Handbook of Sustainable Development and Leisure Services (World Sustainability Series) 3030598195, 9783030598198

Citation preview

World Sustainability Series

Adrian Lubowiecki-Vikuk Bruno Miguel Barbosa de Sousa Bojan M. Đerčan Walter Leal Filho   Editors

Handbook of Sustainable Development and Leisure Services

World Sustainability Series Series Editor Walter Leal Filho, European School of Sustainability Science and Research, Research and Transfer Centre “Sustainable Development and Climate Change Management”, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany

Due to its scope and nature, sustainable development is a matter which is very interdisciplinary, and draws from knowledge and inputs from the social sciences and environmental sciences on the one hand, but also from physical sciences and arts on the other. As such, there is a perceived need to foster integrative approaches, whereby the combination of inputs from various fields may contribute to a better understanding of what sustainability is, and means to people. But despite the need for and the relevance of integrative approaches towards sustainable development, there is a paucity of literature which address matters related to sustainability in an integrated way. Notes on the quality assurance and peer review of this publication Prior to publication, the quality of the works published in this series is double blind reviewed by external referees appointed by the editor. The referees are not aware of the author’s name when performing the review; the referees’ names are not disclosed.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13384

Adrian Lubowiecki-Vikuk Bruno Miguel Barbosa de Sousa Bojan M. Đerčan Walter Leal Filho •

•

•

Editors

Handbook of Sustainable Development and Leisure Services

123

Editors Adrian Lubowiecki-Vikuk Department of Consumer Behaviour Research SGH Warsaw School of Economics Warsaw, Poland Bojan M. Đerčan Department of Geography University of Novi Sad Novi Sad, Serbia

Bruno Miguel Barbosa de Sousa Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave Barcelos, Portugal Walter Leal Filho HAW Hamburg Hamburg, Germany Manchester Metropolitan University Manchester, UK

ISSN 2199-7373 ISSN 2199-7381 (electronic) World Sustainability Series ISBN 978-3-030-59819-8 ISBN 978-3-030-59820-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59820-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 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

Preface

Leisure services encompass a variety of initiatives and related to the planning, development, and operation of parks, trails, zoos, and many other recreational and athletic facilities. Together, they are responsible for millions of jobs around the world. But in order to ensure their long-term viability, leisure services need to be sustainable. And it is based on the perceived need to promote and disseminate information on sustainable development in the scope of leisure management in communities, and taking into account the perspectives and needs of enterprises, that the ‘Handbook of Sustainable Development and Leisure Services’ was produced. The book compiles information, experiences, practical initiatives and projects around the subject matter of sustainability and leisure services, and is of interest to a wide audience. Each of the 20 chapters focuses on a key area of research and best practices in the field of sustainable development in relation to leisure services (including sport/recreation and tourism), which has not yet been comprehensively studied. The interdisciplinary team of authors from nine countries (India, Panamá, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, and USA) includes a mix of scholars in human geography, management, sustainability and leisure intersections, behavioral economists, sociologists, and tourism. We thank the authors for their efforts in elaborating the manuscripts and the reviewers for the many useful comments provided. We expect that the ‘Handbook of Sustainable Development and Leisure Services’ will be of interest and use to professionals working in the field of leisure service clearers and, inter alia, lead to an increase in the demand for such important services. Warsaw, Poland Barcelos, Portugal Novi Sad, Serbia Hamburg, Germany/Manchester, UK

Dr. Adrian Lubowiecki-Vikuk Dr. Bruno Miguel Barbosa de Sousa Dr. Bojan M. Đerčan Prof. Dr. h. c. Walter Leal Filho

v

Contents

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adrian Lubowiecki-Vikuk, Bojan M. Đerčan, and Bruno Miguel Barbosa de Sousa Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable Development Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mariusz Baranowski and Dorota Mroczkowska The Role of Leisure in Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beata Kolny

1

21 39

Leisure Activities and Recreation Facilities in Nigeria: Implications for Wholesome Community Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Babatunde Abiodun Balogun

51

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ricardo Pagan

67

Physical Activity of Male and Female University Students as a Manifestation of Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daniel Puciato and Michał Rozpara

85

Selected Determinants of Recreational and Tourist Activity of the Inhabitants of Rural Communes of the Poznań Metropolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beata Kaczor and Maria Zamelska

95

Rural Community Prosperity Versus Tourism Progress: An Example of Sustainable Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Marko D. Petrović, Tatiana N. Tretiakova, and David W. Marcouiller

vii

viii

Contents

Leisure Industry and Hotels: The Importance of Wellness Services for Guests’ Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Milica Rančić Demir, Marko D. Petrović, and Ivana Blešić Contemporary Threats to the Development of Sustainable Urban Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Aleksander Panasiuk Rural Tourism and Its Contribution to Sustainable Development in Jyotisar, Kurukshetra (Haryana), India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Lakhvinder Singh Sustainable Development of Rural Tourist Settlements in Serbia: Building A Better Future for All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Dragica Gatarić and Bojan M. Đerčan A Typology of Hosts in Housing Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 José Luís Braga and Marta Dionísio Glamping and the Development of Sustainable Tourism: A Portuguese Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Sara Fernandes, Daniela Ferreira, Tatiana Alves, and Bruno Miguel Barbosa de Sousa Ecotourism as a Core of Sustainability in Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Aleksandra Machnik Environmental Sensibility and Human Values as Factors for Forming European Ecotourist Market Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Aleksandra Terzić and Dunja Demirović Bajrami A Systems Approach to Ecotourism, Leisure and Education in Panamá: A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Bruno Borsari, Francisco Ugel Garrido, and Edmundo González Religious Tourism and Sustainable Development: Perspectives from Hill States in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Dhwani Gambhir, Ahmad Mohd Khalid, and Seema Sharma Smart Tourism: Towards the Concept of a Data-Based Travel Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Magdalena Kachniewska Social Media and Sustainable Tourism Marketing: Perceptions of Owners of Leisure-Related Enterprises Operating Within Viana do Castelo Littoral Geopark (Northwest Portugal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Alexandra I. Correia, Hugo A. Sampaio, Manuel J. Fonseca, Susana Marinho, and Ricardo Carvalhido

Contributors

Tatiana Alves Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave (IPCA), Barcelos, Portugal Babatunde Abiodun Balogun Department of Management, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, Coimbatore, India Mariusz Baranowski Department of Sociology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Szamarzewskiego, Poland Ivana Blešić Department of Geography, Faculty of Sciences, Tourism and Hotel Management, Trg Dositeja Obradovića, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia; Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia Bruno Borsari Department of Biology, Winona State University, Winona, MN, USA José Luís Braga Departmental Unit of Social Sciences, Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Tomar, Portugal Ricardo Carvalhido Câmara Municipal de Viana do Castelo, Centro de Ciências da Terra da Universidade do Minho, Viana do castelo, Portugal Alexandra I. Correia Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Unidade de Investigação Aplicada em Gestão (UNIAG), Viana do Castelo, Portugal; Centro de Investigação em Turismo, Inovação e Desenvolvimento (CITUR), Portugal Bruno Miguel Barbosa de Sousa CiTUR and UNIAG Research Member, Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave, Barcelos, Portugal Dunja Demirović Bajrami Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia; Department of Tourism and Socio-Cultural Service, Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia

ix

x

Contributors

Bojan M. Đerčan Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia Marta Dionísio Departmental Unit of Social Sciences, Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Tomar, Portugal Sara Fernandes Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave (IPCA), Barcelos, Portugal Daniela Ferreira Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave (IPCA), Barcelos, Portugal Manuel J. Fonseca Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Unidade de Investigação Aplicada em Gestão (UNIAG), Viana do Castelo, Portugal Dhwani Gambhir Eternal Light LLP, New Delhi, India Francisco Ugel Garrido Universidad Tecnológica Oteima, David, Chiriquí, Panamá Dragica Gatarić Department of Human Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia Edmundo González Universidad Tecnológica Oteima, David, Chiriquí, Panamá Magdalena Kachniewska Department of Business in Transport, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland Beata Kaczor Department of Natural and Cultural Foundations of Tourism, Poznań University of Physical Education, Poznań, Poland Ahmad Mohd Khalid Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India Beata Kolny Department of Market and Consumption, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland Adrian Lubowiecki-Vikuk Department of Consumer Behavior Research, Institute of Management, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland Aleksandra Machnik The Angelus Silesius University of Applied Sciences in Wałbrzych, Wałbrzych, Poland David W. Marcouiller Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA Susana Marinho Instituto Politécnico do Cávado e Do Ave, Barcelos, Portugal Dorota Mroczkowska Department of Sociology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Szamarzewskiego, Poland Ricardo Pagan Department of Applied Economics, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain

Contributors

xi

Aleksander Panasiuk Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Tourism and Sport Management Chair, Institute of Entrepreneurship, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Krakow, Poland Marko D. Petrović Department of Social Geography, Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” SASA (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts), Belgrade, Serbia; Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia Daniel Puciato Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Opole University of Technology, Opole, Poland Milica Rančić Demir Faculty of Tourism, University of Maribor, Brežice, Slovenia Michał Rozpara Institute of Sport Sciences, The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education, Katowice, Poland Hugo A. Sampaio Laboratório de Paisagens, Património e Território (Lab2PT), Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal Seema Sharma Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India Lakhvinder Singh Department of Tourism Management, Government College, Kaithal, Haryana, India Aleksandra Terzić Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia Tatiana N. Tretiakova Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia Maria Zamelska Faculty of Finance and Banking, WSB University in Poznań, Poznań, Poland

List of Figures

Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable Development Perspective Fig. 1

The conceptual model of social welfare. Source (Baranowski 2019a, p. 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Mean UCLA loneliness scores by participation in leisure activities (i.e. never, seldom, at least once a month, at least once a week) by disability status in Germany (2013 and 2017). Note Weighted data. Individuals aged 16 or over. Source SOEP for the years 2013 and 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean values of participation in leisure activities (0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = at least once a month, and 3 = at least once a week) by disability status in Germany (2013 and 2017). Note Weighted data. Individuals aged 16 or over. *Difference between “people without disabilities” and “people with moderate disabilities” is significant at P < 0.05. **Difference between “people without moderate disabilities” and “people with severe disabilities” is significant at P < 0.05. Source SOEP for the years 2013 and 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

72

Selected Determinants of Recreational and Tourist Activity of the Inhabitants of Rural Communes of the Poznań Metropolis Fig. 1

Distribution of rural communes in the Poznań Metropolis. Source Own research, based on www.zit.metropoliapoznan.pl accessed on 13.09.2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

xiii

xiv

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

List of Figures

Duration of recreational and tourist activity in the Poznań Metropolis of the inhabitants (n = 174) of rural communes of the Poznań Metropolis in relation to gender (%). Source Own research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duration of recreational and tourist activity in the Poznań Metropolis of the inhabitants (n = 174) of rural communes of the Poznań Metropolis in relation to age (%). Source Own research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Needs conditioning recreational and tourist activity of the inhabitants (n = 180) of rural communes of the Poznań Metropolis in relation to gender (% of respondents). Source Own research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Needs conditioning recreational and tourist activity of inhabitants (n = 180) of rural communes of the Poznań Metropolis in relation to age (% of respondents). Source Own research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Areas of 2015 and 2016 recreational and tourist activity of the inhabitants of rural communes of the Poznań Metropolis (%). Source Own research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

101

..

101

..

102

..

102

..

107

Rural Community Prosperity Versus Tourism Progress: An Example of Sustainable Opportunities Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

Possible effects of tourism on local community. Source Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The theoretical model regarding the proposed sub-hypotheses. Source Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Four aspects of local communities’ wellbeing. Source Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113 115 122

A Typology of Hosts in Housing Tourism Fig. 1 Fig. 2

The grounded theory process. Source Adapted from Saldaña (2009, p. 43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of the vocational and non-vocational hosts. Source Braga (2016, p. 404) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195 196

Glamping and the Development of Sustainable Tourism: A Portuguese Case Study Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Proposals for the correct development of sustainable tourism. Source https://www.skyscanner.com.br/noticias/turismosustentavel-boas-praticas-para-viagens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natura glamping. Source https://q-cf.bstatic.com/images/hotel/ max1024x768/187/187155892.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

211 214

List of Figures

Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11

Fig. 12 Fig. 13

Domos Geodésicos. Source https://q-cf.bstatic.com/images/ hotel/max1024x768/213/213378741.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yoga classes. Source https://q-cf.bstatic.com/images/hotel/ max1024x768/187/187155474.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nomad Planet. Source https://q-cf.bstatic.com/images/hotel/ max1024x768/704/70420143.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lounge area. Source https://r-cf.bstatic.com/images/hotel/ max1024x768/332/33200788.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paragliding activities. Source https://r-cf.bstatic.com/images/ hotel/max1024x768/295/29531102.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Direction South. Source https://r-cf.bstatic.com/images/hotel/ max1024x768/141/141820042.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treehouse and traditional tent. Source https://r-cf.bstatic.com/ images/hotel/max1024x768/141/141818635.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . Bukubaki Eco Surf Resort. Source https://r-cf.bstatic.com/ images/hotel/max1024x768/101/101846807.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . Gypsy tents and houses suspended in the trees. Source https://r-cf.bstatic.com/images/hotel/max1024x768/117/ 117657582.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YMCA Camp Alambre Bungalows. Source https://www. mybesthotel.eu/pic/_01_5b0d1efd870c8.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bungalows. Source https://q-cf.bstatic.com/images/hotel/ max1024x768/143/143516350.jpg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xv

..

215

..

216

..

216

..

217

..

217

..

218

..

218

..

219

..

219

..

220

..

220

Ecotourism as a Core of Sustainability in Tourism Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Ecotourist and other groups of tourism in relationship to chosen personal needs. Source own elaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The main problems connected with ecotourism development in tourism destinations. Source own elaboration based on a literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

233

235

A Systems Approach to Ecotourism, Leisure and Education in Panamá: A Case Study Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Map of Batipa Field Institute (BFI). The dotted line is the internal road that from the entrance leads to the residence centre (Los Cabimos/Muelle). A schematic representation of a biological corridor and images of iconic, vertebrate, fauna species living at the site is shown at the bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual vision model of the areas of emphasis at Batipa Field Institute (BFI) that are employed in curricula at Oteima Technological University (OTU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

260

261

xvi

List of Figures

Smart Tourism: Towards the Concept of a Data-Based Travel Experience Fig. 1 Fig. 2

‘Anywhere-experiences’ layer (Airbnb). Source Airbnb.com [20.01.2020] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Search for experience layer (Vayable). Source vayable.com [12 Feb 2020] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

291 292

List of Tables

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends Table 1

Examples of social innovation in the area of leisure . . . . . . . .

5

Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable Development Perspective Table 1

Contributions to sustainability by type of journal 2005–2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities Table 1 Table 2 Table A.1

Regression results (OLS) on loneliness in Germany (2013 and 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regression results (OLS) on loneliness by gender in Germany (2013 and 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation matrix between loneliness and leisure activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74 77 81

Physical Activity of Male and Female University Students as a Manifestation of Sustainable Development Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5

Biometric variables of female and male university students from Wrocław . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socio-demographic and somatic characteristics of male and female university students from Wrocław . . . . . . . . . . . MET values for physical activity intensity levels assessed with IPAQ-SF (Biernat et al. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Habitual physical activity of male and female university students from Wrocław . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levels of physical activity of male and female university students from Wrocław following the IPAQ-SF criteria . . . .

..

86

..

87

..

87

..

90

..

90 xvii

xviii

Table 6

List of Tables

Physical activity levels depending on the gender of male and female university students from Wrocław . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

Selected Determinants of Recreational and Tourist Activity of the Inhabitants of Rural Communes of the Poznań Metropolis Table 1 Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Pearson correlation coefficients of the analysed variables . . . Duration of recreational and tourist activity in the Poznań Metropolis taken in 2015 by its inhabitants (n = 1 458) in relation to a type of inhabited communes (%) . . . . . . . . . Needs conditioning recreational and tourist activity of inhabitants (n = 1 539) of the Poznań Metropolis in relation to a type of inhabited commune (%) . . . . . . . . . . Features and elements of environment preferred by the inhabitants (n = 180) of rural communes of the Poznań Metropolis (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

104

..

105

..

106

..

106

....... .......

116 118

.......

119

.......

120

.......

121

Rural Community Prosperity Versus Tourism Progress: An Example of Sustainable Opportunities Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5

Respondents’ characteristics (N = 331) . . . . . . . . . . . The factors analysis results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance according to the relation of the respondents’ jobs with tourism activities (N = 331) . . Analysis of variance according to the perception of the rate of growth of community (N = 331) . . . . . Analysis of variance according to the amount of the respondents’ average monthly incomes (N = 267) . . .

Rural Tourism and Its Contribution to Sustainable Development in Jyotisar, Kurukshetra (Haryana), India Table 1 Table 2

Awareness of rural tourism by respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role of rural tourism in sustainable development in area . . . . .

163 165

Sustainable Development of Rural Tourist Settlements in Serbia: Building A Better Future for All Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

Tourist and recreational activities in the countryside . . . . . . . . Basic pro-poor tourism strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poverty rate in Serbia by type of settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175 177 179

A Typology of Hosts in Housing Tourism Table 1 Table 2

Positive and negative impacts of tourism in rural areas . . . . . . Types of hosts and their characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

191 197

List of Tables

xix

Glamping and the Development of Sustainable Tourism: A Portuguese Case Study Table 1

Chronology of the path of sustainable tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . .

207

Ecotourism as a Core of Sustainability in Tourism Table 1

Chosen definition of ecotourism in the sustainability context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

226

Environmental Sensibility and Human Values as Factors for Forming European Ecotourist Market Segments Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

Principal factor analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final clusters from the non-hierarchical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . Socio-demographic characteristics across clusters . . . . . . . . . . .

247 249 250

A Systems Approach to Ecotourism, Leisure and Education in Panamá: A Case Study Table 1 Table 2

Students at BFI between 2014 and 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students at BFI between 2017 and 2019 from universities in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

264 265

Smart Tourism: Towards the Concept of a Data-Based Travel Experience Table 1

Types of context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

299

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends Adrian Lubowiecki-Vikuk, Bojan M. Ðerˇcan, and Bruno Miguel Barbosa de Sousa

1 Introduction Leisure is a phenomenon that moves millions of people around the world and is one of the main drivers of a global economy. Every year, due to frequent changes in the leisure and tourism environment, leisure fosters competition between and within destinations, making it increasingly a multifaceted and geographically complex activity, where different services are requested and provided at different stages, from origin to destination (Ferreira and Sousa 2020; Sousa and Silva 2019). Leisure activities aimed at engaging various social milieus in creative and active forms—such as (amateur) sport, broadly defined recreation (physical/motor, creative, cultural, and social activities and entertainment) or active tourism—serve the collective improvement of the social, cultural, environmental and economic quality of life in society (e.g. Aguiar and Hurst 2007; Davidson and Stebbins 2011; Horolets et al. 2019; Katsoni and Segarra-Oña 2019; Majdak 2019; McCullough et al. 2016; Niezgoda 2017; Roberts 2011; Romão 2018; Saufi et al. 2017; Stankov et al. 2019; Zamelska and Kaczor 2019). Despite numerous benefits of participating in leisure, especially health-related ones (Kim et al. 2014), some people do not have the opportunity to enjoy it in a satisfactory manner (Dattilo et al. 2019). The United Nation’s SDGs A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk (B) Department of Consumer Behavior Research, Institute of Management, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Al. Niepodległo´sci 162, 02-554 Warsaw, Poland e-mail: [email protected] B. M. Ðerˇcan Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovi´ca 3, 21 000 Novi Sad, Serbia e-mail: [email protected] B. M. B. de Sousa CiTUR and UNIAG Research Member, Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave, Campus do Instituto Politécnico, 4750-810 Barcelos, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al. (eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Development and Leisure Services, World Sustainability Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59820-4_1

1

2

A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al.

address, directly or indirectly, the important role of leisure and sport in social progress. These activities contribute to empowering and promoting tolerance and respect towards women and the elderly, and individuals and communities as a whole, including people with disabilities (Pagan 2019; Ratten 2019). This is particularly important now, as demographic trends clearly indicate that societies are aging, an increasing number of people are living alone, and thus the family model is changing (Dąbrowska et al. 2018; Foot 2004; Gardiner et al. 2018; Lubowiecki-Vikuk 2014). Paving the way for greater integration of gender and sexual minorities and support for them in sport (Krane 2019; Lubowiecki-Vikuk and Godlewski 2020) and tourism (Lubowiecki-Vikuk 2016; Lubowiecki-Vikuk and Borzyszkowski 2016) is equally important. Financially disadvantaged individuals (Giampiccoli et al. 2014; Puciato et al. 2020) and consumers who differ in terms of religion, ethnicity and race still pose a challenge for leisure sector service providers. According to numerous researchers (e.g. Davidson and Stebbins 2011; Lee 2020), social changes in the world of leisure, underlying situations, and the influence of individual and collective actions on social changes are factors that shape serious leisure. The debate on the fragmentation and diversification of leisure practices has implications for the sustainability of leisure. Ropke and Godskesen (2007, p. 158) defined sustainable leisure on a fundamental level as: • • • • •

time consuming requiring low levels of resources close to home utilizing shared facilities focusing on one thing at a time.

