience (Knobloch et al., 2017). However, eudaimonic experiences should be evaluated depending on the individual’s situation. For this reason, Ryff (1989) examined which variables affect the evaluation processes of individuals in order to determine how macro-level social changes affect individuals’ lives and psychological wellbeing. Accordingly, self-acceptance, purpose in life, personal growth, positive relations with others, environmental mastery and autonomy contribute to the eudaimonic wellbeing of tourists (Hao & Xiao, 2021). Self-acceptance refers to an individual’s developing a positive attitude towards him/herself by accepting self and past life (Lundqvist & Sandin, 2014; Ryff, 1989). Since tourist experiences involve a therapeutic process, they develop selfacceptance by offering visitors the opportunity to understand themselves, communicate with themselves, and thereby accept good or bad characteristics in them (Hao & Xiao, 2021). In addition, wellness, dark tourism or sports tourism reflects eudaimonia with its potential to express and reflect personal identity, regulate lifestyle and self-realization (Bosnjak et al., 2016; Filep, 2016; Voigt et al., 2010). From Frankl’s existentialist point of view, the individual’s search for meaning and purpose in all kinds of difficulties encountered throughout

216

his/her life defines the dimension of purpose in life (Ryff & Singer, 2008). This dimension refers to various changing goals or objectives in life, such as being productive and creative or achieving emotional integration in later life, as well as beliefs that give the individual the feeling that every life has a purpose and meaning (Ryff, 1989). The goals and objectives designed to give meaning to the life of the individual and to determine direction (Lundqvist & Sandin, 2014) enable personal growth by supporting the selfrealization and continuous development by realizing potential (Ryff, 1989). As stated by Ryff and Singer (2008), personal growth, which has a dynamic structure, includes a continuous process for the realization of potential. For instance, visiting different countries or places and gaining new experiences encourage individuals to learn, and affect coping skills and personal development in every aspect of their lives (Lundqvist & Sandin, 2014). In respect of purpose in life and personal growth, based on skills, personal reward, change, discovery of the true self, and individual development (Matteucci & Filep, 2017), eudaimonia offers an understanding of tourist experiences that reveal the potential for success, personal meaning and development (Lacombe, 2016). In this context, the experiences obtained as a result of each activity create eudaimonic wellbeing in connection with a higher or wider personal development level, in line with the meanings that tourists attribute to life. Another variable of eudaimonic thinking is positive relations with others. Eudaimonia draws attention to the importance of the ability to understand interaction and to establish relationships, with trust, satisfaction and concerns about each other’s wellbeing, which are required in one’s family members, friends and love relationships (Lundqvist & Sandin, 2014). Warm, trusting interpersonal relationships develop a strong sense of empathy and compassion for other people, activating the ability for greater love, deeper friendship, and a more complete identification with others (Ryff, 1989). Such relationships between people, in a eudaimonic context, are a central feature of a well-lived life (Ryff & Singer, 2008, p. 21). Therefore, the types of tourism

D. Karagöz and S. Kama

preferred by tourists, depending on their interaction with the local people, volunteer work or the level of benevolence, provide eudaimonic experiences (Smith & Diekmann, 2017). Environmental mastery, which emphasizes the ability of an individual to choose or create environments suitable for their own mental conditions, requires the ability to manipulate and control complex environments (Ryff, 1989). Researchers state that this dimension, which can be confused with other psychological constructs such as sense of control and self-efficacy, differs in its emphasis on finding or creating an environmental context appropriate to the individual’s personal needs and capacities. An example of environmental mastery may be an individual’s selection of tourist destinations and activities to improve control over the environment (Hao & Xiao, 2021) or even persuade others to follow their choices.

Hedonia Hedonia, as the main driving force of individual behavior, is reflected in the sum of the pleasures needed to maintain a good life in the world (Farabi, 2016; Veenhoven, 2003). For this reason, in the most general sense, hedonia is the feeling and satisfaction of desires by pursuing the desires of individuals in line with their personal interests (Heathwood, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Aristippus states that the concept of hedonia, which associates with bodily pleasures, is a momentary emotion arising from memory and expectations (Irwin, 1991). The formation of these momentary emotions may depend on the reactions of individuals to the stimuli they encounter. In the development process of hedonic experience, a state of happiness, joy or satisfaction is experienced (Argyle & Martin, 2013) as a result of reducing pain and maximizing satisfaction (Huta & Waterman, 2014) depending on a stimulus. In this context, hedonic experience is centered around a subjectively determined positive affective state from the hedonic approach to determine the state of wellbeing (McMahan &

Self-Identification with Tourism Experiences, Hedonic–Eudaimonic Consumption

Estes, 2011). Therefore, although both eudaimonia and hedonia attract attention with their subjective content in tourism research, hedonia is seen as more equivalent to subjective wellbeing because it provides short-term relaxation and a pleasure experience (Voigt, 2016). This state of subjectivity related to hedonia creates hedonic value by giving a feeling of instant satisfaction and pleasure in connection with the individual’s desire, love, value and positive attitudes (Smith & Diekmann, 2017). Hedonic experience is embedded in daily life and real experiences (Kashdan et al., 2008). Subjective wellbeing becomes stronger if the positive emotions of individuals are high in positive and negative events that occur at any moment of life (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Therefore, hedonia is associated with emotional states, outcomes, and motivations that cause certain behavior (Lacombe et al., 2019). When associated with emotions, it can be said that positive and negative emotions at the hedonic level affect wellbeing as a result of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain (Ryan et al., 2008). In other words, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain in the hedonic approach reveal a simple representation of an individual’s (or in our case tourist’s) real attitude (Giuntoli et al., 2021). The tendency of tourists to be involved in the decision-making process (Gnoth, 1997) may be the reason why the intense, subjective, remarkable and self-rewarding tourist experience turns into an activity performed with hedonic seeking (Malone et al., 2014), and could be related with the avoidance strategy. In this context, the individual can provide a targeted treatment in the improvement of psychopathological symptoms, such as depression and stress, by performing hedonic behavior (for example, planning pleasurable or hedonic activities) that promotes positive affective states (Henderson et al., 2013). However, in order to carry out this treatment, first of all, “wanting” that encourages the individual, and then “liking”, which refers to the pleasure component of the reward obtained, must occur (Stark et al., 2018). Therefore, hedonia removes various levels of pain, negative situations and emotions that cause avoidance behavior with the pleasure component in the tourism literature.

217

Hedonia develops as a result of the individual gaining pleasure from the activities performed (Berridge & Kringelbach, 2011). Since tourist experiences are considered as a hedonic consumption practice, instant happiness and wellbeing are described within the concept of maximized pleasure in tourist activities (Garcês et al., 2018). It has been found that leisure activities that evoke positive emotional states (Henderson et al., 2013) are sources of motivation to initiate and maintain pleasure, and to switch to similar activities by activating an individual’s liking reaction and/or a subjective state of liking (Stark et al., 2018). Therefore, more experience of pleasure can increase long-term positive emotions and provide higher levels of long-term wellbeing (Schueller & Seligman, 2010). Overall, hedonia and eudaimonia represent two different internal motivation structures (Waterman, 2005) that try to achieve superiority in the science of happiness (Thorsteinsen & Vittersø, 2020). Although the motivation for happiness is the basis of both concepts, the sources of happiness vary. For example, while the behavior and expectations of an individual traveling for hedonic purposes are entirely based on entertainment, pleasure, and satisfaction, the individual traveling with eudaimonic motives sees personal development as the source of happiness.

Self-Identification with the Travel Experience, Eudaimonia and Hedonia According to the eudaimonic identity theory, when people identify themselves with an activity by participating in meaningful activities that contribute to the realization of their potential, they are likely to experience eudaimonia (Alrawadieh et al., 2019; Bosnjak et al., 2016). Eudaimonia is actually the highest human good achievable by human action (Ryff & Singer, 2008); the various realization of one’s potential (Irwin, 1985); an intrinsically good state or activity constitutive of the good life (Fraser, 2014); and seeking to use and develop the best in oneself (Huta, 2013). According to this theory, individuals experience eudaimonia when they identify with an activity or

218

activity that provides opportunities for selfactualization. For example, while shopping, the individual tries to realize his or her own individual potential by purchasing products that are meaningful and which allows the defining of self identity (Sirgy et al., 2016; Waterman, 2008). Similarly, when evaluated in terms of tourist activities, each individual realizes their individual potential by choosing activities that define them and that they can identify with. Therefore, in the process of eudaimonic experiences, it is possible to express identity. According to Waterman, self-identification conceptually linked to the eudaimonist perspective, as it is experienced in connection with the development of an individual’s skills and abilities, and this experience emerges in the process of self-actualization when an individual’s skills meet his or her needs. Activities that lead to self-identification have been recognized as a way to determine one’s optimal potential and can serve as a basis for determining an individual’s goals in life (Mao et al., 2016). According to Bosnjak et al. (2016), activities can be both hedonic and descriptive at the same time, and if an activity is self-expressive and therefore hedonic, it is intrinsically more motivating than just hedonically pleasurable activities. The transformation and change in tourists’ search for possible experiences during their travels has made hedonia lose its important place among the main motivational sources of tourism, and it is suggested that the experience is associated not only with hedonia but also with eudaimonia (Su et al., 2020). As they represent different aspects and dimensions of wellbeing, differentiating hedonia and eudaimonia (Tsai, 2021) provides a broad perspective for researchers. In these studies, although both eudaimonia and hedonia have pleasure and fun at the core, eudaimonia is mostly reflected in the sense of appreciation, and hedonia is reflected in personal feelings (Filep, 2009; Filep & Deery, 2010; Huta, 2015; Oliver & Hartmann, 2010). Although the main motive in the realization of an activity is the pursuit of pleasurable experience, there is also an order to create the semantic value for a good life at the base of these

D. Karagöz and S. Kama

experiences. Therefore, hedonia and eudaimonia are in a high-level relationship that does not exclude each other and which mutually supports development (Stark et al., 2018). Hedonia and eudaimonia, develops depending on the scope of the experience, that enables them to function as a complement to each other (Huta & Waterman, 2014; Mise & Busseri, 2020) with a synergistic relationship, creating a deeper feeling (Turban & Yan, 2016). Many empirical studies have proven that eudaimonia and hedonia are not independent structures, but that there is a strong relationship between them (Huta & Waterman, 2014; Lengieza et al., 2019; Telfer, 1980; Tsai, 2021). For example, Ryan et al. (2008) state that hedonic outcomes can never have an impact on individual or collective wellbeing alone, and that focusing only to maximize pleasure and avoid pain is likely to deprive the community, meaning and depth. Similarly, Huta and Waterman (2014) state that eudaimonia is of great importance for wellbeing, and that generally hedonia may be considered as a by-product of eudaimonia. In other words, visitors who are internally satisfied, create meaning, and who express and identifying themselves through the lived experience will be able to experience hedonia. For example, in cultural heritage tourism, visitors are offered travel experiences that contribute to learning, selfdevelopment and the search for meaning. In that case, a visitor who self-identify with an cultural heritage experience are likely to view events as a personally relevant and important activity in achieving their personal goals and thus experience higher levels of hedonia and eudaimonia. While self-defining experiences give the individual eudaimonic experience, they also offer values originating from a sense of pleasure in terms of the hedonic experience. Calver and Page (2013) state that in such travel experiences, visitors attribute a value to the experience and that hedonia is effective in determining the attributed value. Preferred activities, depending on how much the individuals are oriented towards their wishes and needs during the travel experience (Filep & Deery, 2010; Lin & Kuo, 2016, Oliver & Hartmann, 2010; Tsaur et al., 2013; Voigt et al., 2010; Waterman, 1993), determine whether

Self-Identification with Tourism Experiences, Hedonic–Eudaimonic Consumption

tourists will experience predominantly eudaimonia or hedonia (Ryan et al., 2008; Su et al., 2021). According to Saragih & Amelia (2020), visitors reach life satisfaction through the experience of pleasure and escape, and understanding personal goals and potential in this process is probably the reason behind personal development and learning beyond the goal of pleasure and avoidance of reality. Therefore, self-identification with activities and experiences that reflect their self-identities and offer them the opportunity to develop themselves increases their potential to experience eudaimonia.

Conclusion Tourism researchers try to understand visitor behavior by frequently evaluating travel experiences within the framework of positive psychology. In this context, examining the causes of behaviour in respect of self-identification and examining hedonia and eudaimonia to uncover the effect of travel experiences on visitors is essential and valuable in determining marketing strategies for destinations and businesses. Therefore, this study conceptually evaluated based on the assumption of the relationship among selfidentification, eudaimonia, and hedonia. As a result of the research, it was determined that travel experiences identify individuals with activities based on self-seeking, and visitors experience hedonic and/or eudaimonic wellbeing with this identification. In deciding where they will be and what they will do (Matz & Harari, 2020) individuals choose the situations and environments that best suit their identities (Ickes et al., 1997). In other words, the activities chosen and performed by the individual should provide an optimal experience through being in harmony with “who the individual is and what they do in life” (Longo et al., 2017; Mao et al., 2016). The motivations required for the realization of a tourist activity or trip lead to various desired outcomes, such as success, personal development, or life satisfaction, depending on the visitors’ perceptions of personal goals and

219

abilities (Packer & Ballantyne, 2002). For this reason, businesses or destinations offer meaningful and important experiences to visitors by taking into consideration of the continuity of the experience and ensuring the internalization of the experience (Hennes, 2002). Many businesses today offer personalized experiences or service packages that allow tourists to reflect on their identities. When these experience and service packages create selfidentification, they can encourage loyalty to the place and events. Therefore, especially for firsttime visitors, it is necessary to design programs and activities that will strongly predict selfidentification by determining the psychological needs of those potential visitors. In this respect, destination and business managers should ask themselves, “What is the main motive of our visitors? Is it to provide hedonic benefits or to gain eudaimonic wellbeing?” Answering these questions will enable the correct determination of marketing strategies. Developing service packages according to the answer to these questions and depending on the expectations of tourists can provide benefits that meet hedonia, eudaimonia, or both. Furthermore, the gains from personalized experiences serve as a marketing tool for businesses or tourists to increase positive functionality throughout the travel experience (Pyke et al., 2016). It is necessary to examine the conceptual findings from this study in more depth to fill the gaps in the literature regarding the needs and motivations of individuals who are influential in self-identification. First, the knowledge and perspectives of the destinations and businesses are essential aspects of the field. Therefore, how the managers apply marketing strategies that allow the visitors to define themselves or enable them to identify their travels with themselves may be examined. Secondly, from the visitors’ point of view, examining how successful these marketing strategies are will effectively provide positive development in terms of competitiveness. Finally, the fact that these researches provide rich content and knowledge depends on using qualitative and quantitative methods, which have recently been important.

220

References Alrawadieh, Z., Prayag, G., Alrawadieh, Z., & Alsalameen, M. (2019). Self-identification with a heritage tourism site, visitors’ engagement and destination loyalty: the mediating effects of overall satisfaction. The Service Industries Journal, 39(7–8), 541–558. Andrades, L., & Dimanche, F. (2018). Co-creation of experience value: A tourist behaviour approach. In N. K. Prebensen, J. S. Chen, & M. S. Uysal (Eds.), Creating experience value in tourism (pp. 83–97). CABI. Argyle, M., & Martin, M. (2013). The psychological causes of happiness. In M. Argyle (Ed.), The psychology of happiness. Routledge. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. Bell, C., & Lyall, J. (2002). The accelerated sublime: Landscape, tourism, and identity. Greenwood. Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2011). Building a neuroscience of pleasure and wellbeing. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 1(1), 1–26. Bond, N., & Falk, J. (2013). Tourism and identity-related motivations: Why am I here (and not there)? International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(5), 430–442. Bosnjak, M., Brown, C. A., Lee, D. J., Yu, G. B., & Sirgy, M. J. (2016). Self-expressiveness in sport tourism: Determinants and consequences. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 125–134. Breathnach, T. (2006). Looking for the real me: Locating the self in heritage tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(2), 100–120. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 836–849. Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1981). The link between identity and role performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 83–92. Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford University Press. Burke, P. J., & Tully, J. C. (1977). The measurement of role identity. Social Forces, 55(4), 881–897. Calver, S. J., & Page, S. J. (2013). Enlightened hedonism: Exploring the relationship of service value, visitor knowledge and interest, to visitor enjoyment at heritage attractions. Tourism Management, 39, 23–36. Campbell, J. (1994). Past, space, and self. MIT press. Cohen, S. (2010). Chasing a myth? Searching for ‘self’ through lifestyle travel. Tourist Studies, 10(2), 117–133. Collinson, A. J., & Hockey, J. (2007). ‘Working out’ identity: Distance runners and the management of disrupted identity. Leisure Studies, 26(4), 381–398. Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408–424.

D. Karagöz and S. Kama Davidson, K. (2005). Alternative India: Transgressive spaces. In A. Jaworski & A. Pritchard (Eds.), Discourse, communication and tourism (pp. 28–52). Clevedon. Desforges, L. (1998). Global representations/local identities and youth travel. Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Cultures, 175. Desforges, L. (2000). Traveling the world: Identity and travel biography. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 929–945. Dimanche, F., & Samdahl, D. (1994). Leisure as symbolic consumption: A conceptualization and prospectus for future research. Leisure Sciences, 16(2), 119–129. Farabi, E. (2016). Mutluluğun kazan{lmas{ (Trans: A. Arslan). Divan Kitap. Filep, S. (2009). Tourists’ happiness through the lens of positive psychology. Doctoral dissertation, James Cook University. Filep, S. (2016). Tourism and positive psychology critique: Too emotional. Annals of Tourism Research, 59(C), 113–115. Filep, S., & Deery, M. (2010). Towards a picture of tourists’ happiness. Tourism Analysis, 15(4), 399–410. Filep, S., & Pearce, P. (2013). Tourist experience and fulfilment: Insights from positive psychology. Routledge. Fraser, C. (2014). Wandering the way: A eudaimonistic approach to the Zhuāngzǐ. Dao, 13(4), 541–565. Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., Jesus, S. N., & Rieber, M. S. (2018). Positive psychology & tourism: A systematic literature review. Tourism & Management Studies, 14(3), 41–51. Giuntoli, L., Condini, F., Ceccarini, F., Huta, V., & Vidotto, G. (2021). The different roles of hedonic and eudaimonic motives for activities in predicting functioning and wellbeing experiences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(4), 1657–1671. Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 283–304. Hao, F., & Xiao, H. (2021). Residential tourism and eudaimonic wellbeing: A ‘value-adding’ analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 87, 103150. Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F. (1999). Leisure involvement revisited: Drive properties and paradoxes. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(2), 122–149. Heathwood, C. (2006). Desire satisfactionism and hedonism. Philosophical Studies, 128(3), 539–563. Henderson, L. W., Knight, T., & Richardson, B. (2013). An exploration of the wellbeing benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic behaviour. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 322–336. Hennes, T. (2002). Rethinking the visitor experience: Transforming obstacle into purpose. Curator: The Museum Journal, 45(2), 109–121. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). The dynamic, diverse, and variable faces of organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 150–152.

Self-Identification with Tourism Experiences, Hedonic–Eudaimonic Consumption Hultman, M., Skarmeas, D., Oghazi, P., & Beheshti, H. M. (2015). Achieving tourist loyalty through destination personality, satisfaction, and identification. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2227–2231. Huta, V. (2013). Pursuing eudaimonia versus hedonia: Distinctions, similarities, and relationships. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 139–158). American Psychological Association. Huta, V. (2015). The complementary roles of eudaimonia and hedonia and how they can be pursued in practice. In S. Joseph (Ed.), Positive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life (pp. 159–182). Wiley. Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456. Ickes, W., Snyder, M., & Garcia, S. (1997). Personality influences on the choice of situations. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 165–195). Academic Press. Irwin, T. H. (1985). Chapter five: Aristotle’s conception of morality. Proceedings of the Boston area colloquium in ancient philosophy, 1(1), 115–143. Brill. Irwin, T. H. (1991). Aristippus against happiness. The Monist, 74(1), 55–82. Jenkins, S. R. (1996). Self-definition in thought action, and life path choices. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 99–111. Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: the costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219–233. Kelly, J. R. (2019). Leisure identities and interactions. Routledge. Kihlstrom, J. F., & Klein, S. B. (1994). The self as a knowledge structure. Handbook of Social Cognition, 1, 153–208. Knobloch, U., Robertson, K., & Aitken, R. (2017). Experience, emotion, and eudaimonia: A consideration of tourist experiences and wellbeing. Journal of Travel Research, 56(5), 651–662. Kyle, G., & Chick, G. (2002). The social nature of leisure involvement. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(4), 426–448. Lacombe, M. K. (2016). Hedonia and eudaimonia: Associations with academic success, wellbeing, and neuropsychological functioning. Unpublished master thesis. City University of New York. Lacombe, M. K., Tanzini, E., & O’Neill, S. (2019). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives: Associations with academic achievement and negative emotional states among urban college students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(5), 1323–1341. Lee, G., Pae, T. I., & Bendle, L. J. (2016). The role of identity salience in the leisure behavior of film festival

221

participants: The case of the Busan international film festival. Journal of Leisure Research, 48(2), 156–177. Lengieza, M. L., Hunt, C. A., & Swim, J. K. (2019). Measuring eudaimonic travel experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 74(C), 195–197. Lenoir, F. (2016). Mutluluk üstüne felsefi bir yolculuk (Trans: A. Alt{nörs). Bilge Kültür Sanat. Lin, C. H., & Kuo, B. Z. L. (2016). The behavioral consequences of tourist experience. Tourism Management Perspectives, 18, 84–91. Lochrie, S., Baxter, I. W. F., Collinson, E., Curran, R., Gannon, M. J., Taheri, B., Thompson, J., & Yalinay, O. (2019). Self-expression and play: Can religious tourism be hedonistic? Tourism Recreation Research, 44(1), 2–16. Longo, Y., Coyne, I., & Joseph, S. (2017). The scales of general wellbeing (SGWB). Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 148–159. Lundqvist, C., & Sandin, F. (2014). Well-Being in elite sport: Dimensions of hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing among elite orienteers. The Sport Psychologist, 28, 245–254. MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. Schocken Books. Malone, S., McCabe, S., & Smith, A. P. (2014). The role of hedonism in ethical tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 241–254. Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 314–331. Mao, Y., Roberts, S., & Bonaiuto, M. (2016). Optimal experience and optimal identity: A multinational examination at the personal identity level. In L. Harmat, F. Ørsted Andersen, F. Ullén, J. Wright, & G. Sadlo (Eds.), Flow experience (pp. 289–308). Springer. Mao, Y., Roberts, S., Pagliaro, S., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2016). Optimal experience and optimal identity: A multinational study of the associations between flow and social identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 67. Matteucci, X., & Filep, S. (2017). Eudaimonic tourist experiences: The case of flamenco. Leisure Studies, 36(1), 39–52. Matz, S. C., & Harari, G. M. (2020). Personality–place transactions: Mapping the relationships between Big Five personality traits, states, and daily places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 120(5), 1367–1385. McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2011). Hedonic versus eudaimonic conceptions of wellbeing: Evidence of differential associations with self-reported wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 103(1), 93–108. Michael, N., Nyadzayo, M. W., Michael, I., & Balasubramanian, S. (2019). Differential roles of push and pull factors on escape for travel: Personal and social identity perspectives. International Journal of Tourism Research, 22, 464–478.

222 Mise, T.-R., & Busseri, M. A. (2020). The full life revisited: Examining hedonia and eudaimonia as general orientations, motives for activities, and experiences of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 10(4), 74–86. Nawijn, J., Mitas, O., Lin, Y., & Kerstetter, D. (2012). How do we feel on vacation? A closer look at how emotions change over the course of a trip. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2), 265–274. Neumann, M. (1992). The trail through experience: Finding self in the recollection of travel. In C. Ellis & M. G. Flaherty (Eds.), Investigating subjectivity: research on lived experience (pp. 176–201). SAGE. Noy, C. (2004). This trip really changed me: Backpackers’ narratives of self-change. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 78–102. Oliver, M. B., & Hartmann, T. (2010). Exploring the role of meaningful experiences in users’ appreciation of “good movies”. Projections, 4(2), 128–150. Onorato, R. S., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Fluidity in the selfconcept: the shift from personal to social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 257–278. Özdil, M. (2017). Kolektif ve Bireysel Kimlikler Bağlam{nda Sosyal Bütünleşme. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(28), 383–400. Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2002). Motivational factors and the visitor experience: A comparison of three sites. Curator: The Museum Journal, 45(3), 183–198. Pyke, S., Hartwell, H., Blake, A., & Hemingway, A. (2016). Exploring wellbeing as a tourism product resource. Tourism Management, 55, 94–105. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4 Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13–39. Saragih, H. S., & Amelia, N. (2020). Segmentation of music festival visitors by values of hedonia, life satisfaction and eudaimonia. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 11(4), 453–472. Schlenker, B. R. (1986). Self-identification: Toward an integration of the private and public self. In R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Public self and private self, Springer Series in Social Psychology (pp. 21–62). Springer, New York, NY.

D. Karagöz and S. Kama Schueller, S. M., & Seligman, M. E. (2010). Pursuit of pleasure, engagement, and meaning: Relationships to subjective and objective measures of wellbeing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(4), 253–263. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. Free Press. Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation. Journal of Business Research, 13(3), 195–206. Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D. J., Grace, B. Y., Gurel-Atay, E., Tidwell, J., & Ekici, A. (2016). Self-expressiveness in shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 292–299. Sirgy, M. J., & Uysal, M. (2016). Developing a eudaimonia research agenda in travel and tourism. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 485–495). Springer. Smith, M. K., & Diekmann, A. (2017). Tourism and wellbeing. Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 1–13. Stark, E. A., Vuust, P., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2018). Music, dance, and other art forms: New insights into the links between hedonia (pleasure) and eudaimonia (well-being). Progress in Brain Research, 237, 129–152. Elsevier. Strauss, A. (1959). Mirrors and masks: The search for identity. Free Press. Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2011). The relevance of visitors’ nation brand embeddedness and personality congruence for nation brand identification, visit intentions and advocacy. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1282–1289. Su, L., Tang, B., & Nawijn, J. (2020). Eudaimonic and hedonic well-being pattern changes: Intensity and activity. Annals Tourism Research, 84, 103008. Su, L., Tang, B., & Nawijn, J. (2021). How tourism activity shapes travel experience sharing: Tourist wellbeing and social context. Annals Tourism Research, 91, 103316. Taylor, D. G. (2010). I speak, therefore I am: Identity and self-construction as motivation to engage in electronic word of mouth. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of North Texas. Telfer, E. (1980). Happiness. St. Martin’s Press. Thorsteinsen, K., & Vittersø, J. (2020). Now you see it, now you don’t: Solid and subtle differences between Hedonic and Eudaimonic Wellbeing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(4), 519–530. Tsai, S. P. (2021). Driving destination loyalty via separate impact of hedonia and eudaimonia. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–6. Tsaur, S. H., Yen, C. H., & Hsiao, S. L. (2013). Transcendent experience, flow and happiness for mountain climbers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(4), 360–374. Turban, D. B., & Yan, W. (2016). Relationship of eudaimonia and hedonia with work outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(6), 1006–1020.

Self-Identification with Tourism Experiences, Hedonic–Eudaimonic Consumption Tussyadiah, I. P., Park, S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of consumer narratives for destination marketing. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(1), 64–78. Vada, S., Prentice, C., & Hsiao, A. (2019). The influence of tourism experience and well-being on place attachment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 322–330. Veenhoven, R. (2003). Hedonism and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(4), 437–457. Voigt, C. (2016). Employing hedonia and eudaimonia to explore differences between three groups of wellness tourists on the experiential, the motivational and the global level. In Positive tourism (pp. 119–135). Routledge. Voigt, C., Howat, G., & Brown, G. (2010). Hedonic and eudaimonic experiences among wellness tourists: An exploratory enquiry. Annals of Leisure Research, 13(3), 541–562. Waterman, A. S. (1990). Personal expressiveness: Philosophical and psychological foundations. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 11(1), 47–73. Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678–691. Waterman, A. S. (2005). When effort is enjoyed: Two studies of intrinsic motivation for personally salient activities. Motivation and Emotion, 29(3), 165–188.

223

Waterman, A. S. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist’s perspective. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 234–252. Waterman, A. S. (2011). Eudaimonic identity theory: Identity as self-discovery. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), In Handbook of identity theory and research, volume 1 structures and processes (pp. 357–379). Springer. Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Goldbacher, E., Green, H., Miller, C., & Philip, S. (2003). Predicting the subjective experience of intrinsic motivation: The roles of self-determination, the balance of challenges and skills, and self-realization values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(11), 1447–1458.

Deniz Karagöz, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Faculty of Tourism at the Anadolu University. She earned a doctorate degree in tourism management from Anadolu University. Her research interests include tourist behaviour, event marketing and destination marketing. Email: [email protected] Selin Kama is a Dr. Research assistant in the Faculty of Tourism at the Bitlis Eren University. Her research interests include tourist behavior, recreation, planning and sustainability. Email: [email protected]

Human Connection: A Crucial Ingredient in Vacation Experience Ondrej Mitas, Moji Shahvali, Peter Ward, Matt Duerden, and Marcel Bastiaansen

Introduction The past decade (2012–2022) has seen a blossoming of research on tourists’ quality of life. Frameworks such as subjective well-being (Diener & Seligman, 2002), the PERMA wellbeing theory (Seligman, 2012) and eudaimonia (Filep & Deery, 2010) have been used to document the numerous positive psychological effects of tourist experiences. One of the most robust findings from this literature is that engaging in tourism triggers emotions. Ranging from the excitement of hobby-focused competitions and tours (Mitas et al., 2012a) to the relaxation of a spa (Strauss-Blasche et al., 2004a), dozens of studies have now documented salubrious emotional profiles over the course of vacation experiences. Even strongly negative emotional episodes at certain vacation destinations such as concentration camp visits support positive experience evaluations (Nawijn et al., 2016, 2017; O. Mitas (✉) · M. Shahvali Breda University of Applied Sciences, Bread Area, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] P. Ward · M. Duerden Department of Experience Design Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] M. Bastiaansen Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]

Nawijn & Fricke, 2015). Emotions in tourism experiences appear to contribute to quality of life (Neal et al., 2007; Sirgy et al., 2011), especially over a multi-year span (Kroesen & Handy, 2014; Mitas & Kroesen, 2019). The documented beneficial effects of tourist experiences on emotions raise intriguing scientific questions. What specific elements of tourism experiences trigger emotions? In other words, what is it about tourism experiences that causes emotions emotional reactions? In this chapter we examine an important mediator of emotions in tourist experiences, human connection. Previous research on mechanisms of emotion in tourism exists, but is not extensive. Several studies have examined novelty, the sense that one’s momentary experience is new and different from everyday life (Drewery et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2012; Mitas & Bastiaansen, 2018; Rossman & Duerden, 2019). A second mechanism examined in a small handful of qualitative studies is social interaction, that is, any verbal or non-verbal communication with one’s fellow travelers, other tourists, service providers, or local residents (Mitas et al., 2017). This under-studied second mechanism, social interaction in a vacation setting, is the focus of the present chapter. We first review literature on the psychology of tourist emotion as the theoretical foundation of the chapter. We then synthesize current knowledge on tourists’ social interaction and introduce the concept of connection as a useful operational definition of social interaction. We then test the role of connection in tourists’

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_16

225

226

emotional change and subsequent wellbeing measures in two datasets collected at 14 vacation parks in the Netherlands.

Tourist Emotion and Quality of Life The present chapter adopts a subjective view of quality of life; that is, the position that individuals are best positioned to judge their own quality of life, rather than ‘objective’ criteria chosen by someone else (Diener & Oishi, 2005). Under this view, a key concept within quality of life outcomes is subjective well-being, a judgment that an individual makes about the value of their own life experiences. Reflecting the interrelated mental processes of cognition and affect, this judgment in subjective well-being is defined as comprising cognitive as well as affective components. The cognitive component is operationalized as life satisfaction, and occasionally also includes satisfaction with various life domains (Diener et al., 1999). These are understood to feed into life satisfaction via a ‘bottomup’ process where satisfaction in different domains of life feeds into one’s overall satisfaction with life (Neal et al., 2007). The affective component of subjective well-being is operationalized as positive and negative affect (Rosenberg, 1998). Assessment of positive and negative affect in subjective well-being research usually involves measuring emotional experiences on a trait level (Diener et al., 2010) or repeatedly on a state level over multiple days (Wirtz et al., 2003). Both approaches are implemented in the empirical part of this chapter. Positive emotions, in particular, are known to contribute to life satisfaction over time (Fredrickson et al., 2008; Garland et al., 2010). Thus, the components of subjective well-being are independent but interrelated. A number of tourism scholars have pursued other conceptualizations of tourists’ quality of life. Some argue that concepts mostly grouped under the term ‘eudaimonia’ such as meaning of life or positive relationships are independent and independently necessary components, rather than predictors, of tourists’ quality of life (Filep &

O. Mitas et al.

Deery, 2010; M. K. Smith & Diekmann, 2017). The debate between the subjective well-being framework and broader, more flexibly inclusive frameworks, is carried out elsewhere (Filep, 2016; Mitas et al., 2017). For the purpose of the present chapter, we address subjective well-being as a set of key quality of life outcomes, and operationalize it as positive trait affect, negative trait affect, and life satisfaction. These are the outcome variables of interest in the present study. We treat social interaction and state (daily) emotions during vacation as important predictors and mechanisms of these outcomes, respectively. The mediating role of emotions in explaining outcomes of tourist experiences is well supported. A particular mix of emotion, which varies by context, is often said to embody the value of a tourism experience (Bastiaansen et al., 2019). Many studies have demonstrated that positive emotions are elevated during tourism experiences, ranging from short vacations focused on hobbies (Mitas et al., 2012a) to longer hiking (Strauss-Blasche et al., 2004b) and spa vacations (Strauss-Blasche et al., 2004a). That said, vacations are susceptible to affective forecasting and reflection biases (Wirtz et al., 2003). Furthermore, while positive emotions typify most vacations and predict behavioral intention outcomes (Prayag et al., 2013), a mix of contextually appropriate positive and negative emotions plays this role in inherently upsetting dark tourism contexts (Mitas et al., 2020; Nawijn & Fricke, 2015). With these exceptions in mind, the present study carries out daily measurement of emotions during vacations which were focused on nature and relaxation rather than dark tourism. When measuring emotions over time within participants, a number of variables have been shown to predict or explain the ‘peak’ in day-today emotions associated with tourist experiences. Among these are novelty (Drewery et al., 2016; Mitas & Bastiaansen, 2018), meeting new people (Mitas et al., 2011, 2018), the relationship with one’s co-travelers (Mitas et al., 2012b; Nawijn, 2011), and taking and sharing photos (Gillet et al., 2016; Konijn et al., 2016). Among these predictors, novelty is an individual cognitive

Human Connection: A Crucial Ingredient in Vacation Experience

judgment that one’s present experience is new and different from the everyday, and is inherent to tourism (Cohen, 1972). The other triggers of emotions fall under the umbrella of social interactions (Mitas et al., 2017).

Social Interaction as a Trigger of Tourist Emotion As mentioned in our Introduction, we use the umbrella concept of social interaction to refer to any verbal or non-verbal communication with one’s fellow travelers, other tourists, service providers, or local residents (Mitas et al., 2017). This umbrella covers a very broad range of potential experiences which can last from seconds to days and range from superficial to intimate (Filep & Matteucci, 2020; Shahvali et al., 2021) to antagonistic and even violent (Gössling et al., 2020). To measure and manage social interactions during and following vacations, it is our position that social interaction must be narrowed down to a concrete variable or variables. Positive psychology literature has made substantial progress towards measuring and documenting the role of social interactions and positive relationships as one important predictor of emotion and subsequent wellbeing. Yet no clear conclusions have honed in on the aspects of social interaction that make it a positive emotional trigger. An attitude of loving kindness toward other living beings (Fredrickson et al., 2008), conversations that are deep rather than superficial (Mehl et al., 2010), (less) time spent alone (Diener & Seligman, 2002), and (intimate) interactions which absorb one’s attention (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010) are all shown to be related to positive emotions. The differences between these social interaction aspects as well as between study contexts and designs vary substantially. Nevertheless, a common picture emerges. Social interactions are especially potent triggers of positive emotion when people communicate attentively and mutually with one another. A single recent theoretical paper in the tourism field situated the process linking social interaction to emotion in an existing theoretical framework, that

227

of Collins’ interaction ritual chains (Joo et al., 2020). This theory posits that ‘mutual attention’ triggers a shared ‘emotional energy.’ In sum, existing studies show that social interaction spurs positive emotions when people communicate attentively and mutually with one another, a phenomenon we term connection. Research in the broader leisure literature has articulated this concept further.

Connection Experiences Within Leisure Leisure experiences often serve as vehicles for social connection. Research has shown the importance of social connections within experiences in a variety of leisure contexts including family leisure (Townsend et al., 2017) and across crosscultural samples (G. T. Smith et al., 1988). Research has also shown that the presence of mutual attention and positive communication during leisure activities enhances the experiences for individuals and families (Orthner, 1975; Orthner & Mancini, 1990). Melton (2017) conceptual work on family experiences highlights the key role social connection plays in these experiences. Melton identifies the type of social interaction (e.g., joint versus parallel) that occurs during an experience as one of two primary means by which family activities can be categorized, the other being activity environment. Social connection also plays an important role in leisure experiences in terms of interactions between participants in an experience (Duerden & Witt, 2010) as well as the interaction participants have with providers and other individuals they come in contact because of their leisure experience. For example, interactions that tourists have with local community members while traveling often have a significant impact on their overall travel experience (Duerden et al., 2018) and represents an area of increased research interest among tourism scholars (Filep et al., 2021). Here, we take the concept of connection broadly, however, measuring participants’ sense of connecting to others in general, rather than separating out specific types of relationships.

228

Our Study Hypotheses In the present chapter, we term the experience of mutually attending to a human interaction, connection, and also use this specific term in a single item to operationalize an allegedly powerful aspect of social interaction. We propose to test the following hypotheses. Findings on the benefits of social interaction converge on shared attention and mutuality as most linked to positive emotions. We operationalize this as feeling connection with others. Days when reports of connection are higher may, therefore, also be days with higher levels of positive emotion and lower levels of negative emotion. Therefore, we posit that H1. Connection is related to positive and negative emotions on the within-person, betweenday level. Several studies linking social interaction to daily positive emotion states also found longer-term subjective well-being outcomes, such as improved life satisfaction and trait affect (Diener & Seligman, 2002; Fredrickson et al., 2008). Therefore, we also expect that H2. Connection during vacation is positively linked to subjective well-being components after a tourist experience on the betweenperson level. Research on the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001) has convincingly demonstrated that positive emotions are not only a part of subjective well-being, but momentary experiences of positive emotion contribute to longer-term effects on life satisfaction in turn This has been difficult to research in a tourism context due to the necessity of collecting longitudinal data over multiple time scales. Therefore, whether positive emotion mediates subjective well-being outcomes of vacationing is not well known. We aim to assess this mechanism in the case of connection as an aspect of tourism experience in particular. We posit that H3. Aggregated daily emotion during vacation partly explains the relationship between

O. Mitas et al.

subjective well-being outcomes and connection during vacations on the between-person level. H1 is a within-individual hypothesis that concerns day-to-day development of connection experiences during the vacation. For this hypothesis two datasets based on daily vacation diaries are merged and analyzed. The daily diary data are aggregated for the duration of the vacation and merged with post-vacation measures to address the between-individual hypotheses H2 and H3.

Methods To test our hypotheses empirically, we undertook a daily diary data collection during the vacations of 110 participants who stayed at one of 14 vacation parks in the Netherlands during May–August 2021. Due to pandemic-related travel restrictions, domestic tourism to vacation parks was enormously popular during the summer of 2021, and many of the vacation parks studied were fully booked during the data collection period. Twelve of the parks were in the forested Vecht valley in the area of Ommen and Salland hill ridge region between Raalte and Nijverdal, in the Eastern Dutch province of Overijssel. Another of the studied vacation parks was in the Great Heath of the southwest, approximately 25 km southwest of Eindhoven, near the Belgian border. A final park was just behind the sea dike in the Zeeland region of Walcheren, about 10 km west of Vlissingen. A dummy variable was used to control for any potential difference related to location, with the eastern parks (Vecht valley and Salland ridge) distinguished from the southern parks (Great Heath and Zealand). Participants were filtered by park management based on their stay falling within the data collection period. They were then invited by email to fill in an intake survey, which a total of 110 participants did. This self-selected sample was relatively older (mean = 56.8 years, SD = 13.1 years) and majority female (61%). Participants could win one of several gift cards of 20€ at each camping for participating at the

Human Connection: A Crucial Ingredient in Vacation Experience

coastal and heath locations, while the eastern parks gave participants a chance to win back the cost of their stay, with two winners selected among the 12 parks. After filling out the intake survey, participants received links to a daily questionnaire on their mobile phone. Finally, 1 week after the end date of their booking, participants received a follow-up questionnaire by email. The daily questionnaire during the vacation featured measures of connection and emotion. The followup questionnaire included measures of subjective well-being components, namely trait affect and life satisfaction. Diary methods are regularly used to collect data on the temporal dynamics of vacation experiences (Mitas et al., 2012a; Nawijn, 2010; Wirtz et al., 2003). Cross-sectional studies do not uncover temporal dynamics, and cannot address temporal precedence. Repeated-measures studies without daily measurement can shed light on temporal precedence, but miss the changes that occur from day to day (de Bloom et al., 2010; Strauss-Blasche et al., 2004a). Both experience sampling and physiological experience measurement can capture these changes, and are temporally even more precise than diary methods. Unfortunately, experience sampling tends to disrupt the experience it is measuring, while physiological methods for multi-day data collections, without hands-on researcher involvement, are still in development (Bastiaansen et al., 2019). Furthermore, physiological methods are not yet able to distinguish between emotional valence of an experience outside of the laboratory. Thus, a daily diary method delivered by online questionnaire was the best choice available for our data collection.

Measures We measured connection and emotion daily within a single Likert-type matrix response format, wherein participants were asked to what extent they “experienced each of the following today.” They could answer on a 5-point scale ranging from Not at all to Extremely. Emotion items were taken from the validated Scale of

229

Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE, Diener et al., 2010). Compared to the original scale, we omitted the items good, bad, pleasant, and unpleasant as they are redundant next to the items positive and negative. We also replaced the item happy with positively surprised, as positive surprise is a demonstrably crucial emotion in tourism experiences in particular. Connection was measured with the item Connection with other people, following Hodge et al. (in review). This single item provided a way for participants to assess the level of connection they felt between themselves and those whom they encountered. This could range from how they felt connected to other members of their camping group, to park’s staff, or anyone they may have met during that day. The reason behind using an one item question to address connection is because it allows participants to globally evaluate how connected they felt considering all of the possible individuals with whom they may have come in contact with that day. For example, participants may not feel connected to camp staff, but could have felt very connected to those whom they are camping with. Individuals could not care about their level connection with the park staff, but place great value in their level of connectedness with their camping group and mark they experienced high levels of connection. Subjective well-being is operationalized as life satisfaction and positive and negative trait affect unless a specific life domain (e.g., quality of work or quality of relationships) is sought after. The most widely used measure of life satisfaction is the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985), which we used with no modifications. It features five statements with which the participant could agree or disagree on a 7-point Likert-type scale. To measure trait affect, we once again used the SPANE, but with a different prompt and response options. In line with Diener et al.’s recommendations, we asked participants how often they felt each feeling, with the response choices ranging from Very rarely or never to Very often or always on a 5-point scale. While Diener et al. suggest asking how participants felt over the past 4 weeks, this period would encompass the vacation and usually several weeks

230

before it. Thus, we instead asked participants to rate the frequency of their feelings over the past 3 days. We attempted thereby to exclude any positive emotional carry-over from the vacation (de Bloom et al., 2010; Mitas et al., 2012a).

Analyses We averaged the responses to items within each scale into a single index variable, with positive and negative emotions or affect forming separate variables. For between-person analyses, we aggregated the valid responses to each daily variable (connection, positive emotions, and negative emotions) to a single mean within each participant. Then, we derived histograms, mean, and standard deviation for each variable. To address the between-occasion, within-participant effects of connection on emotions (H1), we ran two separate random intercept mixed-effects models using lmer() in R 4.0.4. with connection as a predictor, either positive or negative emotion as the outcome, and whether the data came from the 12 eastern or 2 southern parks as a control variable. Participant email addresses were used to nest the analysis within participants. Significance of coefficients was estimated using the Satterthwaite approximation. To address the effects of aggregated connection and emotion during the vacation on trait affect and life satisfaction at follow-up, we ran three linear models with connection as a predictor, each dimension of subjective well-being as an outcome, and once again and whether the data came from the 12 eastern or 2 southern parks as a control variable. Finally, we ran separate path modeling operations in R 4.0.4. using the PROCESS function by Hayes (2017). In each model, one of the dimensions of well-being was an outcome, connection was a predictor, positive and negative emotion were parallel mediators, and once more the park of origin was a control variable. Indirect effects were assessed using the recommended default of 5000 bootstrap samples. All coefficients reported are unstandardized, as the dimensions of the response scales was known.

O. Mitas et al.

Findings Participants had moderately positive vacation experiences (positive emotion mean = 3.03 on a 5-point scale; SD = 0.46) with relatively little negative emotion (mean = 1.25, SD = 0.22). Most days featured fairly little connection (mean = 1.99, SD = 0.54). In fact, out of 743 total data points of connection (participants x days), only 83 (11%) featured “very much” or “extreme” connection, while 20% had “very little or none at all” (the lowest scale point). Participants reported good subjective well-being, with moderate average positive trait affect (mean = 3.14, SD = 0.73), low average negative trait affect (mean = 1.27, SD = 0.38), and fairly high life satisfaction (mean = 5.81, SD = 1.04). Note that all variables were measured on a 5 point scale ranging from 1 to 5 except life satisfaction, which was measured on a 7 point scale ranging from 1 to 7 (Table 1). The Day-to-Day Effect of Connection on Emotion (H1) Within participants, between days of vacation, connection significantly positively predicted positive emotions during the vacation (unstandardized coefficient = 0.23851, t = 8.781, p < 0.001). Connection also significantly negatively predicted negative emotions during the vacation (coefficient = -0.04274, t = -2.915, p < 0.01, Table 2). In other words, for the average participant, a day when they reported relatively higher connection with other people by 1 point, they also reported relatively higher positive emotion by 0.24 scale points and relatively lower negative emotions by 0.04 scale Table 1 Descriptive statistics

Connection on vacation Positive emotion on vacation Negative emotion on vacation Life satisfaction Positive trait affect Negative trait affect

Mean 1.99 3.03

Standard deviation 0.54 0.46

1.25

0.22

5.81 3.14 1.27

1.04 0.73 0.38

Human Connection: A Crucial Ingredient in Vacation Experience

231

Table 2 Random intercept linear models of within-participant effects Outcome variable Positive emotion on vacation

-2LL -676.6

Negative emotion on vacation

-223.3

BIC 1386.2

Predictor

Unstandardized coefficient

Standard error

Satterthwaite T

[Intercept] Connection Park

2.67155 0.23851 -0.19343

0.07856 0.02716 0.10402

34.008*** 8.781*** -1.860

[Intercept] Connection Park

1.37916 -0.04274 -0.06378

0.04045 0.01467 0.04954

34.098*** -2.915** -1.287

479.6

Notes: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05; n = 732 observations over 133 participants; Park = difference between data from Southern and Eastern vacation parks

points. Once again, all of the variables in this analyses were measured on a 1-to-5 response scale. The Effect of Connection on Subjective Well-Being (H2) Between participants, there was no significant effect of aggregated connection during the vacation on life satisfaction (coefficient = 0.1854, t = 1.099, p = 0.274), positive trait affect, (coefficient = 0.1577, t = 1.414, p = 0.1597) or negative trait affect (coefficient = -0.02586, t = -0.408, p = 0.684). None of the models explained more than 4% of the variation in a subjective well-being dimension, convincingly demonstrating that the aggregated level of connection during vacation did not correspond to differences between people in subjective well-being in our study sample (Table 3). With positive and negative emotions during vacation entered into these models as parallel mediators (H3), the coefficients of connection decreased or reversed direction, suggesting partial mediation. Bootstrapped confidence intervals showed that one of these indirect effects––the effect of connection on positive trait affect through positive emotion, over and above the effect of negative emotion––was significant (CI [0.1609, 0.5655]). None of the other indirect effects, and none of the direct effects, that is, the effects of connection on subjective well-being over and above emotions during vacation––were significant (Table 4). In sum, differences between participants in aggregated connection during the

vacation corresponded to differences in their positive emotions during the vacation, which corresponded to differences in positive trait affect 1 week later, in turn.

Discussion The aim of the present chapter was to extend understanding of the effects of tourist experiences on wellbeing and quality of life by examining a promising aspect of tourist experience, social interaction, which is often said to drive positive outcomes. We defined and operationalized a narrow variable within social interaction, connection, which we posited would be a trigger of positive emotions and therefore improvements in subjective well-being. Data from 110 tourists staying at 14 vacation parks in the Netherlands during the summer of 2021 partly support this proposition. Within participants, days with more connection were more emotionally positive and less emotionally negative. This relationship was also present between participants, and individuals who felt more connected on their vacation and thus more emotionally positive also reported positive feelings more often in their daily life afterwards. This indirect effect was not present for other dimensions of subjective well-being, nor for pathways through negative emotion. These findings extend the existing knowledge on tourist experience and the psychology of subjective well-being in three ways. First, we confirm that both within and between individuals, social

232

O. Mitas et al.

Table 3 Linear regression models for hypotheses 2 and 3 Outcome variable Life satisfaction

Positive trait affect

Model R2 0.9%

3.9%

Negative trait affect

1.2%

Life satisfaction

1.9%

Model F 0.663

Predictor

Coefficient

Standard error

T

[Intercept] Connection Park

5.4638 0.1854 -0.1548

0.3452 0.1687 0.2793

15.826*** 1.099 -0.554

[Intercept] Connection Park

2.9180 0.1577 -0.4141

0.2273 0.1116 0.1896

12.839*** 1.414 -2.183*

[Intercept] Connection Park

1.32911 -0.02586 0.13288

0.12956 0.06346 0.10463

10.259*** -0.408 1.270

4.4332 0.0040 0.3746

1.1902 0.2324 0.3288

3.725*** 0.017 1.139

0.2109

0.5553

0.380

-0.0774

0.2889

-0.268

[Intercept] Connection Positive emotion on vacation Negative emotion on vacation Park

2.5123 -0.1864 0.7510

0.7809 0.1402 0.1981

3.217** -1.329 3.790***

-0.9698

0.4075

-2.38*

-0.2781

0.1773

-1.569

[Intercept] Connection Positive emotion on vacation Negative emotion on vacation Park

0.3733 -0.0249 -0.0126

0.4167 0.0816 0.1158

0.896 -0.305 -0.109

0.8109

0.1951

4.157***

0.0870

0.1011

0.861

2.868

0.819

0.657 [Intercept] Connection Positive emotion on vacation Negative emotion on vacation Park

Positive trait affect

Negative trait affect

22.3%

14.5%

9.980***

5.745**

Notes: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05; n = 133; Park = difference between data from Southern and Eastern vacation parks Table 4 Bootstrap estimates of indirect effects Path: Connection→ Positive emotion on vacation → Life satisfaction Positive emotion on vacation → Positive trait affect Positive emotion on vacation → Negative trait affect Negative emotion on vacation → Life satisfaction Negative emotion on vacation → Positive trait affect Negative emotion on vacation → Negative trait affect

Effect 0.1802 0.3586* -0.0060 0.0012 -0.0145 0.0050

Standard error 0.1490 0.1019 0.0417 0.0196 0.0352 0.0268

95% Confidence interval [-0.1503, 0.4372] [0.1609, 0.5655] [-0.0559, 0.0588] [-0.0319, 0.0494] [-0.0970, 0.0523] [-0.0559, 0.0588]

Note: * 95% confidence interval does not include 0. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals based on 5000 bootstrap samples

Human Connection: A Crucial Ingredient in Vacation Experience

interaction on vacation is indeed an important driver of individuals’ subjective well-being. Second, we confirm that connection on vacations is a useful concept under the umbrella of social interaction to measure and assess in studies of tourist experience outcomes. A simple, generalized measure of social interaction on vacation did not exist previously. Finally, we extend the promising positive psychology knowledge about the constructive power of relationships to the concept of connection and to the unique context of tourism. A number of qualitative studies have positioned social interaction as a trigger of positive emotions and well-being outcomes during vacationing, but these effects had not been quantified. (Gillet et al., 2016; Konijn et al., 2016; Mitas et al., 2011, 2012b). Our findings are in line with these studies and are the first to quantify the extent of this effect both within and between participants. We extended this line of research by introducing connection as a useful operational concept within social interaction to measure. The usefulness of connection in predicting positive emotion within and between participants highlights the potential of this variable. Particularly in context such as diary, experience sampling, or experience reconstruction studies, where brevity is key and participants are repeatedly asked identical questionnaire items, connection is a useful concept to capture social interaction shortly after it happens. Future research could break down the general connection measure we used either by type of other person connected with (stranger, acquaintance), the content of the connection (verbal/nonverbal), the valence of the connection, and the nature or experience of the connection (emotions, evaluations, or closeness experienced). Beyond the field of tourism, our findings are in line with numerous positive psychology studies which link social interaction to positive emotional states (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010) and subjective well-being outcomes (Diener & Seligman, 2002; Mehl et al., 2010). We add to these studies the concept of connection as a context-free, yet specific, dimension of social interaction compared to the rather limited constructs such as number of new people met or number of hours

233

spent alone used in previous studies. The present findings also extend the above-cited findings, generally based on students’ daily lives, to the context of vacationing, and a somewhat older study population.

Practical Implications At a time when tourism businesses fiercely compete for attention, often through technical and social innovation, the predictive power of connection serves as a reminder of decades-old basics of a good vacation. Namely, getting away from one’s daily obligations and instead focusing on connecting with other people in an unmediated and authentic way seems newly relevant in light of these findings. With both bookings and social contact having fluctuated wildly during the pandemic, the tourist experience as a source of value is re-entering the picture. In this light, our findings suggest that ‘oldfashioned’ investments in physical or human infrastructure are perhaps more forward-looking than they seem. For a vacation park, in particular, raising pay and training level for staff, renewing a pool or playground, building links to nearby trails, or incorporating group activities can all improve social interaction during the tourism experience. We posit that staff training and retention might be uniquely important by fostering constructive connections with customers, a phenomenon recently described as commercial friendship (Velthuis, 2022). We assert that improving social interaction on vacation by fostering a sense of connection to others adds unique value to the experience. Beyond the business of tourism, connections among people are the glue of a coherent, wellfunctioning society. Such connections flourish and thrive in the novelty of a vacation experience and extend beyond it (Shahvali et al., 2021). Our findings show that connection with others experienced during a vacation contributes to enjoyment and, indirectly, to subjective well-being. Thus, far from being frivolous or merely about disconnecting from daily life, vacationing along with experiences of novelty and connection is a

234

substantial part of quality of life. Our findings therefore imply that individuals and governments should continue to take vacations as a social practice seriously.

References Bastiaansen, M., Lub, X., Mitas, O., Jung, T. H., Passos Acenção, M., Han, D., et al. (2019). Emotions as core building blocks of an experience. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31. Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 164–182. de Bloom, J., Geurts, S. A., Taris, T. W., Sonnentag, S., de Weerth, C., & Kompier, M. A. (2010). Effects of vacation from work on health and well-being: Lots of fun, quickly gone. Work & Stress, 24(2), 196–216. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2005). The nonobvious social psychology of happiness. Psychological Inquiry, 16(4), 162–167. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81–84. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. Drewery, D., Jiang, K., Hilbrecht, M., Mitas, O., & Jakubowitz, A. (2016). Modelling activity novelty and adolescent females’ subjective well-being during a winter holiday. World Leisure Journal, 58(4), 298–310. Duerden, M. D., Layland, E., Petriello, M., Stronza, A., Dunn, M., & Adams, S. (2018). Understanding the unique nature of the adolescent study abroad experience. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 23, 18–28. Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. (2010). The impact of socialization on youth program outcomes: A social development model perspective. Leisure Sciences, 32(4), 299–317. Filep, S. (2016). Tourism and positive psychology critique: Too emotional. Annals of Tourism Research, 59(C), 113–115. Filep, S., & Deery, M. (2010). Towards a picture of tourists' happiness. Tourism Analysis, 15(4), 399–410. Filep, S., & Matteucci, X. (2020). Love in tourist motivation and satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44(6), 1026–1034.

O. Mitas et al. Filep, S., Matteucci, X., Bateman, J., & Binns, T. (2021). Experiences of love in diaspora tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–5. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218. Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1045. Garland, E. L., Fredrickson, B., Kring, A. M., Johnson, D. P., Meyer, P. S., & Penn, D. L. (2010). Upward spirals of positive emotions counter downward spirals of negativity: Insights from the broaden-and-build theory and affective neuroscience on the treatment of emotion dysfunctions and deficits in psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 849–864. Gillet, S., Schmitz, P., & Mitas, O. (2016). The snaphappy tourist: The effects of photographing behavior on tourists’ happiness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 40(1), 37–57. Gössling, S., McCabe, S., & Chen, N. C. (2020). A sociopsychological conceptualisation of over tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 84, 102976. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications. Hodge, C., Melton, K., Duerden, M. D., Widmer, M. A., & Ruston, A. (in review). An examination of the stability of the remembering self when measuring social connection. Journal of Leisure Research. Joo, D., Cho, H., Woosnam, K. M., & Suess, C. (2020). Re-theorizing social emotions in tourism: Applying the theory of interaction ritual in tourism research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–16. Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science, 330(6006), 932–932. Kim, J.-H., Ritchie, J. B., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 12–25. Konijn, E., Sluimer, N., & Mitas, O. (2016). Click to share: Patterns in tourist photography and sharing. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(6), 525–535. Kroesen, M., & Handy, S. (2014). The influence of holiday-taking on affect and contentment. Annals of Tourism Research, 45, 89–101. Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Holleran, S. E., & Clark, C. S. (2010). Eavesdropping on happiness: Well-being is related to having less small talk and more substantive conversations. Psychological Science, 21(4), 539–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610362675 Melton, K. K. (2017). Family activity model: Crossroads of activity environment and family interactions in family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 39(5), 457–473.

Human Connection: A Crucial Ingredient in Vacation Experience Mitas, O., & Bastiaansen, M. (2018). Novelty: A mechanism of tourists’ enjoyment. Annals of Tourism Research, 72, 98–108. Mitas, O., Cuenen, R., Bastiaansen, M., Chick, G., & van den Dungen, E. (2020). The war from both sides: How Dutch and German visitors experience an exhibit of second world war stories. International Journal of the Sociology of Leisure, 3(3), 277–303. Mitas, O., Hohn, A., & Nawijn, J. (2018). ’To mix with new people’: The surprising day trips of mature Germans. In Managing quality of life in tourism and hospitality (pp. 24–41). CABI. Mitas, O., & Kroesen, M. (2019). Vacations over the years: A cross-lagged panel analysis of tourism experiences and subjective well-being in The Netherlands. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1–20. Mitas, O., Nawijn, J., & Jongsma, B. (2017). Between tourists: Tourism and happiness. In M. K. Smith & L. Puczko (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of health tourism (pp. 47–64). Routledge. Mitas, O., Qian, X. L., Yarnal, C., & Kerstetter, D. (2011). "The Fun Begins Now!": Broadening and building processes in Red Hat Society® participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(1), 30. Mitas, O., Yarnal, C., Adams, R., & Ram, N. (2012a). Taking a “peak” at leisure travelers’ positive emotions. Leisure Sciences, 34(2), 115–135. Mitas, O., Yarnal, C., & Chick, G. (2012b). Jokes build community: Mature tourists’ positive emotions. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 1884–1905. Nawijn, J. (2010). The holiday happiness curve: A preliminary investigation into mood during a holiday abroad. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(3), 281–290. Nawijn, J. (2011). Determinants of daily happiness on vacation. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5), 559–566. Nawijn, J., Brüggemann, M., & Mitas, O. (2017). The effect of Sachsenhausen Visitors' personality and emotions on meaning and word of mouth. Tourism Analysis, 22(3), 349–359. Nawijn, J., & Fricke, M. C. (2015). Visitor emotions and behavioral intentions: The case of concentration camp memorial Neuengamme. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(3), 221–228. Nawijn, J., Isaac, R. K., van Liempt, A., & Gridnevskiy, K. (2016). Emotion clusters for concentration camp memorials. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 244–247. Neal, J. D., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers’ quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 154–163. Orthner, D. K. (1975). Leisure activity patterns and marital satisfaction over the marital career. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 91–102. Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1990). Leisure impacts on family interaction and cohesion. Journal of Leisure Research, 22(2), 125–137. Prayag, G., Hosany, S., & Odeh, K. (2013). The role of tourists’ emotional experiences and satisfaction in

235

understanding behavioral intentions. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 118–127. Rosenberg, E. L. (1998). Levels of analysis and the organization of affect. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 247–270. Rossman, J. R., & Duerden, M. D. (2019). Designing experiences. Columbia University Press. Seligman, M. E. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon and Schuster. Shahvali, M., Kerstetter, D. L., & Townsend, J. N. (2021). The contribution of vacationing together to couple functioning. Journal of Travel Research, 60(1), 133–148. Sirgy, M. J., Kruger, P. S., Lee, D.-J., & Yu, G. B. (2011). How does a travel trip affect tourists’ life satisfaction? Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 261–275. Smith, G. T., Snyder, D. K., Trull, T. J., & Monsma, B. R. (1988). Predicting relationship satisfaction from couples' use of leisure time. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16(1), 3–13. Smith, M. K., & Diekmann, A. (2017). Tourism and wellbeing. Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 1–13. Strauss-Blasche, G., Muhry, F., Lehofer, M., Moser, M., & Marktl, W. (2004a). Time course of well-being after a three-week resort-based respite from occupational and domestic demands: Carry-over, contrast and situation effects. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(3), 293. Strauss-Blasche, G., Riedmann, B., Schobersberger, W., Ekmekcioglu, C., Riedmann, G., Waanders, R., et al. (2004b). Vacation at moderate and low altitude improves perceived health in individuals with metabolic syndrome. Journal of Travel Medicine, 11(5), 300–306. Townsend, J. A., Van Puymbroeck, M., & Zabriskie, R. B. (2017). The core and balance model of family leisure functioning: A systematic review. Leisure Sciences, 39(5), 436–456. Velthuis, S. J. (2022). Creating sustainable competitive advantage in the hospitality industry through commercial friendships: Connecting the host and guest on a social and emotional level. Research in Hospitality Management, 12(1), 85–89. Wirtz, D., Kruger, J., Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2003). What to do on spring break? The role of predicted, on-line, and remembered experience in future choice. Psychological Science, 14(5), 520–524.

Ondrej Mitas, Ph.D., is a senior lecturer at Breda University of Applied Sciences, and researches the psychology of tourist and leisure experiences with a focus on emotions and well-being and quality of life outcomes. Specifically, he examines positive emotions in leisure and tourism experiences over time and the mechanisms of enjoyment and positivity in tourism and leisure experiences, and innovative research methods using longitudinal, physiological, and mixed-method approaches. Email: [email protected].

236 Moji Shahvali, Ph.D., obtained his Ph.D. in Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management from Penn State, USA, in 2018. After a teaching postdoc position at Shiraz University in Iran which he used to call home, he moved to the Netherlands and joined Breda University of Applied Sciences in 2021. As a lecturer, he teaches research methods and statistics courses and is a partner on a number of international and EU education projects. As a researcher, he examines the relationships between leisure, happiness, and mental wellbeing. He is an expert on the role of leisure in forming, maintaining, and enhancing human relationships. Email: [email protected]. Peter Ward, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Experience Design Management at Brigham Young University. His research interests include exploring what attributes contribute to designing meaningful experiences, measuring the impact of experiences on participants, and developing models that categorize different experience types. Ward teaches a wide variety of classes around experiences. Some of these classes include Experiential Marketing and Experience Insight. In addition, Ward takes students around the world on study abroads that help them to see and experience how different cultures design, implement, and experience different type of experiences. When Ward is not doing research or in the classroom, he is often found in the mountains with his family skiing, hiking, or climbing. Email: [email protected]. Matt Duerden received a Ph.D. from Texas A&M University and a M.S. from Brigham Young University (BYU). His experience design research focuses on

O. Mitas et al. memorable, meaningful, and transformative experiences. Mat’s publications have appeared in a variety of journals including Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Journal of Adolescent Research, and Journal of Leisure Research. Mat co-authored, Designing Experiences, with Robert Rossman which was published in 2019 by Columbia Business School Press. In 2021 Axiom Business Awards selected the book as a silver medalist winner in the Business Intelligence/Innovation category. Email: [email protected]. Marcel Bastiaansen, Ph.D., obtained a master in Experimental Psychology (1996) and a PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience (cum laude) in 2000, both from Tilburg University. Since 2021 Marcel is a full professor of Leisure and Tourism Experience at BUas and at Tilburg University. At Tilburg University, he is affiliated with the department of Cognitive Neuropsychology of the School of Social and Behavioural Sciences. Marcel is the co-founder and director of BUas’ Experience Lab, which houses a range of innovative research facilities for objective, biologically-based measurements of visitor experiences and emotions. He leads a research team that studies leisure and tourism experiences, and how these related to subjective well-being and quality of life. Marcel is also a member of the management team of BUas’ Academy for Leisure and Events. Marcel teaches courses in BUas’ scientific educational programs (BSc Leisure Studies, BSc Tourism, MSc Leisure and Tourism) on the Psychology of Leisure, on Experience Research and Design, and quantitative research methods. Email: M.C. [email protected].

Exploring the Role of Authenticity and Frequency of Participation on Tourists’ Quality of Life in Nature-Based Experiences Ana María Campón-Cerro, Bárbara Sofía Pasaco-González, José Manuel Hernández-Mogollón, and Elide Di-Clemente

Introduction In the tourism sector, the emergence of the experience economy has led to the increasing consumption of experiences and the generation of new types of outcomes (Fossgard & Fredman, 2019). The literature points out that tourism experiences tend to go beyond hedonic consumption and lead individuals to experience feelings of well-being (Reisinger, 2013). Hence, quality of life is considered one of the most relevant outcomes of the consumption process (Dagger & Sweeney, 2006). Despite this, more research is still needed on the conditions under which tourism experiences increase people’s wellbeing or quality of life (Smith & Diekmann, 2017). Because of this, incorporating quality of life as an outcome of the tourism experience into tourism studies deserves more attention (Fu et al., 2015).

A. M. Campón-Cerro (✉) · J. M. Hernández-Mogollón · E. Di-Clemente Facultad de Empresa, Finanzas y Turismo, Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] B. S. Pasaco-González Institutos Universitarios de Investigación, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain e-mail: sofi[email protected]

Ramkissoon and Uysal (2018) point to authenticity, because of its close link to the tourism experience, contributing to individuals’ feelings of well-being. The mechanism by which authenticity favors the improvement of individual wellbeing or quality of life can be explained through the self-determination theory. This theory establishes a conceptual framework that defines the basic psychological needs for an individual to achieve psychological growth, functional integrity, and subjective well-being. The psychological needs that make up this theory are autonomy, competence and relatedness (Buzinde, 2020; Deci & Ryan, 2000). According to Thomaes et al. (2017), when these basic psychological needs are met, individuals experience emotional states that lead them to develop perceptions of authenticity that influence their subjective wellbeing. Taking these considerations into account, this study examines the influence of authenticity on the quality of life of tourists based on the selfdetermination theory. Studies that have examined the effect of authenticity on tourists’ well-being or quality of life are scarce (Wu et al., 2019; Yi et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2020). They have addressed this relationship mainly based on the existentialist approach of authenticity (Yi et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2020). However, Zhang and Yin (2020) suggest that a better understanding of authenticity involves the combined analysis of its different perspectives. The present study proposes to jointly examine

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_17

237

238

the effect of constructive and existential authenticity on quality of life, as little is yet known about how these two facets of authenticity jointly influence tourists’ quality of life. Tourism literature suggests that tourists’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviour may differ depending on the number of times they visit a destination, i.e. whether they are new or regular customers (Loureiro & Sarmento, 2018; Rather et al., 2022). Even though both segments of tourists have different needs, little is still known about the differences between the two groups (Rather, 2020), mainly in terms of perceptions of quality of life. Along these lines, Vada et al. (2019) argue that there is a lack of studies examining whether visit frequency influences tourists’ perceptions of well-being. This paper aims to analyse how perceptions of quality of life differ for first-time and repeat visitors. This study applies to the context of nature-based tourism experiences. Jiang et al. (2017) point out that limited studies have considered nature-based tourism as a central context for examining the concept of authenticity. In fact, most studies have been applied to cultural tourism (Wu et al., 2019). In this regard, Li and Li (2022) state that authenticity should not only be discussed in the context of cultural tourism but should also be studied in natural settings. Given this gap in the literature, this study focuses its attention on perceived authenticity in the experiential domain of nature-based tourism. Based on the above considerations, this study aims to determine to what extent the perceived authenticity of tourists during their tourism experience contributes to increasing their quality of life? Specifically, the objective is to examine tourists’ perceptions of quality of life, its link to constructive and existential authenticity, and the differences of perceptions of quality of life between first-time and repeat tourists. Fulfilling these objectives will lead to a better understanding of the factors that lead tourists to improve their quality of life as a result of their participation in tourism experiences.

A. M. Campón-Cerro et al.

Theoretical Background Authenticity Authenticity involves consumers’ perceptions of the degree of novelty, uniqueness or originality of products, services or experiences (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). Tourism studies have identified three types of authenticity: objective, constructive and existential. Objective and constructive authenticity are related to evaluating objects (Domínguez-Quintero et al., 2019). However, the former is determined based on the judgement of expert evaluators (Yang, 2012), while the latter depends on tourists’ perceptions and their way of interpreting authenticity (Akhoondnejad, 2016). In contrast to these two typologies, existential authenticity evaluates the activities and experiences tourists engage in (DomínguezQuintero et al., 2019) and is determined by the subjective responses these evoke (Yu et al., 2020). Of these three categories, constructive and existential authenticity are subjective concepts that best reflect tourists’ perceived authenticity in the experiential context of tourism (Zatori et al., 2018). Therefore, this study will assess authenticity in terms of both typologies.

Quality of Life In tourism studies, quality of life has been defined mainly from a subjective perspective, as tourism experiences depend on individuals’ affective perceptions and reactions (Luo et al., 2017). Several psychological constructs have been used interchangeably to refer to this concept from this subjective approach, such as happiness, subjective well-being, and life satisfaction (Saayman et al., 2018). For example, Rejeski and Mihalko (2001) note that quality of life is a psychological construct represented by life satisfaction. Sirgy (2010) refers to the quality of life as an indicator of subjective well-being, happiness and life satisfaction. Eslami et al. (2019) consider the quality

Exploring the Role of Authenticity and Frequency of Participation on. . .

of life as “an individual’s well-being, satisfaction or dissatisfaction, happiness or unhappiness with life” (p. 1064). According to these definitions, quality of life comprises the feelings of happiness, well-being and satisfaction with life that people experience when they travel.

Self-Determination Theory Self-determination theory has been used by previous studies in the field of tourism to identify the conditions under which a tourist experience promotes subjective well-being (Buzinde, 2020; Thal & Hudson, 2019). Similarly, the present study uses this theory as a theoretical basis to determine how perceived authenticity during a tourist experience can enhance tourists’ quality of life. Self-determination theory defines the fundamental psychological needs for an individual to achieve subjective well-being. Deci and Ryan (2000) identified autonomy, competence, and relatedness as basic human needs. Autonomy indicates the need to participate in activities following the interests and values of an authentic self (Lin et al., 2021). Competence is the need to feel capable of effectively developing the activities they perform (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Relatedness reflects people’s need to relate and bond with other individuals (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These established human needs are related with the achievement of a sense of authenticity (Thomaes et al., 2017), since these reflect the people’s desire to act authentically and to be aware of their own feelings, instead of feeling compelled to act against their own choice (Sutton, 2020). Likewise, Goldman and Kernis (2002) suggest that authenticity occurs when individuals discover their true identity by sufficiently satisfying psychological needs. As a result, Thomaes et al. (2017) point out that this can enhance the subjective well-being of individuals, since acting authentically, expressing one’s true self, being aware of their own feelings, gives a sense of well-being in life (Sutton, 2020). Given the above considerations, it can be inferred that, from the self-determination theory perspective, in

239

the context of this study perceptions of authenticity enhance tourists’ quality of life.

Nature-Based Tourism Nature-based tourism is one of the fastestgrowing segments of the tourism industry. In 2019, more than eight billion visits to nature reserves worldwide were recorded (Qiu et al., 2021). This steady growth reflects the ability of this form of tourism to capture the attention of a broad cross-section of the world’s population interested in participating in tourism experiences that allow them to interact with elements of nature (Chan & Baum, 2007). These experiences include national park tours, cycling, horseback riding, nature photography, hiking, wildlife viewing, and water activities (Xu & Chan, 2016). These activities have the potential to meet the needs of a market segment that, in the face of the new experiential trend in tourism, is increasingly looking for unique, personalized and authentic experiences that help them achieve a better understanding of themselves (Elmahdy et al., 2017) and increase their individual well-being (Qiu et al., 2021). This study focuses on nature-based tourism experiences to promote the improvement of tourists’ quality of life.

Theoretical Model Since the proposal of the three types of authenticity, several studies have begun to examine their relationship. Taheri et al. (2019) found that object-based authenticity leads to existential authenticity. Domínguez-Quintero et al. (2019) showed that object-based authenticity has a positive direct effect on existential authenticity. Park et al. (2019) studied the relationship between objective, constructive and existential authenticity and found that only constructive authenticity influences existential authenticity. Zhang and Yin (2020) analyzed the link between objective, constructive, existential and postmodern authenticity. The results indicated that objective and

240

constructive authenticity significantly influence existential authenticity. As seen, studies that explored the relationship between the types of authenticity have focused on the impact of the objective facet on existential authenticity. However, given the findings of Park et al. (2019) and Zhang and Yin (2020) that indicate that tourists’ perceptions of the authenticity of sites and objects give rise to existential authenticity, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1_Constructive authenticity has a direct positive effect on existential authenticity in the experiential field of nature-based tourism. The relationship of authenticity with outcomes associated with the tourists’ personal sphere has been little explored in the tourism literature (Wu et al., 2019). Some of the studies conducted have linked existential authenticity with subjective well-being. According to these studies, existential authenticity is crucial in achieving a better quality of life (Yu et al., 2020). Yu et al. (2020) found that existential authenticity influences hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Yi et al. (2022) confirmed the impact of existential authenticity on subjective well-being. Through existential authenticity, individuals experience feelings of freedom, self-realization and selfdiscovery, which coincide with the pursuit of individual well-being (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006; Yi et al., 2022). In addition to the existentialist dimension, Wu et al. (2019) verified, from an objectivist approach, that perceived authenticity represents an important condition for fostering tourists’ well-being. They also concluded that place attachment and trip satisfaction significantly mediate the relationship between the two issues. Yi et al. (2016) argue that during travel, tourists come into contact with various objects or settings whose symbolic meaning can lead tourists to establish a connection with themselves and the destination. This can consequently lead them to experience feelings of emotional, physical or mental well-being. Based on these contributions, the present study explores the direct effect of constructive and existential authenticity on tourists’ quality of life. Given

A. M. Campón-Cerro et al.

the link between constructive and existential authenticity, it is also proposed to examine the mediating effect of constructive authenticity on quality of life through existential authenticity. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed: H2_Constructive authenticity has a direct positive effect on the quality of life in the experiential field of nature-based tourism. H3_Existential authenticity has a positive direct effect on the quality of life in the experiential field of nature-based tourism. H4_Existential authenticity mediates the effect between constructive authenticity and quality of life in the experiential field of nature-based tourism. Based on the above hypotheses, Fig. 1 presents the proposed theoretical model. Several researchers in the field of tourism have determined that first-time and repeat tourists exhibit different behavior (e.g., Li et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2012; Loureiro & Sarmento, 2018; Rather, 2020; Rather et al., 2022; Vada et al., 2019). For example, tourists visiting a destination for the first time are generally searching for novel experiences, participating in various activities, and tend to have short duration stays (Li et al., 2008; Rather et al., 2022). In contrast, regular visitors spend more time at sites and prefer to visit fewer sites but with more intensity. They also show more interest in participating in local activities (Liu et al., 2012). While these studies have focused on examining the difference between the two groups based on the frequency of visiting a destination, the present study focuses on the number of times that tourists participated in the tourism experience. Based on the results of previous studies, this research suggests that tourists’ perceptions of quality of life differ according to the number of times they have participated in the tourism experience. Alegre and Cladera (2006) state that people tend to repeatedly participate in an activity when they feel that participation is valuable to their wellbeing. Therefore, it is expected that the more often the participation in the experience, the

Exploring the Role of Authenticity and Frequency of Participation on. . .

241

Fig. 1 Theoretical model

greater the perception of improved quality of life. Based on these considerations, the following hypothesis is proposed: H5_ Perceptions of quality of life of tourists differ between first-time tourists and repeat tourists.

Methodology Following the recommendations of Henseler (2018), the development of this study followed an explanatory approach and used a quantitative methodology. An online survey was used as a data collection technique, for which a structured questionnaire was developed, including questions about the tourist experience, the study variables and the socio-demographic characteristics of the tourists surveyed. The questionnaire was prepared in English, French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. Prior to the survey’s launch, a pre-test was conducted with 17 academics and researchers and a pilot test with nine people of different ages and nationalities. In order to measure the variables, scales tested in previous research were adapted to the context of this study. We adapted the scale proposed by Zatori et al. (2018) for constructive and existential authenticity, which assesses each construct using

three indicators. For the quality of life, we adapted the scale used by Kim et al. (2015), which consists of six indicators. To prevent common method variance (CMV), the order of measurement of the dependent and independent variables was modified (Podsakoff et al., 2003). All variables were measured using a 5-point Likert scale due to the advantages proposed by Chen et al. (2015). For data collection, a set of international nature-based tourism experiences were identified. These experiences were selected, taking into account the most predominant characteristics of nature-based tourism. It was also verified that to be appropriately identified as experiences, these met aspects of one of the four dimensions of Pine and Gilmore’s (1998) model. The study sample was selected using a non-probabilistic convenience sample. While this method is commonly used in quantitative studies, it also presents some issues related with the subjective process to select the respondents and data bias (Alshurideh et al., 2020; Etikan et al., 2016). To handle these issues, we have examined the CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The sample is composed of tourists who have participated in one of the selected tourism experiences and who were contacted through the Facebook page of the companies offering the

242

selected tourism experiences. We also obtained the collaboration of tourism experience companies that disseminated the survey among their clients. The required sample size was calculated based on a statistical power analysis (Hair et al., 2019b). According to the criteria established by Faul et al. (2007), assuming a medium effect size ( f2 = 0.15), a significance level of 0.05, a statistical power of 0.80 and two predictors, it was determined that 68 observations are required. The final sample consists of 172 valid responses, exceeding the minimum number required. As tools for data analysis, the statistical programme IBM SPSS 26.0.0.0.0 was used to determine the characterization of the sample profile and to evaluate the difference between firsttime and repeat visitors. The Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) technique was used to test the study model, as it works well with small sample sizes, does not require any requirements in terms of data distribution, shows greater statistical power in the estimation of causal relationships and is appropriate for exploratory studies (Hair et al., 2019b). SmartPLS v.3.2.9 software was used to work with PLS-SEM. Before proceeding with the statistical analysis of the data, the possible presence of CMV was checked using Harman’s single factor test, which consists of performing an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) without rotation of all constructs with their corresponding indicators (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Before conducting the EFA, the KaiserMeyer-Olkin index (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Hair et al., 2010) were assessed. The results show a KMO index of 0.876 (>0.5) and a significance level of 0.000 ( 0.000), supporting hypothesis H1. The effect of CAU on QOL was not significant (β = -0.006; p > 0.05). Therefore, hypothesis H2 does not find empirical support in this study. EAU does show a significant direct influence on QOL (β = 0.769; p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis H3.

To check for indirect effects, their significance was first assessed by bootstrapping with 5000 samples (Hair et al., 2019b). Table 5 reveals that EAU mediates the relationship between CAU and QOL (β = 0.397; p > 0.000), supporting hypothesis H4. When assessing the magnitude of the mediating effect, it was found through Variance Accounted For (VAF) that EAU exerts a total mediating effect, as it presents a VAF greater than 80%. Figure 2 graphically presents the estimation results of the proposed model. To determine whether tourists’ perceptions of quality of life differ between those who have participated in the experience for first time and those who repeated it, a t-test for independent samples was employed (Rather et al., 2022). Table 6 reveals the quality of life construct with

Exploring the Role of Authenticity and Frequency of Participation on. . .

245

Table 5 Mediating effects assessment Hypotheses H4_CAU → EAU → QOL

Indirect effect (β) 0.397a

Direct effect -0.006

Total effect 0.391

VAF 100%

Supported Yes

Note: CAU Constructive authenticity, EAU Existential authenticity, QOL Quality of life p < 0.001, based on t (4999), one-tailed test (Hair et al., 2019b)

a

Fig. 2 Model assessment. Note: CAU Constructive authenticity, EAU Existential authenticity, QOL Quality of life

Table 6 Results of t-test Constructs CAU EAU QOL

First-time participants Mean St. Dev. 4.79 0.45 4.30 0.82 4.19 0.77

Repeat participants Mean St. Dev. 4.72 0.56 4.39 0.79 4.56 0.64

t-test t value 0.772 -0.620 -2.836

p 0.441a 0.536a 0.005b

Note: CAU Constructive authenticity, EAU Existential authenticity, QOL Quality of life a Not significant b p < 0.05

a mean of 4.19 for tourists who participated in the experience for the first time and 4.56 for tourists who have repeated the experience. The differences between the two groups are significant ( p < 0.05), and therefore hypothesis H5 is supported.

Discussion The main objective of this study was to examine the link between constructive authenticity, existential authenticity and quality of life. The results reveal that constructive authenticity positively

246

influences existential authenticity in the context of nature-based tourism experiences. These findings are consistent with previous studies that have found that constructive authenticity stimulates the development of self-reflection or personal self-discovery processes that are characteristic of existential authenticity (e.g., Park et al., 2019; Yi et al., 2022; Zhang & Yin, 2020). The results also show that constructive authenticity does not directly affect the quality of life. However, its indirect effect through existential authenticity was confirmed. Similar results were obtained by Wu et al. (2019), who found that perceived authenticity influences tourists’ subjective well-being through the mediating effects of other aspects such as place attachment and satisfaction. This could imply that the mechanism by which constructive authenticity improves tourists’ quality of life results from a complex process involving other factors. In the case of the present study, the results suggest that tourists’ perceptions of the authenticity of tourist sites and the objects found within them do not in themselves facilitate an increase in tourists’ quality of life but that the contribution of the existential facet of authenticity is necessary. Given the above, it is observed that existential authenticity plays a central role in improving the quality of life of tourists, which has been demonstrated not only by the mediating effect but also by the direct effect found. In particular, the results highlight the strength of the relationship between existential authenticity and quality of life, which can also be seen in the effect size values. These findings are consistent with Yi et al. (2022), who found that existential authenticity is positively associated with tourists’ subjective well-being. The significant link between these aspects can be attributed to the fact that when individuals, during a tourism experience, have the opportunity to discover their true identity (Vidal-Gonzalez, 2008), be themselves (Sims, 2009) and experience feelings of freedom (Lin & Liu, 2019), they achieve levels of personal development and self-realisation that lead them to experience a better quality of life (Brown, 2013; Kirillova et al., 2016; Yi et al., 2016). This also matches with the self-determination theory, which suggests that the extent to which a

A. M. Campón-Cerro et al.

person feels self-determined could lead to individuals to experience emotional states that lead them to develop perceptions of authenticity that influence their subjective well-being (Sutton, 2020; Thomaes et al., 2017). The results also reveal that perceptions of quality of life differ between first-time and repeat tourists. Specifically, the data indicate that tourists who have participated more than once in a tourism experience perceive their quality of life to have improved to a greater extent. This may be because tourists re-engage in an experience with different needs (Rather et al., 2022) as they seek to engage more intensely and deeply, thus gaining benefits beyond the hedonic (Li et al., 2008; Loureiro & Sarmento, 2018). Similar results were obtained by Liu et al. (2012), Rather (2020) and Rather et al. (2022), who found that tourists’ behaviour and perceptions vary according first-time and repeat tourists.