Given the above, this chapter makes a contribution to the discussion on leisure in the context of sustainable development. Thus, its purpose is to identify leading trends in the leisure market, including sustainable development. It is important to refer to the ongoing changes from the perspective of this issue’s key dimensions, i.e. social, business and environmental responsibility. In order to achieve this goal, we have conducted a literature review on leisure, including sport and tourism, in connection with sustainable development. In doing so, we referred to its three pillars (social, economic and environmental), which are reflected in the structure adopted in this chapter.

2 Leisure from the Perspective of Social Responsibility One of the pillars of the sustainability triad is ‘social sustainability’. It is difficult to grasp, and thus to define, as it encompasses all the interconnected spheres of human life (James et al. 2015). Traditionally, ‘social sustainability’ pertains to the current and future generations in areas such as: community development and resilience, cultural competence, (health) equity, human adaptation and rights, labor rights, livability, placemaking, social capital, social equity, social justice, social support, and social

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends

3

responsibility (Dąbrowska 2013; Magee et al. 2012; Murphy 2012). The latter seems to be one of the most important areas in the context of leisure. Social responsibility is the ethical framework in the form of rights and obligations, and it serves as a reminder of the need to carry out active and passive human activities (e.g. volunteering, responsible digitisation of leisure) for the benefit of others, while maintaining balance with other pillars of sustainable development (Silk et al. 2016). In other words, the aim of ‘social responsibility’ is to remove all barriers and to deliberately involve people and communities who are excluded from participation in socio-economic life, in which leisure determines the quality of life. An uncontrolled shift from physical activity to eLeisure, eTourism, eSport and virtual reality (Carlson and O’Cass 2011; Lubowiecki-Vikuk and Sousa 2020; Miah 2017; Nimrod and Adoni 2012) may have not only a negative impact on health (see Kuykendall et al. 2020) but may also seriously disrupt social relations. There is scientific evidence that although online social networks (which were established to engage people through social communication and interaction and fulfill various functions in the personal sphere) may improve the sustainability of tourism (Sobhanifard and Vaeysi 2020), it must be clearly stressed that this is in regards to the tourism industry itself and not the social dimension of tourism. In the broader context of leisure, emphasis is placed on social capital as a factor that protects against social isolation and at the same time influences the quality of life (Dahl and MalmbergHeimonen 2010; Lyu et al. 2019). However, this is not an easy solution either. The study by Horolets et al. (2019) clearly shows that ‘for some rural-to-urban immigrants, practices of social capital maintenance became disconnected from recreation in natural environments, while for all participants, nature-related cultural capital had low transferability in a migratory situation’ (Horolets et al. 2019, p. 313). Depending on their position in a new social situation, immigrants have developed different strategies to use their local environment for recreational purposes. Some strategies have contributed to the preservation of the old habits, while one strategy (finding substitutes) has contributed to a gradual change in the habits related to the nature of immigrants. Therefore, society should be encouraged to experience leisure with greater involvement in real, non-virtual human interactions. This should apply not only to the elderly but also to younger generations, while maintaining respect for their cultural identity, customs and habits. Bedford et al. (2011) have pointed out that in general the issue of sustainable leisure (also called serious leisure) is not as well recognized as the issue of leisure in the context of a sustainable lifestyle. The latter goes beyond consumerism and redirects leisure towards spending time outdoors or developing one’s own passions instead of going shopping (Jackson 2009). In a context of (still growing) social inequality and ‘inequalities’ in leisure (Aguiar and Hurst 2007), particular attention should be paid to sustainable lifestyles and the place of leisure in the hierarchy of needs. Jensen (2007) suggests that the sustainable lifestyle should be analyzed from several perspectives, due to its complexity. Social and cultural processes need to be addressed in a broader sense. ‘Structural changes’ are necessary to enable ‘lifestyle choices’ that are conducive to sustainable development, but it is also important to go beyond ‘sustainable development’

4

A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al.

(however defined) and refer to other programs and identities in order to motivate the manifestation of pro-ecological behavior (Evans and Abrahamse 2009). More and more companies in the leisure sector are integrating these social aspects and philanthropy into their strategies to differentiate themselves from their competitors (González-Serrano et al. 2020; Pereira and Sousa 2020; Ratten 2010; Soboci´nska 2019). This in turn has led to the implementation of more social innovations in this service sector (Katsoni and Velander 2018; McCullough et al. 2016; Nuere and Peris 2019). Ratten (2019) has noticed that there is now a greater emphasis on social entrepreneurship in sport due to the growing need to capture its influence on society. An example of good practices in professional sport (see Erickson 2017) is the activity of an NBA team, which has implemented internal volunteer programs that are increasingly important as the workforce becomes mostly millennial and Gen Z (King 2019). But consumers themselves are also becoming more and more aware (Dąbrowska 2013). Among the buyers of tourist services there are those who choose those types and forms of tourism (e.g. ecotourism, rural tourism) that—at least in theory—degrade the environment to a lesser extent than other types (Idziak et al. 2015; Machnik 2013; Pitkänen et al. 2014). Most often this pertains to the choice of the means of transport. Therefore, the development of car-free greenways as an alternative environmentally friendly communication system (Mundet and Coenders 2010) may be an inseparable element of social responsibility, especially for local communities living in the tourist destinations visited. Leisure in cities is an important part of sustainable development. Today, many people migrate to large cities, which are destinations for numerous individual and mass tourists who often combine leisure with business or, for example, consumption of medical services (Machnik and Lubowiecki-Vikuk 2020). Both groups of tourists are looking for innovative solutions with regard to leisure. And these are available in the smart city/‘happy city’, where the emphasis is placed not only on technological progress, but above all on social innovation (Montgomery 2014). Social innovations in the area of leisure pertain to new ideas that contribute to solving complex social problems in the context analyzed (Tjønndal and Nilssen 2019). Examples are presented in Table 1. The urban leisure format deserves special attention. Zmyslony and W˛edrowicz referred to it as ‘local, seasonal, short-lived and repeatable smallscale place-time-based staging urban leisure experiences which become the focus of recreation and tourism development in many cities’ (Zmyslony and W˛edrowicz 2019, p. 185) and identified the following: • • • • • • • • •

urban art and cultural festivals day/evening socializing spots open-air cinemas serious leisure events outdoor dance zones local fan zones culinary events/food fests urban beaches/waterfront areas street parades and marches (Zmyslony and W˛edrowicz 2019, p. 188).

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends

5

Table 1 Examples of social innovation in the area of leisure Country

Case

Norway

BUA is a volunteer organization whose aim is to facilitate participation in sport and leisure activities by providing local communities with a library of sports equipment that can be hired free of charge. Bodø is one of about 80 Norwegian municipalities to have established a BUA rental office for this purpose. As an organization, BUA’s core values are to make sport and leisure activities more socially inclusive by reducing the participation costs and to make sport participation more sustainable and environmentally friendly (Tjønndal and Nilssen 2019)

Poland, Wrocław

Fundusz Czasu Wolnego (Leisure Fund). The program is intended for the authorities of residential areas in Wrocław. The idea is to organize leisure activities during public holidays and holidays for local communities, using all available sport, recreational, social and cultural initiatives. Residents can take part in numerous initiatives free of charge. The events include canoeing, roller-skating competitions, cross-country running, a series of ecological picnics, an outdoor cinema, and workshops promoting health food

UK, the South West of England The South West Well-being Programme (2008–2011) was developed and run by fifteen community-based voluntary sector organizations. It was funded by the Big Lottery, a group of local government and healthcare commissioning bodies that could assess the program in terms of its reasons, design and quality. It also received support from volunteers. Key characteristics of the program were: • a focus on individuals experiencing low level mental ill health, long term health conditions, low levels of physical activity and/or diet related ill-health. These criteria were combined with low income and/or social isolation • the provision of a holistic service that focused on the social aspects of health and well-being: inclusion, fun, non-judgmental and non-threatening, people-centered and self-directed lifestyle change • a focus on reducing stress and anxiety, increasing physical activity and healthy eating, through confidence building and encouraging finding friends, developing social networks and local community participation • a focus on local collaboration with other agencies and stakeholders interested in health promotion and building community capacity (Jones et al. 2013) Source The author’s own study

6

A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al.

The authors quoted believe that the urban leisure formats mentioned have an impact on the space and disturb the existing urban landscape (or in fact its parts) to a lesser degree than previous urban leisure formats. The activities are usually organized locally and are community-led or owned (by neighborhood associations, social movements in the city or local entrepreneurs and activists) with the participation, commissioning or permission from local government agencies, and they make use of public space. This pioneering concept may be an antidote to the aforementioned problems of increasing social isolation (Lubowiecki-Vikuk 2011; Malchrowicz-Mo´sko and Lubowiecki-Vikuk 2020), since (in simple terms) its ultimate value lies in socializing through leisure. The concept of sharing economy is in line with the idea of a smart city and, more precisely, of city living. Sharing surpluses shows not only concern for the environment, but also for the community (Dąbrowska and Jano´s-Kresło 2018). In the market for leisure services, the practices of couch surfing, car sharing or the exchange of clothes and sports equipment are becoming increasingly popular. Among tourists, the experience and values related to eating local food are gaining importance. At the end of this part of the study we would like to discuss consumer behaviors in the market of leisure services. Although public participation in physical activity is not satisfactory, the number of new members of fitness clubs is increasing. A report by Deloitte shows that at the end of 2018, there were over 62,000 fitness clubs (premium, low cost, low-budget or mid-market) in European countries, which were attended by 62.2 million customers (Rutgers et al. 2019). The total revenue from this business was estimated at EUR 27.2 billion. At the same time, the global market value of one of the segments of the wellness industry, i.e. ‘fitness and exercise for body and soul’ amounted to more than EUR 543 billion in 2017 and had increased by 52.5% in comparison to 2010 (Lubowiecki-Vikuk 2018). Thus, according to Cotte and Trudel (2009), consumers who are environmentally conscious and involved in social issues buy goods and services much more often from socially responsible companies, but do not necessarily accept a higher price (average premium for socially conscious products and services is 10%). The consumers’ values are among the important factors influencing their socially responsible choices, but there are also other factors, such as prompting consumers, making their purchasing decisions visible, and making them feel like their purchases will make a difference, which may be more important than having the right sustainability attributes in the products and services (Cotte and Trudel 2009). It can be assumed that the situation in the leisure services market may be similar, although targeted and necessary research may be needed to validate this assumption.

3 Leisure in the Perspective of Business Responsibility ‘The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development’ UN (2002) gives support to the triple support pillar of sustainable development that is the protection of the environment and economic and social development. Furthermore, Alvarado

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends

7

and Martinez (2013) reinforce the importance of natural resources (which are finite) and, as such, it is necessary to protect, care for, enjoy and use them in a sustainable way. The debate about business, leisure and sustainability tends to focus on corporate responsibility. According to Battisti and Perry (2011), this is understandable in terms of the direct impact of individual organizations and the greater external pressure on them to change. Through their power in the marketplace, large enterprises exert influence over a much larger population of enterprises (Blowfield and Murray 2014). According to Pinto da Silva et al. (2019), leisure development should be implemented in line with the sustainability of organizational strategies and be equally distributed for social, environmental, and economic benefits to all the community’s stakeholders (Li and Wan 2013; Nunkoo and Gursoy 2012; Jeon et al. 2016; Seraphin et al. 2018). Several leisure activities are facing seasonal fluctuations of customers. Depending upon the major characteristics of leisure in the host community, one particular season may draw more tourism compared to other seasons (Jeon et al. 2016). Several studies have discussed the major aspects of leisure, such as economic benefits, social concerns, environmental sustainability, and their impacts on residents’ attitudes or perceptions toward tourism in the host community (Choi and Sirakaya 2005). Another important issue deriving from the excess of leisure is related to authenticity, and how to assure its preservation as part of cultural heritage and social life (Belhassen et al. 2008; Kim and Jamal 2007; Pinto da Silva et al. 2019). The global scale of commodities, finance, media, and population has transformed the discourse and raised questions about the continuing relevance of the traditional concepts of authenticity (Zhu 2012). The role of heritage as a carrier of historical values from the past means that it is seen as part of the cultural tradition of society. In leisure contexts, loyalty is held as the commitment to rebuy or enjoy the product/service again, giving consistency to the future of the same brand, regardless of the influences of the moment or marketing strategies (Prayag and Ryan 2012). In recent years, ‘the interest in relational studies has been increasing in the management literature’ (Koseoglu et al. 2016, p. 189). A visitor’s loyalty is related to the intention of returning to a tourist destination (revisit) and/or recommending it to relatives, friends and others (Alonso-Almeida et al. 2014). For instance, and according to Ferreira et al. (2019), creative tourism and several leisure activities depend heavily on the tourists’ active involvement and attachment, who are not just in a place and watching, but rather are interacting and co-creating the whole experience, actively learning about their outskirts and applying this knowledge to develop their own skills. Within creative tourism, interaction and a greater experience are allowed; that is, the tourist of today seeks the greatest dynamics and a direct contact with other cultures and traditions, seeking to feel other sensations (i.e. leisure in the perspective of business responsibility). In this context, the ancient and traditional art of the county of Barcelos, with its authenticity and variety, transforms all the wealth that makes this region the largest handicraft center in Portugal by representing and characterizing the greatest symbol of popular Portugal, the famous ‘Galo de Barcelos’. In Barcelos, this art represents the livelihood of several families and numerous artisans. It represents a

8

A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al.

great deal of the local economy. It is undergoing some changes with the evolution of the technology and economy of the country, which was necessary to frame the handicrafts in the present day, modernizing and innovating the artisanal talent (Ferreira et al. 2019).

4 Leisure in the Perspective of Responsibility for the Natural Environment Activities that people engage in during their leisure time include a very wide range of activities, from sports and recreation to tourism (Stebbins 2001). Each of these categories can be realized, at least partly, in the natural environment, such as hiking, running, swimming and other outdoor recreation. Leisure in nature is seen as a return to nature in which people feel connected to the natural world from which they have been separated by living a modern lifestyle in overpopulated urban areas (Kaplan 1995; Boyes 2009; Brymer et al. 2010; Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al. 2021). Therefore, protected natural resources are becoming attractive areas for these activities. They represent some of the most attractive tourist destinations of today. The most important types of protected natural resources are national parks, along with various other nature parks, reserves and other areas with natural features, diversity and cultural heritage—mountains, forests, rivers, lakes, seashores and the like. According to Ewert and Priest (1990), already in the 1960s there was a large increase in the number of visits to open spaces for recreation and enjoyment of the natural environment. Since the early 1960s, tremendous social and technological changes have occurred that have resulted in concerns about the health of our society, the realization that our children may need better education, and the belief that the well-being of our planet is in danger. However, in this sea of change, some things have remained relatively constant. One of these points of stability is our continued enjoyment of the natural environment during our leisure. Mountain bikes and allterrain vehicles are among the many innovations that have redefined this outdoor experience, but the essence of the experience remains the same—a positive and rewarding interaction that occurs when people exercise in the natural environment (Ewert 1983; Wyman 1985). Today, in the twenty-first century, leisure activities take a completely different dimension. Mass tourism and its expansion into all parts of the world during the second half of the twentieth century resulted in the degradation of many tourist destinations. The development of airplanes and other forms of transportation enables tourists to reach the farthest reaches of our planet. A situation where tour operators made travel arrangements at relatively reasonable prices led to the travel by all social classes (Yudina et al. 2016). Mass travel has caused more pressure on natural resources, where, for the sake of economic development, no account is taken of the social and environmental aspects that are important for the sustainable development

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends

9

of tourism (Gershuny 2000). Sustainable development means the integration of all segments of development, which are related to economic, social and environmental categories. Man’s pressure on nature has grown to such an extent that loud warnings of uncontrolled economic development at the expense of the environment could be heard in the mid-twentieth century. The main cause of environmental problems was, and remains, a modern industry, since the tendency for its development was counterenvironmental (Markovi´c et al. 2014). Tourism and the consequences of tourism activities certainly have a large share in this. With the increase of leisure, earnings and the emergence of new fashion trends, more and more Europeans go on vacation each year. The adventurous spirit, as well as the increasing demand for trips that involve outdoor activities and cultural and recreational activities, are increasing in modern tourists (Kerr and Houge Mackenzie 2012; Lynch and Dibben 2016; Houge Mackenzie and Brymer 2020; Lee and Ewert 2019). Most tourists avoid destinations where the environment is disturbed (Kasser 2009). All major fast-growing industries can have negative impacts on the natural environment, and tourism is no exception. This sector is not only expanding, but also changing the way tourists travel. A growing trend is that people are increasingly going on shorter vacations, as well as traveling further and further away from their homes. Tourism accounts for about 50% of passenger traffic in Europe, which has serious consequences for both tourist destinations and areas along the tourist corridor (Holden 2007). Natural resources and local infrastructure are often at odds with the drastic increase in the number of people during the tourist season (Love Travel 2020a). Current trends in leisure activities include outdoor activities in protected natural areas or in rural areas, indoor activities and recreation, as well as enjoyment of cultural amenities (Davidson and Stebbins 2011; Rosa et al. 2019). The increase in the number of people pursuing their leisure activities in nature has also increased concerns for environmental conservation and the actualization of sustainable development in the face of widespread pollution of air, water and land, deforestation, fires, floods and other disasters that have long-term consequences on the climate of our planet (Marafa 2018). This is why the concepts of ecotourism, sustainable tourism, green tourism, naturebased tourism, low carbon tourism, sustainable development and other terms have become dominant in the literature on leisure activities which mainly take place in nature (Wearing and Neil 1999; Page and Dowling 2002; Fennell 2003; Honey 2008; Lee and Jan 2019). The goal of sustainable development in leisure activities is aimed at meeting the needs of tourists in naturally preserved areas. Therefore, it is not uncommon that in the EU countries the ultimate destination for travel and relaxation is protected areas. Visitors cite ‘clean air’, ‘clean water’, and ‘feel the nature’ as the basic motive for traveling to protected areas. Typically, for German tourists who drive, these motives rank high in third place (Revermann and Petermann 2002). Some authors place emphasis on rural tourism and farm tourism (Bernard 1994; Beus 2008) as forms of tourism that contribute to making the visitors become aware of the environment and environmentally friendly, thus contributing to the development

10

A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al.

of the eco-leisure concept. With the rise of environmental awareness and the inclusion of environmental-oriented ideology in the leisure field, it is optimistic to expect an increase in the importance of sustainable development and its implementation in tourism, recreation and leisure activities (Ron et al. 2008). The main objective of sustainable tourism is to enable tourists to enjoy and acquire knowledge about the natural, historical and cultural features of the environment, while preserving the integrity of the place and fostering the economic development and well-being of the local community. Sustainable development must not stop the development of tourism but allow for its development, so that tourists can see and experience what they want but not destroy what attracted them. At the same time, the social and cultural environment of tourist destinations cannot be destroyed or endangered. The tourism industry should communicate with and involve local communities in development (Fennell and Butler 2003; Dietz et al. 2005). Ecotourism refers, on the one hand, to a concept that encompasses a set of principles and, on the other, to a specific market segment. It is an environmentally responsible journey and visit to relatively untouched areas of nature to enjoy nature and appreciate it (like all accompanying cultural features from the past and present), which promotes conservation, has low visitor impact and provides beneficial active socio-economic involvement of the local population (Drumm et al. 2004; Honey 2008). In search of the best way to spend their leisure time, a new type of traveler has emerged, who is a responsible traveler or ecotourist. Through this type of vacation, the ecotourist expects an untransformed or partially transformed environment, thus experiencing a union with nature (Marques et al. 2017). An ecotourist during his vacation should contribute to the preservation of the environment and directly influence the reduction of the negative effects of mass tourism (Stojanovi´c 2007). The characteristics of outdoor destinations that meet the needs of ecotourists are preserved natural features within a protected landscape, a low density of development where areas of nature predominate, and no dominance of built-up areas (Jegdi´c and Miloševi´c 2012). They are also places for outdoor recreation designed to protect sensitive resources and improve accommodation facilities, where friendly and motivated staff provide genuine hospitality, a variety of local festivals and events show the pride of the local community in their natural environment and cultural heritage, and small local businesses display food and craft stands (Røpke and Godskesen 2007). In 1997, the Association for Ecological Tourism in Europe published recommendations for environmentally oriented travel planners. Developing guidance is a valuable aid for local players on how to develop ecotourism in their communities, ecosystems or specific sectors of the industry, such as accommodation or tour operators (Schütten and Räth 1997). Travel planners also have a great responsibility. The TUI Group, a world-leading leisure, travel and tourism company, is dedicated to reducing the external and internal environmental impacts of its activities. The TUI Group hotel brands such as Robinson, Grecotel, Iberotel, Dorfhotel, Nordotel and Riu are indicators of how environmental quality standards can be put into practice (TUI Group 2020). Their common goal is to collaborate on maintaining the quality of swimming water

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends

11

and beaches, protecting animals near hotels, and reducing environmental impact through improving eco-efficiency (energy consumption, water consumption, waste avoidance, reduced land use) in thousands of holiday hotels. With the same intention, the concept of ecolodge came about as a type of tourist accommodation that protects the natural and cultural components of its environment. During construction it has minimal environmental impact, and it is designed to fit into the specific context of the environment, use alternative, sustainable means of water consumption, ensure careful treatment of garbage and wastewater, work well with the locals, implement environmental education programs for both employees and tourists and contribute to the sustainable development of the local community through research programs (Uriely and Ron 2004). Visitors are mostly independent travelers who travel without a tour guide. Local guides are hired, who are usually strongly motivated to present the natural attractiveness of the homeland to the people visiting, and due to their knowledge, they are sincerely respected by the visitors. There are many opportunities for leisure activities: bird watching, canoeing, horseback riding, cycling, trips to beaches, educational visits to local museums, zoos, butterfly farms, and some more extreme ones, such as jungle walking or rope trails (Love Travel 2020b). Another example of a good practice in the fight for environmental conservation is the action taken by the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy, whereby some 400,000 volunteers around the world cleared 27,400 km of coasts, riverbeds and seabeds during the International Coastal Cleanup Day. More than 3.2 million cigarette butts and about 1.3 million plastic bags were collected. Volunteers also found 26,585 car tires, which would be enough for 6646 cars. Of the 104 countries participating in this 23rd International Cleanup Day, almost half of the volunteers were from the US, along with significant numbers of volunteers from Japan, the Philippines and Canada (Love Travel 2020a). The development of leisure activities cannot be viewed separately from economic indicators, but it is necessary to understand that these indicators are the only measure of successful development. Leisure consumption includes all the goods and services we consume during our free time, such as outdoor recreation, tourist travel, but also just reading a book or watching television (Gronow and Southerton 2010). According to Aall et al. (2011), researchers and policy makers have paid relatively little attention to the negative impacts that leisure consumption has on the life span. People are more inclined to understand how to reduce environmental impact through their daily consumption than through leisure consumption. This issue has been addressed indirectly, mostly in works dealing with sustainable tourism or the negative impacts of transport and leisure transportation on the environment. The authors also mention the link between energy consumption and leisure activities (Becken and Patterson 2006; Lee and Jan 2019), but this issue is not sufficiently addressed in the contemporary literature on leisure studies (Ormrod and Wheaton 2009). Focusing solely on making a profit has led to the degradation of tourist destinations, national parks and some parts of cities, as well as the emergence of environmental problems. The first environmental problems arose with the development of modern industry and mass tourism. Such activities have had a negative impact

12

A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al.

on the environment. Tourism, on the other hand, exerts its negative effects not only on the environment through water and soil pollution, destruction of flora and fauna and degradation of the landscape, but also on the culture of the local population, destroying everything it is based on. The concept of sustainable development implies the harmonization of economic, ecological and cultural development. It is oriented towards the preservation of natural resources, environmental protection, and responsible and well-oriented development (Weaver 2006). Sustainable tourism is a longterm process in which the local community, as a basic social and political community, can become a leader in stimulating economic development, environmental protection, and establishing better social policies (Stojanovi´c 2007). In recent decades, great changes have taken place in the world. The issue of environmental problems cannot be solved within a single country. There was a need for each state to address specific issues in cooperation with other countries, and on the other hand, nation-states became too large for addressing complex and diverse issues regarding the local community, and thus also the sustainable development of leisure activities. Likewise, destinations that choose to adopt the principles of sustainable development without the active involvement of local people in their implementation do not stand a great chance of success (Jegdi´c and Miloševi´c 2012). States, local governments and local communities play an important role in preserving natural resources and implementing sustainable development strategies in the domain of leisure activities. States, through legislation and incentives, can contribute to making protected areas places where ecotourism will be developed on the principles of sustainability to the greatest extent, and education can help local communities to cooperate and implement sustainable development. Only in this way can sustainability projects be guaranteed to be truly sustainable (Jackson and Smith 2018).

5 Conclusion Resulting from the orientation for sustainability, the UN declared 2017 as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development. This classification, as referred in UNWTO (2016, p. 4), serves to promote awareness in stakeholders on how they can be catalysts for a positive change, contributing for the development, prosperity and well-being of all. The urgency of the measure is emphasized by UNWTO (2016) for the protection of natural and cultural heritages and the preservation of ecosystems, strengthening an inclusive and participative tourism to stimulate economic growth, thereby increasing employment offers and business opportunities. Like all other activities, leisure activities have a negative impact on nature, so it is necessary to develop a strategy that will help outdoor tourism play a more active role in the conservation of living space, and above all to become sustainable. Today, sustainable development in tourism is the principle that regulates, with certain norms, the operation of tourism in natural and other areas. The development of tourism depends largely on the natural environment and its characteristics and on the local

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends

13

population and its culture (Simpson 2001). All natural and anthropogenic resources which make up the attractive elements of the tourist offerings are exploited, and the requirement is to regulate tourism, like all other industries that have a negative impact on the environment. This would make tourism developments sustainable (Weaver 2005). In recent years, tourism has been an industry leader in relation to other segments of the economy, making it the fastest growing industry in the world. It is also an industry that is quite difficult to control and regulate. Tourism has a significant responsibility for the economic, social, cultural and natural environment. Therefore, the task of tourism is to establish sustainable and responsible development in order to preserve all significant values in the environment, and to achieve a balance in which meeting the current needs of tourists will not jeopardize the needs of future generations. It is responsible tourism that is friendly to the natural and cultural heritage. The mistakes that have led to the degradation of many tourist destinations around the world due to the uncontrolled development of tourism need to be identified, and new foundations for tourism development whose environmental impact will be corrected must be laid. Based on the perceived need to promote and disseminate information on sustainable development in the scope of leisure management within communities and the reaction of enterprises to their needs, reliable and interdisciplinary research is desirable. Currently, the analysis of leisure behaviors of different people is not a leading research trend in the field of leisure in general. The essence is, or should be, to connect these behaviors with other areas of social and economic life and the impact of certain material, organizational and technical conditions, related, for example, to the creation of the urban leisure format. According to Roberts (2019), future research on leisure could focus on its relations with matters like aging, poverty and health. It seems that linking leisure to social capital or smart services would enrich leisure studies. From an interdisciplinary perspective, this study contributed to the literature on leisure tourism, business and destination management. In future research, we intend to show how these valid questions can be answered by introducing causal modeling, and discuss an approach to it—the structural equation modeling (SEM)— which is a rigorous technique for building and testing such models (in specific leisure and tourism contexts in a sustainability perspective). It is an advanced statistical methodology that provides models and results that are easy to understand and apply. We intend to confirm that a causal relationship exists. As a next step in the present research, we also propose interaction in loco with the visitors of the leisure activities and a more prolonged interaction with them in order to understand the needs that one intends to meet, the improvement proposals that they present, and the activities that they would like to undertake with environmental concerns.

References Aall C, Grimstad KI, Brudvik EA, Skuland SE, Støa E (2011) Leisure and sustainable development in Norway: part of the solution and the problem. Leisure Stud 30(4):453–476

14

A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al.

Aguiar M, Hurst E (2007) Measuring leisure: The allocation of time over five decades. Quart J Econ 122(3):969–1006 Alonso-Almeida MD, Bernardo M, Llach J, Marimon F (2014) Building loyalty through functional and hedonic quality. Ind Manag Data Syst 114(3):387–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-062013-0278 Alvarado J, Martínez P (2013) Las Teorias Del Desarrollo. En el Análisis del Turismo Sustentable. Intersedes 14(27):143–167 Battisti M, Perry M (2011) Walking the talk? Environmental responsibility from the perspective of small-business owners. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 18(3):172–185 Becken S, Patterson M (2006) Measuring national carbon dioxide emissions from tourism as a key step towards achieving sustainable tourism. J. Sustain. Tourism 14(4):323–338 Bedford T, Burningham K, Cooper G, Green N, Jackson T (2011) Sustainable leisure: escalations, constraints and implications. RESOLVE, Working Paper 12-11. https://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/806 472/. Last accessed 10 February 2020 Belhassen Y, Caton K, Stewart WP (2008) The search for authenticity in the pilgrim experience. Ann Tourism Res 35(3):668–689 Bernard L (1994) What is rural tourism? J Sustai Tourism 2(1–2):7–21 Beus C (2008) Agritourism: cultivating tourists on the farm. Washington State University Extension, Washington Blowfield M, Murray A (2014) Corporate responsibility. Oxford University Press Boyes M (2009) Outdoor adventures for the third age. In: Humberstone B (ed) Third age and leisure: research, principles and practice. Leisure Studies Association, Eastbourne, pp 81–96 Brymer E, Cuddihy TF, Sharma-Brymer V (2010) The role of nature-based experiences in the development and maintenance of wellness. Asia-Pacific J Health, Sport & Physical Education 1(2):21–28 Carlson J, O’Cass A (2011) Developing a framework for understanding e-service quality, its antecedents, consequences, and mediators. Manag Serv Qual 21(3):264–286. https://doi.org/10. 1108/09604521111127965 Choi HS, Sirakaya E (2005) Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. J Travel Res 43:380–394 Cotte J, Trudel R (2009) Socially conscious consumerism: a systematic review of the body of knowledge. Network for Business Sustainability. https://www.nbs.net/articles/nbs-report-socially-con scious-consumerism?rq=cotte. Last accessed 7 Feb 2020 Dahl E, Malmberg-Heimonen I (2010) Social inequality and health: the role of social capital. Sociol Health Illn 32(7):1102–1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01270.x Dattilo J, Siperstein GN, McDowell ED, Schleien SJ, Whitaker EB, Block ME, Spolidoro M, Bari J, Hall A (2019) Perceptions of programming needs for inclusive leisure services. J Park Recreat Admin 37:4. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2019-9514 Davidson L, Stebbins RA (2011) Serious leisure and nature sustainable consumption in the outdoors. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299375 Dąbrowska A (2013) Priorities for the EU consumer policy for 2014–2020. Handel Wewn˛etrzny 1(342):3–13 Dąbrowska A, Jano´s-Kresło M (2018) Collaborative consumption as a manifestation of sustainable consumption. Problemy Zarzadzania-Manag Issues 16(3):132–149. https://doi.org/10.7172/ 1644-9584.75.8 Dąbrowska A, Jano´s-Kresło M, Lubowiecki-Vikuk A, Słaby T (2018) Zachowania konsumpcyjne singli w Polsce [Consumer behaviour of singles in Poland]. SGH, Warszawa Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Ann Rev Environ Resour 30(1):335– 372 Drumm A, Moore A, Soles A, Patterson C, Terborgh EJ (2004) Ecotourism development, vol II: The business of ecotourism development and management. The Nature Conservancy, Worldwide Office, Arlington

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends

15

Erickson D (2017) Corporate social responsibility in sports: efforts and communication. Master’s Theses (2009–), p 426. https://epublications.marquette.edu/theses_open/426. Last accessed 7 February 2020 Evans D, Abrahamse W (2009) Beyond rhetoric: the possibilities of and for ‘sustainable lifestyles.’ Environ Polit 18(4):486–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903007369 Ewert AW (1983) Outdoor adventure and self-concept: a research analysis. Center of Leisure Studies, University of Oregon, Eugene Ewert A, Priest S (1990) Leisure in the natural environment-past, prologue, and promise. J Phys Educ Recreat Dance 61(4):33–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1990.10606503 Fennell DA (2003) Ecotourism: an introduction, 2nd edn. Routledge, London Fennell DA, Butler RW (2003) A human ecological approach to tourism interactions. Int J Tourism Res 5(3):197–210 Ferreira J, Sousa B (2020) Experiential marketing as leverage for growth of creative tourism: a cocreative process. In: Rocha Á, Abreu A, de Carvalho J, Liberato D, González E, Liberato P (eds) Advances in tourism, technology and smart systems. smart innovation, systems and technologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2024-2_49 Ferreira J, Sousa B, Gonçalves F (2019) Encouraging the subsistence artisan entrepreneurship in handicraft and creative contexts. J Enterpr Communit People Places Global Econ 13(1/2):64–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-09-2018-0068 Foot DK (2004) Leisure futures: a change in demography? In: Weiermair K, Mathies C (eds) The tourism and leisure industry: shaping the future (Chap. 1). Haworth Hospitality Press Gardiner C, Geldenhuys G, Gott M (2018) Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness among older people: an integrative review. Health Soc Care Community 26(2):147–157. https:// doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12367 Gershuny J (2000) Changing times: work and leisure in postindustrial society. Oxford University Press, Oxford Giampiccoli A, Saayman M, Jugmohan S (2014) Developing community-based tourism in South Africa: addressing the missing link. Afr J Phys Health Educ Recr Dance 20(3:2):1139–1161 González-Serrano MH, Hervás JC, Valantine I, Dos-Santos MA, Moreno FC (2020) Impact of lifestyle oriented-motivation and corporate social responsibility on multiadventure sports firms’ performance. Int Entrepr Manag J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00611-7 Gronow J, Southerton D (2010) Leisure and consumption in Europe. In: Immerfall S, Therborn G (eds) Handbook of European societies. Social transformations in the 21st century, pp 355–358. Springer, London Holden E (2007) Achieving sustainable mobility: everyday and leisure-time travel in the EU. Ashgate, Aldershot Honey M (2008) Ecotourism and sustainable development: who owns paradise, 2nd edn. Island Press, Washington Horolets A, Stodolska M, Peters K (2019) Natural environments and leisure among rural–to–urban immigrants: an application of bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, social and cultural capital, and field. Leisure Sci 41(4):313–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2018.1448023 Houge Mackenzie S, Brymer E (2020) Conceptualizing adventurous nature sport: a positive psychology perspective. Ann Leisure Res 23(1):79–91.https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2018. 1483733 Idziak W, Majewski J, Zmy´slony P (2015) Community participation in sustainable rural tourism experience creation: a long-term appraisal and lessons from a thematic villages project in Poland. J. Sustain Tourism 23(8–9):1341–1362 Jackson T (2009) Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite planet. Earthscan, London Jackson T, Smith C (2018) Towards sustainable lifestyles. Understanding the policy challenge. In: Lewis A (ed) The Cambridge handbook of psychology and economic behaviour (Chap. 16). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676349.017 James P, Magee L, Scerri A, Steger M (2015) Urban sustainability in theory and practice: circles of sustainability. Routledge, London

16

A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al.

Jegdi´c V, Miloševi´c S (2012) Ekoturizam. Fakultet za sport i turizam, Novi Sad Jensen M (2007) Defining lifestyle. Environ Sci 4(2):63–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/156934307014 72747 Jeon MM, Kang MM, Desmarais E (2016) Residents’ perceived quality of life in a cultural-heritage tourism destination. Appl Res Qual Life 11(1):105–123 Jones M, Kimberlee R, Deave T, Evans S (2013) The role of community centre-based arts, leisure and social activities in promoting adult well-being and healthy lifestyles. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 10(5):1948–1962. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10051948 Kaplan S (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol 15:169–182 Kasser T (2009) Psychological need satisfaction, personal well-being, and ecological sustainability. Ecopsychology 1:175–180 Katsoni V, Segarra-Oña M (eds) (2019) Smart tourism as a driver for culture and sustainability. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03910-3 Katsoni V, Velander K (eds) (2018) Innovative approaches to tourism and leisure. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67603-6 Kerr JH, Houge MS (2012) Multiple motives for participating in adventure sports. Psychol Sport Exerc 13(5):649–657 Kim H, Jamal T (2007) Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research 34(1):181–201 Kim J, Yamada N, Heo J, Han A (2014) Health benefits of serious involvement in leisure activities among older Korean adults. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being 9:1. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw. v9.24616 King B (2019) Feeling the impact: social responsibility in sports. Sports Bus J. https://www. sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2019/09/09/In-Depth/Social-responsibility.aspx. Last accessed 7 Feb 2020 Koseoglu MA, Rahimi R, Okumus F, Liu J (2016) Bibliometric studies in tourism. Ann Tourism Res 61:180–198 Krane V (ed) (2019) Sex, gender, and sexuality in sport: queer inquiries. Routladge, Oxon Kuykendall L, Lei X, Zhu Z, Hu X (2020) Leisure choices and employee well-being: comparing need fulfillment and well-being during TV and other leisure activities. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12196 Lee K (2020) Serious leisure is social: things to learn from the social world perspective. J Leisure Res 51(1):77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2019.1633233 Lee K, Ewert A (2019) Understanding the motivations of serious leisure participation: a selfdetermination approach. Ann Leisure Res 22(1):76–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2018. 1469420 Lee TH, Jan FH (2019) The low-carbon tourism experience: a multidimensional scale development. J Hosp Tourism Res 20(10):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348019849675 Li X, Wan YP (2013) Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development in Macao: a path model. Tourism Anal 18:443–455 Love Travel (2020a) Održivi razvoj turizma. https://www.lovetravel.rs/zelena-planeta/odrzivi-raz voj-turizma. Last accessed 12 Mar 12, 2020 Love Travel (2020b) Ekoturizam. https://www.lovetravel.rs/zelena-planeta/ekoturizam. Last accessed 12 Mar 2020 Lubowiecki-Vikuk A (2011) Determinanty aktywno´sci rekreacyjno-turystycznej osób samotnych w Wielkopolsce [Determinants of recreational and tourism activity among single men and women from the Wielkopolska]. AWF, Pozna´n Lubowiecki-Vikuk A (2014) Single senior citizens’ praxeological orientation to leisure-time physical activity. In: Flemr L, Nˇemec J, Kudláˇcková K (eds) Physical activity in science & practice. Karolinum, Prague, pp 105–116

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends

17

Lubowiecki-Vikuk A (2016) Leisure activities of LGBT singles: tourist behavior in the context of individual attributes. In: Adamczyk K (ed) Singlehood from individual and social perspective. Libron, Kraków, pp 191–207 Lubowiecki-Vikuk A (2018) Trendy w turystyce zdrowotnej i aktywnej [Health and active tourism trends]. Biuletyn KPZK PAN 269:9–26 Lubowiecki-Vikuk A, Borzyszkowski J (2016) Tourist activity of LGBT in European postcommunist states: the case of Poland. Econ Sociol 9(1):192–208. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071789X.2016/9-1/13 Lubowiecki-Vikuk A, Dąbrowska A, Machnik A (2021) Responsible consumer and lifestyle: sustainability insights. Sustain Prod Consum 25, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020. 08.007 Lubowiecki-Vikuk A, Godlewski G (2020) Identification of weight control behaviors in members of Polish amateur sports clubs for gender and sexual minorities. In: Ratten V, Hayduk T (eds) Statistical modelling and sports business analytics. Routledge, London, pp 75–93 Lubowiecki-Vikuk A, Sousa BB (2020) Consumer behaviour of silver singles on the e-tourist market. Problemy Zarzadzania-Manag Issues 18(1):159–176. https://doi.org/10.7172/16449584.87.7 Lynch P, Dibben M (2016) Exploring motivations for adventure recreation events: a New Zealand study. Ann Leisure Res 19(1):80–97 Lyu J, Huang H, Hu L (2019) Leisure education and social capital: the case of university programmes for older adults in China. J Hospital Leisure Sport Tourism Educ 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhl ste.2019.100207 Machnik A (2013) Nature-based tourism as an introduction to ecotourism experience—a new approach. J Tourism Chall Trends 1:75–96 Machnik A, Lubowiecki-Vikuk A (2020) Innovations in medical tourism against the paradigm of sustainable development background. In: Ratten V, Àlvarez-García J, de la Cruz del RíoRama M (eds) Entrepreneurship, innovation and inequality: exploring territorial dynamics and development. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429292583-9 Malchrowicz-Mo´sko E, Lubowiecki-Vikuk A (2020) Motivations to run among singles in management of sporting events. In: Ratten V (ed), Sport entrepreneurship: an economic, social and sustainability perspective. Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 978-1-83982-836-220201018 Magee L, Scerri A, James P (2012) Measuring social sustainability: a community-centred approach. Appl Res Qual Life 7:239–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-012-9166-x Majdak P (2019) Rozwój zrównowa˙zony i innowacje w turystyce [Sustainable development and innovation in tourism]. AWF, Warszawa Marafa LM (2018) Leisure in nature: the advent of eco-leisure in academic discourse. World Leisure J 60(3):178–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2018.1496526 Markovi´c D, Bulatovi´c I, Radi´c B (2014) Sociologija. Beogradska poslovna škola, Beograd Marques C, Reis E, Menezes J, Salgueiro MF (2017) Modelling preferences for nature-based recreation activities. Leisure Stud 36(1):89–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2015.101 4928 McCullough BP, Pfahl ME, Nguyen SN (2016) The green waves of environmental sustainability in sport. Sport Soc 19(7):1040–1065. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1096251 Miah A (2017) Sport 2.0. MIT Press, Cambridge Montgomery C (2014) Happy city: transforming our lives through urban design. Farrar Straus Giroux, New York Mundet L, Coenders G (2010) Greenways: a sustainable leisure experience concept for both communities and tourists. J Sustain Tourism 18(5):657–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/096695810 03668524 Murphy K (2012) The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustainability Sci Pract Policy 8(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733. 2012.11908081

18

A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al.