Conclusions Given the growing recognition of the contribution of tourism experiences to improving tourists’ quality of life and authenticity as an enabling factor, this study has examined, in the context of nature-based tourism experiences, tourists’ perceptions of quality of life, its link to constructive and existential authenticity, and the differences of perceptions of quality of life between first-time and repeat tourists. The main contribution lies in demonstrating the importance and significance of authenticity as a catalyst for improving tourists’ quality of life in nature-based tourism. The findings show that authenticity can be considered a central aspect in understanding how a tourism experience enhances tourists’ quality of life and what factors are involved. From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to the tourism literature by jointly examining the effect of two facets of authenticity (constructive and existential) on tourists’ quality of life. Since the influence of authenticity on outcomes associated with tourists’ personal sphere has been an underexplored issue (Wu et al., 2019), this study provides relevant information about the mechanism by which authenticity acts as a

Exploring the Role of Authenticity and Frequency of Participation on. . .

catalytic agent for the improvement of tourists’ quality of life. The results obtained verified that existential authenticity constitutes the primary driver of quality of life. This confirms the importance and prevalence of individuals’ affective responses in evaluating the tourism experience and its associated benefits in the current experiential context of tourism (Jin et al., 2015). Constructive authenticity was also found to contribute to the formation of existential authenticity. Therefore, it could be said that both facets of authenticity are two factors whose interrelationship can help tourists achieve an increase in their quality of life. Although the notion of quality of life has been the subject of extensive academic debate in tourism research, there is a lack of studies that analyse the differences related to the perceptions of quality of life of new and regular customers (Vada et al., 2019). Another contribution of this study lies in comparing perceptions of quality of life between those tourists who have participated in the experience for first time and those who repeat it. The results obtained reveal significant differences between the quality of life perceptions of the two groups and that repeat tourists perceive their quality of life to have improved to a greater extent. This is an exciting finding that extends the scope of previous quality of life studies and demonstrates the importance of examining differences in perceptions of first-time and repeat visitors to understand the impacts of the tourism experience better. Finally, the application of this study to the context of nature-based tourism experiences contributes to the literature on authenticity, as most research has focused on analysing culturerelated domains (Li & Li, 2022). The results suggest that activities in natural settings have the potential to provide authentic experiences that contribute to the quality enhancement of individuals. This highlights nature as a medium capable of conveying multiple symbolic meanings that lead tourists to connect with the destination and achieve a better understanding of themselves (Greider & Garkovich, 1994), which consequently contributes to increasing their quality of life (Qiu et al., 2021). From a practical perspective, tourism businesses and destination managers must

247

recognise the critical role that existential authenticity plays as a driver for improving tourists’ quality of life. Tourism professionals must ensure the delivery of tourism experiences that induce existential authenticity in visitors. This can be achieved through activities that encourage the active participation of individuals, as this represents a means by which they can freely express and find themselves (Kim & Jamal, 2007). These experiences can also include meditation or mindfulness activities that bring tourists into a state of mental absorption. As people feel fully engaged in their surroundings or an activity, they develop positive emotional states that contribute to their well-being (Ballew & Omoto, 2018). In addition, businesses and especially destination managers should focus on maintaining the authenticity of natural areas and implement programmes to promote their conservation and preservation. This will help keep each site’s characteristic attributes intact, favouring the generation of favourable perceptions of authenticity. Tourists tend to evaluate their experience more when they think that a landscape remains in a pure state (Li & Li, 2022). Consequently, this can contribute to creating a connection to the place and convey feelings of identity that induce existential authenticity. The results also reveal that perceptions of quality of life differ depending on whether tourists are first-time or non-first-time participants in the experience, suggesting that tourism businesses and destination managers should develop marketing strategies for both market segments (Rather, 2020). For example, promotional materials could be used for new visitors to communicate the potential benefits that tourism experiences provide on an individual level (Suhartanto et al., 2020). Messages could include how a particular tourism experience can contribute, for example, to lowering stress levels, improving mental health, fostering personal growth, and increasing social cohesion, among others (Qiu et al., 2021). This would help to create added value to the experience, make it more attractive to visitors and generate favourable behavioural intentions. For repeat visitors, these strategies could be aimed at designing personalised experiences taking into account the

248

A. M. Campón-Cerro et al.

expected individual benefits. To do this, companies should identify through the visitors themselves (e.g., through surveys or online comments) how the tourism experience has improved their quality of life and what aspects

Acknowledgments Project co-financed by the European Social Fund and Junta de Extremadura within the framework of the “Financing aids for pre-doctoral contracts for the training of Doctors in the public R&D centers of the System of Science, Technology and Innovation of Extremadura for the year 2018” (Reference No. PD18013).

of the environment or activities are associated with it. This will allow strategies to focus on critical points of the tourism experience and specific quality of life benefits.

The diffusion of the results of this research is funded by European Regional Development Fund and Junta de Extremadura (Consejería de Economía, Ciencia y Agenda Digital) (Reference No. GR21096).

There are some limitations that must be noted regarding the present study. First, Etikan et al. (2016) points out that convenience sampling technique could present some limitations with respect to the difficulty in generalizing the results and in making inferences about the population under study. For that, as this study used a non-probabilistic convenience sampling method, results should be interpreted with caution and within the context of the study. Second, as this study followed an explanatory approach, future researches could employ a confirmatory study of the model proposed to understand the causal relationships between variables. Third, tourist experiences of first-time and repeat visitors were utilized as a comparison variable. Future studies could use other factors such as gender, age, educational level or length of stay to examine differences in consumer perceptions. Finally, this study has been applied to international nature-based tourism experiences. Further research could focus on specific geographical contexts (e.g., urban, rural), and comparisons could be made.

References Akhoondnejad, A. (2016). Tourist loyalty to a local cultural event: The case of Turkmen handicrafts festival. Tourism Management, 52, 468–477. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tourman.2015.06.027 Alegre, J., & Cladera, M. (2006). Repeat visitation in mature sun and sand holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 44(3), 288–297. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0047287505279005 Alshurideh, M., Al Kurdi, B., Salloum, S., Arpaci, I., & Al-Emran, M. (2020). Predicting the actual use of m-learning systems: A comparative approach using PLS-SEM and machine learning algorithms. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10494820.2020.1826982 Ballew, M., & Omoto, A. (2018). Absorption: How nature experiences promote awe and other positive emotions. Ecopsychology, 10(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1089/ eco.2017.0044 Brown, L. (2013). Tourism: A catalyst for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.08.004 Buzinde, C. (2020). Theoretical linkages between Wellbeing and tourism: The case of self-determination theory and spiritual tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 83, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020. 102920

Exploring the Role of Authenticity and Frequency of Participation on. . . Chan, J., & Baum, T. (2007). Ecotourists’ perception of ecotourism experience in lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 574–590. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost679.0 Chen, X., Yu, H., & Yu, F. (2015). What is the optimal number of response alternatives for rating scales? From an information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 3(2), 69–78. https://doi.org/10. 1057/jma.2015.4 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909. 112.1.155 Dagger, T., & Sweeney, J. (2006). The effect of service evaluations on behavioral intentions and quality of life. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 3–18. https://doi. org/10.1177/1094670506289528 Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Domínguez-Quintero, A., González-Rodríguez, M., & Roldán, J. (2019). The role of authenticity, experience quality, emotions, and satisfaction in a cultural heritage destination. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14(5–6), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2018. 1554666 Elmahdy, Y., Haukeland, J., & Fredman, P. (2017). Tourism megatrends, a literature review focused on naturebased tourism. Mina Fagrapport, 42, 1–74. Recuperado de http://www.umb.no/statisk/ina/ publikasjoner/fagrapport/if42.pdf. Eslami, S., Khalifah, Z., Mardani, A., Streimikiene, D., & Han, H. (2019). Community attachment, tourism impacts, quality of life and residents’ support for sustainable tourism development. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 36(9), 1061–1079. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10548408.2019.1689224 Etikan, I., Musa, S., & Alkassim, R. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas. 20160501.11 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 Fossgard, K., & Fredman, P. (2019). Dimensions in the nature-based tourism experiencescape: An explorative analysis. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 28, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2019.04.001 Fu, X., Tanyatanaboon, M., & Lehto, X. Y. (2015). Conceptualizing transformative guest experience at retreat centers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhm.2015.06.004

249

Gilmore, J., & Pine, B. (2007). Authenticity the new business imperative. In J. Gilmore & B. Pine (Eds.), Authenticity: What consumers really want (pp. 14–21). Harvard Business Press. Goldman, B., & Kernis, M. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 5(6), 18–20. Greider, T., & Garkovich, L. (1994). Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology, 59(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1549-0831.1994.tb00519.x Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall. Hair, J., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications. Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., Castillo, J., Cepeda, G., & Roldán, J. (2019b). Manual de Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Hair, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10. 2753/MTP1069-6679190202 Hair, J., Risher, J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. (2019a). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi. org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 Henseler, J. (2018). Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis? Quality & Quantity, 52(1), 1–8. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11135-018-0689-6 Jiang, Y., Ramkissoon, H., Mavondo, F., & Feng, S. (2017). Authenticity: The link between destination image and place attachment. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26(2), 105–124. https:// doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2016.1185988 Jin, N., Lee, S., & Lee, H. (2015). The effect of experience quality on perceived value, satisfaction, image and behavioral intention of water park patrons: New versus repeat visitors. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr. 1968 Kim, H., & Jamal, T. (2007). Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.07.009 Kim, H., Woo, E., & Uysal, M. (2015). Tourism experience and quality of life among elderly tourists. Tourism Management, 46, 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2014.08.002 Kirillova, K., Lehto, X., & Cai, L. (2016). Tourism and existential transformation: An empirical investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 56(5), 638–650. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0047287516650277 Li, X., Cheng, C., Kim, H., & Petrick, J. (2008). A systematic comparison of first-time and repeat visitors via a two-phase online survey. Tourism Management, 29(2), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman. 2007.03.010

250 Li, L., & Li, S. (2022). Do tourists really care about authenticity? A study on tourists’ perceptions of nature and culture authenticity. Sustainability, 14(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052510 Lin, Y., & Liu, Y. (2019). Deconstructing the internal structure of perceived authenticity for heritage tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(12), 2134–2152. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1545022 Lin, H., Zhang, M., & Gursoy, D. (2021). Effects of tourist-to-tourist interactions on experience cocreation: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 61(5), 1105–1120. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/00472875211019476 Liu, C., Lin, W., & Wang, Y. (2012). Relationship between self-congruity and destination loyalty: Differences between first-time and repeat visitors. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1–2), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm. 2012.05.002 Loureiro, S., & Sarmento, E. (2018). Place attachment and tourist engagement of major visitor attractions in Lisbon. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 19(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358418761211 Luo, Y., Lanlung, C., Kim, E., Tang, L., & Song, S. (2017). Towards quality of life: The effects of the wellness tourism experience. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(4), 410–424. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10548408.2017.1358236 Park, E., Choi, B., & Lee, T. (2019). The role and dimensions of authenticity in heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 74, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tourman.2019.03.001 Peng, D., & Lai, F. (2012). Using partial least squares in operations management research: A practical guideline and summary of past research. Journal of Operations Management, 30(6), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jom.2012.06.002 Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76, 97–105. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.88.5.879 Qiu, M., Sha, J., & Scott, N. (2021). Restoration of visitors through nature-based tourism: A systematic review, conceptual framework, and future research directions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2299. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph18052299 Ramkissoon, H., & Uysal, M. (2018). Authenticity as a value co-creator of tourism experiences. In N. Prebensen, J. Chen, & M. Uysal (Eds.), Creating experience value in tourism (2nd ed., pp. 98–109). CABI. Rather, R. (2020). Customer experience and engagement in tourism destinations: The experiential marketing perspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,

A. M. Campón-Cerro et al. 37(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019. 1686101 Rather, R., Hollebeek, L., & Rasoolimanesh, S. (2022). First-time versus repeat tourism customer engagement, experience, and value cocreation: An empirical investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 61(3), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287521997572 Reisinger, Y. (2013). Connection between travel, tourism and transformation. In Y. Reisinger (Ed.), Transformational tourism: Tourist perspectives (pp. 27–32). CAB International. Rejeski, W., & Mihalko, S. (2001). Physical activity and quality of life in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 56, 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15324796abm3101_14 Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. Saayman, M., Li, G., Uysal, M., & Song, H. (2018). Tourist satisfaction and subjective Well-being: An index approach. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(3), 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr. 2190 Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Thiele, K. O., & Gudergan, S. P. (2016). Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3998–4010. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusres.2016.06.007 Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: Local food and the sustainable tourism experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09669580802359293 Sirgy, M. (2010). Toward a quality-of-life theory of leisure travel satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 49(2), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287509337416 Smith, M., & Diekmann, A. (2017). Tourism and wellbeing. Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.05.006 Steiner, C., & Reisinger, Y. (2006). Understanding existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005. 08.002 Suhartanto, D., Brien, A., Primiana, I., Wibisono, N., & Triyuni, N. (2020). Tourist loyalty in creative tourism: The role of experience quality, value, satisfaction, and motivation. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(7), 867–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019. 1568400 Sutton, A. (2020). Living the good life: A meta-analysis of authenticity, Well-being and engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 1–14. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109645 Taheri, B., Bititci, U., Gannon, M., & Cordina, R. (2019). Investigating the influence of performance measurement on learning, entrepreneurial orientation and performance in turbulent markets. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(3),

Exploring the Role of Authenticity and Frequency of Participation on. . . 1224–1246. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-112017-0744 Thal, K., & Hudson, S. (2019). Using self-determination theory to assess the service product at a wellness facility: A case study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 2(3), 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI03-2018-0020 Thomaes, S., Sedikides, C., Van den Bos, N., Hutteman, R., & Reijntjes, A. (2017). Happy to be “me?” Authenticity, psychological need satisfaction, and subjective Well-being in adolescence. Child Development, 84(4), 1045–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12867 Vada, S., Prentice, C., & Hsiao, A. (2019). The influence of tourism experience and Well-being on place attachment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 322–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018. 12.007 Vidal-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Intangible heritage tourism and identity. Tourism Management, 29(4), 807–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.003 Wu, D., Shen, C., Wang, E., Hou, Y., & Yang, J. (2019). Impact of the perceived authenticity of heritage sites on subjective Well-being: A study of the mediating role of place attachment and satisfaction. Sustainability, 11(21), 1–19. Xu, J., & Chan, S. (2016). A new nature-based tourism motivation model: Testing the moderating effects of the push motivation. Tourism Management Perspectives, 18, 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tmp.2016.01.001 Yang, L. (2012). Tourists’ perceptions of ethnic tourism in lugu lake, Yunnan, China. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 7(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X. 2011.632481 Yi, X., Fu, X., Lin, V., & Xiao, H. (2022). Integrating authenticity, Well-being, and memorability in heritage tourism: A two-site investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 61(2), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287520987624 Yi, X., Lin, V., Jin, W., & Luo, Q. (2016). The authenticity of heritage sites, tourists’ quest for existential authenticity, and destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 56(8), 1032–1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287516675061 Yu, J., Li, H., & Xiao, H. (2020). Are authentic tourists happier? Examining structural relationships amongst perceived cultural distance, existential authenticity, and wellbeing. International Journal of Tourism Research, 22(1), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr. 2324

251

Zatori, A., Smith, M., & Puczko, L. (2018). Experienceinvolvement, memorability and authenticity: The service provider’s effect on tourist experience. Tourism Management, 67, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2017.12.013 Zhang, T., & Yin, P. (2020). Testing the structural relationships of tourism authenticities. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 18, 1–10. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100485

Ana María Campón-Cerro, Ph.D., She is a professor and researcher in the Universidad de Extremadura, Spain. She received her Ph.D. from the Universidad de Extremadura, and she is the author of various papers in international journals, with high impact factor, and chapters in edited volumes. Her research interests include marketing and tourism management, as rural tourism, quality-of-life, culinary tourism, experiential tourism, or destination marketing, among others. Bárbara Sofía Pasaco-González, She holds a Ph.D. from the Universidad de Extremadura in the Program on Economics and Business. She has worked as predoctoral researcher at the Universidad de Extremadura, and within her research activity she started publishing papers in scientific journals. Her research interests deal with topics related to tourism experiences, tourism quality, destination marketing, quality of life and innovation. José Manuel Hernández-Mogollón, Ph.D. He is a professor and researcher in the Universidad de Extremadura, Spain. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics and Business Management, and he is the author of various papers published in high-impact international journals, and chapters in edited volumes. His research interests focus on marketing and tourism management, as rural tourism, quality-of-life, culinary tourism, neuro-marketing, experiential tourism, or destination marketing, among others. Elide Di-Clemente, Ph.D., She is a professor and researcher at the Universidad de Extremadura, Spain. She holds a Ph.D. in tourism marketing and management. She is author of various publications in international scientific journals, with high impact factor, and book chapters. Her current research interests are in the fields of marketing and tourism management, in particular in experiential marketing, neuro-marketing, slow tourism, culinary tourism and quality of life.

Experiencing Wellbeing and Life Satisfaction through Gastronomy Tourism Muhammet Kesgin

Introduction Eating, drinking and traveling experiences—also known as gastronomic, food or culinary tourism and gastro-tourism—is a popular leisure pursuit (Cleave, 2020). Engaging in gastronomic tourism activities such as attending food-themed festivals (Kesgin et al., 2021) and cooking classes (Kokkranikal & Carabelli, 2021; Yoo et al., 2022); visiting producers (e.g. wine Thomas et al., 2018) and agritourism farms (Brune et al., 2021); eating in Michelin-starred (Bang et al., 2022) or high quality (Meneguel et al., 2019) restaurants; trying street food (Jeaheng & Han, 2020; Lee et al., 2020) or local food (Alderighi et al., 2016; Badu-Baiden et al., 2022); visiting food trucks (Shafieizadeh et al., 2021), food tourism attractions (e.g. food museums Garibaldi & Pozzi, 2021, food museum restaurants Kim et al., 2020) and destinations (Knollenberg et al., 2020) for the food tasting itself is inherently enjoyable. As such, consuming a nice local drink during travels is often a pleasant, special and/or an authentic gastro-tourism experience and a source of tourist satisfaction with the destination or trip (Stone et al., 2018). Positive experiences from these gastro-tourism activities bring people

M. Kesgin (✉) Saunders College of Business, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected]

enjoyable and meaningful moments and happy memories (Sthapit, 2019). Consumers as well as businesses and destinations capitalize on the benefits of gastrotourism activities (Andersson et al., 2017). The symbiotic relationship between tourism and gastronomy can be a powerful asset with important outcomes for hospitality and tourism (Sotiriadis, 2015). Gastro-tourism activities can be a major drawing power for many tourism destinations with the experiential value its destination’s foodscape (Björk & Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2019) offers tourists. As one can see many businesses and destinations now emphasize gastro-tourism as a core product offering (Richards, 2021). The market size of gastronomy tourism is estimated to be around US$ 979.3 bn in 2022. This figure comes close to the market’s pre-pandemic size of US$ 116.5 bn in 2019, showcasing that the market is about to recover from pandemic conditions. Analysts project gastronomy tourism to reach US$ 4530.9 bn by 2032 with an average of 17.1% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) to reach the food tourism market (News & Market.us, 2022). Food tourism is highlighted as one of the five travel trends to watch (De Vries, 2019) as consumers value food or drink experiences gastro-tourism offers. Prospectively, it is important to note that 37% of Millennials and Gen Z travelers indicate food and drink experiences as the most preferred activities to spend money on (WYSE, 2018). Therefore, gastronomy tourism has become a lucrative market with the happiness

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_18

253

254

it brings to consumers, businesses and destinations alike. During the last decade, the link between tourism and food has been at the center of much attention. Researchers have discussed the development of scholarly research on gastronomy tourism and the growing importance of gastronomy as an element of tourism experiences (De Jong et al., 2018; Ellis et al., 2018; Okumus, 2020; Richards, 2021). Five special issues with the following titles have been published in leading journals: “Food and tourism synergies: perspectives on consumption, production and destination development” in the Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism (Andersson et al., 2017); “Contemporary issues and future trends in food tourism” in the International Journal of Tourism Research (Taheri & Gannon, 2021); “Features, drivers, and outcomes of food tourism” in the British Food Journal (Mariani & Okumus, 2022); “Gastronomic tourism experiences and experiential marketing” in Tourism Recreation Research (Dixit & Prayag, 2022); and “Creating, managing and marketing gastronomy experiences in hospitality and tourism” in the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (Mariani & Bresciani, 2022). In addition to increasing scholarly interest in the field, recent years have seen a growing number of publications focusing on wellbeing in gastronomy tourism. Focusing on the links between gastronomy tourism experience and wellbeing, this chapter provides an overview of the existing peer-reviewed literature on gastronomy tourism and wellbeing. The review summarizes the different approaches used to measure wellbeing, quality of life or life satisfaction in gastronomy tourism research. The review offers a bibliographic resource for scholarly, managerial, and policy actors interested in issues dealing with wellbeing and quality of life in gastronomy tourism. The chapter provides a review of research describing the characteristics of gastro-tourist segments before moving on to research linking gastro-tourism to wellbeing.

M. Kesgin

Research Describing Gastro-Tourist Segments While gastro-tourism is a key destination product from a production perspective, it is also a key “leisure pursuit” from a consumption perspective (Cleave, 2020). It is important to note that not all tourists “Travel for the sake of food” (Andersson & Mossberg, 2017). For most travels, food is needed just for the functional need of satisfying hunger. Therefore, food can play the dual role of what Quan and Wang (2004) call the “peak experience”, and the “supporting consumption experience”. It is therefore important to recognize the different consumption characteristics of food or gastronomy in tourism. Food is important for convenience and comfort for any travels. Food or food-related activities can be the main purpose of a trip and influence tourists’ motivations, experiences, satisfaction and behaviors such as destination choice (Okumus et al., 2018). From a marketing perspective, the size and scope of the gastro-tourism market, and how much tourists or food tourists spend are important questions. According to the World Food Travel Association, 53% of leisure tourists are food tourists (Food Tourism Research—World Food Travel Association, n.d.). Research shows that gastronomy can be a significant cause for expenditure on accommodation, food and beverages, and shopping (Massidda et al., 2022); at least a third of tourist expenditures go toward gastronomy experiences. Tourist expenditures may exhibit different patterns depending on destinations visited and trip characteristics. For example, tourists spend 57% of their expenditures on food and accommodation in Naples, Italy (Tourist Spending Insights Provide Unprecedented View of Global Tourism, n.d.). Therefore, it is also important to examine and study different characteristics tourists or food tourists may display in different trips or destinations. Table 1 gives a summary of food tourists characteristics reported in some of the studies.

Experiencing Wellbeing and Life Satisfaction through Gastronomy Tourism

255

Table 1 Summary of food tourist characteristics Authors McKercher et al. (2008)

Empirical setting Sample size: 759 Country: Hong Kong

Focus Culinary and generic tourism motivation

Updhyay and Sharma (2014)

Sample size: 591 Country: India

SanchezCañizares and CastilloCanalejo (2015)

Sample size: 392 Slovenia (Ljubljana) and Spain (Cordoba)

Taste and quality, food preparation, localization of food and dining etiquette, tradition and nutrition of food, food aroma and cleanliness Interest in destination’s gastronomy

Pérez Gálvez et al. (2017)

American tourists visiting Ecuador (n = 414) Outbound holiday trips in Germany (n = 5996)

Gastronomic interest on motivation, destination choice and destination satisfaction Food-behavior, food-attitude, and enjoyment-motive

Levitt et al. (2019)

Tourists visiting restaurants in South Carolina, US (n = 725)

Attitude, intentions, travel planning behavior

Kesgin et al. (2022)

Tourists’ gastrotourism experiences in US (n = 1479)

Food-related

Lohmann and Femers (2018)

McKercher et al. (2008) identify from 40 to 61% of surveyed travelers leaving Hong Kong at an airport as definite/likely and possible food tourists. Using behavior, motives, and attitudes, Lohmann and Femers (2018) find 25% of holiday travelers as food tourists in Germany based on a nationwide Reiseanalyse 2015 study. Updhyay and Sharma (2014) survey foreign tourists visiting India in restaurants and identify three tourist clusters: localization seekers (44%), taste

Clusters/Behaviors Food tourist: Definite (10%), likely (30%), possible (21%), unlikely (30%), non (9%) Taste seekers (33%) Localization seekers (44%) Experience seekers (23%) Importance: Cordoba (2nd) Ljubljana (4th) Regularly ate out in the destination: Cordoba (50%) Ljubljana (48%) Tried local food and drink: Cordoba (67%) Ljubljana (40%) Paid extra for typical food or wine: Cordoba (77%) Ljubljana (87%) Experiencers (38.4%) Enjoyers (42.1%) Survivors (19.5%) -25% were food tourists based on behavior attitude and enjoyment motive -15% only food behavior – Food-driven destination choice (25%) – Only food-information seeking (34%) – Only food experience at the destination (31%) – No food experience (10% of the sample size) – Food-driven destination choice (34%) – Only food-information seeking (37%) – Only food experience at the destination (29%) – No food experience (16% of the sample size)

seekers (33%), and experience seekers (23%). Studying American travelers’ interest in local cuisines who visit the city of Cuenca in Ecuador, Pérez Gálvez et al. (2017) identify three segments. The largest group (42%), labeled as enjoyers, show a moderate level of gastronomic interest. Tourists with high gastronomic interest as experiencers account for 38% of tourists. The remainder who constitute one fifth of tourists show the lowest interest in gastronomy as

256

motivator, destination choice factor and satisfier. The study utilizes three variables based on the role gastronomy plays in destination choice and destination satisfaction. These studies show that at least one fourth or one third of travels may be closely attributed to desire for food or foodrelated activities as main motivators. Evaluating attitude, behavioral intentions and travel planning, Levitt et al. (2019) identify three food tourists segments. Almost half of the food tourists were in the moderate group (48%), while the high group accounted for almost one third of the food tourists (31%), and only one fifth of food tourists were in the low group (21%), based on motivation and involvement. Data were collected from six restaurants located in mid-sized cities in the United States. Recently, Kesgin et al. (2022) targeted deliberate and incidental gastro-tourist segments. The majority of them were in the incidental gastro-tourists group (59%). These studies show that about one third of travelers make their destination choice based on food-related activities. Both studies report that about one third of travelers search food-related activities before travel, but food-related activities do not influence their destination choice. Similarly, about thirty percent of travelers participate in food-related activities in the destination without any previous research efforts. About ten to sixteen percent of travelers indicate that they had never participated in any food-related activities on their trips. These studies show that sixty to seventy percent of travelers indicate that food drives their destination choice decision or information seeking behavior before their trips.

Research Linking Gastro-Tourism to Wellbeing This part reviews research that links gastronomy tourism experiences to wellbeing, quality of life or life satisfaction. Research using these constructs as dependent variables include quality of life (Hernández-Mogollón et al., 2020; Kruger et al., 2013; Yoo et al., 2022) life satisfaction (Harrington et al., 2021; Kesgin et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2020), and wellbeing (Lohmann & Femers,

M. Kesgin

2018). Studies use wellbeing constructs including hedonic/subjective wellbeing (Badu-Baiden et al., 2022; Chang et al., 2020, 2022), eudaimonic/psychological wellbeing (Chang et al., 2022; Kesgin et al., 2022), and PERMA based hedonic/eudaimonic wellbeing (Pourfakhimi et al., 2021). Wellbeing constructs are also used as a mediating variable (Leung et al., 2022). Table 2 gives a summary of empirical setting, methodology and constructs of the studies reviewed. What follows is a brief overview of these studies in chronological order. Examining the influence of wine festival experience on quality of life, Kruger et al. (2013) conduct a study at the Wacky Wine Festival in Robertson South Africa. The study collects questionnaire data from tourists attending the festival on different days. The study provides empirical evidence that the wine festival influences the quality of life of tourists attending the festival. Results show that wine festival experience has positive benefits on social, culinary, travel, intellectual, leisure and recreation life areas. Findings show that positive benefits felt in life areas contribute to satisfaction with overall life domains, which in turn influence the quality of life satisfaction. This research validates the influence of wine festival experience on quality of life through various life domains. Lin (2014) examines the influence of cuisine experience and psychological wellbeing on revisit intention moderated by self-health perception. The study collects data from Taiwanese tourists visiting the Bei-Tou hot spring area–one of the oldest and most famous destination in Taiwan. The study finds that culinary experience influences psychological wellbeing and revisit intention. Psychological wellbeing also has positive effects on revisit. This research shows that food as supporting consumption experience (Quan & Wang, 2004) can be a critical contributor to wellbeing regardless of the tourist motivation or experience type (e.g. foodie). This work identifies culinary experience as a salient factor influencing psychological wellbeing and revisit intention. This research validates the relationship between cuisine experience and psychological

Experiencing Wellbeing and Life Satisfaction through Gastronomy Tourism

257

Table 2 Summary of research linking gastronomy tourism to wellbeing Authors Kruger et al. (2013)

Empirical Setting and Methodology Wacky wine festival attendants in Robertson South Africa (n = 329) Questionnaire survey, SEM

Lin (2014)

Bei-Tou hot springs area in Taiwan (n = 524) Questionnaire survey, SEM

Lohmann and Femers (2018)

25% of 5996 German travelers identified as food tourists (n = 1511) Questionnaire survey, ANOVA

Sthapit et al. (2019)

International tourists’ local food experience Rovaniemi, Finland (n = 321) Questionnaire survey, SEM

Lee et al. (2020)

Street food experience in South Korea Questionnaire survey (n = 325), SEM

Su and Zhang (2020)

Tea drinking experience in Lijiang old town, Yunnan, China Interviews with 6 tourists and 20 hosts

HernándezMogollón et al. (2020)

Tourists with at least one culinary experience in their previous holidays/trips (n = 425) Questionnaire survey, PLS SEM

Chang et al. (2020)

Tourists with food motivations (e.g. foodie) from China (including Hong Kong and Macao) visiting Taiwan (n = 480) Questionnaire survey, SEM

Pourfakhimi et al., 2021)

International tourists visiting Isfahan, Iran (n = 339 questionnaire survey CB-SEM

Harrington et al. (2021)

Beer festival attendees in Munich, Germany (n = 823) Questionnaire survey, SEM

Constructs Tourism experience, disappointment, irritation, Life domains (social, culinary, travel, intellectual, leisure and recreation)* Life domains overall*; quality of life (DV)* Cuisine experience (health exploration, life diversion) Psychological wellbeing (happiness, life satisfaction)* Self-health perception (ME); revisit/ recommendation intention (DV) Food behavior, food attitude, enjoyment motive Psychological wellbeing (recreation, health, emotional wellbeing, fitness, valuable experience, happiness moments, suggestions to live heathier) (DV)* Novelty seeking, experience cocreation, Servicescape, experience intensification, choice overload, memorable local food experience Hedonic wellbeing (DV)* Experiential quality (outcome, interpersonal, physical environment); destination image; life satisfaction*, wordof-mouth (DV) Tastescape, tea drinking, through material elements, practices, and places Spatial, temporal, and social relations Wellbeing, quality of life Experience quality (immersion, surprise, participation, fun, education), Satisfaction, memorability, Quality of life*, loyalty (DV) Food tourism motivation (relaxation, cultural experience, interpersonal relations, health, appeal, value for money, escape, aesthetics, services) Emotions worried, thrilled, food experiential values (MEE) Wellbeing (psychological and subjective) (DV)* Food Neophobia, enduring food involvement (centrality, social bonding, identity) wellbeing associated with authentic food experiences (PERMA: Positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaningfulness, achievement) (DV)* Food and beverage quality, connectedness, experience uniqueness Meaningfulness and memorability, life satisfaction (DV)* (continued)

258

M. Kesgin

Table 2 (continued) Authors Chang et al. (2022)

Empirical Setting and Methodology Outbound tourists at two major airports in Taiwan (n = 381) Questionnaire survey, ANOVA, regression

Badu-Baiden et al. (2022)

US tourists in European countries excluding UK (n = 900) Questionnaire survey, SEM

Yoo et al. (2022)

Korean Temple food cooking classes in Korea (n = 263) Questionnaire survey, SEM

Kesgin et al. (2022)

Memory of positive gastro-tourism experiences from deliberate and incidental gastro-tourists in US (n = 617) Questionnaire survey, PLS-SEM

Constructs Food neophobic tendencies, emotions, demographics Perceived wellbeing (hedonic/subjective wellbeing and Eudaemonic/psychological wellbeing) (DV)* Attitude toward local food (relaxation and energizing, hospitable service experience, aesthetics and servicescape, learning exotic food culture, sensory appeal and authentic experience, hedonic experience, conviviality, gastronomic novelty and curiosity) Subjective wellbeing (DV)* intention to recommend (DV), attitudinal loyalty (DV) Gastronomy experience (education, entertainment, escapism, aesthetic), Experience satisfaction, co-creation (MOE) Subjective wellbeing (MEE)*, quality of life (DV)* Food-related lifestyle (involvement, innovativeness, responsibility), attitude towards GTE (cognitive, affective, behavioral), gastro-tourism consumption enjoyment, satisfaction, gastro-tourism autobiographical memory; Life-domain outcomes (social life, leisure and recreation life, family life, arts and culture, intellectual life, culinary life, travel life)* Life satisfaction (DV)* Deliberate vs incidental gastro-tourism experience type (MOE)

Notes: *quality of life, wellbeing, life satisfaction constructs, DV Dependent Variable, MOE Moderating effect, MEE Mediating effect, SEM Structural Equation Modeling; CB-SEM Covariate-based Structural Equation Modeling, PLS SEM Partial Least Square

wellbeing effect on the influence of hot springs tourists’ revisit intentions. Lohmann and Femers (2018) examine the effects of holiday vacations on seven wellbeing indicators including recreation, health, emotional wellbeing, fitness, valuable experience, happiness moments, and suggestions to live healthier. Food tourists show the highest level of effects on all seven indicators of the wellbeing index. This research shows that food tourists experience higher levels of wellbeing and happiness during and after their vacations. Sthapit et al. (2019) study memorable local food experiences by examining the effect of novelty seeking, experience co-creation, the

servicescape, experience intensification, and choice overload on memories of local food experiences. The study examines how such experiences impact hedonic wellbeing. This research validates co-creation, the servicescape and experience intensification as essential variables affecting memorable local food experiences. The study shows that memorable local food experiences in turn contribute to hedonic wellbeing of tourists. Focusing on street food, Lee et al.’s (2020) study examines the associations among experiential quality, destination image, life satisfaction, and word of mouth. The research collects data from foreign tourists visiting the night market.

Experiencing Wellbeing and Life Satisfaction through Gastronomy Tourism

The study indicates that experiential quality perceptions of street food influence the destination image, life satisfaction, and word of mouth intentions. The study also shows that there are differences between high and low food neophobia tourist groups. The level of food neophobia influences tourists’ perceptions of experiential quality of street food, Korean image, perceived satisfaction, and willingness to recommend intentions. This research identifies significant relationships among experiential quality, destination image, life satisfaction, and word-of-mouth (WOM) and the moderating effect of food neophobia. Employing a qualitative approach, Su and Zhang (2020) explore tourists’ and host perspectives on tea drinking as a gastronomy tourism activity in Lijiang Old Town, Yunnan, China. The researchers conduct interviews with tourists and hosts to examine why and how guesthouse owners organize tea activities to socialize with tourists and why some tourists favor tea drinking activities. The study shows that engaging in a tea drinking activity involves spatial, temporal, and social relations and interactions. These dynamic and practical interactions can provide rich meaningful experiences. The study emphasizes that attending tea drinking activities in a tourist setting can promote tourist wellbeing. This research shows the influence of relational exchanges on wellbeing through tea drinking and tastescape activities. Hernández-Mogollón et al. (2020) investigate the link between culinary travel experiences and quality of life and their effects on loyalty. The study surveyed tourists with at least one culinary experience in previous trips. Two thirds of the culinary experiences were from 2016 (33.4%) and 2015 (31.3). Italy, Spain and Thailand were the top countries where the culinary experiences were encountered. The reported experiences included food tours (54%), cooking class (33%), and tastings (7%). The study shows the positive influence of memorable and quality culinary experiences on quality of life and loyalty. This study introduces and validates a culinary

259

experience-based quality of life and loyalty model. Adopting the PERMA as the conceptual framework, Pourfakhimi et al. (2021) analyze the influence of neophobia and involvement on food experiences contributing to tourist wellbeing. Wellbeing as the dependent variable is associated with authentic food experiences measured by five dimensions of the PERMA including positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaningfulness, and achievement. Authentic food experiences create positive emotions and meaningfulness for a trip, which in turn contribute to perceptions of subjective wellbeing. The research also reveals that tourists with higher involvement and lower neophobia exhibit more favorable perceptions and effects on wellbeing. This research validates the application of PERMA to the context of tourists’ food experiences. The study collects data from international tourists and provides evidence from Isfahan, Iran. Targeting Chinese foodie travelers visiting Taiwan, Chang et al. (2020) examined the relationships among food consumption motivations, experiential values and wellbeing. This research identifies relationships among foodies’ consumption motivations, emotions, perceived wellbeing and experiential values. Food experiential values mediate the relationship between emotions and wellbeing. The research indicates that higher levels of food consumption motivation lead foodies to higher levels of perceptions of food experiential values and wellbeing. This research validates the correlation between food consumption motivations, experiential values and wellbeing of foodies. Collecting data from the 2018 Munich Oktoberfest, Harrington et al. (2021) tested to what extent perceived uniqueness prompts memorable experiences which in turn contribute to life satisfaction. The study reveals that perceptions of uniqueness are affected strongly by food and beverage quality and connectedness. Findings show that meaningfulness and memorability, however, are only affected by connectedness, whereas food and beverage quality is not influential on meaningfulness and memorability. The

260

study identifies that memorability and life satisfaction are influenced by food and beverage quality. It was found that higher life satisfaction results from higher memorability. However, the influence of food and beverage quality and connectedness on life satisfaction is indirect; no direct influence was measured. The study identifies the importance of considering higher order impacts such as life satisfaction and memory-dominant logic in the production of consumption experiences. This research validates the influence of experience perceptions on memorability and life satisfaction. Collecting data from two major airports in Taiwan, Chang et al. (2022) investigate the relationships between food neophobic tendencies and perceived wellbeing and moderating effects of emotions. The study also measures the influence of demographic characteristics on the perceived wellbeing of comfort food consumers. The study found that demographic and consumption factors do not influence perceived wellbeing of neophobic tourists. Consuming comfort food influences perceived wellbeing of food neophobic tourists on international trips. Consuming comfort food improves food neophobic tourists’ emotions positively and in turn enhances their perceived wellbeing. Therefore, emotions have a moderating effect in the relationships between food neophobic tendencies and perceived wellbeing. This research demonstrates the influence of food neophobic tendencies on tourists’ perceived wellbeing. Developing the memorable local food consumption experiences (MLFCEs) scale, BaduBaiden et al. (2022) test a model based on the MLFCEs’ relationship with attitudinal loyalty, affective states, and wellbeing. The data were collected through an online survey approach between October and December 2020, from two groups of US tourists who had MLFCEs in European countries excluding the UK. Findings of the study have demonstrated the importance of memory in local food experience by revealing its dimensional nature and have shed light on how emotions help to facilitate positive attitudes, wellbeing evaluations, recommendation and attitudinal loyalty behaviors. The study develops a

M. Kesgin

holistic view and not only enriches the literature but also deepens understanding of a new model to explain these relationships. This research validates the influence of MLFCEs on the affective and behavioral state of tourists. Choosing Korean temple food cooking classes as the context, Yoo et al. (2022) explore the relationship between gastronomy experience, co-creation, experience satisfaction, subjective wellbeing and quality of life. Researchers emphasize that cooking classes provide visitors with one of the most experiential tourism products dedicated to delivering a unique experience. The research aims to identify and examine the underlying dimensions of gastronomy experience related to cooking classes and how these factors affect experience satisfaction, investigating the moderating role of co-creation on the gastronomy experience-satisfaction relationship, and testing the mediation impact of subjective wellbeing on the relationship between experience satisfaction and quality of life in the proposed theoretical framework. The study findings show that all four gastronomy experience dimensions (education, escapism, aesthetic, entertainment) are highly related to experience satisfaction. This research indicates that experience satisfaction has an indirect positive effect on quality of life through subjective wellbeing. The influences of educational and entertainment experiences are more positive for highly involved tourists in cocreation. For tourists showing low involvement in cocreation, escapism experiences are more satisfactory. This study has demonstrated the importance of memory in local food experience by revealing its dimensional nature and has shed light on how emotions help to facilitate positive attitudes, wellbeing evaluations, recommendation and attitudinal loyalty behaviors. Kesgin et al. (2022) develop and test a comprehensive and integrated gastro-tourism wellbeing model. The model includes foodrelated lifestyle and leisure attitude as the antecedents of the consumption enjoyment of the gastro-tourism experience; the model also includes satisfaction, life domain outcomes, tourism autobiographical memory and life satisfaction as consequences of the focal construct—

Experiencing Wellbeing and Life Satisfaction through Gastronomy Tourism

consumption enjoyment with the gastronomy experience. The study employs a quantitative approach and collects questionnaire data from tourists based on their deliberate and incidental gastro-tourism experiences. The study demonstrates that the enjoyment of gastrotourism consumption experience significantly influences satisfaction, life domain outcomes, life satisfaction and tourism autobiographical memory. The study identifies that life domains affected by gastro-tourism experiences including social life, leisure and recreation life, family life, arts and culture, intellectual life, and culinary life all benefit from gastronomy tourism experiences. The study reveals that life domain outcomes and tourism autobiographical memory have an enduring influence on life satisfaction over time. Food-related lifestyle and leisure attitude are salient determinants of gastro-tourism wellbeing with their significant influence on consumption experience. Satisfaction with consumption experiences contributes to life satisfaction regardless of the experience type (deliberate versus incidental). To sum up, this section summarized a total of 14 articles linking gastro-tourism experiences to wellbeing. To our knowledge all journal articles published on this topic to date are included. A majority of the articles (10 out of 14) were published within the past three years. Studies collected data from incoming and outbound international tourists as well as domestic tourists. Empirical settings of these studies were festivals, cooking classes, markets, street food, restaurants, or local food experiences based on deliberate and incidental gastro-tourism activities across different countries around the world. The vast majority of these used quantitative methods. Taken together these studies provide empirical evidence to establish the linkages between gastro-tourism experiences and wellbeing and quality of life.