Niezgoda A (2017) Leisure and tourism—the relationship and changes. Folia Turistica 44:87–103. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0010.8729 Nimrod G, Adoni H (2012) Conceptualizing E-leisure. Loisir Et Société/Soc Leisure 35(1):31–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/07053436.2012.10707834 Nuere CO, Peris IV (2019) Leisure as a creative solution to collectively enhance the social, cultural, environmental, and economic quality of life of communities: a retrospective overview of the World Leisure International Innovation Prize. World Leisure J 61(3):241–250. https://doi.org/10. 1080/16078055.2019.1639277 Nunkoo R, Gursoy D (2012) Residents’ support for tourism: an identity perspective. Ann Tourism Res 39(1):243–268 Ormrod J, Wheaton B (2009) On the edge. Leisure, consumption and the representation of adventure of sports. Leisure Studies Association, Eastborne Pagan R (2019) Sport participation, life satisfaction and domains of satisfaction among people with disabilities. Appl Res Qual Life 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-9711-y Page S, Dowling R (2002) Ecotourism. Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd Pereira I, Sousa B (2020) Corporate social responsibility in the field of sports marketing: a study applied to SC Braga. In: Ratten V, Hayduk T (eds) Statistical modelling and sports business analytics. Routledge, London, pp 108–118 Pinto da Silva F, Brandão F, Sousa B (2019) Towards socially sustainable tourism in cities: local community perceptions and development guidelines. Enlighten Tourism A Pathmaking J 9(2):168–198 Pitkänen K, Adamiak C, Halseth G (2014) Leisure activities and rural community change: valuation and use of rural space among permanent residents and second home owners. Sociologia Ruralis 54(2):143–166 Prayag G, Ryan Ch (2012) Antecedents of tourists’ loyalty to Mauritius the role and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction. J Travel Res 51(3):342–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287511410321 Puciato D, Ole´sniewicz P, Rozpara M (2020) Quality of life with respect to physical activity level in the unemployed. Sustainability 12(10):4219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104219 Ratten V (2010) The future of sports management: a social responsibility, philanthropy and entrepreneurship perspective. J Manag Organ 16(4):488–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/S18333 67200001887 Ratten V (2019) Social entrepreneurship in sport: how sport can deliver social well-being. Routledge, London Revermann C, Petermann T (2002) Tourismus in Grofischutzgebieten, Wechselwirkungen und Kooperationsmöglichkeiten zwischen Naturschutz und regionalem Tourismus. Arbeitsbericht, Nr. 77, März 2002 Roberts K (2011) Leisure: stability and change. In: Wadsworth M, Bynner J (eds) A companion to life course studies: the social and historical context of the British Birth cohort studies. Routledge, London, pp 174–202 Roberts K (2019) A future for UK leisure studies: Back to work. Int J Sociol Leisure 2:239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41978-018-0020-z Romão J (2018) Tourism, Territory and Sustainable Development. Springer, Singapore. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-13-0426-2 Ron A, Shani A, Uriely N (2008) Eco-leisure: theory and practice. Leisure/Loisir 32(1):47–64 Ropke I, Godskesen M (2007) Leisure activities, time and environment. Int J Innov Sustain Dev 2(2):155–174 Rosa CD, Collado S, Cabicieri PC, Larson LR (2019) Nature-based recreation associated with connectedness to nature and leisure satisfaction among students in Brazil. Leisure Stud 38(5):682– 691. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2019.1620842 Rutgers H, Hollasch K, Ludwig S, Lehmkühler B, Gausselmann S, Rump C (2019) European health & fitness market report 2019. EuropeActive, Apr 2019. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/

Sustainable Development and Leisure Services: Changes and Trends

19

Deloitte/pl/Documents/Reports/pl_EuropeActive_Deloitte_2019_PL.pdf. Last accessed 7 Feb 2020 Saufi A, Andilolo IR, Othman N, Lew AA (eds) (2017) Balancing development and sustainability in tourism destinations. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1718-6 Schütten H, Räth B (1997) The environmentally oriented tour operator. a contribution to sustainable tourism development. Ecological tourism in Europe. Association for sustainable tourism, Bonn Seraphin H, Yallop AC, Capatîna A, Gowreesunkar VG (2018) Heritage in tourism organisations’ branding strategy: the case of a post-colonial, post-conflict and post-disaster destination. Int J Cult Tourism Hosp Res 12(1):89–105 Silk M, Millington B, Rich E, Bush A (2016) (Re-)thinking digital leisure. Leisure Stud 35(6):712– 723. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2016.1240223 Simpson K (2001) Strategic planning and community involvement contributors to sustainable tourism development. Curr Issues Tourism 4(1):3–32 Sobhanifard Y, Vaeysi M (2020) Mixed modeling of the social network mechanisms for the sustainable development of tourism: the case of Iranian Kurdistan. Sustain Dev 28(1):187–196. https:// doi.org/10.1002/sd.1981 Soboci´nska M (2019) The role of marketing in cultural institutions in the context of assumptions of sustainable development concept—A Polish case study. Sustainability 11(11):3188. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11113188 Sousa B, Silva M (2019) Creative tourism and destination marketing as a safeguard of the cultural heritage of regions: The case of Sabugueiro village. Revista Brasileira De Gestão E Desenvolvimento Regional 5(15):78–92 Stankov U, Boemi SN, Attia S, Kostopoulou S, Mohareb N (eds) (2019) Cultural Sustainable Tourism. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10804-5 Stebbins R.A. (2001). “Serious leisure”. Society 38, 4, 53–57. Stojanovi´c V (2007) Održivi razvoj turizma i životne sredine. PMF, Departman za geografiju, turizam i hotelijerstvo, Novi Sad Tjønndal A, Nilssen M (2019) Innovative sport and leisure approaches to quality of life in the smart city. World Leisure J 61(3):228–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2019.1639922 TUI Group (2020) TUI Group sustainability strategy. https://www.tuigroup.com/en-en/responsib ility/strategy. Last accessed 12 Mar 2020 UN (2002) The Johannesburg declaration on sustainable development. https://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/archives/wssd/documents/wssd_pol_declaration.pdf. Last accessed 10 Apr 2020 UNWTO (2016) A roadmap for celebrating together. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) Uriely N, Ron AS (2004) Allotment holding as an eco-leisure practice: the case of the Sataf village. Leisure Stud 23(2):127–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261436042000226336 Wearing S, Neil J (1999) Ecotourism: impacts, potentials, and possibilities. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford Weaver D (2005) Mass and urban ecotourism: new manifestations of an old concept. Tourism Recr Res 30:19–26 Weaver D (2006) Sustainable tourism: theory and practice. Butteworth-Heineman, London Wyman M (1985) Nature experience and outdoor recreation planning. Leisure Stud 4(2):175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614368500390131 Yudina EV, Uhina TV, Bushueva IV, Pirozhenko NT (2016) Tourism in a globalizing world. Int J Environ Sci Educ 11(17):10599–10608 Zamelska M, Kaczor B (2019) Tourist and recreational activity of senior residents of Wrocław. Studia Periegetica 27(3):1–19. https://doi.org/10.26349/ST.PER.0027.06 Zhu Y (2012) Performing heritage: rethinking authenticity in tourism. Ann Tour Res 39(3):1495– 1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.04.003 Zmyslony P, W˛edrowicz K (2019) Cities in the experience economy: the rise and the future of urban leisure formats. J Tourism Fut 5(2):185–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-01-2019-0011

20

A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al.

Adrian Lubowiecki-Vikuk has been teaching, researching and consulting the leisure of various communities for over 10 years. His scientific interests include consumer behaviour in the areas of sport, tourism and health. An important research subject he has focused on is medical tourism management. Bojan M. Ðerˇcan has been researching and teaching in the field of sustainability for over ten years. His scientific interests include the sustainability of urban and rural environments and balanced regional development. Bruno Miguel Barbosa de Sousa has been researching and teaching in the field of marketing and tourism for over twelve years. His scientific interests include niche tourism and segmentation, sustainability, consumer behaviour, marketing and strategy and brand management.

Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable Development Perspective Mariusz Baranowski and Dorota Mroczkowska

1 Introduction This chapter adopts two fundamental objectives that have been conceptualized in the perspective of developed countries in terms of welfare sociology (Baranowski 2017, 2019a, 2020). The first aim is to analyze the role and importance of leisure in the context of sustainable development. In other words, the aim of this part of the paper is to synthesize the knowledge resulting from leisure practice with regard to how it intersects with the concept of sustainable development in welfare sociology. As leisure is increasingly regarded as an essential value in terms of quality of life, there is a growing demand to combine this phenomenon with the broadly understood phenomenon of social welfare. The second objective concerns the impact of new technologies (algorithmic automation) on the daily practices of leisure time in developed capitalist societies. The main research question is namely, how algorithms based on new technologies change the subjective perception of leisure (especially quality of leisure) and the daily practices implemented within its framework (e.g. work and non-work regimes) (Scribano 2019). However, because we do not have data from empirical research by means of which we can falsify or confirm the nature and direction of the impact of these technologies, we have only focused on signaling their potential impact. We assume that the fundamental debate on leisure in the context of sustainable development is shaped today in specific, contradictory and ambivalent conditions. These conditions are connected to the pursuit of cohesion, the discovery of genuine or authentic freedom, contemplation or self-development, accompanied by opposing M. Baranowski · D. Mroczkowska (B) Department of Sociology, Adam Mickiewicz University, 89C, 60-568 Pozna´n, Szamarzewskiego, Poland e-mail: [email protected] M. Baranowski e-mail: [email protected] © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al. (eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Development and Leisure Services, World Sustainability Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59820-4_2

21

22

M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska

phenomena, i.e. destabilization and standardization, or connected with the functioning of the individual in post-modern conditions determined by—more or less visible—neoliberal work and leisure regimes (Bailey and Fernando 2017). These regimes are impregnated with new technologies, at the forefront of which algorithmization begins to dominate (Margaris et al. 2017) and is often combined with artificial intelligence (both based on big data).

2 Leisure and the Perspective of Sustainable Development: Research Opportunities and Constraints As a result of the changes that have taken place over the years in contemporary societies, there has been an ever-growing call for rethinking about how societies persist. One of the first and most cited global documents addressing such a call was the Brundtland Commission Report (WCED 1987) that proposed an imminent need for sustainable development, defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: (a) the concept of “needs,” in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and (b) the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs (WCED 1987, p. 43). This understanding of sustainable development is a strategy for improving the quality of life that encompasses society, the economy and the environment, and it emphasizes the need for both development and sustainability in and between the three areas (cf. Duran et al. 2015; Leitao 2018; Lekkai 2020; Vaugeois et al. 2017). Those researchers of leisure who decided to consider it in the context of sustainable development (cf. Blackshaw and Long 1998; Hemingway 1999; All 2011, Russel 2014; Ferguson and Alarcon 2015; Law and Wearing 2015) are actively devoted to understanding and promoting more sustainable behaviors and decision-making amongst both individuals and communities. Researchers emphasize that leisure has also been shown to foster socialization, community cohesion, democratic engagement and ultimately, resiliency. Russel (2014) adds that leisure, as with sustainability, is a complex concept with a contextual meaning depending on the individual, place or time. Mainly, personal sustainability can be assessed in terms of quality of life, “an individual’s perception of their position in life, in the context of the culture and values in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns” (WHOQOL Group 1995; in Vaugeois et al. 2017, p. 299). We can conceptualize quality of life through the concept of social welfare (Fig. 1), i.e., general welfare, which consists of objective determinants as well as subjective evaluation of physical, productive, material, social, as well as emotional and civil well-being, carried out according to our values (Baranowski 2019a).

Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable …

23

Fig. 1 The conceptual model of social welfare. Source (Baranowski 2019a, p. 10)

In the objective sense, i.e. statistical assessment of the quality of life, the state of the fulfillment of elementary life needs of a supra-individual nature is taken into account, while taking into account the threshold value of their fulfillment, i.e. the value defining the minimum and maximum level of fulfillment of needs, while taking into account the possibilities of the environment in which the unit will fulfill its needs. From the subjective point of view, it means the feeling of a happy, valuable and satisfying life based mainly on psychological-emotional criteria. Following the above-mentioned concept of multi-faceted social welfare, the quality of life in the context of the concept of sustainable development is related to the search for a “good life,” in which consumer needs are developed and satisfied to the same extent as psychological, social and spiritual needs (cf. Hull 2011). Of crucial importance in this context is the mentioned intra-generational justice that indicates that high ecological, economic and socio-cultural standards and equal rights are due to all people, inter-generational justice, which indicates in turn that no generation can demand higher material standards at the expense of the next generation, and the principle of responsibility (Rogall 2010). In line with this idea, each individual (as far as possible) is able to make a personal contribution to sustainable development by working on his or her own “sufficiency strategy,” which is to be a voluntary decision by individuals to gradually change their lives in accordance with ethical responsibility and the principles of internal and intergenerational justice.1 Pappas and Pappas (2015) emphasize that individual behavior creates the foundation for action in social, economic, and environmental sustainability and potentially guides our ability to work with one another to make life-affirming decisions. They propose the concept of sustainable individuals who are “characterized by creating harmony, 1 In

the context of the above strategies, the main points are to responsible consumption, including reducing consumption and lifestyle in favour of policies of simplicity; promoting an efficient and affordable society; improving health, tackling stress and speed of life; responsibility in the way we move and spend our leisure, encouraging environmental attitudes and awareness (for example, information campaigns and environmental NGOs); and applying sustainable land-use planning.

24

M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska

interconnection, and relatively high levels of self-awareness in their values, thoughts, behaviors, and actions as well as cultivating continued individual growth in their physical, emotional, social, philosophical, and intellectual abilities. Own sustainability includes possessing a well-developed and demonstrated value system that acknowledges the importance and interconnectedness of all global biological and social systems, and our appropriate place within them” (Pappas and Pappas 2015, p. 12). Although leisure researchers are involved in sustainability research, their contribution is still much smaller compared to other more traditional academic disciplines. The lack of scholarly work linking sustainability and leisure is especially alarming, considering leisurely activities are based on the inherent freedom of choice. McCole and Vogt (2011) emphasize that the future of leisure itself is dependent on access to sustainably managed resources. Vaugeois et al. (2017) conducted a study between 2005 and 2015 on the extent to which the most popular leisure and tourism journals—Leisure/Loisir, Journal of Leisure Research, Leisure Studies, Leisure Sciences, World Leisure, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Journal of Travel Research, Tourism Management and the Journal of Ecotourism—relate to the subject of sustainable development. The results in Table 1 show that leisure researchers address the issue of sustainability in three dimensions: ecological or environmental (the most common among researchers), socio-cultural, and economic, where only two subcategories are defined. The last category, on the other hand, was added to capture topics that have emerged outside the three areas and was called advancing inquiry into sustainability. In addition, as Vaugeois et al. (2017, pp. 312–317) emphasize, research on sustainability in the leisure journals has emerged more slowly than within the tourism journals both in the scope of topics explored and the volume of inquiry. Leisure articles could be described as just starting to explore sustainability, while articles on tourism seem to be more insightful, attempting to describe and explain how tourism intertwines with sustainability. They also emphasize that leisure scholars must be willing to question their research, role and practices in a way that not only results in a better understanding of both what leisure does to alleviate sustainability issues but also what it does to cause them. In addition, they highlight three areas worth exploring further. These concern, firstly, questions and research on the relationship between leisure time and sustainability. Secondly, they indicate that researchers should critically examine the influence of leisure consumption on sustainability. Armed with this type of evidence in the future, leisure research will be able to articulate its positive and negative influences with enhanced metrics, allowing for comparisons between other sectors and for the evaluation and monitoring of interventions. Thirdly, researchers should question existing practices in a way that allows for the proposal of new models and approaches to enhance sustainability through leisure. This aim could be substantially enhanced through the use of interdisciplinary research where critical reflection around sustainability is more evolved.

Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable …

25

Table 1 Contributions to sustainability by type of journal 2005–2015 Themes linked to sustainability

Contributions within leisure journals

Contributions within tourism journals

Protecting parks and natural areas

11

28

Connecting people to nature

3

Encouraging active transportation

3

Proposing adaptations and responses to climate change

1

Enhancing food security

4

Environmental sustainability

59

Socio-cultural sustainability Influencing social capital

4

Enhancing quality of life

3

Promoting social justice

3

A solution to health issues

2

Protecting heritage, culture and local communities

94 26 50

Economic sustainability Producing economic benefits Financial sustainability

12 5

Advancing inquiry into sustainability Questioning existing practices and thought

14

66

Measuring impacts of leisure/tourism on sustainability

5

76

Encouraging sustainable practices by operators and destinations

71

Defining and shaping responsible behavior of tourists or residents

84

Offering insights on researching sustainability

38

Offering tools to enhance sustainability

32

Source (Vaugeois et al. 2017, p. 308)

26

M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska

Given the importance of leisure and recreation for people and society, it is crucial to facilitate and support leisure activities that coincide with sustainable development. In this context, it is clear that it is crucial to promote not only an attitude towards leisure that meets the objectives of sustainable development but also to propose sustainable forms of recreation at the same time.

3 The Technological Transformation of Leisure (Algorithmic Automation) and Sustainable Development An important objective of research in the context of sustainable development should be to examine the impact of technologies on sustainable development. Research on the technological and commercial transformations of leisure must not assume only a positive contribution from these issues. A more likely scenario, as observed in research on tourism, is that leisure technology is as much a part of the problem as a potential solution/advantage. The fundamental question that arises here is whether, in a capitalist society based on sophisticated technologies (algorithms) and the idea of acceleration, it is possible to rest. Secondly, leisure has become an element of the market, an object of consumption, a kind of social experience where almost every aspect of an individual’s life is or can be designed in advance. Researchers agree on one thing: technologies increase the so-called “gray areas,” domains that cannot be classified exclusively as work-related or extra-occupational life, including leisure (Olson-Buchanan and Boswell 2006; Diaz et al. 2012; OlsonBuchanan, Boswell and Morgan 2016). Thanks to technology, individuals can efficiently respond to the demands of their professional or private life while at the same time being—psychologically or spatially—in a different domain of activity. Laptops or mobile phones help to coordinate schedules, save time and perform several tasks simultaneously. In particular, a smartphone, thanks to its small size (miniature) and ease of portability, the ability to communicate from any place or “multi-task” (combining a watch, a notebook, a phone, a music player, a camera in one device), has saved time and money in many situations, giving them a sense of comfort and independence. Technologies, which are entangled in the networks of social dependencies, act as a catalyst for broader processes related to the demarcation of work and life boundaries and ways of defining gray areas. In all analyzed cases, it was not possible to work without the use of mobile and communication technologies, which was further strengthened during the coronavirus pandemic (cf. Singer and Sang-Hun 2020). Technologies shape the way in which the examined individuals function in and out of work, but they are certainly not a direct factor determining the whole life of individuals. The role of technology is primarily limited to the fact that it determines a specific logic of functioning in the network, which can be modified by users and whose changes affect the organization of time, adaptation to the environment, and

Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable …

27

mental states of individuals and their practices. In the network society, social divisions are formed around a new category: information (Castells 2000; Mroczkowska and Kubacka 2019; Kubacka and Mroczkowska, 2020). The ways of using technology show different rules of access to information. The dual role of mobile and communication technologies, indicated earlier, makes it possible to specify several main domains of its mediation in shaping border areas: 1. Technologies are part of everyday practice, and therefore make it difficult for the subject to see its role in his/her life. Laptops and smartphones are seen as necessary tools to manage everyday activities effectively. They become almost transparent, operating as if out of hiding and beyond the sphere of consciousness. More and more often, the use of technology becomes thoughtless and embodied. 2. The paradox of technology’s operation lies in the fact that it naturalizes the lack of borders by maintaining the appearance of its distinct existence. Their strength is expressed in the fact that they are unnoticeable and that they can belong to both facets of life at the same time (e.g. you can have a non-business laptop, but it is still a laptop with the same capabilities; use of one smartphone in both spheres of life). 3. Technologies increase the distraction between work and life in a non-invasive way. Today, it is unlikely, if at all possible, to be wholly disconnected from use. Its inclusion in the sphere of border areas is, therefore, a necessary condition for the adequate performance of professional and family tasks. The penetration of the area of work and life through technology is like a new form of adaptation to the environment and life in the gray areas. 4. Technology deepens the legitimacy of the existence of gray areas: it legitimizes them. This is due, among other things, to the fact that they lead to a situation that can be called mental bilocation. Individuals, cognitively and emotionally, are at work, at home, or conversely, at work but focused on family or personal matters. Mobile and communication technologies are becoming tools with which we give ourselves the right to control where the borderline is (de facto, it is a situation of loss of activity with our own consent). Technological devices created for the purpose of increasing individual freedom and independence (and, above all, decision-making, e.g. regarding the time and place of receiving information) lead to entirely different experiences (apparent freedom). 5. Technologies serve to increase efficiency (e.g. taking a nap on time) and to reduce time—they make individuals feel compelled to respond more and more quickly to messages or to notifications. It also becomes necessary to manage the sphere of private and professional activity through mobile devices in such a way as to simultaneously combine and demarcate online accessibility (because, for example, the superior can see that the employee ignores the e-mail but is available on social networking sites). There are norms of simultaneity, which emphasize the immediacy and simultaneity of activities undertaken in different spheres of life.

28

M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska

In a more sophisticated form, i.e. algorithmic automation, these boundary areas are sifted through subtle—which in this context means invisible or unaware—technologies (Fernández-Macías 2018; Paško Bili´c 2018). Automated decision-making based on large amounts of data, systematically collected by supercomputers, is used in many areas of social functioning, including the “organization” of work and leisure. AMD (Automated Decision Making) systems, combining advanced technical infrastructure with social procedures, are used to make a number of decisions (traditionally under human control) by computer algorithms. Officially “supporting” the human decision-making process, they can in fact “replace” it, following a program, and learning (by machine) logic (the so-called artificial intelligence). Algorithmic automation in the context of leisure time, in addition to functions supporting human decisions, can serve to predict the needs and behavior of entire human populations. Taking into account the above-mentioned “standard” communication technologies, the algorithmic automation contributes to diagnosing and modeling the structure of work and forms of spending leisure. It is potentially a key determinant influencing in a “technologically internalized” way the perception of social welfare in general (objective, material) as well as subjective (psychological) terms. Among the significant and signaled changes, one should point out: firstly, the process of making working time more flexible; secondly, the (not apparent) process of shortening working time in favor of leisure time; and thirdly, the acceleration of the pace of life (and the paradoxes resulting from these three processes). The development of work flexibility supported by new information and communication technologies favors 24-h availability, 24 h a day, seven days a week. Leisure time in such a situation is blurred, the boundaries between leisure and working time are becoming more fluid, and the internal organization of both fields is less obvious, as it is subject to a continuous process of recording changes and suggesting solutions (including the intentional organization of leisure). Shortening working time is an important strategy of sustainable economic policy on a declarative level, but in fact it may mean “surveillance capitalism,” the term from Shoshan Zuboff (2019). The 1960s witnessed the flourishing of the concept of leisure time in a society or civilization—a left-wing utopia according to which the amount of working time should decrease in favor of leisure time accessible to all (cf. Dumazedier 1967; Kelly 1978; Gershuny 1992). Schor wrote that “in the 1960s, optimists expected that by the twenty-first century, citizens of the advanced industrialized nations would be living lives of leisure, perhaps suffering from a ‘crisis of leisure’, brought on by boredom and a failure to know how to spend time” (Schor 2006, p. 203). This included the British sociologist Gershuny, who supported his thesis about the imminent advent of the “leisure age” with projections of working time, which was shrinking under the influence of economic and technological change. Schor (2006, p. 203) went on to state that, instead of boredom, a significant shortage of time and high levels of stress in everyday life was commonplace. The supporters of the idea and vision of leisure society under the influence of the transformations taking place gradually rejected or modified their previous positions. In the case of K. Roberts, a British researcher on

Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable …

29

the subject, we can observe the evolution of views and their radicalization, which caused him to reject the ideas of the leisure society, treating them as utopian and naive (Roberts 1978, p. 146). J. Dumazedier wrote that the transformations taking place required broader and different visions than the previous ones. Thus he rejected the notion of a “leisure society” in favor of the “possible arrival of a civilization of leisure,” which is not a “golden age beginning tomorrow,” but “a collection of new social and cultural problems that must be seriously considered today” (follow Veal 2009, p. 39). Kelly (follow Veal 2009, pp. 60–61) pointed out the main reasons why the “leisure time era” did not come, stressing: firstly, the decline in working hours, which did not take into account the rising unemployment and the diversity of working hours, especially in the growing services sector; secondly, that the indicators of prophetic economic development did not work and the changes associated with globalization exacerbated social inequalities; and thirdly, that most of the “gains” in leisure time were absorbed by television and additional work, including domestic work, increasingly involving childcare and consumption. Concepts such as hunger for time, haste, striving, or time pressure characterize the temporal situations of contemporary people as well as their culture, increasingly often referred to as the culture of high speed or civilization of haste (follow Tarkowska 2001; Klein 2004; Szollos 2009). Godbey defines the lack of time as the greatest deficiency of the postmodern world (Godbey 2008, p. 76). Robinson and Goodbey, 1997, p. 25) point out that time has become the most valuable commodity and the greatest deficit for millions of Americans. Since the 1960s, the percentage of Americans who claim that they “still feel busy” has increased by more than half by those who indicate that they “work hard all the time” and often “stay at work until late.” In a 1996 study by the same authors, 40% of Americans indicated that lack of time is a greater problem than lack of money (Robinson and Goodbey, 1997, p. 25). Southerton and Tomlinson (2005) point out the problem of the dizzying pace of life and the associated sense of “shrinking” time among the English, Welsh and Scots. Researchers pointed to three phenomena that favor the experience of “shrinking” time, namely: actual overload, uncoordinated rhythms and temporal density (Southeron and Tomlinson 2005, pp. 232–236). The first process concerned “the time required to complete sets of tasks regarded as ‘necessary’, and refers to the changing distribution of practices in time” (Southeron and Tomlinson 2005, p. 232). It was related both to the increasing number of activities that we consider necessary today, and to the more time that individuals spend on some of them, such as consumption. G. Godbey drew attention to the growing sense of “what is necessary” that triggers this mechanism of actual overload, which means that the idea of leisure time spent on pleasures loses its raison d’être regardless of how many hours that individuals actually have off from work (Godbey 2008, pp. 34, 43–47). It is this growing sense of “what is necessary” that translates into additional activities for which individuals feel obliged to find time, which explains the paradoxical situation in which—despite gaining extra free time—people today feel busier than they did twenty or thirty years ago when they spent much more time at work on average. The second process indicated by the authors (Southeron and Tomlinson

30

M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska

2005, p. 233) raises problems related to the synchronization of activities in a situation where institutionalized—and thus relatively stable and universal in the scale of a given society—temporal systems are eroded under the influence of individualized time management practices and the rhythm of work and leisure. The third is related to the allocation and compression of activities over time, the accumulation of a large number of activities that individuals have to perform in a relatively short period of time, forcing them to “juggle tasks” and do several things at once (Southeron and Tomlinson 2005, p. 233). And these things are not “triggered,” and are increasingly organized by algorithmic automation, which is increasingly taking the form of “leisure technology” (cf. Turel 2019). As indicated by the authors of the research, the particular intensity that characterizes such situations brings a sense of action under substantial time pressure, causing a state defined by anguish (cf. Martini 2017). Being tormented by time resembles the rush and persecution of time in the sense that people are in a hurry to perform the tasks set before them for a limited period of time, or feel crushed by the burden of obligations towards others. People who are particularly vulnerable to living in times of under-treatment are relatively young, well-educated middle-class people with a high professional status, whose lifestyle is characterized by “cultural omnivorousness,” understood as an attitude towards consumption that involves chasing a wide variety of cultural experiences while at the same time not involving a significant amount of time and energy in the consumption of each of them (cf. Peterson and Simkus 1992; Peterson and Kern 1996). The shrinkage of time and in particular the processes associated with uncoordinated rhythms and temporal densification are the result of much shorter intervals for attracting the attention of individuals as well as the fragmentation of time blocks, which is associated, among other things, with the transition from the sequential to the asynchronous experience of time (Jung 2011, p. 65) or the temporary accumulation of time (Ericksen 2001, pp. 155–156). The last phenomenon refers to the rapid accumulation and compression of more and more information, possibilities and experiences in ever shorter time periods; in other words, the accumulation of fragment hegemony. Images, information, news and offers fill all free time spaces (Ericksen 2001, p. 90; cf. Gleick 2003, pp. 18–19). The abolition of traditional dichotomies and the resulting thinking that assigns responsibility to the subject redefines (but does not abolish) the traditional functions of leisure time, which are updated on different principles. The ways of experiencing leisure time are changing slowly as we have pointed out; the catalogue of functions and activities carried out within the framework of free time, and thus its properties, as a socio-cultural category is changing. Although, as Roberts pointed out, most leisure time activities are characterized by permanence, thus we are increasingly dealing with a kind of kaleidoscope of continuation and change (Roberts 1999, p. 49). Known activities often gain only different forms of realization, new ways of use or different functions and meanings. This situation illustrates the way leisure time is shaped on different principles determined by the changing context and a different degree of reflection on the “I” and self-design, which means that even watching TV or reading books means something completely different today and is realized on

Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable …

31

different principles than 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The very organization of proposals to watch or read (read: algorithmic automation) takes into account the big data port about us and about our previous choices, which not only support but also replace our decisions.

4 From Leisure Society Theses to Civil Leisure and Emotional Labor in the Context of Sustainable Development Research approaches to leisure characteristic of the 1960s and 1980s were quantitative in nature, which resulted from the dominant positivism and functionalism theories; according to these approaches, free time that performed important functions towards or for the benefit of the system contributed to its consolidation and to the legitimacy of social practices in accordance with the system of dominant economic, political or cultural values. Studies on leisure during this period indicated progress and development, focused on restoring and maintaining social order and improving the social and cultural condition. Leisure time was primarily an objective, quantifiable and classified value, which manifested itself in the dominance of strictly quantitative, budgetary research, which was the basis for determining the fundamental trends in leisure (Veal 2006, pp. 3–22). The quantitative approach was based primarily on the understanding of leisure time and working time as being born out of the nature and logic of an industrial society, and thus perceived through opposition. The work/leisure dichotomy marked and ordered the direction of early reflections on this issue, and some researchers such as Critcher et al. (2001) point out that the history of leisure time began with this distinction. A fundamental sociological reflection on developing leisure established and defined it in opposition to working time, thus creating a rather rigid, divisive and dichotomous picture of the reality of working and leisure time (Wilensky 1960; Parker 1971; Dumazedier 1974; Roberts 1999, pp. 54–57). Work was identified with compulsion, boredom and monotony, an instrumental attitude that was essentially intended to bring profit. Leisure, on the other hand, was understood as time outside work, where individuals could experience the freedom to choose behaviors and activities that allowed them to express themselves and their own lifestyle (as part of a broader social welfare phenomenon). Since the early 1980s, leisure researchers have begun to point to the usefulness of a phenomenological and naturalistic approach to leisure research, particularly in relation to the research neglected in the previous period around individual meanings and experiences in various situational contexts of leisure (e.g. Scott and Godbey 1990; Henderson 1991; Pedlar 1995; Weissinger et al. 1997). The American researcher Hemingway (1995, 1996) advocated a more hermeneutical interpretation of depth in the study of entertainment, and Kelly and Kelly (1994) called for critical social

32

M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska

constructivism to be included. One of the visible signs of change was the introduction of the concept of “experience in leisure” into free time analysis. North American social psychologists such as Neulinger (1974), Mannel and Kleiber (1979), Iso-Ahola (1980), as well as researchers from Australia and New Zealand in the context of the quality of leisure time (healthy lifestyles, mental hygiene and stress issues) were essential contributions to leisure time research. Some researchers raised the importance of understanding the personality variables that determine the needs and levels of motivation for leisure activities with a particular focus on internal motivation (Iso-Ahola 1980; Mannellet al. 2006). Others analyzed the factors determining satisfaction with leisure time activities and measured the strength with which individual groups of factors are responsible for such satisfaction (Stebbins 1992). Others discussed the perception of possibilities (Driver and Bruns 1999) and limitations (Jackson and Scott 1999) in leisure time and ways of experiencing leisure time, including the issues of well-being and flow, which Csikszentmihalyi (2005) introduced into consideration of the quality of leisure time. Scientists created a number of new publications, laboratories, quasi-experimental methods, modified diary studies, and methods that allowed for studying current emotional states, such as the Experiencing Sampling Method (ESM), visual methods or autobiographical interviews (Hektner et al. 2007). Detailed analyses of conditions governing motivation and experience have shown that free time is a much more diverse and infinitely diverse category. The concepts and research of the representatives of qualitative approaches have pointed towards higher, subjective, and continually more individualized forms of experiencing free time (e.g. flow, self-realization, happiness). Sociologists who take up the subject of leisure time see that their sub-discipline requires theoretical renewal. Building a new theory on old foundations is no longer sufficient, given that these foundations have always been the subject of criticism (cf. Rojek 1995, 2005, 2010) and the ways of spending free time are constantly but slowly changing (Roberts 1999). The criticized concept of leisure society is increasingly being replaced by theses on civil labor (Rojek 2001, 2002) or emotional labor (2010). Rojek suggests that the separation of work from subsistence needs in Western societies has allowed people to develop suites of activities through which they can express their identities. Rojek has termed this mix of activities—which can include paid and non-paid work in addition to leisure—as “civil labor,” in recognition of its self-determined (civil) utility (work) in forming and displaying identity (Rojek 2001, 2002). Deploying the construct of “civil labor” provides an explanation for phenomena such as “down-shifting,” in which decisions are made to replace some paid work with other, usually non-paid activities as a means of achieving a desired “work-life balance”. Moreover, in the book The Labour of Leisure, Rojek introduces the term “emotional labor” to the issues of leisure, where he examines the concepts of emotional intelligence and emotional labor in order to propose that leisure practice is not time off or free time, but a specific form of informal labor. Leisure is the paramount setting for developing the people skills that translate into the prized cultural capital needed for the labor market and social networks. In leisure, we acquire the “coaching” skills

Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable …

33

that translate into the two ethical principles that underpin Western society: care for the self and care for the other (Rojek 2010a, pp. 3–4, 2010b). Even the emotional labor theme is linked to new technologies, which some researchers do not see because their approaches are too narrow. Let us mention the vast literature on cognitive capitalism (cf. Moulier-Boutang 2011; Peters and Bulut 2011), and related phenomena such as sharing economy, gig economy or platform capitalism (cf. Baranowski 2019b, pp. 16–17). Focusing solely on leisure limits the view of broader implications in terms of the new technologies and globalization already mentioned. Leisure is not only a current experience of the surrounding reality, but also a process of its constant updating and changing, current reformulation, reflection and negotiation, which makes it possible to treat it both as a certain dimension of social reality and a certain type of individual experience. Leisure, which is entangled in the social and cultural context of the transformations taking place, as well as in the subjective activities of reflective individuals, constitutes a space through which individuals experience themselves and others. We understand leisure itself broadly. First of all, leisure time is subjectively experienced; individuals create their own concept of what we call rest as part of their everyday life. Finding time for oneself is a continual process of building private subspace, recognizing moments or adapting to changing situational frameworks. Such behavior guarantees space for the relative freedom of choice, opportunities for individual self-expression and self-determination. Secondly, leisure time can therefore be understood as a time of relative freedom from external forces, pressures, and conditions in order to be able to act freely from internal motivation in a way that is personally pleasing and intuitively worthy, the basis of motivation. The perspective understood in this way does not essentially refer to time and activity, but to the state of mind and daily experience. Thirdly, leisure time is dynamic and negotiated, which shows that on the one hand it remains placed within a specific framework that regulates its functioning, while on the other hand individuals have the ability to transform this framework, resulting in its constant openness and readiness for revision, the ongoing construction of action by individuals interacting with each other under different social, political or economic conditions. It can be said that the semantic and experiential field of leisure time is in fact much broader, much more multidimensional and internally more complex than it would appear from the usual ways or contexts, at least in sociology, of theming the terms “leisure time,” “rest” or “entertainment.” This area seems to be even more complicated and subtle when we try to analyze leisure impregnated with new technologies from the perspective of the normative concept of sustainable development.

34

M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska

5 Conclusions The contemporary discourse on sustainability points to the need for substantial, if not radical, shifts in relation to productivity, the environment, consumption, and identities in ways that bring or restore its balance to intersecting domains. The literature on leisure shows excellent examples contributing to full ecology planning approaches. Nevertheless, the approach to leisure and the changes taking place within it cannot be abstracted from the more general projects that outline the area of social welfare sustainability, as well as from the technological changes taking place in the life of each of us. We think that leisure is a central feature of the future of sustainability and also society, and an understanding of this is an essential ingredient for all policy-makers, academics, and service providers. Looking at leisure through the prism of external processes and transformations allows us to see that the relations between the external context and the practices implemented within it are much more complicated, which in turn makes it difficult to maintain precision and unambiguity in defining the category itself. This makes it more dynamic and open, and forces us to open up research fields that have so far escaped the attention of researchers, or to look at the problems posed so far in a new light. Thus, contemporary thinking about leisure is not only an attempt to classify and quantify its activity, to look for clearer and standard definitions of it, but above all, to individualize the experience, filling it with private, idiosyncratic experiences or interpretations. However, any attempt to explore leisure without taking into account the influence of “invisible” technologies operating in the background, which have a measurable impact both on our working practices and on the structure of thinking about and organizing extra-work time, lacks real explanatory power. While we smile at the fact that the motive behind the algorithmization of life in general lies in the commercialization of reality, it is impossible to exclude the analysis of leisure time from this area. Leisure time is an attractive bite for large corporations and small enterprises, whether, through commoditization, drawing conclusions from algorithmic analyses in other areas of human life, or “subcutaneous” generation of “optimal” decisions and needs. This chapter, as a contribution to highlight what is by definition invisible in the context of leisure time and sustainable development, was intended to draw attention to the potential role of new technologies based on big data and algorithms in leisure. With the exception of tourism (cf. Souffriau et al., 2008), this area has not seen advanced research combining leisure time practices with general concepts of sustainable development.

References All C (2011) Energy use and leisure consumption in Norway: An analysis and reduction strategy. J Sustain Tourism 19(6):729–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.536241

Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable …

35

Bailey AW, Fernando IK (2017) Routine and project-based leisure, happiness, and meaning in life. J Leisure Res 44(2):139–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2012.11950259 Baranowski M (2017) Welfare sociology in our times: how social, political, and economic uncertainties shape contemporary societies. Przegl˛ad Socjologiczny 66(4):9–25. https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.26485/PS/2017/66.4/1 Baranowski M (2019a) The struggle for social welfare: towards an emerging welfare sociology. Soc Register 3(2):7–19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2019.3.2.01 Baranowski M (2019b) Sociology of knowledge in times determined by knowledge. Soc Register 3(1):7–22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2019.3.1.01 Baranowski M (2020) A contribution to the critique of worthless education: between critical pedagogy and welfare sociology. Global Soc Educ 18(4):391–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724. 2020.1732195 Bili´c P (2018) A critique of the political economy of algorithms: a brief history of google’s technological rationality. tripleC 16(1):315–331. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v16 i1.914 Blackshaw T, Long J (1998) A critical examination of the advantages of investigating community and leisure from a social network perspective. Leisure Stud 17:4. https://doi.org/10.1080/026143 698375088 Castells M (2000) Network society: the information age: economy, society and culture, vol 1,Wiley Critcher C, Bramham P, Tomlinson A (2001) Sociology of leisure. Spon Press, London Dumazedier J (1967) Toward a society of leisure. Free Press, New York Dumazedier J (1974) Sociology of leisure. Elsevier, Amsterdam Diaz I, Chiaburu DS, Zimmerman RD, Boswell WR (2012) Communication technology, pros and cons of constant connection to work. J Vocat Behav 80(2):500–508 Driver BL, Bruns DH (1999) Concepts and uses of the benefits approach to leisure. In: Jackson EL, Burton TL (eds) Leisure studies: prospects for the 21st century. Venture, State College, PA, pp 349–369 Duran DC, Gogan LM, Artene AE, Duran V (2015) The components of sustainable development—a possible approach. Econ Fin 26:806–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00849-7 Ferguson L, Alarcon DM (2015) Gender and sustainable tourism: reflections on theory and practice. J Sustain Tourism 23(3):401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2014.957208 Fernández-Macías E (2018) Automation, digitalisation and platforms: implications for work and employment European Foundation. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/intl/636/. Last accessed 3/24/2020 Gershuny JI (1992) Change in the domestic division of labour in the UK 1975 to 1987: dependent labour versus adaptive partnership. In Abercrombie N, Warde A (eds) Social change in modern Britain. Polity Press, Cambridge Godbey G (2008) Leisure in your life. New perspectives. Venture Publishing Inc., Pennsylvania Hektner JM, Schmidt JA, Csikszentmihalyi M (2007) Experiencing sampling method. measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi Hemingway JL (1995) Leisure studies and interpretive inquiry. Leisure Stud 14:32–47 Hemingway JL (1996) Emancipating leisure: the recovery of freedom in leisure. J Leisure Res 28(2):27–43 Hemingway JL (1999) Leisure, social capital, and democratic citizenship. J Leisure Res 31(2):150– 165 Henderson K (1991) Dimensions of choice: a qualitative approach to recreation, parks, and leisure research. PA, Ventrure Publishing Inc., State College Iso-Ahola SE (1980) The social psychology of leisure and recreation. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, IA, Wm Jackson S, Scott S (1999) Risk anxiety and the social construction of childhood. In: Lupton D (ed) Risk and sociocultural theory: new directions and perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 86–107