Reflections on Previous Research and Future Research The bottom-up spillover theory of wellbeing posits that the contribution of gastro-tourism

261

activities to wellbeing can be analyzed through three levels of satisfaction: event satisfaction, satisfaction in life areas and overall life satisfaction (Sirgy, 2012). Event satisfaction or consumer satisfaction is the basis of the bottom spillover theory of wellbeing. Gastro-tourism activities must first provide satisfaction with the experience. Studies show that satisfaction with a gastrotourism experience directly influences life satisfaction (Hernández-Mogollón et al., 2020; Kesgin et al., 2022; Yoo et al., 2022). Since event or consumer satisfaction is an essential condition to any possibility of contribution to wellbeing, gastro-tourism operators need to ensure that consumers are satisfied with their gastro-tourism experiences. The literature on gastro-tourism satisfaction is rich and growing and shows the role many factors, attributes and features play in contributing to satisfaction. For example, these include sensory characteristics, food content, preparation methods, food/cuisines types and availability, price, value and quality of food (Mak et al., 2012); experiential and service attributes (e.g. local, novelty, authentic and quality); experiential qualities such as outcome quality, interpersonal quality, and physical environment quality (Lee et al., 2020); experiential benefits (epistemic and emotional) and experiential values (entertainment, escape, education and aesthetic) (Yoo et al., 2022). Research shows that satisfaction of gastro-tourists deals with tourists’ overall assessments of experiential and service qualities, sensory characteristics, quality and attributes of food consumed, and benefits obtained. Satisfactory gastro-tourism experiences bring tourists physiological and psychological happiness in their travel. Gastro-tourism operators focus on what makes gastro-tourism experiences memorable, prompted by satisfaction with the experiential and service qualities. Satisfactory gastro-tourism experiences are conducive to making memories. However, not all satisfactory gastro-tourism experiences will be memorable. There is published research regarding what makes gastro-tourism experiences memorable (Hsu et al., 2022; Stone et al., 2018; Williams

262

et al., 2019). Williams et al. (2019) identify seven attributes related to memorable gastro-tourists experiences including (1) travel status (deliberate or incidental), (2) the travel stages (planning, traveling, expiring, and reflecting), (3) foodie risk-taking, (4) co-created relationships, (5) authenticity, (6) sociability, and (7) emotions. Stone et al. (2018) examine the elements leading to memorable food, drink, or culinary experiences. The study includes food or drink consumed, location/setting, companions, the occasion, and touristic elements (e.g., novelty, authenticity) as correlating factors and displays their influence towards creating a memorable experience. This research shows that one or a combination of these elements can be memorable to create a positive memory. The most memorable traits of the experience were often found with experiential attributes of travel involving companions, guest service, and the scenery. Recently, Hsu et al. (2022) developed a scale to measure the affective components of the gastronomy experiences. The final scale has five affective attributes asking tourists whether their food experience during the last trip was pleasant, fun, interesting, special, and authentic. All of these cognitive and affective attributes allow gastrotourism experiences to be memorable. Memorability of gastro-tourism experiences in turn is shown to contribute to tourists’ wellbeing (Harrington et al., 2021; Sthapit et al., 2019). Memorability of gastro-tourism activities is also associated with the benefits felt in tourists’ life areas. This is related to the next level of satisfaction in the hierarchy of affects: Satisfaction in life domains or areas (see Fig. 1). As shown by the studies of Kesgin et al. (2022) and Kruger et al. (2013), life domains affected by gastronomy tourism experiences can include social life, leisure and recreation life, family life, arts and culture, love life, culinary life, intellectual life, and travel life. These studies show that gastro-tourism experiences can contribute to wellbeing through positive effects in seven life domain areas. This suggests that attending foodthemed events and festivals, celebrating an occasion during travels, learning how foods and drinks are produced through visiting producers

M. Kesgin

or attending cooking classes can have positive effects in various areas of tourists’ lives. Engaging in the eating and drinking experiences with friends and family provides opportunities for spending time together. Enjoying these fun activities together has social and leisure value. When traveling, tourists can meet new people and learn about the culture of the destination they visit while tasting an exotic meal with great presentation. These kinds of experiences may benefit intellectual life. These are just some examples of the many ways that tourists can appreciate the positive effects of such experiences in their life areas. Research demonstrates that satisfaction with benefits in life areas directly contributes to life satisfaction (Kesgin et al., 2022; Kruger et al., 2013). The next level of satisfaction with gastrotourism experiences deals with overall life satisfaction. This is the highest level of satisfaction a gastro-tourism experience can provide. This type of satisfaction is described as feeling well or hedonic happiness—a form of wellbeing experienced by instant effects of pleasure and enjoyment. Feeling well or hedonic happiness can be experienced at the time of gastro-tourism consumption. Through recalling memories over time, positive effects of gastro-tourism experiences are not only felt momentarily during our trips but also even after the trip is over. The special moments that pictures, videos, and souvenirs capture during gastro-tourism consumption give tourists something to share long after the actual consumption is over and can leave gastro-tourists with an everlasting feeling of satisfaction. Research shows that gastro-tourism experience satisfaction can contribute to memory recollection both directly and indirectly through satisfaction with benefits in life areas, which in turn contributes to life satisfaction overall (Kesgin et al., 2022). Beyond this hedonic and instant path, research stresses that there are other happiness types and paths to life satisfaction. For example, gastrotourism consumption can also provide eudaimonic happiness—satisfaction with experiences of meaning and purpose. According to this line of research, gastro-tourism can be

Experiencing Wellbeing and Life Satisfaction through Gastronomy Tourism

263

Fig. 1 Bottom up spillover theory of life satisfaction

considered as eudaimonic activity motivated by lifestyle orientations and goals (Martela & Sheldon, 2019). Following this approach, Kesgin et al.’s (2022) study shows that food-based lifestyle orientations and attitudes toward gastrotourism as eudaimonic activity influence expectations and enjoyment of the gastro-tourism consumption. Engaging in eudaimonic activities would boost the feeling of ‘doing well’ thus fostering anticipatory satisfaction even before the actual experience. ‘Doing well’—eudaimonic happiness/wellbeing—in turn affects ‘feeling well’—hedonic happiness/wellbeing. As Pourfakhimi et al. (2021) show, the contribution of gastro-tourism experiences to wellbeing

is multidimensional stemming from positive emotions (happiness joyfulness, pleasure), engagement (absorption, excitement), relationships (community support and community affection), meaningfulness (meaningful, purposeful), and achievement (progress towards goals, achieving personal goals). These benefits make tourists happy and enriched. While these studies empirically demonstrate the contribution of gastro-tourism experiences to wellbeing, it is important to note that gastro-tourism experiences would not be likely to provide lasting happiness, rather long-lasting memories. It is fair to state that tourists can vividly recall their gastro-tourism

264

experience thus continue to enjoy their life through recalling these memories over time. In summary, research shows how gastronomy tourism activities satisfy gastro-tourists at different levels (event-life areas-life overall) and contribute to their sense of wellbeing based on aspects of ‘doing-well’ and ‘feeling well’. Future research could replicate and verify the relationships identified in the models of reviewed research. It is important to examine the influence of different empirical settings and segments (e.g., levels of development, type of gastro-tourism activities, gastro-tourist segments). Researchers can focus on the influence of remembered, experienced and anticipated gastro-tourism experiences on life areas and overall wellbeing.

Conclusion The empirical studies reviewed in this chapter identified many important benefits of gastrotourism experiences. Gastronomy tourism activities are satisfying not only because they are meeting tourists’ expectations of pleasure seeking, but also, they are meaningful endeavors for tourists. Studies demonstrate that gastrotourism is an important avenue by which tourists may form meaningful and satisfying lives. The review of research shows that the breadth and depth of satisfaction experienced by gastrotourism activities can be extensive. It is shown that gastro-tourism as a eudaimonic activity can provide a sense of doing well and feeling well. Research shows that tourists do not need to be a foodie to enjoy the benefits of gastronomy tourism. Regardless of the experience type, the enjoyment of gastrotourism experiences can produce positive outcomes in specific life domains both for foodies and non-foodies, and thereby enhance their wellbeing and life satisfaction. Taken together, this chapter reminds consumers, practitioners, scholars and policymakers not to overlook the different positive effects and paths gastro-tourism experiences may lead to life satisfaction. Recognition that this seemingly popular act of eating, drinking and traveling brings us not only hedonic but also

M. Kesgin

eudaimonic happiness should become a more important focus for those interested in gastrotourism activities. Trends show that a growing number of tourists engage in gastro-tourism as a leisure pursuit and eudaimonic activity as part of their lifestyle orientations (e.g. food-related lifestyle). Understanding these complex relationships tourists in general and foodies in particular develop with destinations’ gastronomy is an important area of concern for those who are offering such experiences. Systematic understanding of how tourist-gastronomy tourism relationships contribute to wellbeing is useful for practitioners especially for those destinations that despite their rich gastronomy potential do not benefit from gastro-tourism. The evidence and information provided in this chapter therefore are useful to enhance consumer satisfaction and wellbeing in this growing market. The chapter offers insights into the nature of tourist-food relationships managers could use in their value creation endeavor through their destinations’ potential (Uysal et al., 2020).

References Alderighi, M., Bianchi, C., & Lorenzini, E. (2016). The impact of local food specialities on the decision to (re)visit a tourist destination: Market-expanding or business-stealing? Tourism Management, 57, 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016. 06.016 Andersson, T. D., & Mossberg, L. (2017). Travel for the sake of food. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15022250.2016.1261473 Andersson, T. D., Mossberg, L., & Therkelsen, A. (2017). Food and tourism synergies: Perspectives on consumption, production and destination development. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2016. 1275290 Badu-Baiden, F., Kim, S. S., Xiao, H., & Kim, J. (2022). Understanding tourists’ memorable local food experiences and their consequences: The moderating role of food destination, neophobia and previous tasting experience. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(4), 1515–1542. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2021-0709 Bang, D., Choi, K., & Kim, A. J. (2022). Does Michelin effect exist? An empirical study on the effects of Michelin stars. International Journal of Contemporary

Experiencing Wellbeing and Life Satisfaction through Gastronomy Tourism Hospitality Management, 34, 2319. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJCHM-08-2021-1025. (ahead-of-print). Björk, P., & Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2019). Destination foodscape: A stage for travelers’ food experience. Tourism Management, 71, 466–475. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.11.005 Brune, S., Knollenberg, W., Stevenson, K. T., Barbieri, C., & Schroeder-Moreno, M. (2021). The influence of Agritourism experiences on consumer behavior toward local food. Journal of Travel Research, 60(6), 1318–1332. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287520938869 Chang, J., Morrison, A. M., Lin, S. H.-H., & Ho, C.-Y. (2020). How do food consumption motivations and emotions affect the experiential values and Wellbeing of foodies? British Food Journal, 123(2), 627–648. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2020-0355 Chang, J., Morrison, A. M., Lin, C.-T., & Lin, S. H.-H. (2022). Exploring the emotions and Well-being of food neophobic travelers in the consumption of comfort food. Food Quality and Preference, 96, 104443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104443 Cleave, P. (2020). Food as a leisure pursuit, a United Kingdom perspective. Annals of Leisure Research, 23(4), Article 4–Articl491. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 11745398.2019.1613669 De Jong, A., Palladino, M., Puig, R. G., Romeo, G., Fava, N., Cafiero, C., Skoglund, W., Varley, P., Marcianò, C., Laven, D., & Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. (2018). Gastronomy tourism: An interdisciplinary literature review of research areas, disciplines, and dynamics. Journal of Gastronomy and Tourism, 3(2), Article 2. https://doi. org/10.3727/216929718X15281329212243 De Vries, M. (2019). The Five Travel Trends to Watch in 2020. Mintel Group Ltd. Dixit, S. K., & Prayag, G. (2022). Gastronomic tourism experiences and experiential marketing. Tourism Recreation Research, 47(3), 217–220. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02508281.2022.2065089 Ellis, A., Park, E., Kim, S., & Yeoman, I. (2018). What is food tourism? Tourism Management, 68, 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.03.025 Food Tourism Research – World Food Travel Association. (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https:// worldfoodtravel.org/food-tourism-research/ Garibaldi, R., & Pozzi, A. (2021). Food museums as cultural institutions and tourist attractions: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Gastronomy and Tourism, 5(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.3727/ 216929720X15968961037935 Harrington, R. J., Ottenbacher, M. C., Schmidt, L., Murray, J. C., & von Freyberg, B. (2021). Experience perceptions, memorability and life satisfaction: A test and theory extension in the context of Oktoberfest. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(2), 735–754. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0723 Hernández-Mogollón, J. M., Di-Clemente, E., & CampónCerro, A. M. (2020). Culinary travel experiences,

265

quality of life and loyalty. Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, 24(3), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SJME-11-2019-0094 Hsu, F.-C., Liu, J., & Lin, H. (2022). Affective components of gastronomy tourism: Measurement scale development and validation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34, 3299. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2021-1112. (ahead-of-print). Jeaheng, Y., & Han, H. (2020). Thai street food in the fast growing global food tourism industry: Preference and behaviors of food tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 641–655. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jhtm.2020.11.001 Kesgin, M., Murthy, R., & Lagiewski, R. (2021). Profiling food festivals by type, name and descriptive content: A population level study. British Food Journal, 124(2), 530–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2021-0412 Kesgin, M., Önal, İ., Kazkondu, İ., & Uysal, M. (2022). Gastro-tourism Well-being: The interplays of salient and enduring determinants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(9), 3253–3277. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-092021-1132 Kim, S., Park, E., & Xu, M. (2020). Beyond the authentic taste: The tourist experience at a food museum restaurant. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36, 100749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100749 Knollenberg, W., Duffy, L. N., Kline, C., & Kim, G. (2020). Creating competitive advantage for food tourism destinations through food and beverage experiences. Tourism Planning & Development, 0(0), article 0. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2020. 1798687 Kokkranikal, J., & Carabelli, E. (2021). Gastronomy tourism experiences: The cooking classes of cinque Terre. Tourism Recreation Research, 0(0), 1–12. https://doi. org/10.1080/02508281.2021.1975213 Kruger, S., Rootenberg, C., & Ellis, S. (2013). Examining the influence of the wine festival experience on tourists’ quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 111(2) Article 2, 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11205-012-0013-0 Lee, S., Park, H., & Ahn, Y. (2020). The influence of tourists’ experience of quality of street foods on Destination’s image, life satisfaction, and word of mouth: The moderating impact of food Neophobia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph17010163 Leung, X. Y., Wang, X., Levitt, J. A., & Lu, L. (2022). Cocreating food experience “delivered” from iconic local restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34, 3083. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2021-0954. (ahead-of-print). Levitt, J. A., Zhang, P., DiPietro, R. B., & Meng, F. (2019). Food tourist segmentation: Attitude, behavioral intentions and travel planning behavior based on food involvement and motivation. International

266 Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 20(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480. 2017.1359731 Lin, C.-H. (2014). Effects of cuisine experience, psychological Well-being, and self-health perception on the revisit intention of Hot Springs tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(2), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348012451460 Lohmann, M., & Femers, A. (2018). Food tourists’ travel behavior and Well-being effects. Journal of Gastronomy and Tourism, 3(3), 203–216. https://doi.org/10. 3727/216929718X15410151918054 Mak, A. H. N., Lumbers, M., Eves, A., & Chang, R. C. Y. (2012). Factors influencing tourist food consumption. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3) Article 3, 928–936. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.012 Mariani, M. M., & Bresciani, S. (2022). Guest editorial: Creating, managing and marketing gastronomy experiences in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(9), 3201–3209. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM09-2022-070 Mariani, M., & Okumus, B. (2022). Features, drivers, and outcomes of food tourism. British Food Journal, 124(2), 401–405. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-022022-022 Martela, F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2019). Clarifying the concept of Well-being: Psychological need satisfaction as the common Core connecting Eudaimonic and subjective Well-being. Review of General Psychology, 23(4), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1089268019880886 Massidda, C., Piras, R., & Seetaram, N. (2022). Analysing the drivers of itemised tourism expenditure from the UK using survey data. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights, 3(1), 100037. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.annale.2022.100037 McKercher, B., Okumus, F., & Okumus, B. (2008). Food tourism as a viable Market segment: It’s all how you cook the numbers! Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10548400802402404 Meneguel, C. R. d. A., Mundet, L., & Aulet, S. (2019). The role of a high-quality restaurant in stimulating the creation and development of gastronomy tourism. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.10.018 News, E. I. N., & Market.us, B. D. T. (2022, September 16). Culinary tourism Market to power and cross USD 4,530.9 Bn by 2032. EIN News. https://www.einnews. com/pr_news/591238303/culinary-tourism-market-topower-and-cross-usd-4-530-9-bn-by-2032 Okumus, B. (2020). Food tourism research: A perspective article. Tourism Review, 76(1), Article 1. https://doi. org/10.1108/TR-11-2019-0450 Okumus, B., Koseoglu, M. A., & Ma, F. (2018). Food and gastronomy research in tourism and hospitality: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of

M. Kesgin Hospitality Management, 73, 64–74. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.020 Pérez Gálvez, J. C., Granda, M. J., López-Guzmán, T., & Coronel, J. R. (2017). Local gastronomy, culture and tourism sustainable cities: The behavior of the American tourist. Sustainable Cities and Society, 32, 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.04.021 Pourfakhimi, S., Nadim, Z., Prayag, G., & Mulcahy, R. (2021). The influence of neophobia and enduring food involvement on travelers’ perceptions of wellbeing—Evidence from international visitors to Iran. International Journal of Tourism Research, 23(2) Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2391 Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: An illustration from food experiences in tourism. Tourism Management, 25(3), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03) 00130-4 Richards, G. (2021). Evolving research perspectives on food and gastronomic experiences in tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(3) Article 3, 1037–1058. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJCHM-10-2020-1217 Sanchez-Cañizares, S., & Castillo-Canalejo, A. M. (2015). A comparative study of tourist attitudes towards culinary tourism in Spain and Slovenia. British Food Journal, 117(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-012015-0008 Shafieizadeh, K., Alotaibi, S., Tao, C.-W., & (Willie). (2021). How do authenticity and quality perceptions affect dining experiences and recommendations of food trucks? The moderating role of perceived risk. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, 102800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102800 Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic Well-being, life satisfaction, and Eudaimonia (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94007-4405-9 Sotiriadis, M. D. (2015). Culinary tourism assets and events: Suggesting a strategic planning tool. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management; Bradford, 27(6), 1214–1232. Article 6, http://dx. doi.org.ezproxy.rit.edu/10.1108/IJCHM-112013-0519 Sthapit, E. (2019). Memories of gastronomic experiences, savoured positive emotions and savouring processes. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 19(2), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250. 2017.1402702 Sthapit, E., Coudounaris, D. N., & Björk, P. (2019). Extending the memorable tourism experience construct: An investigation of memories of local food experiences. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 19(4–5), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15022250.2019.1689530. Article 4–5. Stone, M. J., Soulard, J., Migacz, S., & Wolf, E. (2018). Elements of memorable food, drink, and culinary tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 57(8),

Experiencing Wellbeing and Life Satisfaction through Gastronomy Tourism 1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287517729758 Su, X., & Zhang, H. (2020). Tea drinking and the tastescapes of wellbeing in tourism. Tourism Geographies, 24, 1061–1081. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14616688.2020.1750685 Taheri, B., & Gannon, M. (2021). Contemporary issues and future trends in food tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 23(2), 147–149. https://doi. org/10.1002/jtr.2446 Thomas, B., Quintal, V. A., & Phau, I. (2018). Wine tourist engagement with the Winescape: Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(5), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1096348016640583 Tourist Spending Insights Provide Unprecedented View of Global Tourism. (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/aboutcid/news-announcements/tourist-spending-insights Updhyay, Y., & Sharma, D. (2014). Culinary preferences of foreign tourists in India. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 20(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1356766713486143 Uysal, M., Berbekova, A., & Kim, H. (2020). Designing for quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 83, 102944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102944 Williams, H. A., (Jessica) Yuan, J., & Williams, R. L. (2019). Attributes of memorable gastro-tourists’ experiences. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 43(3) Article 3, 327–348. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1096348018804621 WYSE Travel Confederation (2018). New horizons IV survey 2018 by world youth student and educational

267

(WYSE) travel confederation. available at: www. wysetc.org/research/reports/newhorizons-series/newhorizons-iv/ (accessed 1 September 20) Yoo, J. J.-E., Park, J., & Cho, M. (2022). Cocreation of gastronomy experience through cooking classes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(9), 3230–3252. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJCHM-09-2021-1152

Muhammet Kesgin, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of International Hospitality and Service Innovation in the Saunders College of Business at Rochester Institute of Technology. His research primarily examines consumer behavior in hospitality and tourism management with emphasis on customer engagement and experience design. He serves on the Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights editorial board. His research is available in leading journals including: International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Information & Management, Current Issues in Tourism, the Service Industries Journal, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, and Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management. Kesgin holds Undergraduate and Master’s degrees from Akdeniz University, Turkey and a Doctorate degree from Coventry University (UK). Dr. Kesgin has hospitality industry experience in four countries (Turkey, Germany, France and the United States).

Part III QOL from the Perspective of Host Community: Sustainability

Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) and the Quality of Life (QOL) of Destination Community Revisited Muzaffer Uysal, Eunju Woo, and Manisha Singal

Introduction Much of the tourism experience occurs in physical settings as a result of the interaction between demand and supply factors which change over time. Individuals travel to destinations to visit attractions, participate in leisure activities, and form vacation experiences resulting from their interactions with the places they visit. While the enjoyment derived from the tourist experience may vary depending upon the amount and quality of time spent at a destination, the quality of the service encounter and personal and situational factors, the general objective of the travel is to improve the quality of life of the tourist. Similarly destinations, where the vacation experience is sought, undergo different cycles of development over time affecting the nature of their appeal The very existence of tourism and the sustained competitiveness of tourism areas depends on the availability of resources and the degree to which these resources are managed, developed, and M. Uysal (✉) University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Woo College of Business Administration, Pukyong National University, Busan, Republic of Korea e-mail: [email protected] M. Singal Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

enhanced in a sustainable manner to meet visitor expectations and residents’ needs at the destination (Modica & Uysal, 2016: Petrevska & Collins-Kreiner, 2017). The extent of this interaction between the visitor and the visited also affects the nature of actual and perceived tangible and intangible benefits of tourism. The entry of tourists into a destination changes its character forever. Places as destinations experience different phases or cycles of development and examining each cycle of development and the speed of development reveals clues about managerial actions for destination planners and marketing organizations. The consequences of each cycle affect the quality of life in the destination in terms of both tangible and intangible benefits that result from tourism activities. Structural changes to the destination area over time invoke behavioral responses from both tourists and residents (Beardsley, 2016; Hu et al., 2022; Ramkissoon, 2016). The purpose of this chapter is to review the connection between the tourism area life cycle (TALC) and its effects on the quality of life (QOL) of the destination community. The underlining assumption of this chapter is that as destinations undergo structural change over time, the dynamics of change affect the QOL of community stakeholders. Our focus is on the destination community and not the tourist experience per se. The chapter is divided into four major sections. The first section presents the concept of TALC and describes the indicators of each stage of the life cycle. The second section

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_19

271

272

provides a brief discussion of the impacts of tourism on the destination in relation to TALC, followed by a third section which focuses on the adjustment of the community to the changes occurring at the destination while trying to maintain and enhance their QOL. Section four provides a review of related literature to support the relation between TALC and QOL of destination communities. The chapter ends with delineating critical topics for future research, outlining some of the difficulties in moving forward, and formulating relevant policy implications that may help researchers and destination management organizations to further examine the issues that may surround TALC and QOL connections.

Concept of Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) The concept of tourism area life cycle (TALC) implies that places as destinations, like products, follow a relatively consistent process of development and a recognizable cycle of evolution (Butler, 1980). The concept in its abstract form embodies the assumption that sooner or later a threshold is reached after which a tourist destination is perceived to decline in desirability. The concept of a tourism area life cycle suggests that as a destination area evolves, changes occur in the physical environment and the socio-cultural environment that result in changes in the attitudes of the host community. TALC was developed based on the concept of the product life cycle (PLC). Butler (1980) extended the PLC concept and formally introduced the concept of tourism area life cycle (TALC) in tourism settings Based on the TALC framework, tourism scholars conceived that tourism destinations evolve and go through a life cycle process (Yu et al., 2016, 2018; Odum, 2020; Tooman, 1997). The TALC model discusses the development of a destination in terms of a series of life stages defined by the number of visitors and the level of infrastructure as indicators of development. Specifically, this model consisted of six stages; beginning with the exploration stage of the

M. Uysal et al.

tourism area and followed by the involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation, and poststagnation stages. The last stage is further characterized by a period of decline, rejuvenation, or stabilization. Butler (1980) reported that tourist areas go through a recognizable cycle of evolution and illustrated the different stages of popularity using an S-shaped curve. Subsequently, Haywood (1986) attempted to operationalize Butler’s TALC concept. He examined destination life cycle stages based on the percentage of tourist arrivals and annual growth rates as indicators of TALC. The author described four stages: the introductory stage, growth stage, maturity stage, and decline stage. In the introductory stage the annual number of tourist arrivals is less than 5% of the peak year. If the annual growth rate is more than half its standard deviation for the entire period this stage is known as the growth stage. When the growth rate is between minus half and plus half the standard deviation the maturity stage emerges. The decline stage sets in when the growth rate falls below minus half of the standard deviation. On the other hand, Toh et al. (2001) proposed an alternative and improved method of identifying tourism destination stages based on TALC. This approach, called the travel balance approach (TBA), is premised on the notion that the economic development of the country in general, and tourism development in particular, will demarcate four stages of a country’s travel balance, defined as net travel exports (exports over imports), as the driving indicator of change. In the introductory stage, the primitive destination country earns a limited amount of receipts from adventurous tourists from developed countries. In the growth stage, a few residents from developing countries start to travel abroad but the rate of growth of travel exports far exceeds that of travel imports, resulting in a positive and growing travel balance. The maturity stage then sets in, when travel exports almost peak but the rate of growth slows down. In the decline stage, the country’s focus shifts to high-tech and value-added industries and services with less emphasis on tourism development.

Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) and the Quality of Life (QOL) of Destination. . .

A general review of the extant literature reveals that the tourism destination life cycle concept has been studied with varying approaches. However, there is a great deal of similarity in the outcomes, and a general theme emerges. Among various approaches, Butler’s (1980, 2004) model has attracted the most attention and discussion (Tooman, 1997) and most of the reported studies have supported the belief that Butler’s model provides a useful framework for description and interpretation (Petrevska & Collins-Kreiner, 2017; Oliveros Ocampo et al., 2019; Johnson & Snepenger, 1993; Oppermann, 1998; Formica & Uysal, 1996; Hovinen, 2002; Boyd, 2006; Zhong et al., 2008; Whitfeild, 2009; Singal & Uysal, 2009). Thus, the following section provides a brief discussion on Butler’s TALC model with its relevant stages.

273

tourists thus resulting in additional income for the providers. While there is still limited interaction between tourists and local residents, the developing tourism industry leads to the provision of basic services, which also benefits the resident. At this stage some advertising to attract tourists can be anticipated thereby inducing a definable pattern of seasonal variation. The basic initial market area for visitors can now be defined. Some level of organization in tourist travel arrangements can be expected and the first pressures are put upon governments and public agencies to provide or improve transport and other facilities for visitors and locals alike.

The exploration stage begins with the arrival of a small number of visitors who are adventurous and attracted by the destination’s unique or considerably different natural and cultural features. In this phase of development there is low access to the destination and rudimentary facilities for the visitors. At this stage, the physical and social characteristics of the place are unchanged by tourism and the arrival and departure of tourists would be of relatively little significance to the economic and social well-being of the permanent residents. The assumed benefits of tourism may accrue to a small number of providers and the total economic benefits generated from travel and tourism generated sales and taxes may be insignificant which may in turn limit the amount of public spending that could be allocated for further enhancement of the tourist destination. Nevertheless, the tourist place provides a valuable experience to its visitors fulfilling their needs and expectations.

Development This stage is characterized as one where large numbers of visitors arrive. The number of tourists will probably equal to or exceed the permanent local population. Local involvement and control of development begin to decline rapidly while external companies provide up-to-date facilities. This may be the most important phase of development in improving the quality of life for residents and the economic well-being of employees and providers of tourism goods and services. Natural and cultural attractions will be developed, maintained, and marketed while some of the original natural attractions will be supplemented by man-made imported facilities. Such enhancement projects are also available for the residents to enjoy and enhance their life. On the other hand, changes in the physical appearance of the area will be noticeable and not all of the changes will be welcomed by the local population. Residents may start developing a negative attitude because the presence of a large number of visitors may impinge on the quality of their life (Doxey, 1976). Moreover, the destination may also suffer from a change in the quality of services provided through problems of over-used facilities, crowding, and increased pressure on existing services.

Involvement

Consolidation

As the number of tourists increases more of the residents get involved to provide facilities for the

During the consolidation stage, tourism has become a major part of the local economy.

Exploration

274

However, the rate of increase of visitors has declined although the total numbers continue to increase, such that the total visitor numbers exceed the number of permanent residents. Deterioration of the quality of life and the negative impacts of tourism activities may be felt by the residents. Residents may have stronger negative attitudes than at other stages, ranging from almost annoyance and resentment to antagonism (Doxey, 1976; Doğan, 1989). The perceived impacts of tourism may not be favorable. In some instances marketing and advertising efforts will be widened in order to attract more distant visitors. The large number of visitors and the facilities provided for them can be expected to arouse some opposition and discontent among permanent residents particularly those not involved in the tourist industry.

Stagnation At this stage, the peak number of visitors will have been reached and most are repeat visitors. Capacity levels for many attractions and facilities will have been reached or exceeded resulting in environmental, social, and economic problems (Butler, 1980 and 2004). The area will have a well-established image but it will no longer be in fashion. Natural and genuine cultural attractions will probably have been superseded by imported ‘artificial’ facilities. These negative changes will affect the quality of services and experiences provided to visitors and diminish the value of tourism on the part of providers and other stakeholders involved in the production and management of tourism activities.

Decline In this final stage, the destination will not be able to compete with newer attractions and will face a declining market. The place will no longer appeal to vacationers. Property turnover will be high and tourist facilities and accommodations begin to be converted to non-tourist related structures (Butler, 1980). Several tourist facilities disappear as the area becomes less attractive to tourists and the

M. Uysal et al.

viability of the remaining tourist facilities becomes questionable. Ultimately, the area may become a veritable tourist “slum” or lose its tourist function completely. The quality of life in the destination community suffers considerably in the decline stage.

Rejuvenation The rejuvenation stage corresponds to the renovation phase or the reintroduction of the product with new features phase in the product life cycle. This stage is usually not reached without the active involvement of destination planners and marketing organizations coupled with a complete change in the attractions and facilities on which tourism is based. Often, additions of man-made attractions are necessary. However, if neighboring and competing areas follow suit, the effectiveness of the measures will be reduced. An alternative approach is to develop natural resources untapped previously. Rejuvenation requires a concerted effort on the part of those involved in the tourism production system. Over the years, some studies have used the TALC model to examine destinations and their development over time. Most of these studies are descriptive and case based tracing the trajectory of a destination and the number of visitors attracted as it underwent structural changes during different phases of the life cycle.

Impacts of Tourism Development and QOL There is a reciprocal link between tourism development and QOL (Berbekova et al., 2021; Woo et al., 2019; Ridderstaat et al., 2016). The discussion so far points to the fact that community consequences emerging from tourism development embody three major impact categories; namely, environmental, social, and economic. The nature and level of complexity of these impact states will change over time as the destination moves from one phase to another on the continuum of destination development. As a

Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) and the Quality of Life (QOL) of Destination. . .

result, the link between development and QOL will also shift and pose new opportunities and challenges (Juvan et al., 2021). The following section provides a brief discussion on each state of tourism impact dimension and their relations with QOL.

Economic Impacts To the destination community, the most prominent benefits of tourism development are economic benefits. These include higher tax revenues, increased job opportunities, additional incomes, increased public spending, and in some instances, foreign exchange earnings, and an increased tax base for local governments based on increased incomes. These indicators are usually labeled process indicators of quality of life and are the tourism-related factors and conditions that affect the resident community (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). In addition, there are some other macro indicators, called outcome indicators, which are also directly related to community residents’ QOL. The major categories of community residents’ QOL outcome indicators may include changes in wages, household incomes, degree of unemployment, number of unskilled workers, level of literacy rates, the consumer cost of living indices, prices of goods and services, cost of land and housing, property taxes, number of retail stores and the like. Both process and outcome indicators of tourism economic impacts are measurable, and to large extent considered objective measures of QOL (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). These benefits individually or collectively contribute to the economic and material wellbeing of the destination community (Woo et al., 2018). Many previous studies not only have examined the positive economic impacts of tourism development on host communities but also investigated negative economic impacts. Liu and Var (1986) examined both positive and negative economic impacts in terms of residents’ perception of increased employment, investments, and profitable local business. As part of the economic indicators of tourism, they mentioned the

275

existence of negative effects such as an increase in the cost of living. Haralambopoulos and Pizam (1996) also found that while tourism increases tax revenue, personal income, standard of living, and attitude toward work, it also results in an increase in the prices of goods and services. Other residents’ perspectives of tourism development have generally reported positive attitudes such as improved economic quality of life (Tye et al., 2002; McCool & Martin, 1994; Perdue et al., 1999).

Sociocultural Impacts Tourism development affects the sociocultural characteristics of residents such as habits, daily routines, beliefs, and values (Doğan, 1989, 2004). Sociocultural impacts also have both positive and negative sides. Brunt and Courtney (1999) mentioned that tourism can result in improved community services; additional parks, recreation and cultural facilities, and encouragement of cultural activities. Such improvements, as a result of tourism, may also improve the well-being of destination residents. Liu and Var (1986) also provided that tourism increases entertainment, historical, and cultural exhibits, that is, tourism development plays a role in increased cultural exchange, events, and identity. These improvements contribute to the emotional well-being of both residents and participants (Seo et al., 2021). However, from the negative perspective of sociocultural impacts, a significant number of studies have identified concerns with crime, degradation of morality, gambling, and crowding of public facilities and resources (Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Mok et al., 1991; Ap, 1992; Pizam & Pokela, 1985). Such negative impacts undermine the perceived quality of life in the destination community.

Environmental Impacts Tourism development causes significant environmental damage. Often the destination is developed to meet tourists’ needs and wants without

276

considering environmental damage. Andereck (1995) identified the potential environmental consequences of development: air pollution, such as emissions from vehicles and airplanes; water pollution such as wastewater discharge; wildlife destruction as a result of hunting; plant destruction, and deforestation. Environmental impacts have two perspectives: positive and negative. Liu and Var (1986) stated that half of the residents in their study perceived that tourism provided more parks and recreation areas and also improved public facilities. However, these residents did not perceive ecological decline as a result of tourism in their community. Perdue et al. (1990) also found a positive aspect of environmental impact. They mentioned that tourism development improves community appearance and results in greater recreation and park opportunities than before. Even though many studies have investigated the positive impacts of tourism on the environment, a majority of the studies have focused on the negative environmental impacts of tourism development. For instance, Brunt and Courtney (1999) studied residents’ concern with traffic and pedestrian congestion, and Johnson et al. (1994) examined overcrowding at outdoor recreation facilities. Most of the indicators that fall under the social and environmental impacts of tourism are outcome indicators that are directly related to community residents’ QOL (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). As seen from this brief discussion these outcome indicators may cover a wide variety of QOL indicators. The categories of community residents’ QOL outcome indicators are: • Social (educational attainment, crime rate, quality of the public transportation system, number of recreational parks and programs, housing quality, teen pregnancies, quality of local services such as police and fire protection, utilities, and roads), • Health (e.g., infant mortality rates, reported incidents of certain diseases such as tuberculosis, polio, and venereal disease; infectious and serum hepatitis, life expectancy, number of healthcare facilities in the community), and

M. Uysal et al.

• Environmental well-being (land pollution, air pollution, water pollution, crowd intensity, traffic congestion and the like). Given the mixed findings of the impacts of tourism, one is challenged to find a way to minimize the negative impacts of tourism while maintaining a desired level of quality of life and maximizing the positive impacts of tourism through sustaining resources that provide quality experience and services for both tourists and locals. The operational definitions and relative importance of such indicators as key driving forces of change have to depend on the phase of tourism development in the destination community. On the other hand, the perceived impacts of tourism, negative or positive, are considered mostly subjective QOL indicators. The concept of subjective QOL indicators posits that community residents’ perception of their overall QOL is a function of their satisfaction in their major life domains, namely economic, consumer, social, environmental, and health life domains.

Adjustment to Change and Maintaining QOL It is clear from the preceding discussions that the structure of a destination can change under the influence of tourism activities. Tourism provides both positive and negative impacts on destinations and the reactions of residents can range from complete resistance to acceptance. This continuum of reactions and adjustments depends upon the specific tourism implications on a host destination along with the number and type of tourists, the importance of tourism to the destination, and the socio-cultural structures salient to the destination. Different communities react and adjust in different ways to the structural changes and their influences over time. Strategies and responses communities adopt vary depending on the phase of tourism development. There are several strategies or responses that communities can take when dealing with the impact of tourism in their community. Responses, and negative and positive attitudes to change may be expressed by

Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) and the Quality of Life (QOL) of Destination. . .

residents at any time regardless of the phase of tourism development or in some instances these responses may follow a linear behavioral reaction from very positive (euphoric) to very negative (antagonism) as articulated by Doxey (1976). In the beginning phase of tourism development, expectations about the potential of tourism to improve the quality of residents’ life are high and local residents may express euphoric feelings towards visitors. In the subsequent phases, depending upon how development phases are managed and monitored, residents may develop resentment and even antagonism which in turn may impinge further on their quality of life. Doğan (1989) provides a comprehensive response model and strategy for residents to deal with changes in their community. The main adjustment strategies (not necessarily mutually exclusive), are resistance, retreatism, boundary maintenance, revitalization, and adoption. Resistance includes overall envy and resentment of tourists and their lifestyles. This reaction is found among the upper class as well as the lessfortunate citizens and often leads to aggressive behavior towards tourists and the venues that support and cater to them. There are several circumstances that increase the likelihood of resistance as an adjustment tactic, such as, “the existence of a large number of tourists and the fact that the inhabitants have to share facilities with them; the apparent material superiority of the tourists which may lead to feelings of envy and resentment among the inhabitants; and an increase in the number of facilities managed by the foreigners where the inhabitants are not usually allowed and where the foreigners work in higher positions and receive superior salaries compared to the inhabitants” (Doğan, 1989, p. 222). Residents see tourism negatively and believe it is weakening the traditional institutions of the destination and destroying local identity and culture. Another adjustment tactic is retreatism in which hosts attempt to avoid tourists and close off themselve. This strategy is often used in situations where tourism has become too economically important to the destination to push way. Residents who use retreatism withdraw from

277

society as a whole and find refuge within their own culture or subculture. Retreatism involves “increasing cultural and ethnic consciousness instead of an active resistance toward tourism” (Doğan, 1989, p. 223). In yet another strategy, the economic benefits of tourism are so great, hosts choose to “nullify” the negative impacts tourism may bring and instead “present local traditions to tourists in a different context so that the effects of the tourists on the local culture are minimized” (Doğan, 1989, p. 224). This strategy is known as boundary maintenance and enables a location to benefit economically without hurting the local culture. The most common example of boundary maintenance is the Amish who maintain a distance between themselves and the tourists, yet gain the economic rewards that come from tourism and ultimately enable their community to flourish. Revitalization is a unique adjustment strategy because rather than the destination attempting to protect the local culture from the negative impacts of tourism, tourism in itself aids the protection and preservation of the culture by promoting its benefits and overall existence. Without tourism, specific celebrations or ceremonies of the local community may be lost. The revitalization also benefits residents by increasing their awareness and appreciation of their own heritage, some of which could be lost or forgotten with the passage of time. Examples of revitalization may include the development of local arts and crafts like pottery, basketry, decoration, jewelry, and leather goods making, or celebrating festivals and events, participating in folk dances. The final major category of host adjustment to tourism is adoption. Some residents, especially the young and educated population of the upcoming and emerging destinations, who perceive tourism as having mainly positive impacts may choose this method of adjustment. Adoption includes the “demolishment of the traditional social structure and the adoption of the Western culture of the tourists” (Doğan, 1989, p. 224). It is unlikely that any of the five strategies explained above will be seen in their pure form; rather hosts usually take a hybrid approach by combining aspects of different strategies. In

278

addition, any adjustment strategy used by a destination at a given time will possibly change as tourism develops and the different impacts become more pronounced, either positively or negatively.

Resident’s Attitudes to Tourism Development Depending on Lifecycle As indicated, a structural change to the destination place also invites behavioral responses from residents. There is also an inverse relationship between the development of destination lifecycle stage and resident responses. Several studies have attempted to examine the assumed relationship between life satisfaction and the level of tourism development One of the earlier studies by Allen et al. (1988) investigated the relationship between resident’s perceptions of community life satisfaction and the level of tourism development in twenty rural Colorado communities that varied with respect to the amount of tourism development. Their study showed that when the level of tourism development is low to moderate, residents’ perceptions are positive. However, when tourism development increased, the perception of residents showed a change from a positive to a negative trend. Long et al. (1990), based on the same study, also reported that residents’ attitudes towards additional tourism development initially increased in a positive way. However, the threshold for tourism development beyond a point led to attitudes becoming less favorable. They also found that this threshold was achieved when approximately 30% of the community’s retail sales were derived from tourism. Along the same line of research, Allen et al. (1993) examined the rural resident’s attitudes toward recreation and tourism development in ten rural Colorado towns. They incorporated two per capita ratios based on tourism retail sales and total retail sales and designed four different tourism development conditions: low tourism development and low economic activity; low tourism development and high economic activity; high tourism development and low economic activity;

M. Uysal et al.

and high tourism development and high economic activity. The results revealed that residents’ attitudes towards tourism development with both high economic and tourism development and low economic and tourism development were more positive than those residents of the low/high or high/low economic and tourism development. A recent study by Meng et al. (2010) also found a correlation between differing levels of tourism development and QOL indicators. The study conducted in China revealed that the residents of provinces with the highest level of tourism development lead a significantly “better life” than those who are in the regions with medium or low level of tourism development as measured with a select number of objective indicators of QOL. Johnson et al. (1994) examined the resident’s perception of tourism development in the rural area of Shoshone County, Idaho, USA. The survey results revealed that a majority of the residents were negatively disposed towards the perceived overall expected economic, social, and environmental impacts resulting from tourism development. Overall the longitudinal assessment showed that perceptions of the residents changed from positive to negative over time. Specifically, in 1986, 94% of the participants supported tourism development, in 1989, 82% supported development while by 1991 survey results showed that only 28% of the residents supported tourism development. Akis et al. (1996) compared perceptions of Greek and Turkish Cyprus residents toward tourism development based on Butler’s hypothesis. Their survey asked questions of residents about the economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism development in Paralimni, Ayia Napa and Kyrenia. The results revealed that there is no statistically significant difference among the three places in residents’ perceptions of economic impact. Most residents considered tourism development as having a positive impact. However, there was a statistical difference in the social and environmental perceptions between the regions; Kyrenia residents were more positive toward social and environmental impact than Paralimni and Ayia Napa residents. The results

Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) and the Quality of Life (QOL) of Destination. . .

supported Butler’s model that resident attitudes progress from positive to negative and vary depending on the level of tourism development. Ryan et al. (1998) compared the attitudes of residents toward tourism development in rural areas in New Zealand and in the UK. The two regions were in different stages of the destination life cycle. The first region in the UK could be described as a mature stage destination. The second region in New Zealand was considered as being at the late involvement stage of the life cycle. The results revealed that New Zealand residents were more supportive of tourism than UK residents were toward tourism development. Upchurch and Teivane (2000) examined Latvian resident’s perception of tourism through a descriptive research design using a convenience sampling procedure. They asked residents of Riga about their perception of economic impact, social impact and environmental impact factors. The results suggested that residents perceived that tourist arrivals had not increased local revenues, raised their standard of living, or caused an increase in local employment. In the social impact perspective, the residents indicated that prostitution, theft and burglary decreased in the community. While the residents thought that friendliness, honesty, and trust in people had increased with the development of tourism, so did, pollution. Based on residents’ attitudes toward tourism development, it could be inferred that tourism development was at the initial stages of development. Diedrich and Garcia-Buades (2009) investigated the role of residents’ perceptions of tourism destination development. Specifically, the researchers examined the interrelationship between local perceptions of impacts and the level of tourism development. This study collected data from five different coastal communities in Belize. Each community was considered to be at a different level of tourism development. They used participant observation, semi-structured interviews, key informants, secondary sources, and a household survey instrument. The results revealed that when tourism progresses through Butler’s stages, residents’

279

perceptions of benefits increased until the critical point was reached, after which they start to decline. That means that the perception of costs surpasses the perception of benefits when the level of development enters the critical stage. Kim et al.’s (2003) study reported that the relationship between tourism impacts and satisfaction with particular life domains resulting from tourism varies at different tourism development stages. For example, the relationship between the economic impact of tourism and the satisfaction with material well-being, and the relationship between the social impact of tourism and the satisfaction with community well-being, initially decreased in the growth stage of tourism development and peaked in the maturity stage of tourism development. This finding is consistent with the tenets of social disruption theory. England and Albrecht’s study (1984) postulates that boomtown communities initially enter into a period of generalized crisis, resulting from the stress of sudden, dramatic increases in demand for public services and the need for improving community infrastructure. Additionally, residents develop adaptive behaviors that reduce their individual exposure to stressful situations. Through this process, residents’ QOL is expected to initially decline, and then improve as the community and its residents adapt to the new situation (Krannich et al., 1989). However, when a community enters into the decline stage of tourism development, the above-mentioned relationships may be considered to be the full capacity of the destination area to absorb tourists before the host population would feel negative impacts. This is consistent with the theoretical foundation of carrying capacity. When tourism development reaches its maturity stage or its maximum limit, residents’ QOL may start deteriorating. As such, the concept of sustainable tourism was developed when the maturity stage of the life cycle is reached. Thus, based on previous research outlined above, there is an inverse relationship between the level of tourism development and residents’ perception of economic, social, and environmental impacts.