36

M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska

Kubacka M, Mroczkowska D (2020) The importance of communication and mobile technologies in work-life borders management practices among working full-time and self-employed people. Miscellanea Anthropol Et Sociol 20(3):43–60 Kelly JR, Kelly JR (1994) Multiple dimensions of meaning in the domains of work, family and leisure. J Leisure Res 26(3):250–274 Kelly JR (1978) A revised paradigm of leisure choices. Leisure Sci l 4:345–363. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01490407809512894 Klein O (2004) Social perception of time, distance and high-speed transportation. Time Soc 13(2/3):245–263. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X04043504 Law A, Wearing SL (eds) (2015) ‘Alternative’ cultures and leisure. creating pathways for sustainable livelihoods. Routledge, London Leitao RB (2018) Diet and physical activity as a universal foundation for childhood development and lifelong health. Soc Register 2(2):131–148. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2018. 2.2.07 Lekkai I (2020) Unaccompanied refugee minors and resilience: a phenomenological study. Przegl˛ad Krytyczny 2(1):33–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14746/pk.2020.2.1.03 McCole D, Vogt Ch (2011) Informing sustainability decisions: the role of parks, recreation, and tourism scholars in addressing unsustainability. J Park Recreation Admin 29(3):38–54 Mannell RC, Kleiber DA (1979) A social psychology of leisure. PA, Ventrure Publishing, State College Mannel RC, Kleiber DA, Staempfli M (2006) Psychology and social psychology and the study of leisure. In: Rojek C, Shaw S, Veal AJ (eds) A handbook of leisure studies. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., London Margaris D, Vassilakis C, Georgiadis P (2017) Knowledge-based leisure time recommendations in social networks. In: Alor-Hernández G, Valencia-García R (eds) Current trends on knowledgebased systems. intelligent systems reference library. Springer, Cham Martini N (2017) Praktykowanie czasu wolnego w sytuacji niedoboru i nadmiaru. Przegl˛ad Socjol Jako´sciowej 13(4):94–117. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18778/1733- 069.13.4.06 Moulier-Boutang Y (2011) Cognitive capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge Mroczkowska D, Kubacka M (2019) On the treadmill of everyday life: work-family boundary dynamics among working full-time and self-employed people. Przegl˛ad Socjol Jako´sciowej XV(1):136–153. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8069.15.1.08 Olson-Buchanan JB, Boswell WR (2006) Blurring boundaries, correlates of integration and segmentation between work and nonwork. J Vocat Behav 68(3):432–445 Olson-Buchanan JB, Boswell WR, Morgan TJ (2016) The role of technology in managing the work and nonwork interface. In: Allen TD, Eby LT (eds) The oxford handbook of work and family. New York, Oxford University Press, pp 333–348 Pappas JB, Pappas EC (2015) The sustainable personality: values and behaviors in individual sustainability. Int J Higher Educ 4(1):12–21 Parker SJ (1971) The future of work and leisure. Praeger, New York Pedlar A (1995) Relevance and action research in leisure. Leisure Sci 17(2):133–140 Peters MA, Bulut E (eds) (2011) Cognitive capitalism, education, and digital labor. Peter Lang, New York Peterson RA, Simkus A (1992) How musical tastes mark occupational status groups. In: Lamont M, Fournier M (eds) Cultivating differences: symbolic boundaries and making of inequality. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp 152–168 Peterson R, Kern R (1996) Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore. Am Sociol Rev 61(5):900–904 Roberts K (1999) Leisure in contemporary society. CABI Publishing, UK Robinson J, Goodbey G (1997) Time for life. the surprising ways Americans use their time. The Pensylwania State University Rojek C (1995) Decentring leisure. rethinking leisure theory.Sage Publications Rojek C (2001) Leisure and life politics. Leisure Sci 23(2):115–126

Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable …

37

Rojek C (2002) Civil labour, leisure and post work society. Soc Leisure 25(1):21–35 Rojek C (2005) Leisure theory. Principles and practice. Palgrave Macmillan, London Rojek C (2010a) The labour of leisure. Sage, London Rojek C (2010b) Leisure and emotional intelligence: a response to my commentators. World Leisure J 52(4):274–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/04419057.2010.9674646 Russell RV (2014) Pastimes. Urbana 51:61801 Schor J (2006) Overturning the modernist predictions: recent trends in work and leisure in the OECD. In:. Rojek C, Shaw S, Veal AJ (eds) A handbook of leisure studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham Scott D, Godbey CG (1990) Reorienting leisure research—the case for qualitative method. J Soc Leisure 13 Scribano A (2019) Introduction: politics of sensibilities, society 4.0 and digital labour. In: Scribano A, Lisdero P (eds) Digital labour, society and the politics of sensibilities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 1–17 Singer N, Sang-Hun C (2020) As coronavirus surveillance escalates, personal privacy plummets. The New York Times, March 23. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/technology/coronavirussurveillance-tracking-privacy.html. Last accessed 3/24/2020 Souffriau W, Vansteenwegen P, Vertommen J, Berghe GV, Oudheusden DV (2008) A personalized tourist trip design algorithm for mobile tourist guides. Appl Artif Intell 22(10):964–985 Southerton D, Tomlinson M (2005) Pressed for time’—the differential impacts of a ‘time squeeze. Sociol Rev 53(2):215–239 Stebbins RA (1992) Concatenated exploration: notes on a neglected type of longitudinal research. Qual Quant 26:435–442 Szollos A (2009) Toward a psychology of chronic time pressure: conceptual and methodological review. Time Soc 18:332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X09337847 Turel O (2019) Economic and business dimensions: potential ‘Dark sides’ of leisure technology use in youth. Commun ACM 62(3):24–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306615 WCED (1987) Our common future. World commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford WHOQOL Group (1995) The world health organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med 41(10):1403–1409. https://doi. org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-K Wilensky H (1960) Work, careers, and social integration. Int Soc Sci J 12:543–560 Vaugeois N, Parker P, Yang Y (2017) Is leisure researchcontributing to sustainability? A systematic review of the literature. Leisure/Loisir 41(3):297–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2017. 1360151 Veal AJ (2006) Research methods for leisure and tourism. A practical guide, FT Prentice Hall Veal AJ (2009) The elusive leisure society, 3rd edn.. School of leisure, sport and tourism working paper 9, Sydney: University of Technology, Sydney, available at: www.leisure source.net Zuboff S (2019) The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Public Affairs, New York

Mariusz Baranowski is an assistant professor of sociology at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan. He was educated at the same university within the Inter-Area Individual Studies In the Humanities and Social Sciences (achieving two Master’s degrees: one in Sociology and the other in Philosophy), where he received his Ph.D., and his areas of specialization include economic sociology, social movements, methodology, and social welfare practice and policy. He was awarded research scholarships in Norway (University of Oslo), Germany (University of Potsdam), the Netherlands (Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam), Greece (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), Spain (University of Murcia), the Czech Republic (Masaryk University). He has published numerous articles, and his books include Corporate Governance Effectiveness in Poland: Socio-economic Analysis of Listed Companies (2011), The Network Society—Between

38

M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska

Freedom and Slavery (2012) and Democracy and the Role of the Citizen: On the Tension among the State, Society and Globalisation Processes (2014). Dorota Mroczkowska sociologist, psychologist, assistant professor of sociology at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan.Her research interests focus on the sociology of everyday life, the sociology of leisure and sociology of emotions, quality of life and border areas. She was a head and a member of many research teams, and she was the author of many expert reports for companies both in Poland and abroad. She has published 3 monographs in the area of leisure studies and over 50 articles (including scientific and popular science).

The Role of Leisure in Sustainable Development Beata Kolny

1 Introduction The whole human life flows in time—via astronomical, biological, in various forms of cultural and social time to a time that can be called ‘personal time’, or one person’s life. As stated by Szczepa´nski (1999), ‘every living organism, and thus also every human body, creates their own time and each phenomenon or class of phenomena of human life produces a time different from the time created by other people’. Free time is one of the times experienced by man. It should be emphasized that it is not time that is free, but it is man who is free to consider non-compulsory behaviours and experience freedom from worries and activities forced by biological processes, and therefore is free to the world and its culture (Arendt 1994). However, it happens that man lacks the freedom to ‘stop’, reflect or rest, because they constantly try to race against time and win with themselves. They pursue success, and everything that is of popular and mass nature, so as not to accidentally stand out from others. Living in a constant hurry, constant competition and the fear of having less or being less successful than others, makes human beings work more to always win this race and not be left behind, often at the expense of their leisure time. However, human life cannot be reduced only to homo laborans, i.e., the realisation of humanity only in professional work, or to homo oeconomicus, i.e., maximizing profits of economic value. This is because the holistic development of man should take into account appropriately selected forms of leisure time in a way that will give them satisfaction and pleasure, and which will allow them to rest both physically and mentally after the work is finished (Dzwonkowska 2011). A language comment regarding the notion of ‘free time’ is important here. In Polish, it is used to describe two different phenomena for which both French and B. Kolny (B) Department of Market and Consumption, University of Economics in Katowice, 1 Maja 50, 40-287 Katowice, Poland e-mail: [email protected] © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al. (eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Development and Leisure Services, World Sustainability Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59820-4_3

39

40

B. Kolny

English have two expressions: (French) le temps libre and le temps de loisir, (English) free time and leisure time. Sociologists of time (e.g. Grazia 1994) strongly emphasized this difference. The first notion (le temps libre, free time) refers to the size of time and its sections represented by quantitative measures, i.e., the clock time of hours and minutes. The second one (le lemps de loisir, leisure time) means a whole composed of non-productive activities. It is a time of value, internal relief, contemplation, peace, lack of haste, and freedom from duties and constraints. In this sense, it is a way of life rather than a period of time (Tarkowska 2001). In economics, leisure time is approached as a time of consumption in which people satisfy their needs. The problem of balance in satisfying these needs arises at the time of excessive consumption of material goods and services, with artificially created needs that do not lead to an improvement in the quality of life. Sometimes, while satisfying these needs, only the possession, multiplication and use of the goods with no concern about other values are the most important issues for people, regardless of social, ecological or individual costs (Jano´s-Kresło 2008). Meeting the needs in leisure time can take place at home (e.g. watching TV, resting, using the computer, reading a book), in service-providing facilities/institutions (e.g. cinema, theatre, fitness club, restaurant), as well as in the natural environment (e.g. forest, park). Therefore, the concept of permanent and sustainable development—which aims to integrate political, economic and social activities while maintaining natural balance and durability of basic natural processes in order to guarantee the possibility of meeting the needs of people both now and in the future—is becoming important in the context of leisure time management (Journal of Laws 2001 No. 62 item 627). Maintaining balance in the consumption of goods and services that fill up free time is as important as having time free from the duties and necessities of life in which this consumption is realized. Since the beginning of the formulation of the concept of free time, several interpretations have evolved, including ‘freedom from work’, freedom of leisure time, and the state of mind that accompanies free, usually intellectual, activity (Truszkowska-Wojtkowiak 2012). Work and leisure time are two inseparable facets of contemporary peoples’ lives. The integration of professional with non-professional life is attracting increasingly more attention, because it offers an alternative to the traditional approach, according to which both of these areas of life are, and should be, separated. The purpose of this chapter is to present the concept of leisure time in the context of its balance with the natural environment, consumption of goods and services, and working time.

2 Leisure Time and Sustainable Development in the Context of the Natural Environment Defining leisure time is a difficult task because, depending on the scientific discipline, other aspects of the concept are highlighted. For example, from the point of view

The Role of Leisure in Sustainable Development

41

of psychology, leisure time is perceived as the time to rest, relax, fight stress and tiredness, whereas economists approach leisure time as the time of consumption that is not intended for work and gainful activities, and sociologists perceive it as time to maintain and establish interpersonal values. Leisure time is significantly related to the value of freedom. It is most commonly assumed that this is a state of being free from work (Zowisło 2011). During this time, a person can exhibit behaviours that are consistent with their character and personal choices. It is a time devoted to various activities that ensure rest, recovery, relaxation, entertainment, and expansion of knowledge and one’s own interests, as well as the development of creative abilities and satisfaction of one’s own needs. These may be behaviours commonly recognized as positive, as well as those that are perceived as reprehensible in a given cultural environment. What connects them is the coexistence of such features as: the voluntary nature of the content and forms of behaviour, non-commercialism, and the experience of satisfaction during their manifestation (Czerepniak-Walczak 2011). Furthermore, there is also a kind of time that is filled with several contents at the same time. Then it is referred to as the so-called doubled or even multiplied time (Czerepniak-Walczak 2011). This is possible due to the use of equipment and devices that facilitate simultaneous performance of necessary and not necessary activities. Behaviours that consist of multiplying activities that are performed at the same time are becoming more and more common. Such behaviour results in the habit of simultaneous reception of several stimuli. One stimulus means boredom and a waste of time (Szlendak 2010). Developing the concept of time ‘intensification’ or its doubling means accelerating the speed of activities (e.g. sightseeing without leaving a car, virtual tours), changing activities into more time-saving ones (ordering a meal instead of cooking at home) or surrounding the main activities that are performed with a number of accompanying activities (e.g. eating a meal while watching TV and simultaneously viewing magazines and/or following information on Facebook) (Jung 2011). Leisure time does not include the hours devoted to physiological needs (sleep, eating, drinking, personal hygiene), although in some cases, for example with family and in social gatherings, whether at home or in the restaurant, leisure is associated with meals. Housework and chores that arise from life necessities are also excluded from this sphere of time budget. However, the thin line that separates childcare, cooking, shopping, ironing, and other activities that fulfil the family obligation from leisure activities cannot be ignored, because it cannot be precluded that these activities are experienced as relaxation and give people great pleasure. It can be concluded here that the activities associated with leisure time are, to the greatest extent, guided by personal needs, dispositions, habits and accepted patterns of conduct (Kolny 2013). Activities occurring during leisure time can also be discussed in a different context, while dividing them into two different types. The first type includes all those activities that are performed because of a duty or obligation hidden behind them. Additional beneficial activity, shopping, raising children and home repairs can be included in this sphere. The second type of activities results from the person’s pursuit of personality development. This type of activities includes training, pursuing professional and

42

B. Kolny

non-professional qualifications, one’s own amateur creativity and all other cultural activities. Various forms of rest, entertainment and recreation are also included here (Kolny 2013). With regard to the forms of recreation, it is worth referring to the concept of sustainable development that can be analysed in the three dimensions of economic, social and ecological aspects (Zakrzewska 2019). In economic terms, it concerns GDP growth that will ensure the right amount of goods and services that allow for spending leisure time in accordance with human preferences, amongst other things. In social terms, it refers to improving the quality of life and, in particular, satisfying social needs by developing and maintaining interpersonal contacts during free time. In ecological terms, it is associated with the improvement of the state of the natural environment, the preservation of natural capital and the protection of biodiversity, which is necessary for satisfactory rest both now and in the future. Sustainable development is determined by ecological space, and through the assumed synergy of economic, environmental and social aspects, it is safe and beneficial for man, the environment and the economy. Sustainable development is also a way of life that offers the opportunity to choose the forms of consumption. It can also be described as a specific fashion, because the consumer associates an organic product with something safe, healthy and modern (Jano´s-Kresło 2006). Various tourism-related activities are one of the forms of leisure time. The principle of sustainable development implemented in this sphere of human life requires taking into account the environmental, economic and socio-cultural sphere in such a way as to achieve an appropriate balance between these dimensions and ensure long-term and harmonious development. Protecting endangered species of plants or habitats, but also scarce resources, especially water and energy, as well as avoiding excessive waste production by numerous tourists, are especially emphasised here. It is also important to take into account the capacity of a given area to host a certain number of people, but also to agree to limit tourist activity in particularly sensitive areas, such as deserts, polar areas, high mountains, coastal areas, tropical forests or wetlands where nature reserves or a different type of protected area can be created (Dzwonkowska 2011). In the context of sustainable development, attention should be focused on the natural environment as a space for spending leisure time. The condition of the natural environment is provided by the quality of the water, air and soil, as well ´ as natural landscapes (Swiatowy 2006). Green areas, parks, squares, forests and allotment gardens that are accessible to humans can be both passive and active rest areas. If the areas of recreational potential lose their values due to poisoning of water, air and soil, the possibility of choosing the form of recreation decreases; consequential travel to other rest places contributes to overloading the areas that are not contaminated yet with an excessive number of tourists. Considering this, the broadly perceived protection of the environment, not only in recreational areas, but also in the immediate vicinity of consumers, means the choice to take or refrain from activities in order to maintain or restore the natural balance is really important. This protection consists of: rationally shaping the environment, managing environmental resources in accordance with the principle of sustainable development, counteracting

The Role of Leisure in Sustainable Development

43

pollution, and restoring natural elements to their proper state (Journal of Laws 2001 No. 62 item 627).

3 Leisure Time in the Context of Sustainable Consumption In economic sciences, leisure time with all the activities it encompasses is approached as a time of consumption in which various human needs are pursued (Cieloch et al. 1992). The needs associated with rest, entertainment, regeneration, tourist travel, as well as the needs of broadly understood amateur activities, education and individual creativity, are satisfied in this leisure time. Meeting each of these needs must be preceded by recognition of their nature (general—needs, detailed—wants), the strength of their experience and the necessity to satisfy them, as well as social, cultural, infrastructural, economic and natural/environmental determinants that affect their experience, and the possibility to satisfy them. In economics, this can be done by examining consumption, the act of satisfying one’s needs (using, spending, and managing free time). The act of consumption occurs when a given need is homogeneous and can be met once. However, the actions are usually repeated many times while creating a consumption process that takes place in a specific time sequence in which the purchase and the use of goods and services that allows one to manage the leisure time take place. Consumption processes should be characterized by the quality of being self-sustaining, i.e., including the mechanisms that minimize the risk of internal disorders that limit or prevent further consumption (Kiełczewski 2004). It can be assumed that a sustainable level of consumption is when material goods and services are consumed in a sufficient way to meet basic needs and achieve a higher quality of life, while minimizing the consumption of natural resources and materials harmful to the environment that arise at all stages of production, without restraining the rights of future generations to such consumption (Małysa-Kaleta 2018; Jastrz˛ebska-Smolga 2000; Jano´s-Kresło 2006). Satisfying basic human needs (and not desires related to satisfying whims) is part of the idea of sustainable consumption. It also refers to putting the quality of life above material conditions, then minimizing the use of natural resources, waste generation and pollution, taking into account the life cycle of products (their impact on the environment both in production and disposal processes), and taking all measures in consideration of future generations (Małysa-Kaleta 2018). In the trend of sustainable consumption during leisure time, voluntary simplicity or minimalism should also be mentioned. It means that the consumer limits material consumption in order to release resources of money and time, as well as to seek satisfaction through the intangible aspects of life. This situation can be identified with accepting lower incomes and lower levels of consumption by the consumer in exchange for having more leisure time for rest and the freedom to achieve life goals, the achievement of which does not depend on the amount of money. In the sphere of transportation, resignation from driving your own car or resignation from having a car and choosing to walk, cycle or use public transport, as well as joint

44

B. Kolny

consumption (carpooling), can be included within the scope of voluntary simplicity and a simplification of life that affects the amount of free time and forms of leisure. The economical use approach includes repairing and modernizing things you use, buying second-hand items, exchanging items with other consumers, sharing things together and self-supplying that is consistent with the idea of do it yourself (DIY), meaning making many products by yourself (sewing clothes, making preparations, furniture). Waste segregation and the use of ecological packaging can be indicated in the field of waste disposal, while the area of buying sustainable products comprises the purchase of energy-saving and ecological products and time-saving products (e.g. purchase of a dishwasher that saves both time and the amount of water consumed in households) (Zrałek 2018). Each of these activities aims to either save time for leisure activities or to perform it at the time that could be intended for rest. The idea of shared consumption and sharing, which has revived thanks to the development of information technologies, limited access to resources, and urbanization as well as demographic and social changes, is the area that is consistent with the concept of leisure time in the context of sustainable consumptions. Sharing, as Botsman and Rogers (2010) write, is a consumption model that consists of borrowing, exchanging, barter contracts or paid access to goods, in opposition to ownership. The authors emphasize the importance of utility over ownership, community over egoism, and sustainable development over novelty (Botsman and Rogers 2010). People can share skills, knowledge, time and services. The sharing economy trend is based on connecting people via online platforms (Hamari, Sjöklint and Ukkonen 2015). The essence of this phenomenon is the possibility for private individuals to use possessed resources, properties, vehicles, media content and time to compete with traditional entrepreneurs. Thus a group of prosumers (consumers and producers in one) is created, which has the potential to reach a wide global group of recipients. The concept is based on the idea of product service approach (Zalega 2013), i.e., focusing on the function of the product without the need to own it. People do not need to have their own car, bicycle or other means of transport to reach the place where they can spend their free time. While wishing to listen to music or watch a movie at home, they do not need a DVD or other media that is their property, only a film that they can watch and music played from any disc. If they want to read a book, they do not have to buy it, they only need to borrow it, and after reading they can exchange it for another. These solutions are often based on a simple neighbour exchange of favours, or systems of city bikes and car sharing, which are becoming increasingly popular among a wide range of consumers. Airbnb is a website service that connects owners sharing their apartments or houses with tourists. Uber is an application associating drivers with passengers. The application allows for ordering a ride in a convenient and intuitive way, finding information about the driver and car and making payments. Spotify and Netflix also function on the basis of sharing. Spotify offers access to music from a mobile application available for smartphones, tablets, computers and TVs. This form replaces buying CDs. Netflix works similarly. The user can rent and watch the movie that is in the database through the application, without having to buy it. It should be stated in conclusion that the research performed by Hamari et al. (2015) confirms that the use of various forms of sharing

The Role of Leisure in Sustainable Development

45

is motivated by various reasons (e.g. pleasure, economic benefits), yet sustainable development is not always directly associated with this process. People with positive attitudes towards the idea of sharing may not pay attention to the aspects related to sustainable development. This means that sustainable development can be a weighty factor only for people for whom sustainable consumption is important.