280

Relationship Between TALC and QOL The previous section illustrated that depending upon the level of destination development, residents’ attitudes toward the economic, socioculture, and environment may change from positive to negative or negative to positive. Destination development not only affects residents’ attitudes but also their overall quality of life. According to Powers (1988), QOL represents the commodity bundle of attributes such as social characteristics, infrastructure, cost of living, income, recreational opportunities, and environmental amenities that characterize an area. Therefore, using these attributes, residents’ perceptions of QOL can be examined. Several previous studies have been conducted to see the relationship between tourism development and resident’s quality of life, their community satisfaction and support for different types of development (Birsen & Bilim, 2019; Allen et al., 1988; Gursoy et al., 2002). Perdue et al. (1999) compared the concepts of the tourism development cycle and social disruption theories for assessing the impact of gaming tourism on residents’ quality of life. They developed four hypotheses for that purpose and surveyed adult residents in five different communities: one nongaming community, three early stage gaming communities, and one late stage gaming community. The results supported the social disruption theory that resident QOL is expected to initially decline and then improve with community and resident adaption to the new situation. Bachleitner and Zins (1999) mentioned that a high degree of regional identification, with the space, history, and cultural heritage of the destination improves the QOL of the residents. Their study investigated differences in tourism demand toward cultural benefits between urban, multifunctional, and rural regions for two years. This study used the extended Tourism Impact and Attitudes Scale (TIAS). The extended model included the domain of psychosocial impacts. This model was tested using survey methods conducted twice in 1994 and 1995. The results

M. Uysal et al.

revealed that, during a large cultural event, support for economic development and improvement of infrastructure through the vehicle of tourism was higher than 1 year later. Perceived negative impacts of environmental and psychosocial dimensions had changed too. The environmental dimension of the residents’ perceptions seemed far more sensitive to large-scale changes than small-scale changes. Roehl (1999) stated that residents of casino areas perceive both benefits and costs from casinos, and that individual differences may be related to these perceptions. The author assumed that Nevada residents would perceive both the positive and the negative impacts of gambling. These perceptions varied across respondent characteristics, and the overall evaluation of the effect of gambling depended upon both specific perceived positive and negative impacts. The results of this study showed that Nevada residents recognized that gambling had brought both economic benefits and social costs. Less than one and half of the respondents agreed that gambling had made their community a better place to live. The author suggested that if economic benefits to the community and personal benefits to residents are perceived to be high while social costs were perceived to be low, then QOL was perceived to be high. On the other hand, if respondents believed that casinos were associated with relatively more social costs and fewer benefits, then QOL was perceived to be low. Previous studies on resident attitudes toward tourism development have supported the notion that support for tourism development varied among different population segments. Therefore, for development strategies to be sustainable, market planners and developers need to know how citizens view their quality of life and how they might react to proposed strategies. Jurowski and Brown (2001) mentioned that depending on citizens’ community involvement their perception of tourism-related QOL is different. Therefore, an understanding of the perceptions of citizens who are involved in community organizations is important. Results, obtained from using telephone interviews, revealed that residents who belonged to no community organizations

Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) and the Quality of Life (QOL) of Destination. . .

evaluated the quality of most aspects of their lives lower than those that were the most involved. That is, they found a positive relationship between membership in community organizations and residents’ satisfaction with their quality of life. Andereck and Vogt (2000) examined the effect of residents’ attitudes toward tourism on support for development. This relationship was tested for seven different communities (GlobeMiami, Williams, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Douglas, Peoria, Parker, and Holbrook). These seven communities represent rural, small urban and Native American reservation destinations. The results show that communities have differing attitudes about community development, quality of life, and negative impacts. Most residents, regardless of which community was studied, tended to have a positive attitude toward community development. However, there were differences in opinions regarding the tourist’s role in improving the quality of life of the residents; for e.g. Douglas and Holbrook communities had the most positive attitudes about quality of life, while Parker and Peoria communities were the most concerned with negative impacts. Ko and Stewart (2002) investigated the relationship between residents’ perceived negative and positive tourism impacts and their attitudes toward the host community. Specifically they examined the relationship between five main constructs: personal benefit from tourism development, perceived positive tourism impacts, perceived negative tourism impacts, overall community satisfaction, and attitudes toward additional tourism development. They collected data from Cheju Island, Korea which is the most popular tourism destination and also where tourism is the primary source of business activity. The results revealed that residents’ community satisfaction is related to perceived positive tourism impact and perceived negative tourism impact. Specifically, there is a high positive relationship between community satisfaction and perceived positive tourism impact and there is a negative relationship between community satisfaction and perceived negative tourism impact. Moreover,

281

both positive and negative impacts also affect attitudes toward additional tourism development. Using a similar approach, Vargas-Sánchez et al. (2009) examined the relationship between attitudes (negative or positive), satisfaction, and further development of tourism in Minas De Riotinto, a destination in the early stages of tourism development. The results of the study showed that there is a positive relationship between the positive impact of tourism and the satisfaction of residents with their community and a negative relationship between the perception of a negative impact and negative attitude toward tourism development. Moreover, the authors found that if satisfaction increased, negative attitudes toward tourism development decreased. As seen from the select studies described above tourism can have an impact on the culture, environment, economy, and socio-cultural aspects of a community. In general, an examination of studies on impacts indicates that economic impacts are perceived as positive in most cases, whereas sociocultural and environmental impacts are frequently considered negative or neutral (Tosun, 2002). Many social scientists agree that in many instances tourism has had a negative impact on culture through materialism, decline in traditions, increase in crime rates, crowding, social conflicts, environmental deterioration, and dependency on other industrial countries. Such impacts may also contribute negatively to community well-being, economic well-being, and health well-being domains of the destination place. All these negative impacts reduce the quality of life of residents and eventually the quality of the vacation experience. Developers, tourism promoters, and tourists as consumers of tourism products and services need to become more socially responsible and understand that they are affecting the quality of lives of many people.

Conclusion The quality of life (QOL) of the residents in a community should be a major concern for community leaders. It is obvious that once a community becomes a tourist destination, the lives of

282

stakeholders in the community are affected by tourism activities and the support of the entire population in the tourism community is essential for the development, planning, successful operation and sustainability of tourism (Cornell et al., 2019). A destination has myriad opportunities and challenges due to changing infrastructure, development of host attitudes, number of tourists, and severity of impacts, both positive and negative. In order to trace the evolution of a location, the product life cycle model is used to assist management in decision-making and in addressing stakeholder interests. The most important reason for the development of the tourism life cycle is to realize that a destination is not static; it changes over time and the planning process and marketing strategies must also adapt to enable the adjustment process. Successful development of a destination’s tourist activity incorporates the socio-cultural concerns of all stakeholders from the inception of a project (. Impact measures such as carrying capacity, limits of acceptable change, objective and subjective indicators, and the visitor impact monitoring process can be used in conjunction with the planning process to guide each stage of development of the tourism life cycle. Such an approach will help sustain tourism and contribute to the well-being of the stakeholders. For tourism to be a force in improving destination residents’ quality of life, there has to be healthy economic growth and development that can meet both basic and growth needs; a high degree of ecological integrity that encourages sustainable development by preserving and protecting cultural and natural resources, while making progress, and creating social equality in terms of access to, and empowerment of individuals in the process of planning tourism development and decision making. Without the presence of the tenets of sustainability (economic vitality; ecological integrity; social equity), it is very difficult to improve the quality of life of those that are involved in creating and producing tourism goods and services. Community quality of life indicators should be developed and integrated into the overall

M. Uysal et al.

planning of tourism development and other public policy activities (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019; Kim et al., 2021; Budruk & Phillips, 2011). The link between objective indicators of tourism factors and the QOL of destination residents needs to be strengthened with the subjective indicators of QOL as indicated by different stakeholders at the destination. There is also scope for further work in this area in relation to different phases of tourism development over time. The nature and relative importance of QOL indicators will certainly change over time. Data generated and monitored should reflect such changes. Without community quality of life indicators and their perceived importance about satisfaction with the indicators (Sirgy et al., 2010), we would not have the necessary information to understand the true value of tourism activities in destination areas. We hope future research extends the results from current studies to provide more integrated information and intelligence for tourism planning and sustainable development. A careful, review of related studies of tourism impacts concerning destination phases and development and the relationship between destination development and residents’ attitudes show that depending on the level of tourism development, tourists’ attitudes toward economic, socioculture, and environment change from negative to positive or positive to negative. However, this does mean that residents who have positive attitudes toward tourism development are satisfied with their quality of life. Tourism growth and its positive socioeconomic results do not necessarily yield a higher quality of life for the residents of the destination community (Jurowski et al., 2006). For instance, even though residents may face a lower quality of life they may nevertheless be supportive of tourism development because of better economic prospects or job opportunities which are directly related to their livelihood and economic well-being. In other words, residents who are not supportive of tourism development can still be satisfied with their community quality of life. This brief argument hits at the notion of equity and distribution of tourism benefits. Tourism development in each phase of the TALC has to address the issues of whether or not tourism

Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) and the Quality of Life (QOL) of Destination. . .

meets both the basic and growth needs of the residents for it to contribute to the quality of residents’ life. Access to resources (for human needs or animal grazing), empowerment which enables individuals to make choices as they see fit; and creating opportunities for individuals and local businesses would be at the heart of discussion in each phase of tourism development. Generating such information at one point in time is useful; however, monitoring such issues over time with phases of tourism development would be of immense value for policymakers and tourism developers. Thus, measuring the equity of exchange related to tourism activities in a destination is critical to the production of tourism experiences for both residents and tourists (Juvan et al., 2021; Peters & Schuckert, 2014). It is clear that a lower level of quality of life for residents of a destination would not be able to sustain a better quality of tourism experiences in the long run. Further research is needed that focuses on the reciprocity effects of the quality of life of residents and quality vacation experiences and how this exchange and interaction may change over time, creating significant challenges and opportunities for researchers, planners and policymakers.

References Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents’ attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 17(7), 481–494. Allen, L. R., Hafer, H. R., Long, P. T., & Perdue, R. R. (1993). Rural resident attitudes toward recreation and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 27–33. Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The impacts of tourism development on residents’ perceptions of community life. Journal of Travel Research, 26(1), 16–21. Andereck, K. L. (1995). Environmental consequences of tourism: A review of recent research. In Linking tourism, the environment, and sustainability. Annual meeting of the national recreation and park association (pp. 77–81). Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 27–36.

283

Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impact. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 665–690. Bachleitner, R., & Zins, A. H. (1999). Cultural tourism in rural communities: The residents’ perspective. Journal of Business Research, 44, 199–209. Beardsley, M. E. G. H. A. N. (2016). Quality of life, the tourism area life cycle and sustainability: A case of Cuba. In Sustainable island tourism: Competitiveness and Quality of Life (pp. 93–105). CAB International. Berbekova, A., Uysal, M., & Assaf, A. G. (2021). Toward an assessment of quality of life indicators as measures of destination performance. Journal of Travel Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00472875211026755 Birsen, A. G., & Bilim, Y. (2019). A comparative life cycle analysis of two mass tourism destinations in Turkey. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 1290, 1313. Boyd, S. W. (2006). The TALC model and its application to national parks: A Canadian example. In C. Cooper, C. M. Hall, & D. Timothy (Series Eds.), & R. W. Butler (Vol. Ed.), The tourism area life cycle: Vol. 1. Applications and modifications (pp. 119–138). Channel View Publications. Brunt, P., & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 493–515. Budruk, M., & Phillips, R. (2011). Quality of life community indicators for parks recreation and tourism management. Springer. Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourism areas cycle of evaluation: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5–12. Butler, R. W. (2004). The tourism area lifecycle in the twenty first century. In A. A. Lew, Butler, R. W. (Eds.). (2006). The tourism area life cycle (vol. 1). Channel view publications. Cornell, D. A. V., Tugade, L. O., & De Sagun, R. (2019). Tourism quality of life (TQOL) and local residents’ attitudes towards tourism development in Sagada. Philippines. Revista Turismo & Desenvolvimento, 31, 9–34. Diedrich, A., & Garcia-Buades, E. (2009). Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tourism Management, 30, 512–521. Doğan, Z. H. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Sociocultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 216–236. Doğan, Z. H. (2004). Turizmin Sosyo-Kültürel Temelleri. Detay Yay{nc{l{k. Doxey, G. V. (1976). When enough’s enough: The natives are restless in old Niagara. Heritage Canada, 2(2), 26–27. England, J. L., & Albrecht, S. L. (1984). Boomtowns and social disruption. Rural Sociology, 49, 230–246. Formica, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). The revitalization of Italy as a tourist destination. Tourism Management, 17(5), 323–331.

284 Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Resident attitudes: A structural modeling approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79–105. Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 503–526. Haywood, K. M. (1986). Can the tourist-area lifecycle be made operational? Tourism Management, 7(3), 154–167. Hovinen, G. R. (2002). Revisiting the destination model. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 209–230. Hu, R., Li, G., Liu, A., & Chen, J. L. (2022). Emerging research trends on residents’ quality of life in the context of tourism development. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 10963480221081382, 109634802210813. Johnson, J. D., & Snepenger, D. J. (1993). Application of the tourism life cycle concept in the greater Yellowstone region. Journal of Society & Natural Resources, 6(2), 127–148. Johnson, J. D., Snepenger, D. J., & Akis, S. (1994). Residents’ perceptions of tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 629–642. Jurowski, C., & Brown, D. O. (2001). A comparative of the views of involved versus noninvolved citizens on quality of life and tourism development issues. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 25(4), 355–370. Jurowski, C., Daniels, M., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2006). The distribution of tourism benefits. In G. Jennings & N. P. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 192–207). Elsevier. Juvan, E., Podovšovnik, E., Lesjak, M., & Jurgec, J. (2021). A Destination’s social sustainability: Linking tourism development to residents’ quality of life. Academica Turistica-Tourism and Innovation Journal, 14(1), 39–52. Kim, H., Kim, Y. G., & Woo, E. (2021). Examining the impacts of touristification on quality of life (QOL): The application of the bottom-up spillover theory. The Service Industries Journal, 41(11–12), 787–802. Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, J. (2003, June). The effects of tourism impacts upon quality of life of residents in the community. TTRA’s 34th Annual Conference Proceedings, pp. 16–20. St. Louis, MO, USA. Ko, D., & Stewart, W. P. (2002). A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23, 521–530. Krannich, R. S., Berry, E. H., & Greider, T. (1989). Fear of crime in rapidly changing rural communities: A longitudinal analysis. Rural Sociology, 54, 195–212. Liu, J. C., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13(2), 193–214. Long, P. T., Perdue, R., & Allen, L. (1990). Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by community level of tourism. Journal Travel Research, 28, 3–9. McCool, S., & Martin, S. (1994). Community attachment and attitudes towards tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 29–34.

M. Uysal et al. Meng, F., Li, X., & Uysal, M. (2010). Tourism development and regional quality of life: The case of China. Journal of China Tourism Research, 6, 164–182. Modica, P., & Uysal, M. (Eds.). (2016). Sustainable Island tourism: Competitiveness and quality of life. CABI. Mok, C., Slater, B., & Cheung, V. (1991). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Hong Kong. Journal of Hospitality Management, 10, 289–293. Odum, C. J. (2020). The implication of TALC to tourism planning and development in the global south: Examples from Nigeria. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 8(2), 68–86. Oliveros Ocampo, C. A., Virgen Aguilar, C. R., & Chávez Dagostino, R. M. (2019). Approaches of research on the life cycle of the tourist area. Turismo y Sociedad, 24, 51–75. Oppermann, M. (1998). What is new with the resort cycle? Tourism Management, 19(2), 179–180. Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. R. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 586–599. Perdue, R. P., Long, P. T., & Kang, Y. S. (1999). Boomtown tourism and resident quality of life: The marketing of gaming to host community residents. Journal of Business Research, 44, 165–177. Peters, M., & Schuckert, M. (2014). Tourism entrepreneurs’ perception of quality of life: An explorative study. Tourism Analysis, 19(6), 731–740. Petrevska, B., & Collins-Kreiner, N. (2017). A double life cycle: Determining tourism development in Macedonia. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 15(4), 319–338. Pizam, A., & Pokela, J. (1985). The perceived impacts of casino gambling on a community. Annals of Tourism Research, 12, 147–165. Powers, T. M. (1988). The economic pursuit of quality. M. E. Sharpe. Ramkissoon, H. (2016). Place satisfaction, place attachment and quality of life: Development of conceptual framework for Island destinations (pp. 106–116). Competitiveness and Quality of Life. Ridderstaat, J., Croes, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2016). A two-way causal chain between tourism development and quality of life in a small Island destination: An empirical analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(10), 1461–1479. Roehl, W. S. (1999). Quality of life issues in a casino destination. Journal of Business Research, 44, 223–229. Ryan, C., Scotland, A., & Montgomery, D. (1998). Resident attitudes to tourism development- a comparative study between the Rangitikei, New Zealand and Bakewell, United Kingdom. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(2), 115–130. Seo, K., Jordan, E., Woosnam, K. M., Lee, C. K., & Lee, E. J. (2021). Effects of emotional solidarity and tourism-related stress on residents’ quality of life. Tourism Management Perspectives, 40, 100874.

Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) and the Quality of Life (QOL) of Destination. . . Singal, M., & Uysal, M. (2009). Resource commitment in destination management: The case of Abingdon, Virginia. Tourism Review, 57(3), 329–344. Sirgy, M. J., Widgery, R. N., Lee, D., & Yu, G. B. (2010). Developing a measure of community Well-being based on perceptions of impact in various life domains. Social Indicators Research, 96, 295–351. Toh, R. S., Khan, H., & Koh, A. (2001). A travel balance approach for examining tourism area life cycles: The case of Singapore. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 426–432. Tooman, L. A. (1997). Applications of the life-cycle model in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 241–234. Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 231–253. Tye, V., Sirakaya, E., & Sonmez, S. (2002). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 668–688. Upchurch, R. S., & Teivane, U. (2000). Resident perceptions of tourism development in Riga, Latvia. Tourism Management, 21, 499–507. Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2019). Quality-of-life indicators as performance measures. Annals of Tourism Research, 76(2019), 291–300. Vargas-Sánchez, A., Plaza-Mejía, M., & Porras-Bueno, N. (2009). Understanding residents’ attitudes toward the development of industrial tourism in former mining. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 373–387. Whitfeild, J. (2009). The cyclical representation of the UK conference sector’s life cycle: The use of refurbishments as rejuvenation triggers. Tourism Analysis, 14, 559–572. Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Joseph Sirgy, M. (2019). What is the nature of the relationship between tourism development and the quality of life of host communities? In Best practices in hospitality and tourism marketing and management (pp. 43–62). Springer. Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2018). Tourism impact and stakeholders’ quality of life. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(2), 260–286. Yu, C. P., Cole, S. T., & Chancellor, C. (2016). Assessing community quality of life in the context of tourism development. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11(1), 147–162. Yu, C. P., Cole, S. T., & Chancellor, C. (2018). Resident support for tourism development in rural midwestern (USA) communities: Perceived tourism impacts and community quality of life perspective. Sustainability, 10(3), 802. Zhong, L., Deng, J., & Xiang, B. (2008). Tourism development and the tourism area life-cycle model: a case study of Zhangjiajie national forest park, China. Tourism Management, 29, 841–856.

285

Professor Muzaffer Uysal, PhD. is a provost professor and chair of the Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management - Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts – Amherst. Dr. Uysal is a member of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism, the Academy of Leisure Sciences, a founding member of the Hospitality and Tourism Management Academy, and a co-founder of Tourism Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Journal. He has also authored and co-authored a significant number of articles, monographs, chapters, and books, related to tourism and hospitality settings. Dr. Uysal has also received over 30 awards, honors, and recognitions including “lifetime achievement” awards. Most recently, Dr. Uysal was recognized as one of the world’s most highly cited researchers under the category of Social Sciences. His current research interests focus on tourism development and quality-of-life research in tourism and hospitality settings. Eunju Woo, Ph.D., is an associate professor of tourism management in the College of Business Administration at Pukyong National University, Republic of Korea. Her current research interests center on tourism development and marketing, and QOL research in tourism. She has extensively published in top-tier journals in the field. Manisha Singal, Ph.D., is Professor in Hospitality Management in the Pamplin College of Business at Virginia Tech University. Her research interests relate to examining the antecedents of firm financial and social performance. She also examines how ownership structure, like family ownership, impact strategic outcomes in hospitality business organizations. Manisha’s research on topics such as corporate social responsibility and its link to financial performance, subsidiary knowledge sharing in multinational corporations, and family business decision-making, have appeared in several top-tier hospitality-specific and general management journals, such as, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Family Business Review, Journal of International Management, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management (IJHM), Tourism Management, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, and Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research. She serves on the editorial boards of several journals, including as a coordinating editor for IJHM. Her research has won many awards including the Junior Faculty Research Excellence Award for the Pamplin College of Business. Manisha received her doctoral degree in strategic management from Virginia Tech, and master’s degree in Economics from Eastern Michigan University. Prior to joining academic, Manisha worked for the Reserve bank of India, the country’s central bank.

A Case for Sustainable Destinations: The Perceived Impact of Tourism on Quality of Life in the Thompson Okanagan Region N. Qwynne Lackey and Kelly S. Bricker

Introduction One important element of sustainable tourism is that the benefits and costs of the industry are equitably distributed throughout a tourism destination. To do this effectively, managers must recognize that different stakeholders and community groups can and often hold differing perceptions of how tourism impacts their quality of life (QOL). Therefore, regular assessment of these perceptions is a necessary component of effective sustainable tourism destination management. In this chapter, we will explore how these perceptions can vary within a sustainable tourism destination and discuss effective strategies for measuring these perceptions. To do this, we will explore a recent case study conducted in the Thompson-Okanagan region of British Columbia, a certified sustainable tourism destination, and draw on existing literature and other case studies.

Sustainable Tourism Destination Management Sustainable tourism “refers to the environmental, economic, and sociocultural aspects of tourism development, and a suitable balance must be established between these three dimensions to guarantee its long-term sustainability” (UNEP & UNWTO, 2005, pp. 11–12. Making Tourism More Sustainable—A Guide for Policy Makers). This definition is accompanied by several principles that outline what sustainable tourism should strive to achieve:

N. Q. Lackey (✉) SUNY Cortland, Cortland, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected]

• Make optimal use of environmental resources that constitute a key element in tourism development, maintaining essential ecological processes and helping to conserve natural heritage and biodiversity. • Respect the sociocultural authenticity of host communities, conserve their built and living cultural heritage and traditional values, and contribute to inter-cultural understanding and tolerance. • Ensure viable, long-term economic operations, providing socioeconomic benefits to all stakeholders that are fairly distributed, including stable employment and income-earning opportunities and social services to host communities, and contributing to poverty alleviation. (UNWTO, 2005)

K. S. Bricker Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected]

In this case study, we adopt this definition, as all references to sustainable tourism implicitly

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_20

287

288

address the environmental, socioeconomic, and cultural consequences of tourism development. To understand what sustainable destination level development looks like in the context of sustainable tourism, we rely on the Global Sustainable Tourism Council’s (GSTC) Criteria for Destinations (2022). We used these criteria as a framework for understanding and identifying sustainable tourism development and management for this case.

The GSTC Destination Criteria The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) grew out of the necessity to formulate a universal understanding of what sustainable tourism is, as well as applicable criteria to measure and communicate sustainable tourism to a wider audience. With the early endorsement of the United Nations World Tourism Organization, the United Nations Environmental Program, and several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private sector consultation, the GSTC was formed. The GSTC establishes and manages global sustainable tourism standards, relative to not only tourism suppliers, such as hotels and tour operators, but also for destinations. The Destination Criteria or GSTC-DV2 have typically been utilized by destinations in a variety of ways, such as: • to inform action on destination sustainability planning and project work • to catalyze decision-maker support for a destination tourism sustainability agenda • as a training and education tool • for monitoring and evaluation of destination performance, and, • as an input into strategic planning processes. The GSTC-DV2 form a foundation for accreditation of certification programs that certify destinations as having sustainable plans, policies, and practices in place (GSTC, 2022). While the GSTC does not serve as a certification body, it does accredit certification programs based on the Criteria. The Criteria are organized around four pillars, sustainable destination management

N. Q. Lackey and K. S. Bricker

(11 Criteria), socioeconomic sustainability (8 Criteria), cultural sustainability (7 Criteria), and environmental sustainability (12 Criteria). Each pillar has Criteria relative to the primary topic area.1 Relative to this particular case study of Thompson Okanagan, the GSTC-DV2 was used in awarding this destination the World Travel and Tourism Council’s Tourism for Tomorrow Destination Award. For many destinations, sustainability is often overlooked by policymakers, as “they tend to consider the industry in isolation, compartmentalized, seeing it simply as the aggregate of businesses where tourists spend money (Tourtellot, 2021, p. 16).” Tourtellot acknowledged the emphasis and measure of success is often narrowly focused on the economic and employment outcomes. As such, efforts to address the complexities of destination management and development in tourism systematically, acknowledging the various entities which contribute to a destination’s unique sense of place, and attractiveness, are warranted. Research in sustainable tourism destinations is increasingly more inclusive of the complex systems which impact tourism development within a locale. For example, research has explored many relationships between destinations and many factors, including, but not limited to, socioeconomic factors (Snyman & Bricker, 2019), food systems (Cavaliere, 2017), waste & water management and infrastructure development (Wood, 2017), governance and power structures (Cole, 2006; Heslinga & Vanclay, 2018; Scheyvens, 2002; Schmidt & Uriely, 2018), indigeneity (Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Strickland-Munro & Moore, 2013), the role of entrepreneurship (Panta & Thapa, 2018), visitor impact management (Kebete & Wondirad, 2019), economic benefits (Bovarnick et al. (2010), livelihoods (Makame & Boon, 2008; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010), accessibility (Eichhorn & Buhalis, 2011), environmental management (Buckley, cultural preservation 2003), 1

For more information on the GSTC-DV2 Criteria, visit https://www.gstcouncil.org/gstc-criteria/gstc-destinationcriteria

A Case for Sustainable Destinations: The Perceived Impact of Tourism on. . .

(Coccossis, 2008), quality of life for residents (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011), climate and energy (Zimmer et al., 2021; Myers et al., 2012; Li et al., 2022), and varied combinations and more of each. The result of tourism destination research over decades demonstrates the complexities associated with destinations and the multitude of actors influencing not only the tourism-related enterprises, but also the trajectory of development, socioeconomic and cultural outcomes. Hence, there remains justification for a systematic and holistic approach to sustainable destination management to understanding how these and other factors affect tourism development and management within the context of place, or system, is increasingly warranted. This systematic understanding relies on the ability of a destination to create processes and policies which address the unique qualities and character of a destination. These are often identified within strategic planning processes which engage multiple stakeholders and are transparent. Integrating resident perceptions and vision as part of any planning process appears to be a foundational aspect of sustainable destination management. In essence, within the context of destination planning and management, sustainability can actually encourage this systematic approach through multi-stakeholder engagement in policy and planning processes.

Quality of Life in the Sustainable Tourism Context Quality of life is a widely used construct in tourism research (Uysal et al., 2012). As a multidimensional construct that varies based on place and culture (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Bricker et al., 2016), QOL is difficult to define and often used interchangeably with other constructs, such as well-being (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Bricker et al., 2016; Uysal et al., 2016). However, generally, and in this study, QOL was conceptualized as an individual’s satisfaction with their life conditions (e.g.,

289

Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Weiermair & Peters, 2012). We were particularly concerned with those life conditions that align with the environmental, socioeconomic, and cultural pillars of sustainable tourism as outlined by the GSTC. Researchers have used both objective and subjective indicators to measure QOL (Uysal et al., 2012; Woo et al., 2018). Examples of objective indicators used in previous research include income, access to recreation facilities, life expectancy, pollution levels, and crime statistics (Uysal et al., 2016; Woo et al., 2018). Objective indicators can be quantified relatively easily, with little reliance on individual perceptions (Woo et al., 2018). However, such indicators may fail to accurately capture individuals’ experience of QOL (Diener & Suh, 1997; Woo et al., 2018). Subjective indicators—or an individual’s perceived satisfaction with various elements of their standard of living (Diener & Suh, 1997; Sőrés & Pető, 2015; Woo et al., 2018)—often reflect the experiences that are important to an individual more accurately (Diener & Suh, 1997). In the context of tourism, individuals may have very different perceptions of the industry even if they are in similar situations (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011). Thus, subjective indicators of QOL may be better suited for use in tourism research; indeed, the majority of researchers have used subjective indicators to measure QOL in tourism research (Woo et al., 2018). Measuring and understanding the relationship between tourism and host community residents’ QOL is important because QOL has been shown to predict residents’ support for tourism development (Boley & Perdue, 2012; Woo et al., 2015). Residents play a key role in the tourism development process and can influence tourism development directly through tourism entrepreneurship, employment, and public policy and planning activities (Boley & Perdue, 2012; Uysal et al., 2016; Veal, 2002; Yu et al., 2018). Additionally, community members not directly involved in the industry can also have an impact because tourism development is, to a degree, a political process that residents influence with their support or resistance (Bowen et al., 2017). Within these contexts,

290

understanding the relationship between tourism development and residents’ QOL is critical for understanding local support for tourism.

Perceptions of Tourism’s Impact on QOL Resident perceptions are one common subjective indicator used to understand the impacts of tourism, including impacts on QOL, in tourism host communities. Such studies have been conducted for more than four decades (Erul & Woosnam, 2016). Most researchers examine tourism’s impact on a minimum of three dimensions of QOL, including the socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental dimensions. Although, others have examined as many as seven or eight dimensions of QOL (e.g., Allen et al., 1988; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011). The economic dimension of QOL is perhaps the most widely studied. Expected economic benefits are often a primary motivator for communities that decide to pursue tourism development (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006), and, typically, residents in tourism destinations do perceive positive socioeconomic impacts of tourism (Carmichael, 2006; Erul & Woosnam, 2016). However, studies on impacts that can be classified into the cultural and environmental dimensions of QOL exhibit greater variability. It is not uncommon for studies to report negative resident perceptions of tourism’s impact on these dimensions of QOL (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Erul & Woosnam, 2016). Because the economic dimension alone is not sufficient to ensure a high QOL within a tourism host community, it is critical to examine tourism’s impact on a range of QOL dimensions (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Carmichael, 2006). Furthermore, it is important to recognize residents in tourism host communities are not homogenous and can hold varying perceptions of how tourism impacts their QOL (Budeanu et al., 2016). Therefore, even though these perceptions have been studied extensively, the results of these studies collectively contain many contradictions (Hanafiah et al., 2016). For

N. Q. Lackey and K. S. Bricker

example, within communities, resident perceptions have been shown to vary between groups of residents differentiated by connection to or affiliation with the tourism industry and sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., Budeanu et al., 2016; Uysal et al., 2016; Woo et al., 2018). Likewise, residents’ perceived impacts can also vary over space and time within or between different tourism destinations (e.g., Carmichael, 2006; Uysal et al., 2012). Therefore, it is common practice to use a variety of stratified or other purposeful sampling techniques in studies to ensure a representative range of resident perceptions are captured (e.g., Alrwajfah et al., 2019; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Erul & Woosnam, 2016). Residents’ perceptions of tourism’s impact on QOL are commonly explored because they can be reliable indicators of residents’ support for tourism. Generally, across studies, residents who perceive greater positive impacts of tourism on their QOL are more supportive of the tourism industry and tourism development than those who do not perceive positive impacts (Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Boley & Perdue, 2012; Woo et al., 2015). Residents can substantially influence tourism development within a destination directly and indirectly, either by actively participating in, or resisting, tourism planning and implementation activities or through engagement in the political processes that guide tourism development (Boley & Perdue, 2012; Bowen et al., 2017; Erul & Woosnam, 2016; Uysal et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2018). Thus, understanding how tourism affects resident QOL can have important management implications within a tourism destination. Moreover, some contend that resident perceptions of tourism’s impact on QOL are valuable tourism performance indicators. For example, nearly two decades ago, Andereck and Jurowski (2006) suggested that policymakers should use information about resident perceptions to determine how well a destination is doing in regard to tourism development. More recently, Erul and Woosnam (2016) posited a related view, suggesting that residents’ perceived impacts of tourism were equivalent to determinants of tourism performance. Likwise,

A Case for Sustainable Destinations: The Perceived Impact of Tourism on. . .

Uysal and Sirgy (2019) presented an explicit argument to use QOL indicators—including resident perceptions—to measure the performance of a tourism industry by illustrating the reciprocal relationship that exists between QOL indicators and established sustainable tourism performance indicators, such as the United Nation’s World Tourism Organization’s indicators. In the following case study, we extend this argument by treating resident perceptions as not only indicators of tourism performance but as indicators of sustainable tourism performance more specifically.

A Case Study of the Thompson-Okanagan To highlight how residents’ perceptions can vary within a tourism destination and how they can be used to evaluate the success of sustainable tourism development, we examined the ThompsonOkanagan region located in southern British Columbia. Thompson-Okanagan is a region in the southern portion of British Columbia, spanning approximately 27,644 square miles (which is roughly the size of Ireland; Thompson-Okanagan Tourism Association [TOTA], 2022). The region is home to over 90 communities and 33 Indigenous communities and boasts a diverse range of environments, including deserts, lakes and valleys, and mountains (Destination British Columbia [BC], 2017; TOTA, 2022). With approximately 3200 tourism stakeholders living and working in the region, tourism is a substantial part of the regional economy (Thompson-Okanagan Tourism Association [TOTA], 2022). Much of the tourism industry revolves around outdoor recreation activities, such as visiting beaches, boating, hiking, camping, and visiting parks (Destination BC, 2017). However, cultural activities—such as visiting museums, galleries, and historic sites— are popular among international tourists, and wine and agritourism are also well-established sectors of the regional tourism industry (Destination BC, 2017; TOTA, 2022).

291

The Thompson-Okanagan region is also a certified sustainable tourism destination and has received numerous recognitions as a sustainable tourism destination, including the World Travel and Tourism Council’s Tourism for Tomorrow Destination Award in 2018 (based on the GSTC-D Criteria), the North America Responsible Tourism Award in 2018, and the World’s Responsible Tourism Award at the Annual World Travel Awards in 2018 (TOTA, 2022).

Methods To evaluate how residents in the ThompsonOkanagan region perceived the impact of tourism on their QOL, a survey of residents was conducted between December 3, 2019 and March 3, 2020. Data were collected using an online questionnaire based on Andereck and Nyaupane’s (2011) Tourism and QOL Index with minor adaptations. This instrument is comprehensive, including items to measure tourism’s impact on 41 community characteristics in eight QOL dimensions, or domains. Additionally, this instrument allows for a robust calculation of tourism’s perceived impact on QOL that accounts for satisfaction with and the importance of each community characteristic to each participant. In order to produce this measure, a TQOL composite variable was prepared using at threestep process described by Andereck and Nyaupane (2011). First, QOL scores were calculated for each characteristic included in the questionnaire. Andereck and Nyaupane (2011) calculated a QOL score ranging from one to 20 based on participants’ paired importance and satisfaction scores for various community characteristics. The same method was used in this study, but the scale was adjusted so that scores ranged from one to 21 to create equal intervals between all possible scores on the scale (see Table 1). Second, a tourism effects score was calculated for each characteristic using the items measuring participants’ perceived impact of tourism on QOL. All 41 items measuring perceived impacts

292

N. Q. Lackey and K. S. Bricker

Table 1 Calculation of quality of life scores using importance and satisfaction

Importance 5

4

3

2

1

Satisfaction 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

Andereck & Nyupane’s (2011) score 20 15 10 5 1 18 14 10 6 2 16 13 10 7 4 14 12 10 8 6 12 11 10 9 8

New Quality of Life Score 21 16 11 6 1 19 15 11 7 3 17 14 11 8 5 15 13 11 9 7 13 12 11 10 9

of tourism, which were originally on a 1-to-5 scale, were recoded into scores ranging from -3 to +3, where 1 equaled -3, 2 equaled -2, 3 equaled 1, 4 equaled 2, and 5 equaled 3. Third, a TQOL score was computed for each characteristic by multiplying the QOL score and the tourism effects score corresponding to each characteristic. The TQOL scores ranged from 61 to +61 and represented the extent to which a participant perceived tourism impacting each indicator of their QOL while accounting for the importance and satisfaction of each indicator to the participant. These TQOL scores were reduced into factors, or TQOL domains. Participants’ scores on items loading onto each factor were averaged to create a composite TQOL domain score, which was used for analyses. Specifically, two groups of residents were targeted. The first group, the ThompsonOkanagan Tourism Association (TOTA) group, consisted of a convenience sample of members on

the TOTA email listserv. The TOTA is a not-forprofit organization that represents and supports the interests of tourism stakeholders throughout the region. Survey data indicated that these individuals had a high degree of affiliation with local tourism, which was operationalized as composite measure of perceived and self-reported contact with tourists, knowledge of tourism, and involvement in tourism decision making. Responses were collected from the TOTA group with the assistance of TOTA, who sent the survey invitation to members of their listserv who lived in the Thompson-Okanagan region. The second group, the General Population group, included individuals who collectively represented the general population of the region. Because residents’ perceptions can vary by level of affiliation with tourism (e.g., Uysal et al., 2016; Woo et al., 2018), it was important to include participants who were not as affiliated with the Thompson-Okanagan tourism industry. Our analyses confirmed that General Population group members were not as affiliated with the industry as members of the TOTA group. A survey panel service offered by Qualtrics—a survey software company—was used to distribute the survey and collect responses. Recognizing that communities are not homogenous, quota sampling techniques were used to ensure that the General Population group was proportionally equivalent to the general population of the region according to the 2016 Canadian Census data regarding gender, racial identity, Aboriginal identity, employment status, and geographic distribution across the region. While the results of this survey do not necessarily reflect resident perceptions in all tourism destinations, we use these results to illustrate how perceptions may vary generally within a single destination.

Differences by QOL Domains Recreation, Community, Economy, and Culture Often, residents perceive the impacts of tourism differently on different dimensions or domains of

A Case for Sustainable Destinations: The Perceived Impact of Tourism on. . .

293

Fig. 1 Residents’ perceptions of tourism’s impact on eight QOL domains. Means are located scale with possible minimum and maximum scores of -61 to +61

their QOL. In Thompson-Okanagan, residents generally perceived positive impacts across the majority of QOL domains identified (see Fig. 1). The most positive perceptions regarded tourism’s impact on the availability of quality recreation amenities (Recreation Amenities Domain); opportunities to increase awareness of and participate in local culture (Community Pride and Awareness Domain); and the availability of economic opportunities (Economic Strength Domain). Additionally, residents in the Thompson-Okanagan region perceived positive impacts of tourism on their QOL by contributing to their way of life (Way of Life Domain), community well-being (Community Well-being Domain), and natural and cultural preservation (Natural & Cultural Preservation Domain). When developing and managing a tourism destination, it is important to remember that opportunities are not only being created for visitors but residents as well (Erul & Woosnam, 2016). The recreation, cultural, and economic opportunities created via tourism development can play an important role in creating or preserving vibrant communities in which to live.

In other tourism destinations, perspectives on tourism’s impact on these QOL domains vary. Several destinations centered around national parks in the United States illustrate this. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the establishment of Grand Teton National Park in the earlyand mid-1900s was fraught with controversy. Some resident groups, particularly those whose livelihoods depended on some forms of ranching, other forms of agriculture, and resource extraction, opposed the establishment of the monument and later the park; on the other hand, groups who prioritized conservation and tourism revenue supported the proposal (Hein, 2014; National Park Service [NPS], 2004). More recently, a similar controversy emerged in and around Yellowstone National Park. To limit the environmental impacts of motorized winter recreation, the NPS limited the amount and type of snowmobiles that could enter the park (NPS, 2019). Some resident groups of nearby communities challenged these policies for over a decade who perceived negative impacts of these policies on the availability of tourism development and recreation opportunities (NPS, 2019).

294

Similarly, when Arches National Park managers proposed a reservation system for the park to limit traffic—which had reported environmental and cultural impacts on the park and gateway community of Moab, UT—many residents opposed these changes, citing concerns about the expected losses in tourism revenue (Maffly, 2019). Due in large part to this opposition, the original plan to implement a reservation system was discarded (National Parks Traveler Staff, 2019). While similar QOL studies were not performed in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem or Moab, UT during these various controversies, different perspectives on tourism’s impact on QOL played a key role in these dialogues. Stakeholder groups’ perceptions varied based on their values and their relationship to the tourism industry, especially their economic ties to tourism. Likewise, in each of these cases, managers’ plans were delayed and revised until community members perceived fewer outcomes that would negatively affect some domains of their QOL.

Crime and Substance Abuse Residents in the Thompson-Okanagan region held a near-neutral perception of impact on the Crime and Substance Abuse Domain. Previous studies examining the impact of tourism on crime and substance abuse rates have been mixed. Baker and Stockton (2014) found an inverse relationship between tourism and crime rates in one city yet a positive relationship between these two variables in another. Likewise, in their review on tourism and crime, Lisowska (2017) concluded that tourism’s influence can vary by crime type and the population density of the tourism destination. Collectively, these findings indicate that the relationship between crime and tourism is underexplored or that other factors have a more pivotal influence on these issues.

Urban Issues The only negative impacts that residents perceived were on the Urban Issues Domain, which

N. Q. Lackey and K. S. Bricker

included traffic, crowding, litter, and population growth or sprawl. The extent of these negative impacts was small, as mean scores could range from -61 to +61 (see Fig. 1.). Researchers who used similar methods found similar results (e.g., Andereck & Nyupane, 2011), and generally, these issues are perhaps the most widely documented in other tourism-related studies (e.g., Lackey & Bricker, 2022; Marquit & Mace, 2015). Thus, identifying management solutions to lessen the impact of tourism on these aspects of QOL remains a top priority within the ThompsonOkanagan region and the tourism industry as a whole.

Differences by Tourism Affiliation As illustrated in Fig. 1, more highly affiliated residents had a more positive perceptions of tourism’s positive impacts and a less negative perception of negative impacts on their QOL. This same trend has been observed in other destinations (e.g., Andereck & Jurowski, 2006; Woo et al., 2018). However, the perceptions of residents who were highly affiliated with the tourism industry trended the same as those residents who were not. This indicates that there were no major discrepancies in the distribution of tourism costs and benefits between people based on affiliation, and this is an observation that would be expected in a successfully managed sustainable tourism destination. In traditional tourism destinations, this is not always the case. Lankford (1994) found that residents living near the Columbia River Gorge in the United States perceived the impacts of tourism more negatively than more highly affiliated residents, such as government employees and business owners. Alternatively, Alrwajfah et al. (2019) found that residents with tourism-related jobs in the Petra region of Jordan did not perceive favorable impacts of tourism. The authors attributed this to the low wages and seasonality of many jobs in Petra’s tourism industry, which was in its infancy. If residents’ perceptions are treated as indicators, observations like those documented near the Columbia River Gorge and Petra would indicate a discrepancy in the distribution of the costs and

A Case for Sustainable Destinations: The Perceived Impact of Tourism on. . .

295

Fig. 2 Perceptions of tourism’s impact on the Way of Life domain in the TOTA group by level of affiliation in the tourism industry

benefits of tourism and a need for further planning and management. An additional analysis was conducted within the TOTA group to determine if people with different positions in the tourism industry held different perceptions. The only significant difference was found within the Way of Life QOL domain, which included items that asked about tourism’s impact on participants’ personal QOL, preservation of their way of life, feeling of belonging in their community, and perception of tourists who respected their way of life. Owners and C-suite executives (e.g., Chief Executive Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, etc.) perceived the most positive impacts of tourism on the Way of Life domain, while members of lower-level management perceived the least (see Fig. 2). Understanding perceptions of those within the tourism industry is critical, especially now when social phenomena such as the “Great Recession” heighten awareness and concern for employee wellbeing across many industries, including tourism. Data such as these can help industry managers and policymakers identify practices or systemic inequalities that disproportionately affect the QOL of employees at different levels within the industry.

Differences by Geographic Subregion No significant differences were observed between participants in different subregions in the general population group, and only one was identified in the TOTA group, where participants in the Okanagan and Similkameen subregions perceived greater negative impacts of tourism on urban issues. Studies that identify variations in resident’s perceived impacts of tourism within areas of a tourism destination are not uncommon, and often these differences are examined as a factor of distance from the center of a tourism zone or popular tourism sites (Alrwajfah et al., 2019; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004). While contradictions exist, residents who live closer to a tourism center often perceive greater negative impacts on the cultural and environmental domains of QOL, which is likely due to heightened awareness of and increased exposure to tourism activities (Alrwajfah et al., 2019; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004). A one-size-fits-all approach to sustainable tourism management across a destination may not be appropriate, and resident perceptions can indicate whether specialized approaches, policies, or practices

296

may be necessary for different geographic locations (Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004).. Furthermore, these observations have imporand environmental justice tant social implications. For instance, the inequitable distribution of pollution and waste in a city or region is well documented (World Health Organization, 2010). Air pollution may concentrate in geographic bowls, water pollution levels are often elevated downstream from the source, and waste management facilities are often concentrated in some areas of communities. Often, through processes of gentrification and systemic racism, low-income, minority, and communities of color are disproportionately located in these areas and experience increased exposure to harmful substances (Bullard et al., 2008; World Health Organization, 2010). In traditional tourism destinations, these issues are often exacerbated or driven by the tourism industry (Alrwajfah et al., 2019; Gotham, 2005). However, in a sustainable tourism context, these social and environmental justice concerns cannot be ignored, and resident perceptions may be an important tool, in addition to objective measurements, that can be used to indicate if and where the inequitable concentration of these issues may be occurring.

Differences by Sociodemographic Characteristics Income Different perceptions were identified between groups of participants with different levels of household income. People with higher income perceived greater positive impacts on some aspects of their QOL. In the TOTA group, higher income was significantly and positively related to perceived impacts on the Economic Strength, Recreation Amenities, Way of Life, and Community Well-being domains, and in the General Population group there was a significant positive relationship between income and perceived impacts to the Economic Strength and Recreation Amenities domains. A significant negative

N. Q. Lackey and K. S. Bricker

relationship was also identified in the General Population group between income and the Urban Issues domain, suggesting that people with higher household income perceived greater negative impacts of tourism on the urban-related issues. Individuals with higher household incomes typically have a higher degree of access to a variety of resources (Chetty et al., 2016), and the same is likely true for tourism benefits. Differing perceptions between groups with different income levels can indicate where economicrelated barriers exist within a tourism destination.

Gender Regarding gender identity, no significant differences in perceived impacts of tourism on the eight QOL domains were found within the General Population group, and only one statistically significant difference was observed in the TOTA group. Participants who identified as men perceived fewer positive impacts of tourism on the Community Pride and Awareness QOL domain than participants who identified as women or nonbinary individuals. No other significant differences were identified. In other studies, observed differences are often linked to cultural limitations placed on people of a certain gender (often women) that prevent equal or equitable access to tourism benefits, such as employment (Alrwajfah et al., 2019). Future studies on QOL should continue to examine potential differences between people of different genders to monitor gender equity and equality in tourism destinations. As the understanding of gender continues to expand, researchers should also recognize gender as a non-binary construct to ensure inclusivity.

Racial or Aboriginal Identity Likewise, few differences were identified between participants with different racial or Aboriginal identities. In the TOTA group, participants who identified as Aboriginal were, on average, more likely to perceive positive

A Case for Sustainable Destinations: The Perceived Impact of Tourism on. . .

impacts of tourism on the Community Well-being domain. Similarly, in the General Population group, participants who identified as a member of a visible minority group were more likely to perceive positive impacts of tourism on the Community Well-Being domain, and participants in this group who identified as Aboriginal perceived fewer negative impacts on the Urban Issues domain. The small number of differences between groups with different identity characteristics is positive, indicating that the costs and benefits of tourism are generally well distributed. While few differences were found here, inequities have been documented. Inequities have certainly been observed and documented in other tourism destinations, especially regarding inequities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples (e.g., Alrwajfah et al., 2019; Puhakka et al., 2009; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). Globally, indigenous tourism is experiencing rapid growth, and it will be critical for Indigenous communities to control this change to achieve sustainable growth that prioritizes the values and priorities of these communities (Matatolu, 2020).

Age and Residency Length No significant differences were found in perceptions of tourism’s impact on any of the eight QOL domains between participants with different ages or lengths of residence in the Thompson-Okanagan region. As mentioned, the lack of significant findings is a positive indicator. Sustainable tourism development in this region does not appear to disproportionately affect any of these groups. However, differences have been recorded in other destinations. Typically, older residents will perceive more positive impacts of tourism than younger residents (McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015), though contradictions exist (Alrwajfah et al., 2019). Such differences may be attributable to a variety of context-specific factors, including but not limited to availability of tourism employment and decision-making power and cultural

297

differences between people of different ages (Alrwajfah et al., 2019; Li & Wan, 2013). Previously, residency length has been used as a proxy for community attachment. Often, residents who report a greater attachment to their community are more supportive of or perceive more positive impacts from tourism development (e.g., Erul & Woosnam, 2016; Huong & Lee, 2017) or sustainable tourism development (e.g., Alrwajfah et al., 2019). However, the opposite pattern has been observed by many others (Erul & Woosnam, 2016). As with age, the relationship between perceived QOL impacts of tourism and community attachment is likely heavily influenced by many nuanced and contextual factors (Erul & Woosnam, 2016), which should be examined critically in each destination during a sustainable tourism planning and management process.

Implications of Resident Perceptions Tourism can profoundly affect the QOL of residents. Resident perceptions of these impacts are important to understand, as ample evidence indicates a positive relationship between residents’ perceived impacts of and their support for tourism (e.g., Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). Here, we explored how resident perceptions of tourism on QOL can vary across different QOL domains, tourism affiliation, income, geography, and various demographic characteristics. With the exception of the Urban Issues domain, residents of Thompson-Okanagan perceived positive impacts on seven QOL domains. Additionally, few significant differences were observed between the two samples and various demographic groups. While our methods do not allow causal conclusions, these results suggest that most benefits and positive impacts of tourism on QOL are equitably distributed across the ThompsonOkanagan region. Equitable distribution of costs and benefits is what would be expected in a well-managed sustainable tourism destination. Indeed, significant efforts have been made in the ThompsonOkanagan region to support sustainable tourism

298

development. In 2012, the TOTA facilitated an initiative to develop and adopt a 10-year regional tourism strategy that was created in collaboration with and endorsed by the 90 communities and 30 Indigenous communities in the ThompsonOkanagan region. In the following years, TOTA worked to execute the strategy, facilitating coordination between partners in the industry, other associations, and all levels of government. These efforts helped ensure that all parties participated in the tourism planning and development process cohesively with the same ultimate goals of protecting the visitor experience and the longterm lifestyle of residents (TOTA, 2022). Then, in 2017, the region became the first in the Americas to earn sustainable tourism destination certification from the Responsible Tourism Institute (TOTA, 2022). To do so, the region met all 137 benchmarks based on the GSTC-D Criteria (TOTA, 2022). Based on these results, the additional planning dedicated to sustainable tourism development were worthwhile investments that likely reduced the inequities observed in some traditional or developing sustainable tourism destinations. When differences in resident perceptions are observed, they can have substantial management implications. If tourism is perceived to have fewer positive impacts or more negative impacts on some QOL domains than others, managers can and often do use these observations to justify the allocation of increased planning efforts or resource allocations to mitigate or manage impacts in those particular domains. Alternatively, if some groups of residents perceive fewer positive or more negative impacts on some aspects of their QOL from tourism, inequities would likely exist within that tourism system. Efforts should be made to increase authentic engagement with these communities specifically to identify, reduce, or eliminate these barriers.

Obtaining Resident Perceptions As part of any destination-level planning process, many challenges exist when it comes to ensuring

N. Q. Lackey and K. S. Bricker

representativeness across all residents. We must understand and develop processes to help us overcome the challenges associated with the collaboration necessary for sustainable tourism planning and management. The shape that this engagement takes should be informed by communities, as some traditional methods of outreach and engagement may not be accessible to all resident groups (Davenport et al., 2007; Jamal, 1999). Research has also demonstrated that traditional and minimum baseline standards for community engagement, often set by existing policy, may not be enough to facilitate effective collaboration (Lackey & Bricker, 2022). Therefore, each community context may be different, and understanding these nuances and how to ensure inclusivity is necessary (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). For example, in our study of three communities adjacent to Theodore Roosevelt National Park, we gathered input from community members to create a tailored resident engagement outreach plan. Though close in proximity, each community was unique; thus, our recruitment strategies had to be equally unique. In one community, the United States Postal Services’ Every Door Direct Mailing service was used to send flyers to each resident. In the other two, advertisements were distributed through the communication channels that were most likely to reach residents in their respective communities. To gather data on resident perceptions, we utilized appreciative inquiry methodology to productively engage residents during a focus group held in each community (see Joyner et al., 2019). Data gathered during this tailored engagement process revealed findings that likely would not have emerged if more traditional outreach methods were used, such as public comment periods and open house meetings. Other strategies have and can be used to gather information on residents’ perceptions and engage them in public processes concerning empowerment and inclusive representation. In the Thompson-Okanagan area, we utilized a Qualtrics panel to ensure representativeness. Alrwajfah et al. (2019), surveyed residents through a random stratified sampling methodology by place of residence and gender. They also

A Case for Sustainable Destinations: The Perceived Impact of Tourism on. . .

used volunteers to administer surveys in communities, which allowed them to explain the questionnaire to respondents unable to read. Andereck and Nyaupane (2011) and Andereck and Jurowski (2006), used telephone surveys and self-administered mail surveys, ensuring a certain quota based on census data was met for each county and Hispanic or non-Hispanic identity. And Erul and Woosnam (2016) divided a destination into 15 districts, randomly selected streets in each district, and approached every fourth home or business, ensuring a random and diverse set of respondents. We have also recently observed DMOs taking on destination stewardship responsibilities and constituent engagement based on the GSTC-D Criteria. This type of process has ignited new relationships and connections that might not have occurred otherwise (Bricker, 2022). Public participation, done effectively, enables stakeholder structuring of tourism policies (Bramwell & Sharman, 1999) and presents opportunities to maximize positive impacts to QOL while minimizing costs (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2010). The timing of resident input also matters and should ideally occur as part of decision-making processes (Slocum & ThomasSlayter, 1995). While we generally understand these processes are important to sustainable tourism development, it is clear that processes must educate and engage its citizenry and politicians along the way (King et al., 1998).

Conclusion In this case study, we explored the nexus between a “sustainable destination” as noted by international awards and resident perceptions of QOL domains. We believe that understanding whether or not sustainability is celebrated within the sector is reflective of the destination’s residents and impacts residents in a positive way, which may be assumed, but often not studied. Our results demonstrated one way of engaging residents and understanding the impact of tourism on their perception of QOL. While the study was limited to one scale measuring QOL, we believe that

299

monitoring residents’ perception and knowledge of tourism planning and development measures provide meaningful indicators of sustainability and ongoing promise of the full realization of the potential for net positive impacts of sustainable tourism.

References Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The impact of tourism development on residents’ perceptions of community life. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 16–21. Alrwajfah, M. M., Almeida-García, F., & Cortés-Macías, R. (2019). Residents’ perceptions and satisfaction toward tourism development: A case study of Petra region, Jordan. Sustainability, 11(7), 1907. Andereck, K., & Jurowski, C. (2006). Tourism and quality of life. In Quality tourism experiences (pp. 136–154). Taylor and Francis. Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. (2011). Development of a tourism and quality-of-life instrument. In M. Budruk & R. Phillips (Eds.), Quality-of-life community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism management (pp. 95–113). Springer. Baker, D., & Stockton, S. (2014). Tourism and crime in America: A preliminary assessment of the relationship between the number of tourists and crime in two major American tourist cities. IJSSTH, 1(5), 1–25. Boley, B. B., & Perdue, R. R. (2012). Destination management, competitiveness, and quality-of-life: A review of literature and research agenda. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 515–528). Springer. Bovarnick, A., Fernandez Baca, J., Galindo, J., & Negret, H. (2010). Financial sustainability of protected areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment policy guidance. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/finan cial/finplanning/g-planscorelatin-undp.pdf. Bowen, D., Zubair, S., & Altinay, L. (2017). Politics and tourism destination development: The evolution of power. Journal of Travel Research, 56(6), 725–743. Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policy making. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 392–415. Bricker, K. S., Hendricks, W. W., Greenwood, J. B., & Aschenbrenner, C. A. (2016). Californians’ perceptions of the influence of parks and recreation on quality of life. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 34(3), 64–82. Bricker, K. S. (2022). The destination assessment of summit county: Report and findings. Global Sustainable Tourism, 2022. Buckley, R. (2003). Environmental inputs and outputs in ecotourism: Geotourism with a positive triple bottom line. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(1), 76–82.

300 Budeanu, A., Miller, G., Moscardo, G., & Ooi, C. S. (2016). Sustainable tourism, progress, challenges and opportunities: An introduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 285–294. Bullard, R. D., Mohai, P., Saha, R., & Wright, B. (2008). Toxic wastes and race at twenty: Why race still matters after all of these years. Environmental Law, 38, 371. Carmichael, B. A. (2006). Linking quality tourism experiences, residents’ quality of life, and quality experiences for tourists. In G. R. Jennings & N. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 115–135). Elsevier. Cavaliere, C. T. (2017). Foodscapes as alternate ways of knowing: Advancing sustainability and climate consciousness through tactile space. In S. L. Slocum & C. Kline (Eds.), Linking urban and rural tourism: Strategies for sustainability (pp. 49–64). CABI. Chetty, R., Stepner, M., Abraham, S., Lin, S., Scuderi, B., Turner, N., et al. (2016). The association between income and life expectancy in the United States, 2001–2014. JAMA, 315(16), 1750–1766. Coccossis, H. (2008). Cultural heritage, local resources and sustainable tourism. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 10(1), 8–14. Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.2167/ jost607.0 Davenport, M. A., Anderson, D. H., Leahy, J. E., & Jakes, P. J. (2007). Reflections from USDA Forest Service employees on institutional constraints to engaging and serving their local communities. Journal of Forestry, 105(1), 43–48. Destination British Columbia. (2017). Thompson Okanagan: Regional tourism profile. https://www. destinationbc.ca/content/uploads/2018/05/ThompsonOkanagan-Regional-Tourism-Profile_2017.pdf. Diener, E. D., & Suh, M. E. (1997). Subjective Well-being and age: An international analysis. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 17(1), 304–324. Eichhorn, V., & Buhalis, D. (2011). Accessibility: A key objective for the tourism industry. Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues, 2011, 46–61. Erul, E., & Woosnam, K. M. (2016). Explaining perceived impacts of all-inclusive resorts through community attachment. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research (AHTR), 4(2), 83–106. Global Sustainable Tourism Council. (2022). About the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC). https:// www.gstcouncil.org/about/ Gotham, K. F. (2005). Tourism gentrification: The case of New Orleans’ Vieux Carre (French quarter). Urban Studies, 42(7), 1099–1121. Hanafiah, M. H., Azman, I., Jamaluddin, M. R., & Aminuddin, N. (2016). Responsible tourism practices and quality of life: Perspective of Langkawi Island communities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 406–413.

N. Q. Lackey and K. S. Bricker Hein, A. (2014). The establishment of Grand Teton National Park. Retrieved from https://www. wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/establishment-grandteton-national-park Heslinga, J. G., & Vanclay, (2018). Strengthening governance processes to improve benefit sharing from tourism in protected areas by using stakeholder analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Special Issue. Huong, P. M., & Lee, J. H. (2017). Finding important factors affecting local residents’ support for tourism development in Ba be National Park, Vietnam. Forest Science and Technology, 13(3), 126–132. Jamal, T. B. (1999). The social responsibilities of environmental groups in contested destinations. Tourism Recreation Research, 24(2), 7–17. Joyner, L., Lackey, N. Q., & Bricker, K. S. (2019). Community engagement: An appreciative inquiry case study with Theodore Roosevelt National Park Gateway Communities. Sustainability, 11(24), 7147. Jurowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 296–312. Kebete, Y., & Wondirad, A. (2019). Visitor management and sustainable destination management nexus in Zegie Peninsula, Northern Ethiopia. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 13(2019), 83–98. King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58, 317–326. Lackey, N. Q., & Bricker, K. S. (2022). The impact of concessioners on sustainability in and around US National Parks: A case study of grand Teton National Park Concessioners. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 40(1). Lankford, S. V. (1994). Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 35–43. Li, X., & Wan, Y. K. P. (2013). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development in Macao: A path model. Tourism Analysis, 18(4), 443–455. Li, P., Xiao, X., & Seekamp, E. (2022). Climate adaptation planning for cultural heritages in coastal tourism destinations: A multi-objective optimization approach. Tourism Management, 88, 104380. Lisowska, A. (2017). Crime in tourism destinations: Research review. Turyzm, 27(1), 31–39. Maffly, B. (2019). Reservation system at arches could deliver a $22 million blow to Moab’s economy. Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.sltrib.com/ news/environment/2019/03/05/reservation-systemarches/. Makame, M. K., & Boon, E. K. (2008). Sustainable tourism and benefit-sharing in Zanzibar: The case of Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest reserve. Journal of Human Ecology, 24(2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09709274.2008.11906105 Marquit, J. D., & Mace, B. L. (2015). Park visitor and gateway community perceptions of mandatory shuttle

A Case for Sustainable Destinations: The Perceived Impact of Tourism on. . . buses. In Sustainable Transportation in Natural and Protected Areas (pp. 86–97). Routledge. Matarrita-Cascante, D., Brennan, M. A., & Luloff, A. E. (2010). Community agency and sustainable tourism development: The case of La Fortuna, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6), 735–756. Matatolu, I. (2020). A critical examination of indigenous people, tourism and quality of life. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 15(3), 267–278. Mbaiwa, J. E., & Stronza, A. L. (2010). The effects of tourism development on rural livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(5), 635–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669581003653500 McGehee, N. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Factors predicting rural residents’ support of tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 131–140. Myers, S. A., Blackmore, M. J., Smith, T. F., & Carter, R. B. (2012). Climate change and stewardship: Strategies to build community resilience in the Capricorn coast. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 19(3), 164–181. National Parks Traveler Staff. (2019). Arches National Park to return to traffic management efforts. Retrieved from https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2019/10/ arches-national-park-return-traffic-managementefforts Panta, S. K., & Thapa, B. (2018). Entrepreneurship and women’s empowerment in gateway communities of Bardia National Park, Nepal. Journal of Ecotourism, 17(1), 20–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2017. 1299743 Puhakka, R., Sarkki, S., Cottrell, S. P., & Siikamäki, P. (2009). Local discourses and international initiatives: Sociocultural sustainability of tourism in Oulanka National Park, Finland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(5), 529–549. Ramos, A. M., & Prideaux, B. (2014). Indigenous ecotourism in the Mayan rainforest of Palenque: Empowerment issues in sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(3), 461–479. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Kock, N., & Ahmad, A. G. (2017). The effects of community factors on residents’ perceptions toward world heritage site inscription and sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(2), 198–216. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Kock, N., & Ramayah, T. (2015). A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents’ perceptions. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, 335–345. Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for development: Empowering communities. Prentice Hall. Schmidt, J., & Uriely, N. (2018). Tourism development and the empowerment of local communities: The case of Mitzpe Ramon, a peripheral town in the Israeli Negev Desert. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1. Slocum, R., & Thomas-Slayter, B. (1995). Participation, empowerment and sustainable development. In

301

R. Slocum, L. Wichhart, D. Rocheleau, & B. Thomas-Slayter (Eds.), Power, process and participation: Tools for change (pp. 3–8). Intermediate Technology Publications. Snyman, S., & Bricker, K. (2019). Living on the edge: Benefit sharing from protected area tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(6), 705–719. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09669582.2019.1615496 Sőrés, A., & Pető, K. (2015). Measuring of subjective quality of life. Procedia Economics and Finance, 32, 809–816. Strickland-Munro, J. K., & Moore, S. A. (2013). Indigenous involvement and benefits from tourism in protected areas: A study of Purnululu National Park and Warmun community, Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09669582.2012.680466 Thompson Okanagan Tourism Association. (2022). Thompson Okanagan Tourism Association: Inspired navigation. https://www.totabc.org/. U.S. National Park Service. (2004). Grand Teton: A place called Jackson Hole. Retrieved from https://www.nps. gov/yell/learn/management/winter-usemanagement.htm U.S. National Park Service. (2019). Winter use management. Retrieved from http://www.npshistory.com/ publications/grte/hrs/chap17.htm United Nations Environment Programme. (2005). Making tourism more sustainable: A guide for policy makers. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/8741 Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2019). Quality-of-life indicators as performance measures. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 291–300. Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., Woo, E., & Kim, H. L. (2016). Quality of life (QOL) and Well-being research in tourism. Tourism Management, 53, 244–261. Uysal, M., Woo, E., & Singal, M. (2012). The tourist area life cycle (TALC) and its effect on the quality-of-life (QOL) of destination community. In Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 423–443). Springer. Veal, A. J. (2002). Leisure and tourism policy and planning (2nd ed.). CABI. Weiermair, K., & Peters, M. (2012). Quality-of-life values among stakeholders in tourism destinations: A tale of converging and diverging interests and conflicts. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 463–473). Springer. Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 84–97. Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2018). Tourism impact and stakeholders’ quality of life. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(2), 260–286. Wood, M. E. (2017). Sustainable tourism on a finite planet: Environmental, business and policy solutions. Routledge.

302 World Health Organization. (2010). Environment and health risks: A review of the influence and effects of social inequalities. Yu, P., Cole, S. T., & Chancellor, C. (2018). Resident support for tourism development in rural midwestern (USA) communities: Perceived tourism impacts and community quality of life perspective. Sustainability, 10(3), 802. Zimmer, A., Beach, T., Klein, J. A., & Recharte Bullard, J. (2021). The need for stewardship of lands exposed by deglaciation from climate change (p. e753). Climate Change.

N. Qwynne Lackey, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor at SUNY Cortland in the Department of Recreation, Parks and Leisure Studies, where she teaches courses relevant to outdoor recreation, environmental education, and natural resource management and policy. She earned her PhD from the University of Utah by completing her dissertation titled “Understanding Relationships and Sustainable Tourism Development in and around Parks and Protected Areas.” Her primary research interests include sustainable tourism, park and protected area management, and community quality of life. Lackey also serves as a member of

N. Q. Lackey and K. S. Bricker the National Parks Conservation Association’s Next Generation Advisory Council. Kelly S. Bricker, PhD is Professor, Director of the Hainan University-Arizona State University International Tourism College, and the Director of the Center for Sustainable Tourism, located in ASU’s Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, a practitioner in ecotourism, and consultant. She completed her Ph.D. with the Penn State University, where she specialized in sustainable tourism and protected area management. She has applied and research experience in ecotourism, visitor and protected area management, and the impacts of tourism. She has authored books on sustainability, which highlight case studies in tourism meeting environmental and societal issues, such as Sustainable Tourism & the Millennium Development Goals: Effecting Positive Change; on adventure education in Adventure Programing and Travel for the 21st Century, and on graduate education in De-Mystifying Theories in Tourism Research. She serves the board of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council as Vice Chair and the Executive Committee of the Tourism and Protected Area Specialist Group of the IUCN.

Quality of Life and Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Tourism Planning Kathleen Andereck and Christine Vogt

QOL and Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Tourism Planning Introduction In the past two decades, study of the modality of tourism influencing quality of life (QOL) in destination communities has become increasingly prevalent. Much of this research extended earlier work on residents’ perceptions regarding tourism community impacts and residents’ attitudes toward tourism. The entirety of this body of research addressing the extent to which stakeholders in communities experience and assess tourism is founded on the accepted wisdom that tourism should benefit people in the community as much or more than it benefits tourists, and that community stakeholders’ attitudes and behaviors can have a significant impact on a successful tourism sector. Stakeholders’ perceptions of tourism impacts on communities influence their assessment of tourism’s value but also their overall life satisfaction and support for tourism as a part of overall economic activity (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Uysal et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2018). Support from stakeholders is considered critical for sustainable tourism development (Yu et al., 2018). A welcoming K. Andereck (✉) · C. Vogt School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

and friendly host community can contribute to positive experiences for visitors which enhances the attractiveness and competitiveness of the destination (Yu et al., 2011). Alternatively, residents who are negative or hostile can intimidate visitors and create obstacles for effective tourism management (Yu et al., 2018). One strategy that has been promoted as a way to achieve success in tourism is planning and decision making with stakeholder engagement. Literature provides empirical support for several relationships that link resident involvement in tourism planning with both more positive attitudes toward tourism and support for tourism development including involvement in tourism decision making and knowledge about tourism (Andereck et al., 2005; Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011). Several theories, frameworks, models or concepts have been used to provide the foundation for these studies including: QOL concepts (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Uysal et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2018), stakeholder theory (Waligo et al., 2013; Wondirad et al., 2020); collaboration theory (Wondirad et al., 2020; Vogt et al., 2016); and actor-network theory (Nguyen et al., 2019). QOL concepts and stakeholder theory are relevant for the study of citizen input into the tourism planning and development process. This chapter provides a selected review of QOL and stakeholder literature and illustrates a recent example of how stakeholder involvement was used to develop a sustainable tourism plan in one community.

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_21

303

304

Quality of Life Overview of Quality of Life QOL is considered a concept rather than a theory in its own right referring to people’s feelings of satisfaction or fulfillment with their living experience (Schalock et al., 2016). Defining quality of life (QOL) is difficult because it is a subjective experience dependent on individuals’ perceptions and feelings, though there is agreement in recent years that it is a multi-dimensional and interactive construct encompassing many aspects of people’s lives and environments that can be categorized into core domains such as education and health (Schalock et al., 2016). Spradley (1976) defined QOL as “an overall state of affairs in a particular society that people evaluate positively (p. 100).” QOL refers to people’s feelings of satisfaction or fulfillment with their living experience. QOL can be assessed at different levels: individual, family, community, and country (Sirgy & Cornwell, 2001). A common proposition of QOL is that it is a value that is considered to be universal although similar situations and circumstances may be perceived differently by diverse people. Elements which are valued as contributing to QOL may fluctuate from culture to culture suggesting QOL as an idea is universal but is contextually based. Quality of Life Measurement of Core Domains To measure QOL, generally two approaches have been used: (1) objective circumstances of people’s lives such as income and education attainment that can be defined and quantified; and (2) subjective evaluation of life circumstances, such as satisfaction with various aspects of life, that are perceptual in nature (Heal & Sigelman, 1996; Schalock & Verdugo, 2002). Measures can also be absolute or relative, indexing people’s QOL or comparing it to some standard such as what an individual would ideally want (Heal & Sigelman, 1996). Examples of objective indicators include income, physical health, standard of living, and crime; whereas

K. Andereck and C. Vogt

subjective indicators are life satisfaction with various domains. Researchers have been working on the subjective evaluation of domains or dimensions of QOL to validate latent constructs comprised of detailed indicators. For example, at the individual and family level, Schalock (1996) developed domains based on a review and synthesis of several years of QOL research which he and his colleagues later modified and validated including in crosscultural contexts (Schalock & Verdugo, 2002; Schalock et al., 2016). They posited that the following dimensions and indicators captured the body of research on QOL: emotional well-being, interpersonal relations, material well-being, personal development, physical well-being, selfdetermination, social inclusion, and civil and human rights. A comprehensive literature review by Van Hecke et al. (2018) found the model has been extensively documented, validated and implement. They also note that Schalock and colleagues suggest what is important is not the number of QOL domains but the recognition that QOL is a multi-element framework that reflects life as a whole (Schalock & Verdugo, 2002). At the community level, Sirgy and colleagues developed and validated an assessment method of QOL based on bottom-up spillover theory of life satisfaction, a theory introduced by Andrew and Withey (1976), which states that QOL in individual domains affects overall QOL. The model was developed to assess community residents’ satisfaction with specific community services and how that assessment contributes to perceived overall QOL. They found support for the model and concluded that composite indices of government services predict global measures of those types of services which in turn predict global community satisfaction and ultimately overall life satisfaction (Sirgy et al., 2000). Sirgy and Cornwell (2001) refined and tested the QOL model and found it to be valid concluding that overall life satisfaction of community residents can be predicted by satisfaction with individual types of community services weighted by perceived importance: evidence of a bottom-up spillover effect.

Quality of Life and Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Tourism Planning

Regardless of the level of measurement, QOL conceptual models at the individual, family or community levels all include QOL well-being domains that encompass indicators of selfreported assessment of behaviors, attitudes, perceptions and conditions that collectively measure the domains. Moreover, many models incorporate both moderating variables such as demographics (e.g., gender, socio-economic status) and family characteristics (e.g., family size, family structure), and mediating variables such as personal status (e.g., health, employment) and community factors (e.g., media impact), that alter the nature of relationships (Schalock et al., 2016).

QOL Theories and Evidentiary Studies in Tourism Tourism is widely perceived as a primary component of the experience economy, providing elements that may improve QOL through development of tourism products that can also be enjoyed by residents, such as festivals, restaurants, natural and cultural attractions, and outdoor recreation opportunities (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Uysal & Sirgy, 2019; Uysal et al., 2016). An improved QOL can be experienced in a number of ways including increased tax revenues to support city services, increased employment opportunities, a higher personal standard of living, and economic diversity, all of which may create a positive impact on residents’ perceptions of individual and community QOL. However, negative impacts can also result including crowding, traffic and parking problems, increased crime, increased cost of living, friction between tourists and residents, and changes in residents’ way of life (Andereck et al., 2005; Sharpley, 2014; Yu et al., 2018). The fairly recent research orientation toward measuring impacts of tourism on QOL of various stakeholders has both theoretical and pragmatic implications as researchers attempt to better understand the dynamics of support for tourism in a community and practitioners attempt to develop tourism that contributes to community sustainability while meeting the needs of stakeholders. Several theoretical frameworks

305

have been used as a foundation for QOL and tourism studies such as social exchange theory (Andereck et al., 2005; Yu et al., 2018), bottomup spillover theory (Kim et al., 2013), collaboration theory (Vogt et al., 2016), and stakeholder theory (Waligo et al., 2013; Wondirad et al., 2020). Based on these theories as a foundation, researchers have measured QOL domains and their relationships to other exogenous and endogenous factors contributing to the creation of indicators to measure tourism-related QOL. There are economic indicators such as income, taxes, and prices; environmental indicators such as cleanliness, peace and quiet, and litter; and social-cultural indicators such as community identity and recreational opportunities for residents (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Uysal et al., 2016). These indicators are considered subjective; that is residents’ life satisfaction is measured by their evaluations of impact that fall into specific life domains that can be influenced by tourism (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011; Kim et al., 2013). QOL indicators in tourism studies have been categorized broadly into material and non-material domains (Woo et al., 2015) or material life, community life, emotional life, and health/safety life domains (Woo et al., 2018). This line of work has been advanced by Uysal and Sirgy and their colleagues by developing indictors for QOL and suggesting these indicators can be used as performance measures among different stakeholders in communities (Uysal & Sirgy, 2019). The studies found that, in general, residents perceive environmental, social and economic impacts from tourism which are related to QOL and to their overall life satisfaction (Kim et al., 2013; Uysal et al., 2016; Woo et al., 2015). Indicators have also been developed that are tourism-specific measures combined into domains via analysis. They are most often used to investigate community residents’ perceptions of tourism and QOL. Andereck and Nyaupane (2011) collected indicators from literature synthesizing them into 37 items specific to tourism which fell into eight domains: community well-being, urban issues, community pride and awareness, natural and cultural preservation,

306

way of life, economic strength, recreation amenities, and crime and substance abuse. Overall, the indicators of QOL corresponded to positive impacts of tourism (e.g., public safety, diversity of employment) or negative impacts (e.g., increased cost of living, traffic congestion) (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011). Yu et al. (2018) adapted Andereck and Nyaupane’s TQOL scale (2011) as well as used other measures and found a relationship between perceived tourism impacts and QOL as well as a relationship between QOL and support for tourism development. Part of the TQOL measures were also used by Jordan et al. (2019) who found that tourism impacts on QOL are related to residents’ emotions and stress. Several other researchers have used QOL indicators in their research as well, many adding a variety of variables to QOL studies to extend research. Yu et al. (2011) noted a relationship between tourism development and residents’ QOL in one county in the U.S. Matthew and Sreejesh (2017) examined the relationship between residents’ perceptions of responsible tourism, perceived destination sustainability, and impact on QOL finding support for these relationships. Similarly, Su et al. (2018) included destination social responsibility’s (DSR) role in perceptions of QOL discovering relationships between DSR, impact perceptions, QOL and support for tourism. Overall, these studies provide empirical evidence that tourism plays a role in perceived QOL, particularly for those who choose to live in a tourism destination or remain in a community as tourism becomes a force in the economy. They also demonstrate a link between perceived QOL and stakeholders’ views about tourism and whether they see it as a promising economic development strategy.

Stakeholder Theory Overview of Stakeholder Theory One theory that is particularly relevant for studies on the way tourism impacts QOL and tourism planning is stakeholder theory. Stakeholder

K. Andereck and C. Vogt

theory has been used as a theoretical foundation for a number of studies in the tourism literature but overall has receive cursory attention with limited details about the theory and its development. The theory is useful when investigating the role of tourism planning and management in community QOL and deserves a thorough discussion. The objective of engaging stakeholders in organization management is to create value for stakeholders thereby creating an advantage for the organization and fostering better relationships with stakeholders (Beck & Storopoli, 2021). Stakeholder theory as it is utilized today is attributed to Freeman (1984) who, while acknowledging that he did not invent the concept, played a significant role in its development as a theory and use in applications. Rooted in the business management literature, Freeman’s seminal work, Stakeholder Perspective: A Strategic Management Approach, defined a stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). Freeman (1984) recognized the need for a framework for strategic planning that considered factors in the external environment; a way to understand current and impending changes and their long-term implications. He proposed a solution to dealing with the external environment: to reconceptualize the composition of the firm to take account of the groups and individuals that affect or are affected by the organization. These groups are recognized as influencing the success of a business and thus have a stake in the organization. Freeman advanced the stakeholder approach as a pragmatic framework; one that managers can use to operate their organizations more effectively. It not only is about the groups and individuals who can affect the organization but also considers managerial behavior in response to those stakeholder groups. Some have claimed the stakeholder approach is not a theory because it has no connected sets of testable propositions. Freeman et al. (2010) argued that it can be considered a theory as it advances a set of ideas that serve as a framework

Quality of Life and Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Tourism Planning

307

which can also be the basis of other theories. The framework is based on four tenets which can be summarized as (Freeman et al., 2010, pp. 6–10):

a manager to use a few attributes of potential individuals or groups to identify stakeholders that require attention:

1. The separation fallacy: business decisions have no ethical point of view or content. 2. The open question argument: for whom is value created and destroyed, who is harmed or benefitted, and whose rights and values are realized or infringed upon by this business decision. 3. The integration thesis I and II: most business decisions do have an ethical view and most ethical decisions have some business content. To put it another way, it makes no sense to talk about ethics or about business without talking about the other; and it makes no sense to talk about either without talking about humans. 4. The responsibility principle: most of the time most people accept responsibility for the way their actions affect other people.

1. Power refers to the ability of the stakeholder to influence the organization. They describe it as a relationship among individuals or groups where one group can get the other to do something they would not have otherwise done whether that be coercive (force/threat), utilitarian (material/incentives), and/or normative (symbolic influences) means. 2. Legitimacy is the nature of the relationship between the organization and the stakeholder. It addresses issues of desirable, proper, or appropriate actions (norms, values, beliefs) whether individual, organizational, or societal. 3. Urgency is the stakeholder’s claim for immediate attention by the organization. This includes time sensitivity or the acceptability of delaying a response, and criticality which is the importance of the relationship to the stakeholder.

Essentially, stakeholder theory is suggesting that people engaged in business or other value creation activities are responsible to “those groups and individuals who can affect or be affected by their actions—that is stakeholders” (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 9). These stakeholder groups have joint interests and the organization must consider how it creates value for everyone. Researchers who have used the basic ideas of stakeholder theory have found an empirical relationship between a company’s use of a stakeholder approach and business success (Freeman et al., 2010). Stakeholder theory has evolved and been built upon since Freeman’s initial conceptualization. One significant development by Mitchell et al. (1997) suggested a framework to help address the stakeholder theory principle of who or what really counts; essentially to answer the question: who should be considered a stakeholder (normative) and who is salient (descriptive)? There are a range of views on what a stakeholder is from the narrow to the broad. The narrow view often is considered to be company shareholders while the broad view is anything or anyone affected by the business. To address this issue, Mitchell et al. (1997, p. 869) proposed a framework that allows

These criteria and the relationship among them can be used to determine saliency and point to priority stakeholder claims based on where a stakeholder falls on the three criteria and suggests management actions for stakeholder groups (Mitchell et al., 1997). Dormant stakeholders possess only power that remains unused although they have the potential to acquire another attribute; managers must be aware of this group. Discretionary stakeholders have only legitimacy; managers may choose to not to engage with them. Demanding stakeholders have urgency; they can be difficult but not dangerous so managers may decide not to engage. Dominant stakeholders possess legitimacy and power; they should matter to managers. Dependent stakeholders have both legitimacy and urgency but depend on others for power; engagement with them is dependent on management values. Dangerous stakeholders have urgency and power; they must be identified in order to deal with potential coercive or violent behavior. Definitive stakeholders are high on all three criteria and probably have already gained a manager’s attention; when they are high on urgency in particular there is a clear mandate to

308

engage these stakeholders. Any stakeholder can become definitive. Stakeholder theory has been used in used in a variety of fields that have a multitude of stakeholders that may need to be considered in decision making. It emerged in broad areas of business literature, but has also been used in law, health-care, public administration, and environmental policy (including tourism and recreation) (Freeman et al., 2010). Beck and Storopoli (2021) conducted a recent review of the literature and found many examples of stakeholder theory used in urban management including sustainable tourism and related fields of recreation, sport, and event management, and more broadly sustainability, economic development, environmental protection, and heritage conservation.

Stakeholder Theory in Sustainable Tourism Because tourism can both positively and negatively influence individuals’ QOL in a community, part of the solution to sustainable tourism development that enhances QOL is appropriate tourism planning and development with the engagement of stakeholders. This is achieved when decision makers classify stakeholder involvement as normative, a core attribute of stakeholder theory (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). In other words, stakeholder theory becomes useful only if tourism related decision makers understand that stakeholders hold a legitimate interest in tourism development, and that these stakeholders have intrinsic value, regardless of their values or beliefs (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). Besides acknowledging stakeholders as legitimate partners, stakeholder theory requires that all stakeholders receive equal and simultaneous attention in the policy and decision-making process and that no particular group predominates (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The impetus for engagement with stakeholders in the tourism industry has come about with the realization by both academics and practitioners that stakeholder involvement is an integral element in sustainable tourism planning and development. Virtually every paper published on stakeholders and tourism uses this argument as a

K. Andereck and C. Vogt

rationale for the research. The argument is based on the view that stakeholder engagement is necessary to: achieve tourism development goals including the benefits of tourism accruing to a wide range of stakeholders and most especially local residents; maintain resident QOL; ensure transparent and accountable governance and democratic processes; determine a destination’s longterm interests and success; improve destination performance and competitiveness; and achieve sustainability (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Byrd, 2007; Byrd et al., 2009; Heslinga et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2019; Paddison & Walmsley, 2018; Roxas et al., 2020). It is also important to point out the importance of local stakeholders in the operation of tourism businesses and attractions. In tourism, stakeholders have been defined more broadly than Freeman’s (1984) definition taking a more inclusive approach with particular attention to less powerful stakeholders (Khazaei et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2019. Baggio and Cooper (2010) defined a stakeholder as “any person, group, or institution that has an interest in a development activity, project or program (p. 1759).” Within the tourism literature, stakeholders have ranged from international to local entities and been identified as local residents, entrepreneurs or businesses, DMOs, government elected and appointed officials and employees, industries, tourists and visitors, NGOs or nonprofits, special interest groups, employees, academia, the media, and native people (Byrd, 2007; Hardy & Pearson, 2018; Nguyen et al., 2019; Paddison & Walmsley, 2018; Roxas et al., 2020; Waligo et al., 2013). One collection of publications related to stakeholder theory and tourism planning in the sustainable tourism literature proposes models or typologies of stakeholder engagement based on comprehensive literature reviews and synthesis. For example, Roxas et al. (2020) conducted a thorough review of literature on tourism governance and used their findings to enhance existing models of stakeholders and map the roles of stakeholders in tourism destination governance. Building on Björk (2000), they identified international bodies, national governments, local

Quality of Life and Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Tourism Planning

government, businesses, and communities as the actors to consider in stakeholder engagement. Nguyen et al. (2019) also reviewed literature and proposed a framework integrating stakeholder theory with network analysis and actornetwork theory to identify actors and their interactions and provide increased understanding of inter-stakeholder relationships. Their framework, focused on the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), suggested a step-by-step process to work toward the SDGs starting with identifing stakeholders and identifying a social network of actors leading to investigation of stakeholder enrollment and motivation to engage in tourism planning. A cluster of papers within this model-building category also review the literature and then conducted a case study or other qualitative study to develop a stakeholder engagement model. For example, Wondirad and collegues (2020) completed an extensive review of the literature to identify factors that determine stakeholder collaboration. Using stakeholder and collaboration theories in association with the triple-bottom line concept that encompasses economic, sociocultural and environmental aspects of a community (Tyrrell et al., 2012), they conducted an exploratory case study of a destination using focus groups and interviews with government, communities, tourism businesses and NGOs. They then proposed a stakeholder collaboration framework based on their findings. Similarly, Paddison and Walmsley (2018) conducted a case study of stakeholder engagement with a local DMO in the United Kingdom using secondary data and stakeholder interviews with 26 key informants. The case study applied the UK’s New Public Management approach to tourism governance but found that some stakeholder groups were excluded. They found that the private sectors was prominent in decision-making at the expense of the public sector, and within the private sector large businesses such as large hotels were involved but small businesses such as B and Bs were not. Community residents were also not included in the process. While these papers provide useful literature reviews and syntheses, they

309

have not applied the theories and models to reallife situations to determine their efficacy. A second assemblage of papers uses a variety of research methods (Hardy & Pearson, 2018) to conduct a stakeholder engagement process for a particular destination. However, as noted by Byrd et al. (2009) and Hardy and Pearson (2018), a large number of studies collect data from one, two, or very occasionally three stakeholder groups, most often including community residents, but few studies or planning processes seek more thorough engagement. A few studies have examined the attitudes of multiple stakeholder groups toward tourism community impacts (Byrd et al., 2009; Hardy & Pearson, 2018). Waligo et al. (2013) used the literature to develop the multi-stakeholder involvement management (MSIM) framework to offer a structured approach to stakeholder engagement. They went a step further than other conceptual studies and then applied it in a case study of a sustainable tourism project based on focus groups and interviews with a broad range of stakeholders. Others have engaged diverse stakeholders on other topics such as participation in tourism development and perception of the benefits they receive from tourism (Wondirad & Ewnetu, 2019), and attitudes and behaviors of regarding specific kinds of tourism such as cruises (Dimitrovksi et al., 2021). They all concluded that the framework helped to effectively facilitate the stakeholder involvement process. The evidence provided in studies of multiple stakeholders demonstrates that groups have differing concerns, attitudes and options regarding tourism thereby suggesting an inclusive approach to stakeholder engagement in the tourism planning and development process. For example, Byrd et al. (2009) found empirical evidence that government officials had the most positive perceptions of tourism, while residents had the least positive; entrepreneurs and tourists fell between the other two groups.