4 Leisure Time in the Context of Work-Life Balance Free time is a part of the total resource of time given to people by nature during the day, week, month, year or life, subtracted from the time of compulsory work and the meeting of necessities. Due to the fact that leisure time used to be described as a contrast to work, believing that it was time off from work, the time budget was initially presented in a simplified way that comprised two components: working time and time after work. Bombol (2009) divides the time available to an individual into: working time, leisure time and remaining time. The latter is a complex and broad category, as it covers all commutes, all activities related to satisfying living needs, shopping, and obligations towards others. A similar view is represented by Robinson and Godbey (1997), who divide the budget of time into paid work time, household duty time, personal time (sleep, eating, hygiene) and leisure time. According to these authors, leisure time remains after deducting the working, duty and personal times, but also after deducting transportation time (commute). The essence of sustainable development is to ensure the improvement of the quality of life, while the quality of life depends on the quality of work and leisure time. Success at work results in a good mood and has an impact on leisure time behaviour. It suitably motivates people to perform recreational activities, and inversely, active recreation benefits work performance and behaviour (Migdał 2011). Undoubtedly, the sphere of work (position held, occupation) has an impact on the forms of using time after work. People function in various areas of life, perform various roles and use various goods and services to meet their needs. Work usually constitutes the basis of their household existence. Work is both a means of human self-realization and a source of their satisfaction or lack thereof, thus this sphere of human life is of particular importance to them. Therefore, there is a need for balance between work and life after work (including leisure time). This balance can be analysed at the level of an individual (employee), organization, employee group or even societies. The balance occurs when work does not occupy non-professional life, and vice versa, when non-professional life is not enjoyed at the expense of occupational life. At the individual level, the work-life balance model means the ability to combine work with other dimensions of human life—home, family, health, social activity, interests, etc. The balance between work and non-professional life is not the same for every employee both within the country and between countries. Differences can be noticed depending on various factors, e.g. age, gender, health, education, family situation, religion, organizational culture, management style, company condition,

46

B. Kolny

local, regional and national culture, as well as the economic situation of the country, especially the labour market (Borkowska 2004). This balance translates into satisfaction with the whole life, both professional and personal, and surprisingly, when time is properly organized and managed, this balance can be achieved even during long hours of work. The very balance between working and private life does not mean that people devote the same amount of time to each of these spheres. Trying to plan the same number of hours for each of them is rather unreal, because human life is and should be flexible (Meenakshi et al. 2013). It is difficult to achieve the same balance between work and private life for everyone, because its achievement is preceded not only by a precise determination of how a person wants to spend time, but also by the adaptation of life and work to changing needs. The balance point between work and private life changes over time; the one desirable by an individual today will probably be different tomorrow. This results from different needs in the various spheres of life when people are single, when they start a family, when they have children, when they start a professional career or are near the age of retirement. For example, if an employee has responsibilities related to caring for children or elderly sick parents, they would like to have the possibility of flexible forms of work, and if they have no such duties, they would more eagerly like to have a gym membership or a cinema ticket. There is no ideal or universal balance that everyone should strive for. The balance is different, because everyone has different priorities at a certain moment of life, and everyone lives a different life (Meenakshi et al. 2013). That is why programs in the field of work-life balance are supported by employers who establish rules, activities and procedures and who meet the employees’ expectations in terms of dividing time and energy between work and other important aspects of life, while enabling easy pursuit of a more sustainable life (Heathfield 2018). Information technology has a considerable impact on how one spends time at work and outside of work. Technology has changed and improved people’s lives in many different ways. Thanks to technology, their life is longer, more comfortable and healthier. They have access to huge information resources; they can see people from the most distant places in the world. Changes in the way people can access information, communicate with each other, and perform tasks have enabled the development of flexible forms of work. They include on-call work, employment in the form of shared workplaces (machines) by several people, employment on the basis of flexible working time agreed with employers, employment within the task-oriented work system, temporary work, telework, contract work, work at home, employment within individual working time, as well as employment in the system of compressed (extended) daily working time (4 days × 10 h and 3 days off) (Bieniok 2010). People who work partly or exclusively from home can influence the division of time into work and the pursuit of non-professional interests. If people can decide for themselves how to plan their work, it is much easier for them to go to the gym in the middle of the day, to go to a hairdresser, to visit friends or just to go to the cinema or for a walk. Flexible working time allows for managing time in the way that enables exchanging life streams (Clutterbuck 2005). If an individual does not

The Role of Leisure in Sustainable Development

47

have time to relax and regenerate, their ability to perform work and the level of work performance declines. Therefore, from the employer’s point of view, it is important to encourage the worker to leave the job at the right time or to take a break from work, instead of working more than the determined limit of hours. It is important for employees to learn that when the working time is over, they should leave their workplace, computers/laptops and not answer the phone to perform work-related tasks. This kind of balance is not easy to achieve, but employees must have the courage to say ‘no’ and only agree to perform additional tasks in their leisure time if they are important. Employees will not enjoy life if there is no balance between work and private life. They will not be available to family members and friends, and they may even release frustration on those they love. They can also suffer from diseases and physical disorders resulting from chronic stress, such as heart disease, alcoholism and even diabetes (Meenakshi et al. 2013).

5 Conclusions The role of leisure time in sustainable development can be discussed in the context of its balance with the natural environment, consumption of goods and services and working time. The use of goods and services that leisure time is filled with should take place in such a way as to bring an improvement in the quality of life, while reducing the consumption of natural resources and energy and respecting nature. In this way, future generations will also have the chance to use them. The balance between working life and leisure time consists in accepting the fact that these two areas of life are important to each other. Work and rest should be provided regularly. The implementation of the concept of sustainable consumption in terms of leisure time is possible provided that people change their attitudes from egocentric to ecocentric, and choose such forms of leisure activities that bring satisfaction, take into account the needs of other people and protect the natural environment. Sustainable consumption does not mean consuming less, but in a different way that effectively leads to an improvement in the quality of life. Also, the balance between working and non-working life does not mean that you should work more or less. It means people should work only to achieve satisfaction and happiness in these two spheres of human life, i.e. the working and non-working time. In speaking of leisure time and sustainable development, it is necessary to indicate the contact points of these two areas that allow one to meet the needs associated with rest and the development of interests in a way that will bring satisfaction to people and will not cause harm to the natural environment through excessive consumption, exploitation of the places of active rest, and doing everything in a hurry. The ‘slow’ trend may prove to be helpful here (Bombol 2010; Zalega 2013). ‘Slow life’ promotes the slowing down of the daily pace of life in order to experience pleasant moments more slowly and deeply. In addition to the trend of slowing down life, there are also others that are associated with the conscious management of life, following your own rhythm and needs. The ‘slow food’ trend promotes the celebration of regional

48

B. Kolny

cuisine and healthy food and spending time at the table in a relaxed atmosphere with no rush, while talking and enjoying the flavours with family and friends. The ‘slow city’ trend creates places that aim to maintain a high quality of living environment, create a healthy lifestyle through a clean environment, and promote healthy eating through locally grown and prepared food. The ‘slow parenting’ trend focuses on raising a child without pressure and ensuring them a happy childhood. Seeking balance or slowing down life to be able to enjoy the leisure time, however, requires a change in the way of thinking—one that does not follow the stereotypes—in order to realise that it brings benefits.

References Arendt H (1994) Mi˛edzy czasem minionym a przyszłym. Osiem c´ wicze´n z my´sli politycznej (Between the past and future time. Eight activities in political thought). Fundacja Aletheia, Warszawa, 325 p. Bieniok H (2010) Zarz˛adzanie czasem. Poradnik dla mało efektywnych (Time management. A manual for little effective people). Difin, Warszawa, 196 p. Bombol M (2009) Czas wolny a wyzwalanie postaw konsumpcyjnych (Leisure time and releasing consumption attitudes]. In: Mróz B (ed) Oblicza konsumpcjonizmu (The faces of consumerism). Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH, Warszawa Bombol M (2010) Czas wolny jako z´ ródło warto´sci dla klienta (Leisure time as a source of value for consumer). In: Dobiegała-Korona B, Doligalski T (eds) Zarz˛adzanie warto´sci˛a klienta. Pomiar i strategie (Customer value management. Measurement and strategies). Wydawnictwo Poltext, Warszawa, 564p Borkowska S (2004) Praca a z˙ ycie pozazawodowe (Work and non-working life). In: Borkowska S (ed) Przyszło´sc´ pracy w XXI wieku (The future of work in 21st century). IPiSS, Warszawa, 377p Botsman R, Rogers R (2010) What’s mine is yours: the rise of collaborative consumption. Harper Business, New York, p 304p Cieloch G, Kuczy´nski J, Rogozi´nski K (1992) Czas wolny—czasem konsumpcji (Leisure time—the time of consumption). PWE, Warszawa, p 161 Clutterbuck D (2005) Równowaga mi˛edzy z˙ yciem zawodowym a osobistym. Przewodnik dla specjalistów do spraw personalnych (Balance between working and personal life. A manual for specialists in human resources). Oficyna Ekonomiczna, Kraków, 272p Czerepaniak-Walczak M (2011) Pedagogika czasu wolnego: Schole w szkole i poza szkoł˛a (Pedagogy of leisure time: Scholes in school and out of school). In: Winiarski R (ed) Rekreacja i czas wolny (Recreation and leisure time). Oficyna Wydaw. Ło´sgraf, Warszawa, 308p de Grazia S (1994) Of time. intage, Work and Leisure. New York, p 559p Dzwonkowska D (2011) Zasada zrównowa˙zonego rozwoju w turystyce (The principle of sustainable development in tourism). Studia Ecologiae Et Bioethicae UKSW 9:23–49 Heathfield SM (2018) Work-life balance. employers assist employee to achieve work-life balance with flexible policies. www.thebalancecareers.com/work-life-balance-1918292. Last Accessed 7 Feb 2020 Hamari J, Sjöklint M, Ukkonen A (2015) The sharing economy: why people participate in collaborative consumption. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552 Jano´s-Kresło M (2006) Koncepcja trwałej i zrównowa˙zonej konsumpcji (The concept of durable and sustainable consumption). In: Jano´s-Kresło M, Mróz B (eds) Konsument i konsumpcja we współczesnej gospodarce (Consumer and consumption in contemporary economy). SGH, Warszawa, 296p

The Role of Leisure in Sustainable Development

49

Jano´s-Kresło M (2008) Usługi społeczne a zrównowa˙zony rozwój regionów (Social services and sustainable development of regions). SGH, Warszawa, p 308p Jastrz˛ebska-Smolga H (2000) W kierunku trwałej konsumpcji. Dylematy, zagro˙zenia, szanse (Towards sustainable consumption. Dilemmas, threats, opportunities). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa, 246p Jung B (2011) W kierunku nowej ekonomii czasu wolnego? (Towards new economics of leisure time?) In: Winiarski R (ed) Rekreacja i czas wolny [Recreation and leisure time]. Oficyna Wydaw. Ło´sgraf, Warszawa, 308p Kiełczewski D (2004) Konsumpcja a perspektywy trwałego i zrównowa˙zonego rozwoju (Consumption and the perspective of durable and sustainable development). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, Białystok, p 272p Kolny B (2013) Rynek usług zagospodarowuj˛acych czas wolny – diagnoza i perspektywy rozwoju (The market of services providing leisure time activities—diagnosis and perspectives of development). Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Katowicach, Katowice, p 239p Małysa-Kaleta A (2018) Miejsce i rola konsumpcji turystycznej w nowym rozumieniu rozwoju zrównowa˙zonego (The place and role of tourism consumption in the new approach to sustainable development). In: Pabian B, Reformat B (eds) Kierunki rozwoju innowacji w turystyce (Trends of development of innovations in tourism). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, Katowice, 121p Meenakshi SP, Subrahmanyam V, Ravichandran K (2013) The importance of work-life balance. IOSR J Bus Manag 14(3):31–35 Migdał K (2011) Psychologia czasu wolnego (Psychology of leisure time). Almamer, Warszawa, p 239p Robinson JP, Godbey G (1997) Time for life. The surprising ways Americans use their time. University Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 392p Szczepa´nski J (1999) Fantazje na temat czasu (Fantasies about leisure time). Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL, Lublin, p 181p Szlendak T (2010) O stylach z˙ ycia w mozaikowym społecze´nstwie (od których zale˙ze´c b˛edzie rozwój gospodarczy) (On lifestyles in mosaic society (that economic development depends on)]. In: Polskie style z˙ ycia. Mi˛edzy miastem a wsi˛a (Polish lifestyles. Between the city and village). Proceedings of: V Kongres Obywatelski. Instytut Bada´n nad Gospodark˛a Rynkow˛a, Gda´nsk, 100p ´ Swiatowy G (2006) Zachowania konsumentów (Consumer behaviours). PWE, Warszawa, p 212p Tarkowska E (2001) Czas społeczny a czas wolny: koncepcje i współczesne przemiany (Social time ˙ and leisure time: the concepts and contemporary changes). In: Zarnowskiej A, Szwarca A (eds) Kobieta i kultura czasu wolnego. Zbiór studiów (Women and leisure time culture. A collection of case studies). T. 7. Wydawnictwo DiG, Warszawa, 556p Truszkowska-Wojtkowiak M (2012) Fenomen czasu wolnego (The phenomenon of leisure time). Harmonia Universalis, Gda´nsk, p 292p Zakrzewska B (2019) Zrównowa˙zony rozwój a jako´sc´ z˙ ycia (Sustainable development and the quality of life). Organizacja I Zarzadzanie 4:38–41 Zalega T (2013) Nowe trendy i makrotrendy w zachowaniach konsumenckich gospodarstw domowych w XXI wieku (New trends and macro-trends in consumer behaviours of households in 21st century). Konsumpcja I Rozwój 2(5):3–21 Zowisło M (2011) Filozofia rekreacji (Philosophy of recreation). In: Winiarski R (ed) Rekreacja i czas wolny (Recreation and leisure time). Oficyna Wydaw. Ło´sgraf, Warszawa, 308p Zrałek J (2018) Konsument wobec wyzwa´n zrównowa˙zonej konsumpcji. Zrównowa˙zone zachowania konsumenckie i ich determinanty (Consumer towards challenges of sustainable consumption. Sustainable consumer behaviours and their determinants). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, Katowice, 296p

50

B. Kolny

Legal Acts Dz U (2001) [Journal of Law] of 2001 No 62 item 627. the Act of 27 April 2001—Environmental Protection Law

Beata Kolny Ph.D., has been working at the University of Economics in Katowice for over 25 years. Since the beginning of her scientific and research work, she has been working on the issues of leisure time. In 2003, she defended her doctoral dissertation entitled “Zachowania konsumentów w czasie wolnym–uwarunkowania, prawidłowo´sci” [“Consumer behaviour in leisure time—determinants, regularities”], and in 2017 she obtained the degree of habilitated doctor on the basis of the habilitation thesis entitled “Rynek usług zagospodarowuj˛acych czas wolny – diagnoza i perspektywy rozwoju” [“Market of services providing leisure time activities— diagnosis and development perspectives”]. Three major research trends can be identified in her research interests. The first is related to the behaviour of market entities, especially consumers and their households. The second focuses on the issues concerning leisure time and the market of services offering leisure time activities. It is directly associated with the third research trend that is focused on consumer lifestyles.

Leisure Activities and Recreation Facilities in Nigeria: Implications for Wholesome Community Health Babatunde Abiodun Balogun

1 Introduction: Overview of Community Health and Health Inequity Community health has gained prominence as a critical field of public health in recent times. Having its emphasis on the study of the health characteristics of people who live or reside in a given geographical area, it seeks to improve health indices of those people of such municipal localities. The aim of community health, therefore, is to draw on the concerted efforts of individual and corporate members of such a community to tackle self-identified challenges that question optimum health status for every member of that particular community. Creating solutions that could positively affect community health has become a subject of research for relevant stakeholders in recent years (Maraccini et al. 2017). Health inequities are a common phenomenon in Nigeria (Kusimo 2015). Several communities have huge disparities among the inhabitants due to a myriad of reasons that are chiefly social, economic and cultural in nature and outside the circle of the health system itself. These health inequities have exposed the country to numerous unpleasant health indices such as a high maternal mortality rate, low life expectancy, rising prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and endemicity of many infectious diseases. Adewole and Osungbade (2016), Anekoson (2013), Muhammad et al. (2017) and Ibama et al. (2015) are among various researchers that provide evidence of less than impressive health indicators in Nigeria. For the past three decades, Nigerian communities have adopted the approach of taking care of its members through the constitutions of community health committees (CHCs) that uphold and support government interventions in health structures at the local level (Abimbola et al. 2016). These CHCs focus mainly on the healthcare delivery system by engaging government agencies frequently to ensure functional primary health care B. A. Balogun (B) Department of Management, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University, Coimbatore, India e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al. (eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Development and Leisure Services, World Sustainability Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59820-4_4

51

52

B. A. Balogun

facilities are provided and maintained within their communities. The measures taken by these CHCs have, nevertheless, proved inadequate, because sufficient consideration is not being given to the social determinants of health (SDoH). As critical factors that impact health inequities of communities, the SDoH constitute an important missing link for wholesome community health. The arguments of Ichoku et al. (2013) on the subject shows that the influence of the SDoH on health inequities among and within communities runs very deep in Sub-Saharan Africa and accounts for the present-day inequities that we see. According to the United States Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (cited in Friedman 2020), the SDoH refer to ‘conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks’. Studies show that the SDoH are responsible for over 80% of preventable death. Thus, improving access to SDoH is crucial for the attainment of wholesome community health. Several studies have buttressed the role of neighbourhood conditions as a major contributor to the SDoH of communities. When communities are equipped with social amenities that engender communal interactions and recreational outdoor exercises and leisure activities, a solid avenue for the promotion of the health status of members is established (Friedman 2020; Jennings et al. 2016). SDoH have been linked to the state of health and well-being of a people. At the inception of the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 1946, the first drafters of its constitution acknowledged that health problems had social backgrounds (Commission on Social Determinants of Health 2005). Since then, the organisation has gradually stepped up actions to influence nations to prioritise those determinants. Researchers have begun to underline the huge potential in using SDoH to predict health (Ancker et al. 2018). Numerous SDoH have been identified in this regard, but this paper is focused on recreation, one of those social factors identified by WHO at the beginning as essential to human health. This paper seeks to find the basis for leisure activities and recreation facilities in Nigerian communities, identify opportunities for the promotion of such facilities, and draw potential implications as a result.