Stakeholders and QOL QOL studies have focused on the perceptions of stakeholders, most often residents and/or tourists,

310

regarding tourism (Woo et al., 2018). Collectively, these studies provide some understanding of stakeholder perceptions, concerns and relationships. However, successful implementation of sustainable tourism requires that stakeholder concerns are not only understood, but also incorporated into planning, governance, and management policies. A significant gap, at least in the academic literature, is the manner in which stakeholder engagement has been incorporated into actual tourism plans in an effort to enhance QOL. In one example, Jordan et al. (2013) conducted a case study detailing the collaborative planning process for one community that resulted in a tourism plan. Dissatisfaction with the resulting plan on the part of some stakeholders resulted in a second process led by a consultant with less inclusivity which resulted in a plan adopted by the city assembly. Ultimately, both plans had gaps in stakeholders represented and neither was fully implemented. The case highlights issues of power structures and empowerment, pitfalls in the planning process, and the implications of these issues in practice. Beyond their case study of this planning process, there is very limited work cited in the academic literature that describes a process of comprehensive stakeholder engagement in a tourism planning process focused on community QOL from initiation through to incorporation in a plan. The remainder of this chapter will describe one community’s process to develop a sustainable tourism plan.

Developing a Sustainable Tourism Plan with QOL as a Key Outcome Located in Arizona in the U.S.A., Sedona is a popular and highly-visited destination in a mature phase of tourism development. Sedona has also become an amenity-rich community for residents who seek high levels of QOL. The area is known for stunning red rock scenery, national forests, trails, and a thriving arts sector. Tourism is the area’s primary economic base and thus critical to the local economy. The popularity of the

K. Andereck and C. Vogt

destination has created problems often associated with tourism such as traffic congestion and increased cost of living with resulting negative impacts on quality of life. To begin addressing the issues, the community completed the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) (www. gstcouncil.org) audit and performed well on most criteria. A few criteria that were highlighted by GSTC as needing improvement included involvement and decision making by residents and stakeholders, transportation planning that addresses road congestion and crowding, and development of a comprehensive sustainability plan for tourism and the broader community. Envisioning long-term management of the destination, the Sedona Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Bureau (SCC&TB) recognized the need for a sustainable tourism development strategic plan. The city and SCC&TB staff recognized the impacts tourism has on the community implicitly embracing the ideas of stakeholder theory: that there are ethical considerations in the development and marketing of tourism; it differentially creates and destroys value, harms some and benefits some, and can both realize or infringe on people’s rights; and that most of the time people will take responsibility for their actions. To inform a sustainability plan that focused on tourism, a research team from a local university and a tourism consulting company were deemed necessary to facilitate primary data collection with stakeholders to gather baseline data on QOL as affected by tourism. A need identified by city municipal departments existed to create metrics that could be employed in future years to monitor change in residents’ opinions and QOL indicators. Primary data on QOL indicators and beliefs about sustainable tourism provided the basis for a plan that was co-authored by community stakeholders.

The Stakeholders and their Roles Aligned with the ideas of stakeholder theory and tourism research addressing stakeholder engagement, a wide array of stakeholders were identified

Quality of Life and Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Tourism Planning

311

Table 1 Tourism Plan Stakeholders Stakeholder SCC&TB (DMO) Mayor City Council City manager and staff Consultants Advisory committee Community residents Business owners/managers Tourists/visitors Public land managers Nonprofit organization representatives Sustainable tourism action team

Role in planning process Initiate, fund planning process, manage, oversee, implement Definitive stakeholder. Initiate, advise (as committee member), approve Definitive stakeholders. Initiate, advise, approve Definitive stakeholders. Advise (as members of committee, at council meetings), implement Discretionary stakeholders. Research (secondary and primary), advise, facilitate (committee meetings, public forums), report writing Dependent stakeholders. Direct, advise, input Definitive stakeholders. Input (via survey, community forums, website) Definitive stakeholders. Input (via survey, community forums) Dependent stakeholder. Input (via survey, community forums) Dominant stakeholders. Input (via focus group) Dependent stakeholders. Input (via focus group) Dependent stakeholders. Oversee implementation

and included in the sustainable tourism planning process. Stakeholders and their roles in the process are summarized in Table 1. Stakeholders included: • SCC&TB (the designated Destination Marketing Organization). The nonprofit is funded by the city from bed taxes and membership fees, and managed with a contract. • City Council and Mayor. The citizen-elected council members and mayor were instrumental in the project from start to finish. • City Manager and staff. Played a major role in providing information on status quo and accepting responsibility for select plan strategies and new initiatives. • Consultancy team. The team was selected based on a response to an RFP. The team was responsible for a broad range of activities under the direction of the Advisory Committee and Chamber. • Advisory committee. The committee consisted of 27 people and included a broad range of interests: the city of Sedona (4-mayor, city manager, city planner, sustainability manager), SCC&TB (2- chamber director, tourism manager), consulting team (6-one consultant, four research center faculty and one PhD student), sustainability oriented nonprofits (5),

•

•

•

•

•

public lands (3), residents (1), tourism industry (4), medical/health field (1), and media (1). Community residents. Residents in this instance were considered a definitive stakeholder group following increasing concerns about tourism-related negative QOL impacts and growing unrest with associated political actions. Surveys were sent to a random sample of homeowners and a wide variety of residents took part in community forums. Business owners/managers. There was overlap with the resident stakeholders given that many in this group were also residents of Sedona. Business owners/managers were sent surveys and they took part in community forums. Tourists/Visitors. An on-site intercept survey was conducted with randomly selected respondents at a variety of locations in the Sedona area. Public land managers. Sedona is surrounded by national forest land and is also close to tribal lands, state parks, county parks and other public lands. Outdoor recreation is a primary draw to Sedona. A focus group was conducted with nine land managers from nine different organizations. They were also able to take part in community forums. representatives. Nonprofit organization Numerous nonprofit organizations exit in

312

Sedona. A focus group was attended by ten participants from seven organizations related to the environment, recreation activities and city services. They were also invited to community forums. • Sustainable Tourism Action Team. The group assembled to oversee implementation of the plan. The team consisted of 16 people representing the city, SCC&TB, public lands, nonprofits, tourism industry, and residents many of whom were on the advisory committee.

The Process The process of plan development and implementation is summarized in Fig. 1. It began with the

Fig. 1 Sustainable Tourism Planning Process

K. Andereck and C. Vogt

GSTC assessment and decision to do a sustainable tourism plan by the SCC&TB and then approved by city government. An RFP for an external consulting team (CT) was release and the team selected. The CT met with the SCC&TB leaders to determine composition of the advisory council which was convened and met regularly to review research findings, review plan development, and provide input. Stakeholder research included a random sample of Sedona homeowners using a mail survey; a random sample of tourists via an intercept survey; an online survey of business owners and manager pulled from the SCC&TB list of active members, past members and prospects; and focus groups with public land managers and nonprofit organization representatives. Final research input occurred in public forums open to all who wanted to attend. The forums allowed the CT to share research findings and other appropriate information. More than 100 people participated in the forums, sharing concerns and potential approaches within five themes including: accommodations and visitation levels, the role of the Sedona Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau, transportation issues, new opportunities for visitor experiences, and environmental factors. Those who were unable to attend a public meeting were able to submit comments on a website. The forums resulted in specific items to address within each theme. Development of the plan was an ongoing process but primarily took place upon completion of the research. The draft plan was done by the CT and SCC&TB with continual review and substantive input by the advisory committee. The final plan was presented to and approved by mayor and city council. An action committee was established to oversee plan implementation which began immediately following plan approval.

The Plan The research findings were included directly in the plan and taken into consideration in its development. Stakeholders reported many positive aspects of their QOL in Sedona, being especially positive about the atmosphere in the community such as attractiveness, safety, and outdoor

Quality of Life and Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Tourism Planning

recreation. Main negative QOL impacts of tourism were traffic and crowding, major problems in the city and a concern that has led to overt resident resentment of tourism. A secondary but related issue that emerged was the proliferation of short-term rentals and their impacts on crowding and residential neighborhoods. Many residents also noted noise from sightseeing helicopters and OHV activity as problematic. Business owners and managers noted similar QOL impacts but were more positive than residents. Though cognizant of the traffic and crowding, tourists were nevertheless very positive about their experience. Nonprofit staff and land managers noted the increased negative environment and social (i.e., resident-visitor conflict) impacts of tourism to the community and natural resources due to numbers of visitors. A sustainability mission was articulated illustrative of Freeman’s (Freeman et al., 2010) responsibility principle (accepting responsibility for actions affecting others): “To lead the Sedona Tourism Industry in embracing sustainability practices that enable the long-term health of Sedona – its environment, an excellent quality of life, long-term economic strength, and a positive visitor experience” (Sedona Sustainable Tourism Plan. p. 41). The plan was oriented around four pillars founded on long-term sustainability, and based on research and input from the advisory committee: environment, resident QOL, quality of the economy, and visitor experience. A goals statement and objectives were determined within each pillar for a total of 17 objectives. Each objective included assigned tactics with details regarding the timeframe, impacted pillars, lead partner, supporting partners, aligning research, metrics (including reporting cycle and responsible entity), and a tactic description. The tactics were designed to maintain or enhance QOL characteristics valued by residents while mitigating the negative. It concluded with plans to move forward and implement the plan. The full plan can be viewed at https://visitsedona.com/sustainable-tourism-plan.

Plan Implementation Plan implementation began immediately after approval headed by the SCC&TB and the action

313

team. The city’s sustainable tourism plan website provides a dashboard of progress on the tactics and data on the metrics identified. The city has made progress implementing the plan including sustainable tourism management approaches. For example (as of the writing of this chapter): • Working on a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to improve bike and pedestrian infrastructure with a goal of alleviating vehicle traffic and launching a WalkSedona website. • Added a free trailhead shuttle to popular trailheads along with a communication kit for businesses to use to encourage ridership. • Worked on a Fly Friendly agreement with helicopter tour companies with protocols in place to reduce noise including cessation of overflights of the entire city and several resorts and neighborhoods outside city limits. • Instituted partnerships with Leave No Trace (Leave No Trace programs ranked as very important by residents in the survey) and with Tread Lightly (promote outdoor ethics and stewardship among OHV riders). • Hired lobbying firm to work with the state legislature to allow cities to regulate shortterm rentals (not successful so far but still working on it). • Implemented several efforts aimed at visitor sustainability behavior including the Sedona Cares pledge, a Leave No Trace partnership web page, incorporating sustainability messaging into most of the SCC&TB’s platforms. • Worked with developers to provide affordable workforce housing; jointly hired a housing manager to lead implementation of affordable housing in Sedona and another nearby city.

Conclusion There are both theoretical and pragmatic implications that can be deduced from this chapter. It provides an overview of tourism and QOL as well as stakeholder theory as a way to understand the importance of stakeholder engagement in tourism planning. From a theoretical perspective, the ideas of stakeholder theory were

314

embodied in the process. There was recognition that tourism activity as a business decision is tied to ethics with uneven QOL impacts on stakeholder groups. It also exemplified the responsibly principle during plan implementation with many of the tactics implemented demonstrating a willingness to accept the QOL impact of actions on others and make changes to reduce those impacts. From a practical perspective, while many other authors have engaged in research measuring QOL perceptions related to tourism, those results are rarely applied in an actual tourism plan. This chapter illustrates the principles of stakeholder theory by highlighting a current real-life example of the way stakeholders can be effectively involved in a planning process that takes their QOL into account as the primary impetus and outcome for a tourism plan and its implementation. One similar example in the literature reported on a collaborative tourism planning process in Sitka, Alaska, U.S.A. Interviews with stakeholders found that residents wanted the community to have control over their own QOL and tourism development with the collaborative approach to a tourism plan being viewed as a way to achieve that, but as shown in the research any planning effort lacking an important stakeholder group can fall short of its desired outcomes (Vogt et al., 2016). It is clear that tourism can influence QOL in a community in both positive and negative ways. It is also clear that stakeholder involvement can assist community planners and officials in identifying those QOL factors that are important to stakeholders and their satisfaction with those factors in the community. The input provided though stakeholder engagement allows community and tourism planners to develop focused strategies to improve QOL by enhancing positive outcomes and mitigate negative impacts based on what is important to stakeholders. In the future, communities engaged in a tourism planning process, or any planning process for that matter, can consider launching primary data collection efforts to determine those QOL concerns that are most important for stakeholders and incorporate those into plans and their implementation.

K. Andereck and C. Vogt

This chapter illustrates just one example of a thorough stakeholder-involved sustainable tourism planning process to address tourism concerns in a community. There is limited research that has provided case studies of an entire planning process from initiation to plan implementation that incorporates a high level of stakeholder engagement. Future research is needed to comprehensively document tourism planning processes in order provide evidence of the importance of stakeholder involvement and incorporating their input in a conscientious way. Evaluative research is also needed on case studies to provide evidence that shows how processes, goals, and outcomes are realized (or unrealized) and document lessons learned for many different types of communities to consider. At a more basic level, additional research is needed to better understand the views of diverse stakeholders. Most studies report results from one stakeholder group rather than the multiple groups that are part of a community. Future research has the potential to enhance our knowledge about stakeholders and provide examples of best practices for tourism professionals.

References Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 248–260. Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Vogt, C. A., & Knopf, R. C. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 1056–1076. Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 27–36. Andrew, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of Well-being. Americans’ perception of life quality. Plenum Press. Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2010). Knowledge transfer in a tourism destination: The effects of a network structure. The Service Industries Journal, 30(10), 1757–1771. Beck, D., & Storopoli, J. (2021). Cities through the lens of stakeholder theory: A literature review. Cities, 118, 103377. Björk, P. (2000). Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended definition of a unique tourism form.

Quality of Life and Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Tourism Planning International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(3), 189–202. Byrd, E. T. (2007). Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: Applying stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development. Tourism Review, 62(2), 6–13. Byrd, E. T., Bosley, H. E., & Dronberger, M. G. (2009). Comparisons of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina. Tourism Management, 30, 693–703. Dimitrovksi, D., Lemmetyinen, A., Nieminen, L., & Pohjola, T. (2021). Understanding coastal and marine tourism sustainability-a multi-stakeholder analysis. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 19, 100554. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pittman Publishing Inc. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmer, B., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: State of the art. University Press. Hardy, A., & Pearson, L. J. (2018). Examining stakeholder group specificity: An innovative sustainable tourism approach. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 8, 247–258. Heal, L. W., & Sigelman, C. K. (1996). Methodological issues in quality of life measurement. Quality of Life, 1, 91–104. Heslinga, J., Groote, P., & Vanclay, F. (2019). Strengthening governance processes to improve benefit-sharing from tourism in protected areas by using stakeholder analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(6), 773–787. Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397–141. Jordan, E. J., Spencer, D. M., & Prayag, G. (2019). Tourism impacts, emotions and stress. Annals of Tourism Research, 75, 213–226. Jordan, E. J., Vogt, C. A., Kruger, L. E., & Grewe, N. (2013). The interplay of governance, power and citizen participation in community tourism planning. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3, 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963. 2013.789354 Khazaei, A., Elliot, S., & Joppe, M. (2015). An application of stakeholder theory to advance community participation in tourism planning: The case for engaging immigrants as fringe stakeholders. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(7), 1049–1062. Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management, 36, 527–540.

315

Matthew, P. V., & Sreejesh, S. (2017). Impact of responsible tourism on destination sustainability and quality of life in community tourism destinations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31, 83–89. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. Nguyen, T. Q. T., Young, T., Johnson, P., & Wearing, S. (2019). Conceptualizing networks in sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management Perspectives, 32, 100575. Paddison, B., & Walmsley, A. (2018). New public management in tourism: A case study of York. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(6), 910–926. Roxas, F. M. Y., Rivera, J. P. R., & Gutierrez, E. L. M. (2020). Framework for creating sustainable tourism using systems thinking. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(3), 280–296. Schalock, R. L. (Ed.). (1996). Quality of life: Conceptualization and measurement (Vol. 1). American Association on Mental Retardation. Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. S. (2002). Handbook on quality of life for human service practitioners. American Association on Mental Retardation. Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., Gomez, L. E., & Reinders, H. S. (2016). Moving us toward a theory of individual quality of life. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121(1), 1–12. Sedona Sustainable Tourism Plan. https://visitsedona.com/ sustainable-tourism-plan/ Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management, 42, 37–49. Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2001). Further validation of the Sirgy et al.’s measure of community quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 56, 125–143. Sirgy, M. J., Rahtz, D. R., Cicic, M., & Underwood, R. (2000). A method for assessing residents’ satisfaction with community-based services: A quality-of-life perspective. Social Indicators Research, 49, 279–316. Spradley, J. P. (1976). The revitalization of American culture: An anthropological perspective. In E. J. Logue (Ed.), Qualities of life: Critical choices for Americans (Vol. 7, pp. 99–121). Lexington Books. Su, L., Huang, S., & Huang, J. (2018). Effects of destinations social responsibility and tourism impacts on residents’ support for tourism and perceive quality of life. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 42(7), 1039–1057. Tyrrell, T., Paris, C. M., & Biaett, V. (2012). A quanitified triple bottom line for tourism: Experimental results. Journal of Travel Research, 52(3), 279–293. Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2019). Quality-of-life indicators as performance measures. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 291–300.

316 Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., Woo, E., & Kim, H. (2016). Quality of life (QOL) and Well-being research in tourism. Tourism Management, 53, 244–261. Van Hecke, N., Claes, C., Vanderplasschen, W., De Maeyer, J., De Witte, N., & Vandevelde, S. (2018). Conceptualization and measurement of quality of life based on Schalock and Verdugo’s model: A crossdisciplinary review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 137, 335–351. Vogt, C., Jordan, E., Grewe, N., & Kruger, L. (2016). Collaborative tourism planning and subjective Wellbeing in a small Island destination. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5, 36–43. Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: A multistakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism Management, 36, 342–353. Wondirad, A., & Ewnetu, B. (2019). Community participation in tourism development as a tool to foster sustainable land and resources use practices in a national park milieu. Land Use Policy, 88, 104155. Wondirad, A., Tolkach, D., & King, B. (2020). Stakeholder collaboration as a major factor for sustainable ecotourism development in developing countries. Tourism Management, 78, 104024. Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 84–97. Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2018). Tourism impact and stakeholders’ quality of life. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 42(2), 260–286. Yu, C. P., Chancellor, H. C., & Cole, S. T. (2011). Examining the effects of tourism impacts on resident quality of life: Evidence from rural midwestern communities in USA. International Journal or Tourism Sciences, 11(2), 161–186. Yu, C., Cole, S. T., & Chancellor, C. (2018). Resident support for tourism development in rural Midwestern (USA) communities: Perceived tourism impacts and community quality of life. Sustainability, 10, 802.

Kathleen Andereck, Ph.D., is a Professor in the School of Community Resources & Development at Arizona State University and a Global Futures Scientist with the ASU Global Institute of Sustainability and Innovation. She holds a Ph.D. from Clemson University. Her research focuses on the tourism experience from the perspective

K. Andereck and C. Vogt of both visitors and residents particularly as it applies to sustainable community tourism development and the tourism experience. Some of her specific areas of interest include tourism and quality of life, residents’ attitudes toward tourism, volunteer tourism, and tourist perceptions and preferences in outdoor recreation settings. She has conducted recreation and tourism research work with a diversity of organizations and agencies at the federal and state levels including the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Arizona Office of Tourism, Arizona State Parks, Arizona Department of Transportation, and many individual organizations and communities. Recent projects include the Sedona Sustainable Tourism Plan, Navajo Nation Visitor Study, Southwest Borderlands Eco-Tourism Plan, Arizona Highways Magazine Economic Impact Study, and Colorado Tourism Office’s CRAFT program. Her research is published in the major academic journals in tourism and recreation. She has also presented many papers at national and international conferences. Dr. Andereck is a Fellow of the Academy of Leisure Sciences and has been a Fulbright Specialist in Iceland. Christine Vogt, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Center for Sustainable Tourism in the School of Community Resources & Development at Arizona State University. She served as a Sustainability Scientist with ASU’s Global Institute of Sustainability & Innovation. Dr. Christine Vogt holds a Ph.D. from Indiana University in Leisure Studies and Consumer Behavior. In her career, she has been faculty at Arizona State University and Michigan State University. Vogt conducts research in the area of sustainable tourism planning and management; marketing and consumer behavior; and community assessment in rural and urban areas. She is well published in tourism journals and works with destination organizations at local to national levels. Recent projects include the Sedona Sustainable Tourism Plan, Navajo Nation Visitor Study, Southwest Borderlands Eco-Tourism Plan with National Park Service Funding, several studies in Alaska destinations (Sitka, Valdez, Kodiak Island), Bureau of Land Management public archaeology and community engagement in Nine Mile Canyon Utah, and Colorado Tourism Office’s CRAFT program (Studio 101, workshops).

Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development Lisa C. Chase, Rhonda G. Phillips, and Benoni Amsden

Introduction Tourism development impacts the quality of life (QOL) of residents of host communities in numerous ways. Many communities have come to rely on tourism as a way to diversify incomes in local economies, yet tourism has a reputation for providing only minimum wages in the service sector with few opportunities for advancement. Recreation and tourism are sometimes credited with promoting environmental conservation but are more often accused of contributing to environmental degradation. Tourism creates concentrated stress on natural and human-made systems that may not have been designed to withstand heavy use, such as water systems, roads, and waste disposal. Cultural attractions may be supported by tourism and even created for tourists, yet tourism can diminish the small-town charm and sense of place appealing to residents and tourists alike (Krannich & Petrzelka, 2003; Lane & Kastenholz, 2015). L. C. Chase (✉) University of Vermont, Brattleboro, VT, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. G. Phillips Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA e-mail: [email protected] B. Amsden New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Concord, NH, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Negative impacts notwithstanding, there also may be positive impacts in quality of life of residents of host communities arising from tourism development. These impacts may be economic, environmental and socio-cultural, such as increased currency flow, increased support for conservation efforts or more local involvement in decision-making (Sirakaya et al., 2001; Vogt et al., 2020). People who live in tourismdependent areas may have multiple perspectives on tourism development’s impacts and how their quality of life is affected. They have different “stakes” in tourism development, and do not always speak with one voice. We agree that “although some try to present a definitive argument as to the impacts of tourism on community development (i.e., promotes or destroys the overall quality of life), the most basic argument presented in much of the literature is the need to more actively involve all persons affected by proposed development” (Jamal & Getz, 1995, cited in Sautter & Leisen, 1999, p. 313). This is not to suggest that stakeholder engagement in tourism planning and development is simple, straightforward, or uniformly effective. Engaging stakeholders to effectively increase quality of life of residents of host communities has challenges, especially in developing countries (Blackstock, 2005; Tosun, 2000). In this chapter, we define the residents of tourism-dependent areas as “stakeholders” and consider an aggregation of stakeholders as a “community.” The chapter begins with a

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_22

317

318

discussion of stakeholders and their varied perspectives on tourism development. We examine the reasons why stakeholders may be engaged in planning for tourism development as well as a variety of methods for doing so. We present three case studies illustrating different ways of engaging stakeholders and understanding quality of life, followed by a discussion of challenges. We conclude with guidelines for engaging stakeholders in tourism planning and development.

Stakeholders A stakeholder is someone with direct interest or involvement in a particular issue (Decker et al., 1996). The full range of stakeholders in tourism planning and development includes both those who benefit from positive outcomes of tourism development and those who experience problems or are concerned they may experience problems. Stakeholders also include those who influence or make decisions about how development is managed (Weiss, 1983). Stakeholders typically include individuals and groups that have legal standing, political influence, and power to block implementation of a decision (Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987). Examples of stakeholders in tourism planning and development include residents of host communities, businesses that cater to tourism (hotels, restaurants, attractions, gas stations, souvenir and specialty stores), chambers of commerce, local government officials, environmentalists, farmers, and landowners. Some of these stakeholders, such as chambers of commerce and environmental groups, may be well organized. Others, such as residents frustrated by tourism traffic during their daily commute, may not be organized at all. Communities of place are composed of various stakeholders whose quality of life can be assessed by different indicators. Costanza et al. (2007) define QOL as “a multi-scale, multidimensional concept that contains interacting objective and subjective elements.” Quality of life indicators can be divided into subjective and

L. C. Chase et al.

objective categories, where subjective indicators reflect a stakeholder’s perceptions of satisfaction in a variety of life domains including work life, family life, social life, and leisure life. Objective indicators include external evaluations of income levels, family life, social life, and health (Sirgy et al., 2000). Indicators share the common value of improving quality of life of people and places (Wong, 2006). Because of this characteristic, indicators represent a valuable way to embed quality of life concerns and considerations. One method to gauge a host community’s quality of life is by measuring and aggregating the quality-of-life indicators of various stakeholders. Tourism development can influence quality of life in positive and negative directions, depending on the stakeholders’ perspectives. To illustrate how this works, let’s take a look at a hypothetical example and assess how quality of life varies for different stakeholders. Although not based on a specific community, the following example is an illustration of the way tourism development may affect stakeholders in some communities.

Stakeholders in Playa Azul Playa Azul was a remote fishing village with pristine stretches of white sand beach and turquoise water. Tourists occasionally happened upon Playa, and many fell in love with the natural beauty, peaceful ambiance, and generous hospitality of the villagers. Maria, a wealthy investor from Cuidad Grande, was no exception. She envisioned Playa Azul as an ideal site for a luxury resort. A savvy entrepreneur, Maria quickly obtained the necessary permits and built a grand resort with a restaurant and casino. As a stakeholder in Playa’s tourism industry, Maria was fortunate. Her hotel was an immediate success, attracting celebrities and others willing to pay for luxury and privacy. Maria was pleased that she could provide jobs for Playa Azul villagers, and she enjoyed spending time entertaining at her Hotel Playa Azul. Maria would say that her quality of life improved because she spends more time in a beautiful place, enjoys

Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development

her work more than before, and she makes even more money than before. Pablo used to work as a fisherman in Playa Azul. His family usually had enough fish and coconuts to eat but fresh fruits and vegetables could be difficult to obtain. When the resort was built, Pablo quit fishing and took a job maintaining the boats and landscaping at the resort. He makes more money now and has greater access to fresh fruits and vegetables and other foods that were not available before. Pablo misses fishing as a livelihood, but he feels his quality of life has improved somewhat because he can provide better food and more money for his family. Ricardo was a fisherman like Pablo. But unlike Pablo, he did not want to stop fishing when the resort was built. He tried to continue fishing in Playa Azul but found that overfishing and pollution threatened his livelihood after the resort was built. Ricardo and his family moved to another community that had yet to be discovered by tourists. He feels that his quality of life decreased as a result of the tourism development in Playa Azul. Elena and her family have lived in Playa Azul for generations – and they refuse to move. Elena hates the tourists, the resort, the pollution, and the traffic. While she doesn’t like living there now, Playa Azul has always been her home and she doesn’t want to leave. Elena feels that her quality of life has decreased dramatically. Likewise, Sirena is a basket weaver living in the village of Playa Azul. She sells handicrafts to the tourists. She misses the quiet life she enjoyed pre-resort although she has more customers, more money, and more things now. She feels that her quality of life has only slightly improved. Not far from Playa Azul, the small village of Playa Rosa is thinking of developing opportunities for tourism. They look at successes like Andaman Discoveries in Kuraburi, Thailand and wonder if community-based tourism can happen in their village (Garrett, 2007). Kuraburi has attempted to develop tourism in a way that helps preserve the local culture and environment. Residents of the host community benefit from tourism development and negative impacts are

319

minimized. Residents of Playa Rosa ask how they can attract the right amount of tourism for their community and the right kinds of tourists that appreciate their culture and environment without degrading it. Can they control tourism development to increase quality of life of residents of host communities?

Stakeholder Quality of Life and Traveler Motivations Different types of tourism affect resident quality of life in different way. Plog’s psychographic model of traveler motivations focuses on the traveler’s perspective (Fig. 1) as a host community or destination develops for tourism (Plog, 2004). Environmental quality and cultural integrity are high when the first venturers arrive at a destination, as in the case of Playa Azul when it was relatively undiscovered. These venturers tend to be tourists who enjoy discovering a new place, or those that are not yet suffering from overtourism (too many people and demands on services). As a destination develops tourism amenities, other tourists will be attracted in increasing numbers, depending on the comforts and amenities provided. We call these “parochials” or more dependable tourists seeking known destinations (in Plog’s model, these are the “dependables”). At the peak of the bell curve, the destination is substantially developed for tourism and some losses of environmental quality and cultural integrity have likely occurred. Playa Azul was at the top of bell curve when Hotel Playa Azul was completed. If a destination loses its environmental quality and cultural integrity, venturers will move on to new destinations. As environmental quality and cultural integrity continue to degrade, parochials may also move away in search of fresher destinations, leaving the host community with degraded environmental and cultural resources and low demand from tourists, venturers and parochials alike. The quality of life of residents of host communities may have a bell-shaped curve similar to the demand curve in Plog’s model of traveler motivations. However, the peak of the curve

320

L. C. Chase et al.

Fig. 1 Plog’s psychographic model of traveler motivation

Fig. 2 Quality of life curve of community residents overlaid on Plog’s psychographic model of traveler motivation

is situated to the left of the peak of Plog’s curve (Fig. 2). Quality of life for many stakeholders that are residents of host communities may increase as venturers bring money and positive interactions to new destinations. In some cases, venturers tend to have a higher level of respect for the natural and cultural environments than other types of tourists. When larger-scale tourism development begins, quality of life for some residents is likely

to decrease as they must adapt to changes in the economy, environment, and culture. As in the case of Playa Azul, some residents will find new jobs and others will move away. In places like Playa Azul, striking an appropriate balance between sustainable development and conservation of the culture and the environment is a challenge that can be aided through deliberate engagement of stakeholders during tourism

Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development

planning and development. Examples of this engagement from the tourism planning literature emphasize the importance of public participation and contend that the public often perceives the negative impacts of tourism development as being greater than the positive economic gains, resulting in negative feelings toward tourists and tourism (Keogh, 1990; Látková & Vogt, 2012). These studies often call for community-oriented or participatory approaches to tourism planning to provide adequate information to everyone involved and address perceived and likely negative impacts on quality of life of residents of host communities.

Why Engage Stakeholders Involving residents and other stakeholders in processes, activities, and decision-making that influence their quality of life is critical. Engaging people in decision-making and building networking connections is often expressed as building social capital (Crawford et al., 2008). In turn, “by building social capital one can diminish social exclusion and promote healthier communities through partnerships with a shared sense of the public good” (p. 2). Social capital is of central concern for most communities – those with more tend to fare better on many fronts and this impacts individual and aggregate quality of life. Further, when stakeholders are involved in processes and decision-making, projects, programs and policies are likely to have better support if people are vested (have a stake) in them. Stakeholder participation has roots in the business ethics/management and public administration fields (Byrd, 2007). Freeman, in his 1984 seminal work, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, pioneered the concept for applications in organizational management. A central theme of stakeholder theory is its normative aspects. As Byrd (2007, p. 7) explains, “. . .the reasoning behind an organization participating in an activity is because it is the right thing to do. Identification of a stakeholder, from this aspect, is from the perspective of the

321

stakeholder’s interest in the organization, not the organization’s interest in the stakeholder. Based on this assumption, all stakeholders need to participate in determining the direction of the organization in which they have a stake. This idea of democratic representative has even deeper roots – emerging in the 1960’s, advocacy planning and citizen participation forged new paths into the arenas of inclusion of citizens impacted by myriad public policies. It is not only the right thing to do to engage stakeholders, it is very critical for tourism planning and development. As Jamal and Getz (1995) found a while ago, stakeholder issues (identification, selection, etc.) become critical considerations for collaborative tourism planning and development efforts. Stakeholders are thus not just intermediaries but can play a vital role in tourism planning and development, incorporating their desires for future outcomes that influence quality of life (Meyers et al., 2010). Quality of life is of key concern for stakeholders and those trying to identify and measure the factors influencing quality of life. There are numerous approaches to defining quality of life and it is an inherently “political” process because it involves competing ideologies that define what is considered a good life (Phillips & Budruk, 2010). Often, a utilitarianism approach is used – these include rankings, for example. It basically implies that individuals will maximize their quality of life based on available resources and desires and driven by economic theory (Diener & Suh, 1997). There are, however, many concerns about using this approach to gauge quality of life including the inability of some residents to access and use tourism facilities: just because tourism facilities and resources exist in a community doesn’t necessarily mean residents’ quality of life will be enhanced (Phillips & Budruk, 2010). For example, there may not be equitable access for residents to use or access tourism facilities. A more comprehensive approach is one that combines both objective and subjective quality of life measures. This union of both research traditions, objective social research and subjective quality of life research, brings a richer understanding of community conditions if developed in

322

conjunction with community stakeholders (Parkins et al., 2001). In a variation of this, Sirgy and Cornwell (2001) provide a model that incorporates these considerations, with “community” and “other” life domains. Community pertains to one’s perception of the overall community while other life domains pertain to non-community areas such as work, income, etc. Satisfaction with community aspects were found to play a significant role in overall quality of life, further validating the need to incorporate community level analysis and aspects thoroughly into quality-of-life considerations. Measuring quality of life is a difficult undertaking but one that is necessary. It is reflective of stakeholders’ perceptions, desires and needs and must be included to more fully gauge conditions within communities. Engaging stakeholders so that they can have meaningful participation in tourism planning and development will in turn influence quality of life.

How to Engage Stakeholders Designing an effective stakeholder engagement strategy is far from straightforward. As a general rule, a planner or developer seeking to engage stakeholders should (1) identify important stakes, (2) be inclusive and resist powerful special interests that might want decision-making to exclude other stakeholder interests, (3) consider using multiple methods for incorporating stakeholder input, (4) use effective strategies for communication to encourage constructive deliberation and understanding, and (5) find ways to balance the interests of different stakeholders in reaching decisions (Leong et al., 2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of different participatory methods is difficult, although tools exist to help planners and managers determine appropriate participatory methods depending on the context (Chase et al., 2004; Fiorino, 1990). In their evaluation of public participation methods, Rowe and Frewer (2000) distinguish varying levels of public involvement. Low levels of participation are typically utilized in more

L. C. Chase et al.

knowledge-based decisions and high levels of participation are more appropriate in valuebased decisions (Chase et al., 2000). Below are brief descriptions of some of the major stakeholder engagement techniques (Lauber et al., 2012). • Information dissemination refers to techniques that distribute information intended to reach out to large audiences. One avenue is to use mass media outlets, such as press releases, newspaper inserts, and press conferences or interviews. Other print media, such as fact sheets, newsletters, brochures, issue papers, or progress reports may be used to disseminate information through mailing lists or at agency offices and visitor centers. These materials are readily disseminated electronically, using agency web sites, listservs, electronic mailing lists, and social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Note however that many of these sources for disseminating information may not reach all residents and would instead serve to increase inequalities. It is important to disseminate to as many residents as possible and this may require more than use of typical media approaches. • Public meetings are short one-time events that afford stakeholders an opportunity to learn and provide input. Participants hear relevant information and then have an opportunity to ask questions and comment in a public forum. In the past, many public meetings followed strict “public hearing” formats, where participants were allowed a limited time to state their position. Planners now are experimenting more with dialogue-based approaches to public meetings. Again, it is crucial to have wide representation from the community to allow for all voices to be heard, not only those who are the loudest. • Solicitation of comments can be formal or informal. A formal solicitation of public comment may be issued, requesting that written comments be sent on a specific topic by a specified date. Comments are typically sent by letter, email or the internet. Planners may

Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development

also let stakeholders know they are open to feedback through less formal means, some relying on technological innovations, such as blogs and interactive websites. When planners solicit comments, they often hear from the most passionate stakeholders or those with time to respond to the solicitation. This must be considered when planners decide how to incorporate comments into decisions. Care must be taken to solicit comments from all, not just those with ready access to social media or other forms of engagement. • Surveys are typically employed when planners want all perspectives regarding an issue, including the “silent majority.” A systematic survey to collect data can be conducted by telephone, mail, email, internet, or in-person. The sampling frame (target audience of the survey) may be the general public, or the survey may focus on specific stakeholder groups. Survey responses are usually kept confidential, which may encourage input from stakeholders who would not typically communicate through open houses and other public means. Survey data can be an important source of information for decision making, providing data on beliefs and attitudes that may be overlooked when only the most vocal stakeholders are heard. As with all other engagement tools, try to ensure that wide representation from residents and stakeholders is present. • Trainings and technical assistance are interactive public outreach and education efforts where experts present information. Stakeholders gather data, ask questions, and offer feedback. Trainings may last a few hours to a day and may occur once or meet regularly for a specified period of time. They often feature a number of presenters with multimedia presentations addressing various aspects of tourism planning and development. Trainings may be followed by one-on-one technical assistance to provide individualized instruction and support. • Focus groups bring together a small group of stakeholders to discuss issues of concern. They

323

are frequently used in market research and political analysis to provide information on stakeholder opinions. Focus groups typically meet only once and stakeholders share information from their own perspectives. The discussion of a focus group can provide in-depth information beyond that attainable through a survey, but focus groups are limited in terms of the number of people that can participate and share their views. • Workshops are typically one-time events lasting from a couple of hours up to a full day. Planners may ask workshop participants to complete some type of task to further tourism development. The particular task may include developing a list of information needs, generating a set of development alternatives, or identifying possible concerns about a particular alternative. By engaging stakeholders in these workshops, planners broaden stakeholder understanding about development and ensure that the needs and concerns of different stakeholders are considered fairly. Participants also improve their understanding of development issues and other stakeholders’ concerns. Workshop activities may include brainstorming, concept mapping, and participatory modeling. • Task forces are stakeholder committees that typically meet multiple times over weeks or months to accomplish a task. Usually, the task is larger and more complex than the tasks addressed in workshops. For example, planners have asked task forces to develop proposals that take into consideration multiple stakeholder interests. Completing this task may require task force members to gather information about development impacts, reach consensus on goals and objectives, study actions that could help to achieve these goals and objectives, and recommend a particular set of actions. • Large group planning processes encourage direct dialogue and interaction among many different stakeholders. One example is the search conference, typically a multi-day planning event involving 25–75 stakeholders,

324

in which participants collectively envision and plan for a desirable future. This method promotes the shared construction of knowledge, open dialogue, and democratic decision-making. Planning a search conference and following up afterwards requires substantial time and may be best implemented with the assistance of professional facilitators. These techniques can be used in isolation or can be combined to develop a comprehensive strategy for constructive stakeholder engagement. Several techniques or tools may be needed to ensure more equitable access for ensuring that stakeholders’ voices are heard, particularly those from underrepresented groups in the community. The case studies described below illustrate how these some of these techniques have been applied to tourism planning and development in the United States.

Case Study 1: Participatory Modeling Workshops Engaging stakeholders in tourism planning and development can take many forms. One example is participatory computer modeling, a powerful tool to reconcile contrasting points of view, increase shared understanding, and resolve conflicts (van den Belt, 2004). Participatory modeling involves a community in the process of collectively building a model to address a particular situation affecting their lives. One of the most important aspects of modeling as a consensus building tool is the process of its development, setting a stage for stakeholders to work together, share world views and hopefully come to a common understanding of their shared systems. To assess the usefulness of participatory modeling for tourism planning and development in rural communities, key representatives involved in tourism and recreation were contacted in each of the four Northern Forest states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York) and asked to suggest communities that would be interested in such a study and to aid researchers in making contacts (Chase et al., 2010). Six

L. C. Chase et al.

communities were selected: the Village of Saranac Lake, New York; the Town of Wilmington, New York; the three-county region of the Northeast Kingdom, Vermont; Franklin and Grand Isle Counties, Vermont; the Town of Colebrook, New Hampshire; and the town of Carroll, New Hampshire. These communities were chosen based on the following criteria: population, status of tourism infrastructure, percentage of tourism revenues compared with other industries, and a community’s level of interest in participating in the project. The final criterion was heavily weighted, as it was essential for voluntary participation by community members. Working with key contacts, the researchers identified between 10 and 20 community representatives to take part in participatory modeling workshops. These representatives included hotel and motel owners, restaurant owners, shop owners, town employees including law enforcement and waste management, town trustees, local planning board representatives, outdoor recreation guides, members of environmental organizations, historical society members, farmers and other large landowners, as well as representatives from local Chambers of Commerce. One-day workshops were then held in each community between October 2004 and October 2005. The goal of each workshop was to develop a scoping model, or visual diagram, representing the tourism and recreation industries unique to each community. The agenda for each workshop was the same. Community members were first asked to brainstorm about any and all aspects of tourism and recreation in their community. After generating lists of components and factors in the morning, ranging from septic systems and roads to concepts such as community trust, the afternoon became focused on building a model. The modeler, using STELLA software projected on a large screen, collaboratively defined the relationships and connections within the model. Although the initial focus of the workshop brainstorming was recreation and tourism, participants began discussing how development in these areas impacted the overall well-being of their community. Therefore, the model became centered

Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development

around Quality of Life, with the recreation and tourism industries just one of the many impacting variables factored in the Service sector (Morse, 2007). After the six workshops, researchers compared the models to assess the levels of similarity and dissimilarity between the six site-specific iterations. Each model was comprised of six prototypical sectors: quality of life, culture, nature, economics, service and infrastructure. Four of the six models had one or two unique or missing sectors, but the Saranac and the Wilmington models had the prototypical complement of six sectors. All six of the models had a “quality of life” sector and a “natural resources” sector. This led to the construction of a general model reconciling the similarities and differences of each of the six models. The general model was developed with three main components

325

contributing services to the local economy (Fig. 3). These sections were identified as Cultural Outlooks, Cultural Resources, and Natural Resources, which together produce services identified by the participants including Social gatherings, Public services, Natural amenities, Summer recreation, Winter recreation, Spring recreation, Fall recreation, Housing, and Dining and lodging. The Quality of Life (QOL) sector was the main, unifying section of the general model. This variable is composed of Positive Contributions to QOL and Negative Contributions to QOL. The Negative Contributions are made up of Unmet Services. Positive Contributions to Quality of Life are made up of two main factors: Local Jobs and Small Town Feel. Small Town Feel, a concept of great importance to most communities, was

Fig. 3 General model developed with quality of life at the center

326

seen as being a result of a low level of Landscape Mismatch and a high level of Safety. Each variable of this sector is defined below (Morse, 2007). • Resident Jobs is an array of Residents and is calculated as an array sum of Local Jobs summed for each Resident group. • Jobs on Quality of Life is an array of Residents and establishes a level of importance of jobs to each Resident group. • Effect of Landscape Mismatch on Small Town Feel is one value that determines the significance of Landscape Mismatch on the Small Town Feel. • Effect of Safety on Small Town Feel is one value that determines the significance of Safety on the Small Town Feel. • Small Town Feel is calculated as Safety raised to the value of the Effect of Safety on Small Town Feel divided by the Landscape Mismatch raised to the value of the Effect of the Landscape Mismatch on Small Town Feel. • Small Town Feel on Quality of Life is an array of Residents that determines the significance (between 0 and 1) of Small Town Feel on the Quality of Life for each Resident group. • Positive Contributions to Quality of Life is an array of Residents as Resident Jobs raised to the value of Jobs on Quality of Life multiplied by the Small Town Feel raised to the value of Small Town Feel on Quality of Life. • Unmet Service Impact on Quality of Life is a two-dimensional array of Services and Residents that determines the significance (between 0 and 1) of Unmet Services on each Resident group’s Quality of Life. • Negative Contributions to Quality of Life is an array of Residents summing up the values of Unmet Services Impact on Quality of Life for each Service. • Quality of Life is an array of Residents calculated as Positive Contributions to Quality of Life minus Negative Contributions to Quality of Life.

L. C. Chase et al.

Quality of life was initially given different names in the six communities ranging from “happiness of residents” in the Northeast Kingdom to “quality of life” in most of the other locations. In one community, the central concept was initially termed “money.” The variable gradually changed to “quality of life” as participants voiced the many other aspect of their lives that they valued. Once participants began talking about what they really wanted, they inevitably began defining their Quality of Life, and all the different components that impacted it. The form of the model suggests that participants developed a deeper understanding of the linkages of recreation and tourism with quality of life and rural community development. What started out as a brainstorming activity to generate all aspects and components of recreation and tourism became a discussion of quality of life in all six workshops. During the discussions, participants had difficulty isolating recreation and tourism components; these issues pervaded all aspects of their lives. This idea was reflected in the shape of the model, which became centered around quality of life, with the economy and tourism and recreation industries being one part of a much bigger picture. The concept of quality of life as the central goal was consistent throughout the six locations. Enabling community members to come to this realization jointly illustrates the power of stakeholder engagement as a method for understanding the interactional effects of recreation and tourism and the relevance of quality of life to residents of host communities.

Case Study 2: Trainings and Technical Assistance The previous example described a participatory modeling project designed to engage a broad range of community members without regard to occupation. In contrast, this example describes an attempt to reach out to a specific cluster of community stakeholders based on occupation. This case study is an example of responsive stakeholder engagement – the development of an

Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development

outreach project based on a demonstrated need emerging from community-based informational workshops. Specifically, this project engaged farmers in issues of risk management arising from agritourism, tourism planning and development on farms. These issues included discussions of investments in infrastructure, business development, contractual arrangements with vendors, statutory compliance, and environmental issues. Agritourism is defined broadly as “farmingrelated activities carried out on a working farm or other agricultural settings for entertainment or education purposes” (Arroyo et al., 2013, p. 45), although definitions vary in different contexts and geographies (Lamie et al., 2021). Agritourism is important to quality of life for economic reasons and also contributes in cultural ways by promoting experiential education and agricultural literacy, preserving traditional land use, and creating a rural sense of place (Chase & Grubinger, 2014). University extension faculty in Vermont and New Hampshire engaged in grant-funded work to facilitate the development of agritourism throughout the region. The work entailed a series of trainings designed to both acquaint farmers with a wide variety of agritourism issues and provide technical support as they began to engage in agritourism. The target audience was small and medium farmers, rural landowners, and other land-based entrepreneurs who were currently involved in, or were planning to start, agritourism enterprises. Typical participants were young farmers new to farming and agritourism as well as mid-career farmers with advanced involvement and experience seeking to expand their agritourism operations. While these trainings were highly successful, participating farmers unequivocally stated the need for additional efforts to be directly focused on risk management education. In other words, the farmers who were engaged (or were thinking of being engaged) in agritourism were concerned with specific risk issues involving infrastructure investment, business and strategic planning, liability, and insurance. As a result, an additional outreach project was designed that consisted of the development and execution of a new training during which farmers, with the help of facilitators

327

and risk management experts, created their own personalized risk management plan. In addition, farmers were eligible to receive follow-up technical assistance during the implementation of their plans, including evaluation of the implementation process to document “lessons learned” and ensure continued impact of the risk management program. Participation in the trainings was driven by a desire among farmers to reap the benefits of agritourism while ensuring the safety and wellbeing of visitors and assuring a measure of protection for their farms and employees. Farmers who participated in the risk education trainings became familiar with issues of risk management, received information and materials, and participated in the creation of a local network of farmers, experts, and community members. In addition, farmers were recruited to receive technical assistance as they implemented their personalized risk management plan from the workshop. Together, farmers and project leaders monitored the success of those risk management plans in the months following implementation. The primary educational tool used at the trainings was the experiences and perspectives of risk management experts. Presenters included insurance agents, lawyers, tax professionals, local extension agents, and other farmers who successfully navigated the challenges of risk management in agritourism. These individuals were chosen both for their familiarity with risk management issues and their experience working with farmers and other producers. In addition, representatives from state agencies such as the Vermont Agency of Agriculture and the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food were on hand to explain regulatory requirements at the state and local level. In addition to sharing their expertise at the seminar, several experts were asked to contribute to the development of curriculum materials in advance of the seminar. These materials included worksheets, risk awareness profiles, manuals, and templates. By participating in this project, agritourism farmers were better able to manage their personal and business liability in three ways. First, the risk education trainings and the follow-up technical

328

support provided farmers with direct access to insurance experts. This exposure helped farmers manage personal and business liability by providing them with up-to-date information, best practices, and future directions in agritourism insurance. Second, farmers had direct access to lawyers, tax planners, and other financial experts. This access helped farmers better manage risks associated with investments in infrastructure by familiarizing them with the structure of business development, contractual arrangements with vendors, statutory compliance, and environmental issues. Finally, the risk education trainings and the follow-up technical support helped farmers develop networks and relationships with stakeholders including the general public, local governments, and other farmers. This helped farmers manage risks associated with strategic planning by providing them with access to others who have successfully navigated the challenges of agritourism in their local areas or on their own farms. In terms of quality of life, these trainings demonstrate three key components of stakeholder engagement. First, the trainings were a direct response to an identified need. Second, the trainings featured direct involvement in the issues and decision-making that influence farmers’ quality of life. Through the hands-on creation of a personalized risk management plan, farmers were both personally involved with the creation of policy and the creation of networked connections relating to risk management. This process closely mirrors the construction of social capital (Crawford et al., 2008). Finally, the trainings contribute to the quality of life of residents of rural communities, better positioning farmers to create agritourism ventures that informally contribute to positive farm/neighbor relationships and formally align with community planning structures.

Case Study 3: Surveys and Focus Groups Land tenure changes, globalization of the timber industry, growing recreational demand, and new

L. C. Chase et al.

conservation easements are all contributing to the changing landscape of the Northern Forest region in the Northeastern U.S. To effectively cope, adapt, and plan, rural communities throughout the Northern Forest have found themselves seeking to understand how social and economic forces are affecting rural development prospects, and ultimately quality of life, particularly with respect to tourism and recreation on private lands. To respond to this change, researchers in the four states included in the Northern Forest (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York) conducted research on land tenure changes and access trends, collecting primary data on landowners’ attitudes and behaviors related to access, easements, and secondary income (Kuentzel et al., 2018). This case study describes this research, emphasizing the involvement of key stakeholder groups and relevance for quality of life. The overarching goal of the research was to improve understanding of the social and economic forces affecting tourism and recreation on private lands in the Northern Forest and gain an improved understanding of the implications for quality of life. This information is an essential component of regional planning for economic stability, environmental sustainability, and community vitality in an environment of change. To accomplish this goal, surveys were conducted and focus groups were convened. A series of surveys were designed to gather input from private landowners, industrial and institutional landowners, and large investment landowners with parcels greater than 10,000 acres. The surveys probed individual attitudes and institutional policy toward current land uses, recreational uses, access and/or posting, entrepreneurial opportunities, fees for different types of recreation, land subdivision, land-use conversion, alternative methods of landowner compensation, tourism development, management partnerships, and rural development strategies. The private landowner survey, conducted by mail, sampled 600 landowners from each state who were Northern Forest residents and who owned parcels of 10 acres or more. The institutional survey sampled two landowners (one industrial and one

Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development

institutional) from each of the 24 towns selected in the private landowner survey. This questionnaire was conducted via telephone and was designed to assess corporate or institutional policy regarding land use and access for recreation. Finally, the large investment landowner survey selected respondents on a state-by-state basis. These landowners were those whose influence on the region is felt by the sheer size of their holding, and were interviewed by phone or faceto-face. In sum, the data collected from these three groups allowed researchers to assess the scope of land tenure change throughout the Northern Forest, devise a predictive model for access and/or land posting, and understand land use alternatives in a changing rural landscape (Kuentzel et al., 2018). To share findings and better understand implications for quality of life, a series of focus groups were collaboratively organized. Focus group participants included landowners, natural resource agencies, non-governmental organizations, tourism and recreation interests, state legislators, town planners and elected officials, and regional and local chambers of commerce. At the focus groups, researchers presented findings and facilitated discussion among participants about policy recommendations, entrepreneurial recreation and tourism activities, alternatives to fee-based incentives, and innovative collaborations that could conserve private lands and resolve access issues while respecting local traditions. This project illustrates how stakeholder engagement can create outcomes that directly impact the quality of life of local residents. The focus groups resulted in creation of broadly supported strategies for private lands conservation and access policies in the four Northern Forest states. This included an inventory of actual and potential recreation and tourism development opportunities, alternatives to fee-based incentives for recreational access, and innovative partnerships working to resolve private lands conservation and access issues. As a result of this work, communities and landowners became better informed about the opportunities and challenges related to recreation and tourism on

329

private lands and the implications for quality of life of residents of host communities (Kuentzel et al., 2018).

Challenges of Stakeholder Engagement Engaging the diverse sets of stakeholders involved in tourism and community development is often a difficult task. To be successful, managers and policymakers must overcome a series of challenges to consistently develop the trust of each and every stakeholder in the policy arena. Put simply, people’s opinions matter, and the development of trust lies in ensuring that opinions are heard and processed. While not every stakeholder will be satisfied with the outcome of the policy process each and every time, they must be satisfied with the process itself. Below are some common challenges to successful stakeholder engagement. Resistance Among Stakeholder Sets In some situations, participants in the policy process may be reluctant to even be at the table. Occasionally there is distrust and animosity between various groups of stakeholders, with an “us versus them” mentality defining the proceedings. This stems in part from traditional forms of policy development in which dominant groups (specifically, interest groups, business, and government) attempted to maintain power, creating fragmentation. Planners must challenge this traditional linear approach and begin to embrace strategies which both foster democracy and extend traditional boundaries. Ensuring Equity and Fairness Fairness and equity in the public participation process ties closely to Bozeman’s concept of Brokerism, a philosophy founded upon “widespread access to the policy-making apparatus” which in turn acts as a sort of glue, holding together various societal interests (Bozeman, 1979). Smith and McDonough (2001), however, have found that while stakeholders often receive access to this policy apparatus, they do not always feel fully involved and, in some cases, they even feel

330

L. C. Chase et al.

disrespected. While this dissatisfaction alone does not suggest the failure of policy strategies such as Brokerism, it illuminates a potential pitfall – the governmental glue holding society together needs to incorporate methodologies which people view as fair and effective.

creative manipulation of existing budgetary processes. For example, the adoption and implementation of new strategies regarding staffing levels, budgetary discretion, and reporting requirements can be employed to secure a place at the planner’s meager financial table (Rubin, 1996).

Problematic Relationships Among Institutions Input from private and public institutions is critical to managing stakeholder relationships. Clarke and McCool (1996) describe the unpredictability and uncertainty that trouble a number of federal agencies, who have “muddled through” their long and complicated histories. According to Clarke and McCool, much of this difficulty stems from the fact that institutions are often facing independent and oftentimes conflicting goals. Planners, therefore, should consider not only the bureaucratic underpinnings of the institutions with whom they work, but also the history of the organization.

Difficulty Defining and Measuring Quality of Life Reliability and validity are critical to any quantitative measures of QOL. While the term “reliability” refers to the consistency and dependability of research data, “validity” is defined as the degree to which an indicator of a particular construct represents the true, actual essence of that construct (Babbie, 1998; Fisher & Foreit, 2002; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Planners considering creating their own personal indicators of quality of life are encouraged to consult with experienced research designers to ensure the reliability and validity of their proposed measures.

Communication Issues Communicating with stakeholders has never been more complex. The emergence of social media and Internet based tools such as Facebook and Twitter provide a wide array of both opportunities and pitfalls. In addition, research shows that traditional use of the Internet is changing – not only is material presented differently, but the ways in which we physically view web pages is changing as well. The complexity of modern communications can be a challenge, but it can also provide opportunities for effectively communicating with stakeholders. Lack of Time and Money Engaging stakeholders can be expensive depending on the techniques selected. Unfortunately, even though the usage of parks, recreation facilities, and other public resources that enhance quality of life has increased, the percentage of the total budget being met by public funding has substantially decreased. As a result, planners are forced to choose between scaling back services or finding new sources of funding (Van Sickle & Eagles, 1998). Stakeholder engagement may require

Summary and Guidelines Challenges notwithstanding, stakeholder engagement is widely accepted as a key to improving quality of life of residents of host communities. Planners or developers seeking to engage stakeholders should: 1. Identify important stakes, 2. Be inclusive, 3. Consider using multiple techniques for incorporating stakeholder input, 4. Encourage constructive deliberation and understanding, and 5. Find ways to balance competing interests. Numerous techniques ranging from surveys to focus groups to trainings can be utilized to engage stakeholders. These techniques can be used in isolation or combined to develop a comprehensive strategy for stakeholder engagement. Challenges to engaging stakeholders include: 1. Resistance from some stakeholders, 2. Ensuring equity and fairness, 3. Problematic relationships among institutions,

Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development

4. Communication issues, 5. Lack of time and money, and 6. Difficulty defining and measuring quality of life. This last challenge is currently being addressed by researchers working closely with practitioners to expand the body of knowledge and practical tools available for assessing quality-of-life indicators for individuals, families, and communities. As stakeholder engagement in tourism planning and development increases in importance and acceptance throughout the world, so too does the need for quality-of-life indicators to measure successes and challenges for residents of host communities.

References Arroyo, C. G., Barbieri, C., & Rich, S. R. (2013). Defining agritourism: A comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tourism Management, 37(August), 39–47. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tourman.2012.12.007 Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research. Wadsworth Publishing Company. Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 39–49. Bozeman, B. (1979). Public management and policy analysis. St Martin’s Press. Byrd, E. T. (2007). Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles. Tourism Review, 62(2), 6–13. Chase, L. C., Boumans, R., & Morse, S. (2010). Participatory modeling as a tool for community development planning: Tourism in the northern forest. Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society, 41(3), 385–397. Chase, L. C., Decker, D. J., & Lauber, T. B. (2004). Public participation in wildlife management: What do stakeholders want? Society and Natural Resources, 17(7), 629–639. Chase, L. C., & Grubinger, V. (2014). Food, farms, and community: Exploring food systems. University of New Hampshire Press. Chase, L. C., Schusler, T. M., & Decker, D. J. (2000). Innovations in stakeholder involvement: what’s the next step? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(1), 208–217. Clarke, J., & McCool, D. C. (1996). Staking out the terrain: Power and performance among natural resource agencies. State University of New York Press.

331

Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., Danigelis, N., Dickinson, J., Elliott, C., Farley, J., Gayer, D. E., MacDonald Glenn, L., Hudspeth, T., Mahoney, D., McCahill, L., McIntosh, B., Reed, B., Rizvi, S. A. T., Rizzo, D. M., Simpatico, T., & Snapp, R. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective Well-being. Ecological Economics, 61, 267–276. Crawford, P., Kotval, Z., & Rauhe, W. (2008). Social capital development in participatory community planning and design. The Town Planning Review, 79(5), 533–554. Decker, D. J., Krueger, C. C., Baer, R. A., Jr., Knuth, B. A., & Richmond, M. E. (1996). From clients to stakeholders: A philosophical shift for fish and wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(1), 70–82. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40(1), 189–216. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2), 226–243. Fisher, A., & Foreit, J. (2002). Designing HIV/Aids intervention studies: An operations research handbook. The Population Council. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. Garrett, B. (2007). From relief to self-reliance: Developing community-based tourism after the tsunami. [PDF document]. Retrieved from Global Ecotourism Conference 2007 Website: http://www. ecotourismglobalconference.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2007/06/GEC%20Speech%20-%20Andaman% 20Discoveries.pdf. Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186–204. Keogh, B. (1990). Public participation in community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 449–465. Krannich, R. S., & Petrzelka, P. (2003). Tourism and natural amenity development. In D. L. Brown & L. E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century. University Park, PA. Kuentzel, W. F., Daigle, J. J., Chase, L. C., & Brown, T. L. (2018). The social amplification of risk and landowner liability fear in the U.S. Northern Forest. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 21, 51–60. Lamie, R. D., Chase, L., Chiodo, E., Dickes, L., Flanigan, S., Schmidt, C., & Streifeneder, T. (2021). Agritourism around the globe: Definitions, authenticity, and potential controversy. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 10(2), 573–577. https:// doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2021.102.002 Lane, B., & Kastenholz, E. (2015). Rural tourism: The evolution of practice and research approaches–towards

332 a new generation concept? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(8–9), 1133–1156. Látková, P., & Vogt, C. A. (2012). Residents’ attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 50–67. Lauber, T. B., Chase, L. C., Leong, K., & Schusler, T. (2012). Stakeholder engagement. Chapter 13. In D. J. Decker, T. L. Riley, & W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human dimensions of wildlife management. Johns Hopkins University Press. Leong, K., Decker, D. J., Chase, L. C., & Lauber, T. B. (2012). Understanding stakeholders—The focus and beneficiaries of management. Chapter 3. In D. J. Decker, T. L. Riley, & W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human dimensions of wildlife management. Johns Hopkins University Press. Meyers, D., Budruk, M., & Andereck, K. (2010). Stakeholder involvement in destination level sustainable tourism indicator development: The case of a southwestern U.S. mining town. In R. Phillips & M. Budruk (Eds.), Quality of life and community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism management. Springer. Morse, S. (2007). Participatory modeling of recreation and tourism. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Vermont, Burlington. Parkins, J. R., Stedman, R. C., & Varghese, J. (2001). Moving towards local-level indicators of sustainability in forest-based communities: A mixed-methods approach. Social Indicators Research, 56, 43–72. Phillips, R. G., & Budruk, M. (2010). Introduction to quality of life and community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism management. In R. Phillips & M. Budruk (Eds.), Quality of life and community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism management. Springer. Plog, S. C. (2004). Leisure travel: A marketing handbook. Pearson Prentice Hall. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29. Rubin, I. S. (1996). Strategies for the new budgeting. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Handbook of public administration. Jossey-Bass. Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312–328. Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to social research. Oxford University Press. Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T., & Choi, H. (2001). Developing indicators for destination sustainability. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism. CABI Publishing. Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2001). Further validation of the Sirgy et al.’s measure of community quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 56, 125–143. Sirgy, M. J., Rahtz, D. R., Cicic, M., & Underwood, R. (2000). A method for assessing residents’

L. C. Chase et al. satisfaction with community-based services: A qualityof-life perspective. Social Indicators Research, 49, 279–316. Smith, P., & McDonough, M. (2001). Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 239–249. Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. L. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books. Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21, 613–633. van den Belt, M. (2004). Mediated modeling: A system dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Island Press. Van Sickle, K., & Eagles, P. (1998). Budgets, pricing policies, and user fees in Canadian parks’ tourism. Tourism Management, 19(3), 225–235. Vogt, C. A., Andereck, K. L., & Pham, K. (2020). Designing for quality of life and sustainability. Annals of Tourism Research, 83, 102963. Weiss, C. H. (1983). Toward the future of stakeholder approaches in evaluation. In A. S. Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation (pp. 83–96). Jossey-Bass. Wong, C. (2006). Quantitative indicators for urban and regional planning: The interplay of policy and methods. Royal Town Planning Institute Library Book Series, Routledge.

Lisa C. Chase Ph.D., is the Natural Resources Specialist for University of Vermont Extension and the Director of the Vermont Tourism Research Center. Her research and outreach focus on the intersection of food systems, community vitality, tourism, and working landscapes. During the past 20 years, she has worked with farmers, food entrepreneurs, and tourism businesses throughout Vermont and around the world. She co-authored the book Food, Farms and Community: Exploring Food Systems and is the conference chair of the International Workshop on Agritourism, held in Burlington, Vermont in August 2022. Before moving to Vermont, Lisa conducted research and outreach in New York, Colorado, Costa Rica and Ecuador, among other places. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Michigan, her M.S. in Resources Economics from Cornell University, and her Ph.D. in Natural Resource Management and Policy from Cornell University. In her spare time, she enjoys hiking, biking, skiing, and eating her way around Vermont and other world-class destinations. Rhonda G. Phillips (Ph.D., FAICP) is committed to helping build communities via her collaborative leadership approach grounded in equitable and inclusive practices. She is inaugural dean of Purdue University’s first interdisciplinary college, the John Martinson Honors College and a professor in the Agricultural Economics Department. A three-time Fulbright scholar, she worked with community development and revitalization projects in Panama and

Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development Northern Ireland. With scholarship and outreach in community well-being, development, and quality-of-life studies, she has presented at United Nations, OECD, and many other events. Rhonda serves as an UNESCO International Core Faculty Member for community, youth and leadership development; inducted into the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP) in 2016; and was an American Council on Education (ACE) Fellow for 2019-20. She served as president for the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) and recognized with the annual conference Rhonda G. Phillips Endowed Track for the Promotion of Community Development and Community Well-Being. She serves as board chair of the Happiness Alliance and co-director of the Purdue Happiness & Well-Being Learning Collaborative, founding Co-Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Community Well-Being (Springer) and Local Development & Society (Taylor & Francis) as well as editor of the book series, Community Quality of Life and Well-Being.

333

Rhonda is author or editor of 34 books, including the textbook, Introduction to Community Development. She is the first woman to have graduated with a doctorate in city and regional planning from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Benoni Amsden Ph.D., is a Senior Program Officer at the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, where he works to develop non-profit capacity throughout the rural regions of the state. Prior to that he spent 10 years as a faculty member and director of the Center for Rural Partnerships at Plymouth State University. Ben earned a PhD in Rural Sociology from Penn State University, an M.S. in Park, Recreation, and Tourism Resources from Michigan State University, and a B.S. in Economics from the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Empowerment and Support for Tourism: Giving Control to the Residents Adiyukh Berbekova, Sujie Wang, Jiahui Wang, Guangxin Song, and Xinke Wang

Introduction Rural tourism is of great significance in promoting rural villagers’ quality of life as it can facilitate economic development, provide more job opportunities and improve the environment. Thus, rural tourism has increasingly become a powerful engine for rural revitalization (Khartishvili et al., 2019). On the one hand, in many rural destinations in China, some tourist attractions belong to locals, such as the Tulou buildings in Hongkeng, Fujian Province (Wang & Yotsumoto, 2019), indicating that villagers’ living spaces play key roles in rural tourism development. On the other hand, residents are active stakeholders in the development and promotion of rural tourism (Wall & Mathieson, 2006). Their hospitality to tourists and the public spaces they develop are vital factors in forming favorable tourist experiences, developing positive tourism images, and contributing to the A. Berbekova (✉) Shidler College of Business, University of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. Wang · G. Song · X. Wang School of Management, Shandong University, Jinan, China e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] J. Wang Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

sustainable development of the rural destination (Chen & Dwyer, 2018; Ying et al., 2015). Therefore, exploring the antecedent variables and influence mechanisms affecting villagers’ support for tourism development will contribute to the sound policy of sustainable rural tourism. Sustainable tourism development is not viable without the active participation of destination residents (Elshaer et al., 2021; Boley & McGehee, 2014; Di Castri, 2004; Scheyvens, 1999). While community participation helps villagers understand the processes of tourism development and clarify the impact of the tourism industry on their lives (Lee, 2013), in reality, such participation is only a superficial involvement as the government and local authorities may take complete control over tourism development (Macbeth, 1996; Zuo & Bao, 2012). Thus, villagers are excluded from critical decisionmaking regarding tourism development, and their interests may be ignored or even violated in some cases (Zuo & Bao, 2012). One of the main reasons leading to this situation is the lack of relevant knowledge and skills among locals (Kunasekaran et al., 2017). Thus, to ensure the proactive participation of residents in matters of tourism development, it is essential to empower them (Zuo & Bao, 2008). Empowerment in tourism can be defined as a process of enhancing residents’ personal and interpersonal power, that stems directly from engaging in tourism (Gutiérrez, 1990), and can be seen as the highest level of resident

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Uysal, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research II, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31513-8_23

335

336

participation. It can improve individuals’ selfworth, boost their confidence, and provide access to tourism-related resources and benefits (Chen et al., 2017; Gutiérrez, 1990; Rapapport et al., 1984). Considering the critical importance of residents’ empowerment in tourism, it is surprising that there are not many studies investigating this concept in relation to locals’ attitudes toward tourism (Boley et al., 2014). The existing studies primarily focus on the importance of empowerment and its underlying constructs in the tourism context, yet the exploration of empirical relationships among empowerment, quality of life, and residents’ support for tourism is limited. Thus, a more comprehensive empirical study exploring the mechanisms of residents’ empowerment is warranted (Boley et al., 2014, 2015). Residents’ support for tourism has always received heightened attention in tourism research. The existing studies mainly employ the social exchange theory (SET) and focus on economic gains and losses associated with tourism (Nicholas et al., 2009; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; Nunkoo et al., 2013). Nonetheless, some of these studies found that even if the tourism development negatively affects the destination or the tourism income is less than the costs associated with its development, some residents still support the industry. This may be puzzling, and such behavioral response can not be explained solely by SET. It implies that, in addition to economic factors, other determinants such as political, psychological, and emotional variables play important roles in predicting residents’ supportive behavior, and thus, novel theoretical frameworks should be incorporated in research (Wang et al., 2021). As noted above, the inclusion of the empowerment of destination residents could shed more light on our understanding of locals’ support for tourism. However, only a few works posited empowerment as an antecedent, influencing individuals’ supportive intentions and behaviors (Boley et al., 2014), and there is still a lack of relevant research to explore the link between empowerment and residents’ positive responses to tourism, particularly in a rural tourism context.

A. Berbekova et al.

Although scholars recognize that the empowerment of residents is essential for the sustainable development of destinations, rare studies have investigated whether empowerment affects residents’ quality of life and how perceived empowerment corresponds with locals’ support for tourism. As noted by Joo et al. (2020), Residents’ Empowerment through Tourism (RET) has been mainly examined from the qualitative perspective (e.g., Abou-Shouk et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2017; Scheyvens, 1999). While, undoubtedly, qualitative inquiries contribute valuable insights to further academic discourse, quantitative studies are needed to explore the relations between a wider range of variables. To fill in the existing research gaps and examine the role of empowerment in explaining residents’ quality of life and residents’ support for tourism, an integrative theoretical framework is tested in this book chapter. The study contributes to the extensive literature relating to residents’ attitudes by providing a more comprehensive outlook on the non-economic factors such as empowerment and quality of life affecting rural residents’ supportive behavior toward tourism. The findings will be useful for policy-makers or tourism professionals in identifying various ways by which residents could be empowered and their quality of life could be enhanced.

Literature Review and Research Hypotheses Empowerment American sociologist Barbara Bryant Solomon was one of the pioneers in developing the Empowerment theory in 1976. In her work, Black Empowerment: Social Work in Oppressed Communities, she refers to empowerment as gaining power over one’s life and “reducing the overriding sense of powerlessness” (Solomon, 1976, p. 80). The theory of empowerment, albeit originated in the area of social service, has been widely applied in different research settings to help disadvantaged groups to boost their selfawareness, gain more power, and achieve social

Empowerment and Support for Tourism: Giving Control to the Residents

justice (Zimmerman, 1990; Hadisuyatmana et al., 2021). The concept of empowerment is not easily defined as it may acquire different connotations, depending on the contexts where it is employed (Rapapport et al., 1984). As such, Rappaport’s definition is the most widely cited across many disciplines. According to Rappaport (1987), empowerment refers to individuals obtaining power, control over their lives, and moreover, engaging in community affairs via democratic participation. The definition provided by Rappaport is the one that corresponds with the tourism context the most. In tourism, empowerment can be understood as a process of enhancing personal and interpersonal power and improving one’s QOL as a result of engaging in tourism in the destination (Gutiérrez, 1990). To achieve social justice and mitigate the negative impacts of tourism, community empowerment has been considered in the process of tourism development since the 1980s (Sharpley, 2009). Akama (1996) was one of the first to highlight the significance of empowering the various stakeholders to achieve sustainable eco-tourism. Later, Scheyvens (1999) constructed an empowerment framework to assess the effects of ecotourism, through the economic, political, social, and psychological levels. More recently, Boley and McGehee (2014) established the Residents’ Perceived Empowerment Scale (RPES), measuring empowerment via tourism with three dimensions including psychological, social, and political. The scale was proved to be an adequate measure of empowerment in western (e.g., Boley et al., 2014) and eastern cultures (e.g., Boley et al., 2015). In this book chapter, we adapt this scale to examine the impacts of the three dimensions of residents’ perceived empowerment on their life satisfaction and supportive behavior. In tourism, psychological empowerment transpires when locals’ self-esteem and pride are intensified as visitors recognize and appreciate the unique attributes and the value of their destination (Scheyvens, 1999). Social empowerment through tourism can be defined as a situation in which a community’s group solidarity has been enhanced because of tourism development (Strzelecka

337

et al., 2017). Finally, political empowerment implies that within tourism development, residents’ interests are fairly considered and their concerns associated with tourism in the destination are taken into account. While the topic of empowerment is gradually receiving more interest from scholars and practitioners, the existing studies mostly focus on exploring the connections between empowerment and tourism impacts, costs and benefits associated with tourism, local attachment, and social space evolution from a qualitative perspective (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). However, these theoretical frameworks are rarely verified in through rigorous empirical research (Zhang & Lu, 2019). Moreover, despite the inherent links between residents’ perceived empowerment and their QOL, such research is surprisingly limited.

Quality of Life and Life Satisfaction Since the 1980s, QOL research has attracted considerable attention in a variety of fields. Considering the multidimensional nature of QOL, it is challenging to define this concept. There are three main approaches to measuring QOL that are commonly employed in tourism and hospitality (Berbekova & Uysal, 2021). The first approach is the objective measure of QOL, which refers to the objective indicators reflecting the living conditions and level of social development in a particular society. The second category is the subjective evaluation of QOL, which represents the degree to which people feel satisfied with diverse life domains (material, family and friends, health, work, leisure, emotional, etc.) and their life overall. Finally, the third approach is concerned with the comprehensive QOL, which combines objective living conditions and subjective life evaluation. The subjective assessment of one’s quality of life is dominant in tourism and hospitality research. Thus, in this book chapter, we employ the subjective evaluation of QOL and apply satisfaction with life domains and overall life satisfaction as mediating variables. Life satisfaction can be defined as people’s feelings and evaluation of their life based on

338

certain evaluation criteria (Feng, 2017). It is an individual’s feeling of the gap between “ideal life” and “real life” and is the indicator of the QOL. Diener (1996) suggests that QOL includes life domain satisfaction and overall life satisfaction. Overall life satisfaction refers to people’s overall cognition and evaluation of current life conditions, while life domain satisfaction refers to an individual’s subjective evaluation of different life dimensions, such as material, health, sense of security, community conditions, and emotions (Cummins, 1996). The number of QOL studies has greatly increased since the initial development of social indicators research. The issues of tourism impacts on residents’ quality of life have been introduced in the 1990s (Chon, 1999), and since then there has been an increasing focus on QOL in tourism literature (Uysal et al., 2016). While there is extensive research on destination residents’ QOL, the existing studies mainly focus on residents’ perception of their quality of life (Nunkoo & So, 2016), community environment (Lee et al., 2018), as well as the tourism impacts (Ridderstaat et al., 2016). However, current studies have neglected the predicting ability of residents’ perceived empowerment through tourism on their life satisfaction.

The Relationship Between Empowerment and Support for Tourism According to the activating event-belief-consequence theory of emotion (ABC), as a stimulating event, empowerment can trigger positive emotions and generate supportive behaviors, suggesting that empowerment can improve residents’ tourism support behavior (Khalid et al., 2019). Empowerment enables individuals to cooperate with others, share power, and be more proactive, thereby increasing their ability to control their life. Thus, empowered residents are more likely to support tourism which can enhance not only their material well-being but also help to gain control over their lives. In the process of heritage tourism development, Uriely et al. (2002) found that locals

A. Berbekova et al.

whose cultural heritage is favorably presented by the tourism industry support its further development and tend to endure limited inconveniences, indicating that residents’ attitude toward tourism is closely related to their cultural identity and pride. A recent survey conducted by Boley et al. (2018) discovered that destination managers could increase their residents’ support for tourism through increasing residents’ pride and self-esteem. Moreover, the sense of powerlessness and perceived unfairness in tourism development may result in villagers’ negative perceptions of tourism, leading to conflicts between locals, governments, and developers in rural destinations (Ma, 2015). On the contrary, when villagers participate in decision-making and gain power in the process of tourism development, they are more likely to support local tourism (Panyik, 2015). Therefore, the level of political power directly affects the distribution of interests, and powerless groups often hold a negative attitude toward the tourism industry and question its prospects (Ap, 1992). Thus, we propose: H1a. Psychological empowerment affects support for tourism positively. H1b. Social empowerment affects support for tourism positively. H1c. Political empowerment affects support for tourism positively.

The Relationship Between Empowerment and QOL According to the ABC theory, one’s actions depend on the individual’s cognition, evaluation of the matter, and the resulting emotions (Ellis, 1962). In this case, if residents recognize that more positive results can be brought by tourism development such as equality, certainty, and ability improvement, they are more likely to experience positive emotions such as happiness, joy, and satisfaction, and then support the development of tourism. Therefore, it can be suggested that empowerment can improve residents’ QOL and affect their supportive behavior.

Empowerment and Support for Tourism: Giving Control to the Residents

Existing studies have demonstrated the theoretical relationship between empowerment and community well-being (Dodds et al., 2018), but the empirical tests are limited. Empowerment is seen as an intermediate goal to improve social function and life satisfaction by strengthening individual internal power, promoting social participation and resource utilization (Song, 2011). Kifer et al. (2013) pointed out that the sense of power contributes to the authenticity of people, which can trigger positive emotions and enhance subjective well-being. Li et al. (2016) using a mixed-method approach indicated that village residents’ empowerment can significantly affect their life satisfaction. Wahid et al. (2017) also suggested that empowerment would promote social, economic, and human capital, which leads to poverty reduction, QOL improvement, and rural development. From an individual perspective, psychological empowerment means the pride of belonging to a certain group and the local culture, which can significantly affect the residents’ QOL (Guo et al., 2017; Su & Swanson, 2019. A community that is socially empowered usually has stronger cohesion, better development (Boley et al., 2014), and enjoys good community well-being (Brunie, 2009). Yang et al. (2021) found that more social interactions and closer neighbor relationships can improve the life satisfaction of community members. Therefore, enhancing community cohesion through social empowerment may improve community life and increase residents’ life satisfaction. From the perspective of political participation, satisfaction with political life brought by participating in tourism decisionmaking can further improve the self-efficacy of villagers (Sang, 2019). In view of the above discussion, the following hypotheses were proposed: H2a. Psychological empowerment affects life domain satisfaction positively. H2b. Social empowerment affects life domain satisfaction positively. H2c. Political empowerment affects life domain satisfaction positively.

339

H3a. Psychological empowerment affects overall life satisfaction positively. H3b. Social empowerment affects overall life satisfaction positively. H3c. Political empowerment affects overall life satisfaction positively.

The Relationship Between Life Domain Satisfaction, Overall Life Satisfaction, and Support for Tourism One of the dominant theoretical frameworks in quality of life and well-being research is the bottom-up spillover theory (Andrews & Withey, 2012; Campbell et al., 1976), which states that individuals’ satisfaction with different life domains has a spillover effect in a vertical direction, affecting the overall life satisfaction (Kim et al., 2013; Sato et al., 2017). That is, life domain satisfaction is positively correlated with overall life satisfaction. The bottom-up spillover theory was extensively employed in tourism research to explain tourists’ and residents’ QOL. Thus, in 2013, Kim et al. used this theory to explain how the tourism industry impacts locals’ QOL. Their findings suggest that the more positive the locals’ perceptions regarding tourism impacts are, the more satisfied they are with different areas of life, and consequently, the higher is their overall life satisfaction (Kim et al., 2013). Similarly, Liang (2018) confirmed that life domain satisfaction has a certain degree of explanatory power to overall life satisfaction. Thus, following the bottom-up spillover theory, we propose: H4. Life domain satisfaction affects overall life satisfaction positively. There is a rich research stream focusing on the link between satisfaction with life domains and life overall with locals’ support for tourism. Thus, the study by Chi et al. (2017) revealed that there is a causal relationship between residents’ life domain satisfaction, happiness, and support for tourism. Suess et al. (2018) also pointed out that locals’ satisfaction with community, medical, and economic benefits directly affects community

340

well-being, which in turn affects their support for the development of local medical tourism. Moreover, overall QOL was found to be an important predictor of residents’ supportive behaviors (Lee et al., 2018). When tourism development improves community living conditions, the overall life satisfaction of residents increases, and locals are willing to support further expansion of the industry (Suess & Mody, 2016). Drawing on the discussion above, we hypothesize that: H5. Life domain satisfaction affects support for tourism positively. H6. Overall life satisfaction affects support for tourism positively.

The Mediating Effect of Life Domain Satisfaction and Overall Life Satisfaction As stated above, the three dimensions of residents’ perceived empowerment can lead to higher levels of satisfaction with various life domains and life overall. Consequently, through satisfaction with subjective QOL, empowerment may lead to residents’ supportive behaviors (Lei et al., 2020). For example, Wei and Dai (2018) identified that residents’ sense of power plays an important role in determining residents’ hostguest interaction intentions, and such willingness may result in support for festival events. Additionally, a Chinese world heritage sites survey conducted by Chi et al. (2017) showed that residents’ life satisfaction played a mediating role between community members’ social relations and their support for tourism. Thus, this study proposed: H7. Life domain satisfaction mediates the relationship between residents’ perceived empowerment ([a] psychological empowerment; [b] social empowerment; [c] political empowerment) and their support for tourism. H8. Overall life satisfaction mediates the relationship between residents’ perceived empowerment ([a] psychological empowerment;

A. Berbekova et al.

[b] social empowerment; [c] political empowerment) and their support for tourism. As suggested by the bottom-up spillover theory and the discussion above, a chain mediating role of life domain and overall life satisfaction in the relationship between community empowerment and support for tourism is proposed: H9. Residents’ perceived empowerment ([a] psychological empowerment; [b] social empowerment; and [c] political empowerment) affects their support for tourism through the chain mediation of life domain satisfaction and overall life satisfaction. The conceptual model and hypothesized relationships between constructs are illustrated in Fig. 1.

Methods Data Collection To establish the efficacy of the survey instrument, a pilot study was administered before the main study. The pilot study was conducted in the Zhujiayu Village, in Jinan, Shandong Province, China. Based on the results, the questionnaire was slightly modified. Consequently, the main study was conducted in seven villages, including Zhaxigang in Tibet, Xianrendong in Yunnan, Lanao in Anhui, Taokezi and Dongliuhu and Jingtang, and Sandefan in Shandong. In total, 450 questionnaires were randomly distributed to residents over 18 years old in these seven villages. The residents were intercepted on the streets, following a systematic random sampling procedure. The data collection took place from August 20th to September 15th, 2019. The questionnaires were completed on-site and collected back immediately. A total of 450 questionnaires were collected, of which 38 were invalid, and the remaining 412 valid questionnaires were included in the final analysis, with an effective rate of 91.6%.

Empowerment and Support for Tourism: Giving Control to the Residents

H1a

341

H7a H7b H7c

Quality of life Life domain satisfaction

Empowerment +D

Psychological empowerment

+ Support for tourism

+E +F

Social empowerment

+

+D +E

Political empowerment

Overall life satisfaction

H6

+F

H8a H8b H8c

+E +F

Fig. 1 Hypothesized model

Questionnaire Design The survey instrument included two main sections. The first part measured residents’ perceived empowerment, life domain satisfaction, overall life satisfaction, and residents’ support for tourism. All scales were adapted from existing scales. Thus, the residents’ perceived empowerment scale developed by Boley et al. (2014) and Boley et al. (2015) was used with five items measuring psychological empowerment, three items for social empowerment, and four items for political empowerment. Villagers’ life domain satisfaction was assessed with six items from Sato et al. (2017). The overall life satisfaction was measured with six items from Woo et al. (2015). Finally, residents’ support for tourism was assessed by applying five items from Boley et al. (2014). All constructs were measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale, and the response

options were anchored by “Strongly Disagree” (1) and “Strongly Agree” (5). The second section in the questionnaire assessed respondents’ demographic characteristics. The descriptive statistics on all study variables and the factor loadings on all items are listed in Table 1.

Results Respondents Profile The descriptive analysis of the sample indicated that there were slightly more men (54.1%) than women (45.9%) among the respondents. The villagers over 51 years old account for 37.6%, followed by the respondents of 31–50 years old (34.2%). More than half of the villagers (54.4%) have a junior high school degree or below. Most of the respondents (39.8%) earn an average monthly household income of 3001–5000 RMB.

342

A. Berbekova et al.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and factor loadings Constructs and Items Psychological empowerment Tourism makes me proud to be a local resident. Tourism makes me feel special because people travel to see my county’s unique features. Tourism makes me want to tell others about what we have to offer in county. Tourism reminds me that I have a unique culture to share with visitors. Tourism makes me want to work to keep my county special. Social empowerment Tourism makes me feel more connected to my community. Tourism fosters a sense of ‘community spirit’ within me. Political empowerment I feel like I have a voice in tourism development decisions. My vote makes a difference in how tourism is developed. Life domain satisfaction I am satisfied with family life. I am satisfied with leisure life. I am satisfied with my personal achievements. I am satisfied with social life. I am satisfied with my overall health. I am satisfied with my work life. Overall life satisfaction The conditions of my life are excellent. In most ways my life is close to ideal. So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing. Support for tourism In general, the positive benefits of tourism outweigh negative impacts in this village. I believe tourism should be actively encouraged in this village. I support tourism and want to see it remain important to this village. This village should remain a tourist destination. This village should support the promotion of tourism.

Factor loading

t value

M(SD)

0.697 0.739

20.05*** 22.23***

4.12(0.793) 3.88(0.827)

0.803

28.01***

4.00(0.833)

0.752

21.81***

4.12(0.783)

0.694

16.08***

4.22(0.711)

0.832

29.60***

3.75(0.790)

0.879

35.35***

3.81(0.861)

0.788

19.08***

3.95(0.816)

0.714

17.46***

3.89(0.822)

0.747 0.839 0.813 0.806 0.635 0.591

25.78*** 38.09*** 32.06*** 29.53*** 15.36*** 14.25***

3.58(0.811) 3.77(0.752) 3.78(0.807) 3.80(0.765) 3.99(0.800) 4.10(0.674)

0.695 0.819 0.768

17.18*** 27.80*** 22.43***

3.69(0.805) 3.82(0.851) 3.83(0.868)

0.628

15.55***

3.83(0.908)

0.699

15.13***

4.29(0.727)

0.815

30.69***

4.38(0.682)

0.827

33.30***

4.39(0.679)

0.749 0.800

23.82*** 32.24***

4.34(0.716) 4.47(0.659)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) The Harman single factor test did not indicate a common method bias, with 32.63% of the

Cronbach’s α 0.855

CR 0.856

AVE 0.545

0.843

0.845

0.732

0.718

0.722

0.565

0.878

0.88

0.554

0.814

0.878

0.643

0.883

0.885

0.608

variance explained by a single factor (Kock et al., 2021). Next, to assess the fit of the measurement model, CFA with maximum likelihood estimation method was used. Following the

Empowerment and Support for Tourism: Giving Control to the Residents

343

Table 2 Inter-construct correlations Variable Psychological empowerment Social empowerment Political empowerment Life domain satisfaction Overall life satisfaction Support for tourism

Psychological empowerment 0.738

Social empowerment

Political empowerment

Life domain satisfaction

Overall life satisfaction

0.672***

0.856

0.405***

0.484***

0.752

0.475***

0.530***

0.541***

0.744

0.224***

0.305***

0.536***

0.543***

0.802

0.591***

0.448***

0.317***

0.476***

0.359***

Support for tourism

0.78

Note: The diagonal values are the square roots of AVE, and the off-diagonal values are the correlation coefficients between variables; * p