2 Conceptual Framework In conceptualising the idea of wholesome community health, it is a given that certain thresholds are meant to be reached. Identifying those thresholds and attaining healthy societies require an understanding of all the terminologies that are the key constructs of this paper. First, what does the word ‘community’ mean? As Kravetz (2017, p. 8) put it, it is a commonly used word that we easily assume we know. Running through the literature, the word ‘community’ has been defined from various standpoints and, thus, fallen short of any universally acceptable definition. Green and Ottoson (1999, cited in Goodman et al. 2014) saw community as a group of inhabitants living in a somewhat localised area under the same general regulations and having common

Leisure Activities and Recreation Facilities in Nigeria: Implications …

53

norms, values, and organisations. It is given by this definition that every community may have evolved some encompassing rules and principles to which members subscribe to guide their co-habitation. By extension, the authors may be insinuating some form of distinction among communities. In essence, some form of psychological or mental delineation from other communities is created as a result. In the findings of Walton (2018), each neighbourhood tends to have a degree of sense of community (SOC) irrespective of the background of the constituent members of such a community. It is this SOC that fosters communal relationships. It can be deduced, therefore, that SOC is a critical construct of the concept ‘community’. Sarason (1974 cited in Sakip et al. 2013) was the first researcher to emphasise the concept of SOC, stressing its role in ensuring optimum functionality of any community. Kim and Kaplan (2004) identified four domains of SOC, namely, community attachment, community identity, social interaction and pedestrianism; he associated good communities with positive outcomes in each of the domains. Any neighbourhood where the SOC is missing opens itself to anarchy. According to Sakip et al. (2013) and Walton (2018), this state of anarchy has in itself the potential to bring social and mental distress to the people. Ibama et al. (2015) had another perspective to the definition of community. They viewed it as a group of people living within a common geographical boundary that may not necessarily be of the same origin as in language, culture and practices but are often of the spirit of joint ownership of issues of common interest and advancement. Ibama et al. (2015) introduced the notion of the existence of variety or assortment of community members to the definition, which ranged from race to ethnicity, social class and other demographic and psychographic characteristics. Walton (2018) opined that communal strain existed in certain neighbourhoods of America where racial and ethnic diversity was high. In contrast, Sakip et al. (2013) found a high degree of SOC—or what they otherwise referred to as community ties—in ethnically homogenous communities in Malaysia where middle-income earners lived. Even though demographic factors such as age and gender did not impact the SOC, they reported that social factors did. In recent times, anthropologists went further to demonstrate that a community might have broken its geographical boundaries with the advancement of communication and transportation technology. They argued that the world itself had become a global community with the creation of ‘social space’ for people to interact (Matsumoto 1993). Nevertheless, the focus of this paper is to point out the constructs of relevance in discussing wholesome community health and health inequity. For every community, we expect members to embrace common regulations and values, welcome diversity of composition and promote a SOC. The word “health” is another terminology that requires conceptualisation. WHO set the tone in 1946 when it established that health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease of infirmity (World Health Organisation, n. d.). It is apparent that the definition emphasised that no form of disease must be found in the human body, in addition to advocating for wholeness in all ramifications. It also views health as a static commodity that has a pedestal to attain and maintain. Even though WHO called on the nations of the world to take steps to ensure that people enjoy this state of health, the unmistakable

54

B. A. Balogun

tone of the definition is the call to every individual to take responsibility for his or her health. In recent times, many researchers and practitioners have challenged the continued validity of the definition in today’s world. In 2008, two professors at the Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, University of Toronto, Jadad and O’Grady, posted a blog to spark conversations on the subject. Between then and now, there have been over a thousand reactions generated from it. A cursory scan revealed that the majority called for a new definition from WHO. In their own publication, Fallon and Karlawish (2019) posited that the seventy-year-old definition no longer addressed current realities. Feyzabadi et al. (2018) listed ambiguity, ideality, limitlessness, lack of comprehensiveness, lack of weighting to aspects of health, being non-operational, reductionism, and lack of a precise definition of the normal condition and disease as major drawbacks of the definition. Charlier et al. (2017) and Huber et al. (2011) thought that by going with such an idealistic definition, much of the whole world could be said to be unhealthy at one time or the other. This is because the global burden of disease and health inequity today is enormous without excluding people on the basis of race, wealth, demography or location (Roser and Ritchie 2020). Even the United States, despite having the highest per capita expenditure on health, is nowhere near being the healthiest nation (Bradley et al. 2018). It is on these bases that a review of the ‘health’ definition is called for. If eminent researchers have come to a consensus of questioning the utopian and unrealistic stance of the definition by WHO, what is the acceptable position for this paper to go on? The definition offered by Oleribe et al. (2018) is apt. In summarising views from sociological, environmental, societal and economic perspectives, they postulated that health is a satisfactory and acceptable state of physical (biological), mental (intellectual), emotional (psychological),economic (financial),and social (societal)wellbeing. They recognised that an absolute perfect state of health is a mirage by accommodating the dynamic nature of our health. Humans are exposed daily to different physical, emotional and social stressors and must find the resilience to handle them and maintain wellness of body, spirit and soul. In the words of Huber et al. (2011), this is the ability to adapt and to self-manage. It is this dynamic state of health that Bradley et al. (2018) referred to as fullness of life. Health is not an isolated object picked off the shelf of a supermarket; it enjoys inputs from our total wellbeing to produce in us the fullness of life. Rather than aggregating so much into the definition of health as WHO did, we can see what health actually is—fullness of life—and distinguish it from those factors that affect health. Realistically, nobody is in a complete state of well-being because stressors are always with us (Misselbrook 2014; Huber et al. 2011). Everyone is responsible for his health, but no one is in complete control of the external stressors. Numerous epidemiological studies have revealed to us how sociocultural, political, economic and environmental factors positively or negatively affect health (Balog 2017). It is on this premise that Shilton et al. (2011) advocated for meaningful and positive contribution from the public in the promotion of health. Health cannot be separated from the influence of external factors. The public has a major role to play to promote, support and uplift our collective health status. Bates et al. (2019) took a step further by backing the call of previous prominent scholars on adopting the culture-centred approach (CCA) to

Leisure Activities and Recreation Facilities in Nigeria: Implications …

55

defining health. They argued that what health meant could differ from community to community depending on their respective needs, realities and perspectives. While Bates et al. (2019) were able to validate their approach in community experiments, this paper regards that a somewhat universal definition, such as the one put forward by Oleribe et al. (2018) could serve as the starting point for CCA. In canvassing for wholesome community health, therefore, the essential items for consideration are that we identify every neighbourhood as hosting people who are bound by a SOC and are in an acceptable and satisfactory state of well-being, bearing in mind that positive stressors should be generated from the locality. Or perhaps, it is not that simple. Goodman et al. (2014) acknowledged how difficult defining community health could be, following a comprehensive literature review and the practical analyses they carried out. For instance, according to Alakija (2000) and Ibama et al. (2015), community health is concerned with the health of the whole population [of the community], …identifies the root causes of diseases and health problems, [deploys] community resources principally in solving their problems [in addition to] the resources from government and private sector… [with the aim of] giving the highest level of health for all people in the community and such level includes that of physical, mental, moral, social and spiritual health. The definition provided by Alakija (2000) recognises that every community could have peculiar health challenges, which necessitate a community-based approach to tackling them. It is apparent that factors affecting health differ from one community to another. Consequently, health needs will also differ. For instance, Dannefer et al. (2020) observed a huge disparity in the health status of many communities of New York in spite of the tremendous wealth the city enjoys. In other words, all stakeholders have to uncover the characteristic health needs of every community and work with community leaders to address communal health challenges. Pierre et al. (2020) reported that the place-based model of intervening in community health in some communities in New York City has yielded some desirable improvements. Abimbola et al. (2016) also recounted a degree of progress with the introduction of CHCs in some communities in parts of Nigeria. Goodman et al. (2014) provided a workable definition for this paper: a multi-sector and multi-disciplinary collaborative enterprise that uses public health science, evidence-based strategies, and other approaches to engage and work with communities, in a culturally appropriate manner, to optimize the health and quality of life of all persons who live, work, or are otherwise active in a defined community or communities. From the foregoing, consequently, wholesome community health is multifactorial. An aggregate of the SDoH are critical to its sustenance. Scholars have subjected the word ‘leisure’ to diverse interpretations by from time immemorial. A long chronicle exists in the literature from the times of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, showing the multidimensional portrait of the word (Hemingway and Parr 2000; Beville 2010; Suleiman 2016; Cordes 2013, p. 1). ‘Leisure’ will continue to connote and evoke assorted inferences depending on the discipline and angle from which the discussants evaluate the subject. In contemporaneous time, Henderson et al. (2004) linked early attempts to social philosophers who barely explained the word with conjectures in the 1960s similar to the ancient

56

B. A. Balogun

philosophers. More recent reviews have identified three main domains in ‘leisure’. First, leisure is associated with free time (Ogunwuyi 1998, cited in Suleiman 2016). Cordes (2013, p. 2) argued contrarily, referring to the vast amount of free time available to prisoners but who cannot claim to have leisure. It is, therefore, reasonable to state that while free time does not always translate into leisure, it remains an important resource for leisure. Second, it is believed that all activities in which we engage that are not related to work and chores can be classified as leisure activities (Cordes 2013, p. 3). Here, activities are classified based on whether participants are physically active or inactive. One could sit down with the internet during his leisure time or one could take a brisk walk up and down the street. While the former is a physically inactive engagement, the latter demands a lot physically in terms of energy expenditure. Stakeholders have weighed both and found the latter to be more worthwhile (Suleiman 2016; Omodior and Ramos 2019). In today’s world, information technology has given formal work the opportunity to invade homes. The internet has brought tremendous disruption to the way we work (Leung and Lee 2005). The recent COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the dynamics, potentially bringing more physical inactivity to people (Meister 2020). Meanwhile, physical inactivity has had the reputation of being a major risk factor for global ill health and mortality (AkaroloAnthony and Adebamowo 2014). On the other hand, leisure time physical activity (LTPA) is strongly correlated to health and a health-related quality of life (Omodior and Ramos 2019; Akarolo-Anthony and Adebamowo 2014). In fact, WHO has made awareness about physical activity one of its global cardinal goals by formulating a draft action plan on the matter and circulating it to member states at the 71st World Health Assembly in Geneva (World Health Organisation 2018). LTPA is no longer being viewed as a personal matter but as a fundamental and prioritised social issue for the community to deal with (Biernat and Piatkowska 2020). Thus, the emphasis is on physical activity. Third, leisure requires the right state of mind (Cordes 2013, p. 5; Suleiman 2016). Leisure should instil a sense of freedom and control for the subject in question; it should not be of compulsion. It is when the motivation to engage in leisure activities is intrinsic that optimal satisfaction is derivable. Thus, it is the state of mind that determines leisure, not the activity itself. An athlete who spends an extra hour for exercises after team training cannot be said to be engaged in leisure. This is because it is an exercise coming from extrinsic motivation—his goal to be better and increase his chance of success at tournaments. On the other hand, a banker, who after returning home from his paid employment does the same exercises, is driven by intrinsic motivation—physical fitness and social interaction. This banker is not obligated to the same routine, because options are available to him unlike the athlete who has to master his art in order to get better at it. While the athlete may get more exhausted by his extra work, the banker is likely going to feel rejuvenated. In summary, putting the construct of ‘leisure’ in context, we expect an availability of free time to engage in physical activities that are driven by intrinsic motivation. The definition of the term ‘recreation’ has followed a trajectory similar to ‘leisure’—no universally accepted definition (Cordes 2013, p. 7; Suleiman 2016). Recreation involves all activities in which a person or group of persons engage for

Leisure Activities and Recreation Facilities in Nigeria: Implications …

57

pleasure at times of leisure. This could take place indoors or outdoors depending on what is found more suitable. Giddens (1964) explained that recreation to adults is essentially what play is to children: non-economic unstructured pleasurable exercises. Suleiman (2016) listed eight criteria to be fulfilled before an activity could be regarded as recreational. This paper finds some of them debatable but highlights acceptable conditions that are relevant to it. First, recreation has to be a voluntary action. A person must be deliberate about his intention without external compulsion or urge. Second, recreation involves leisure time and activities. Cordes (2013, p. 7) posited that recreation was a subset of leisure that involved active participation, which may include social interaction with other people. Kelly and Godbey (1992, cited in Beville 2010) identified ‘social cohesion’ with neighbours as an important impetus for recreation. Third, the subject is fully aware of his involvement in leisure activities and is capable of deriving explicit satisfaction and enjoyment. For instance, a mentally deranged individual cannot be associated with recreational activities no matter what he is doing. Fourth, measurable positive health outcomes are produced. This may be physical, psychological, social or a combination of two or more health outcomes. Oftentimes, people find partners for their recreational activities. Thus, communities should enable the process by making recreation facilities available and the built environment conducive for pleasurable exercises (Bird et al. 2018). As WHO pursues its goal of reducing the global prevalence of physical inactivity by 15% in ten years’ time, communities are charged to come to the party with actionable steps. Promoting the culture and practice of recreation in the community is hinged on a SOC that breeds healthy social interactions and an environment with facilities that make engagement in LTPA appealing. Both factors work in tandem to make recreation a pleasure (Xu et al. 2019; Bird et al. 2018). Herein lies the context of and influence on the community and community health of the SDoH in recreation and leisure.

3 Operationalisation of Research Construct into Variables To engender wholesome community health, the variables at play are community, health, leisure time and recreation facilities. Consequently, the effectiveness of strategies to achieve our aim depends largely on the configuration of these variables and the alignment of the community’s orientation towards sustainability, such that the equation of exchange is written as: y = f(x) where: y = wholesome community health (dependent construct) x = environment (independent construct). The dependent construct (y) can further be disaggregated into the following variables:

58

B. A. Balogun

y1 , y2 , y3 , y4 , . . . yn where: y1 = Sense of community y2 = Fullness of life y3 = Common values and regulations yn = Unspecified variable. The independent construct (x) can be disaggregated into the following variables: x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , . . . , xn where: x1 = Leisure Time Physical Activity (LPTA) x2 = Recreation facilities x3 = Built environment xn = Unspecified variable. The operationalisation of the construct can be summarized in this model: Factors for community health (Y)

Environment (X)

y1 = Sense of community

x1 = Leisure time physical activity

y2 = Fullness of life

x2 = Recreation facilities

y3 = Health equity

x3 = Built environment

4 Theoretical Background A number of theories have been postulated and models have been proposed to discuss leisure and recreation in practice (Henderson et al. 2004). ‘Play’, as the denominator that brings the two terms ‘leisure’ and ‘recreation’ together, has been theorised for ages. Even though the three words have been used interchangeably in some literature, they are not the same (Caldwell and Witt 2011). Play remains the foundation upon which leisure and recreation is built. Giddens (1964) established the relationship between play and leisure and reviewed various theories of play including The Recreation Theory. Lazarus (1883, cited in Giddens 1964) propounded the Recreation Theory, which emphasised that mental and physical recuperation was the hallmark of recreation after people had been exposed to work-related stress. In this manner, it is evident that play (through recreational activities) constitutes a social determinant of health today. Eberle (2014) stated that much of the pleasure we derive from play is social in nature, and play strengthens our social skills. Evidently, play provides the platform for sound health to thrive on both the individual and communal level. There are other theories and models that point to the usefulness and relevance of leisure and recreation to health. For instance, applying the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

Leisure Activities and Recreation Facilities in Nigeria: Implications …

59

to measure willingness to engage in leisure activities, Ajzen and Driver (1991) found that consequential positive impact on health behaviour is a major reason for people to recreate. In 2019, applying the same TPB but on a different sample population, Li, Hsu and Lin also reported a similar outcome from their research. Laird et al. (2018) proved that the social support theory could show that participation in physical activities improved overall physical and mental performance of participants. From the perspective of preventive health, researchers have been able to use some theories to predict people’s willingness to participate in LTPA (Beville 2010). The Health Belief Model developed by Becker in 1974 was based on using probability and the consequence grid to predict health-promoting behaviours of humans (Corcoran 2007, p. 15–17). However, the efficacy of the model to predict and influence physical activity behaviour has been queried (Hosseini et al. 2017; Sas-Nowosielski et al. 2013). From the perspective of cognitive behaviour, the Social Cognitive Theory has been found to be useful. Lee et al. (2018) demonstrated the usefulness of the theory to implement effective physical activity programmes, while Winters et al. (2003) and White et al. (2012) measured and explained physical activity behaviour successfully using the theory’s framework. Beville (2010) noted that health behaviour theories and models would continue to provide veritable frameworks for the study of LPTA. Social Cognitive Theory has been applied in built environment literature too. Built environment refers to the part of the environment that is made or developed by man. In a community, this will cover the house and road designs, lay-bys and walkways, gardens and green parks, streetlights, drainage system, and leisure and recreation facilities. The summation of findings is that the built environment influences the health-promoting behaviour (National Institute of Health 2008). Yu et al. (2020) and Gomes et al. (2016) provided significant scientific evidence that strongly correlated built environment with LTPA. Ashraf et al. (2017), guided by Kim and Kaplan’s theory of 2004, established that the SOC was linked to the built environment in communities with residents apparently more willing to uphold common values. Similarly, Farahani and Lozanovska (2014) proved the strong relationship between the built environment and the SOC and showed that a buoyant social life was an added benefit. Evidently, the built environment impacts on many domestic choices made daily, including the degree of physical activities in which people engage in the community and the level of community ties that is experienced. Clearly, there are attendant community health implications for the built environment.

5 Addressing the Nigeria Situation The SDoH receive little attention from policy-makers in Nigeria (Rispel et al. 2009, cited by Kusimo 2015). Unfortunately, the Nigeria situation is worsened by the deplorable health indices and the high health inequity it has. Adewole and Osungbade (2016), Anekoson (2013), Muhammad et al. (2017), and Ibama et al. (2015) have all painted the gloomy picture of the current state of health. Hence, attainment of

60

B. A. Balogun

wholesome community health in Nigeria requires a multidisciplinary approach and significant investment from all stakeholders, not only in the health institutions but also in the SDoH (Braveman 2002, cited in Kusimo 2015). Access to leisure activities and recreational facilities has been established as one of the viable means of promoting community health. Leung and Lee (2005) found that a major determinant of life quality in a community is the volume of leisure activities taking place. Omodior and Ramos (2019) pointed out that engagement in recreational activities by members of a community enhanced their health-related quality of life. The provision of parks in communities, coupled with ease of accessibility and use, significantly improves the leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) of members. Higgerson et al. (2018) recommended the creation and provision of accessible and free recreation parks and leisure facilities to support increased community levels of physical activity. Jennings et al. (2016) cautioned, however, that accessibility of recreation centres ought to be backed by evidence of social accessibility before optimal engagement of leisure facilities by community members can be more certain. Social accessibility is a function of community ties or a SOC, because we feel safer in a neighbourhood where everyone cares for and protect one another. Humans are social beings and do not tolerate isolation for long; humans are wired for regular social interactions. If a person perceives that his use of outdoor recreation facilities in the community exposes him to some form of danger or discriminatory treatment, he will most likely back off. On the other hand, such leisure facilities potentially provide avenues to develop a deeper SOC among community members. In essence, leisure facilities for recreation and physical activities contribute to wholesome community health due to inherent physical, mental and social benefits (Friedman 2020). Nigerians have gradually embraced that leisure activities and outdoor exercises are contributory factors to health and good quality of life. Perception about recreation services is positive. Following his survey carried out in some communities of Kwara State, Nigeria, Asagba (2007) established that leisure activities were viewed by community members as important indicators of their present and future health status. Lawal and Bilesanmi (2013) discovered that two of every three persons surveyed in South West Nigeria saw outdoor recreation as an important tonic for health living; only less than 10% of respondents claimed that no correlation existed between recreation and health. Olaitan et al. (2012), Bakare (2013) and Dantata (2014) are other researchers who reported similar findings. Nevertheless, Adedotun et al. (2019) discovered that Nigerian adults loved frequent outdoor recreation, but the interest in sedentary activities such as drinking and chatting was higher than in physical activities such as jogging, swimming and football. It is apparent that a lot of awareness campaigns need to be done by stakeholders to promote routine and regular LTPA among Nigerian adults. The emphasis of WHO is on getting communities engaged in physical activities because of associated diverse health benefits and redressing health equity imbalance (World Health Organisation 2018). VincentOnabajo and Blasu (2016) opined that health benefits were derivable from leisure participation as part of the post-management regimen of cases of stroke. About 90% of the study group participated in communal leisure activities, even though more social interactions and less physical exercises were involved. This gives an insight

Leisure Activities and Recreation Facilities in Nigeria: Implications …

61

to the fact that communities could come up with event centres for recreation activities for their members to rehabilitate and make the built environment conducive for LTPA. Faerstein et al. (2018) claimed that only limited evidence was found in his study linking natural and built environment with physical activity in low and middle-income countries such as Nigeria. Conversely, Oyeyemi et al. (2018) found from their study that the neighbourhood’s built environmental factors provided great impetus for recreational and health-related physical activities among Nigerian adults.

6 Conclusion and Recommendation This paper has underscored the invaluable importance of three constructs—built environment, leisure activities and recreation facilities—in the promotion of wholesome community health and reduction of health inequity challenges. It has argued for the identification of leisure activities and recreation facilities as critical variables for the SDoH framework. A strong conceptual and theoretical basis for advocating leisure activities and recreation facilities was provided to stimulate stakeholders—governments at all levels, communities and individuals—to take the necessary steps in that regard. Peculiar challenges facing communities in Nigeria were highlighted. A community approach similar to the place-based model discussed by Dannefer et al. (2020) or CCA by Bates et al. (2019) could offer veritable opportunities to address health inequities and SDoH issues in Nigeria. More targeted community studies are needed in Nigeria.

References Abimbola S, Molemodile SK, Okonkwo OA, Negin J, Jan S, Martiniuk AL (2016) ‘The government cannot do it all alone’: realist analysis of the minutes of community health committee meetings in Nigeria. Health Policy Plann 31:332–345 Adedotun SB, Yakubu DA, Ajayi OA, Adedotun DO, Tewogbade M (2019) An assessment of urban household outdoor recreational behaviours in Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Engineering and Environmental Sciences: 5–7 November 2019, Faculty of Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Osun State University (pp 370–383). Faculty of Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Osun State University, Nigeria Adewole DA, Osungbade KO (2016) Nigeria national health insurance scheme: a highly subsidized health care program for a privileged few. Int J Trop Dis Health 19(3):1–11 Ajzen I, Driver BL (1991) Prediction of leisure participation from behavioural, normative, and control beliefs: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. Leisure Sci 13(3):185–204 Akarolo-Anthony SN, Adebamowo CA (2014) Prevalence and correlates of leisure-time physical activity among Nigerians. BMC Public Health 14:529. http://www.biomedcentral.com/14712458/14/529 Ancker JS, Kim M, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Pathak J (2018) The potential value of social determinants of health in predicting health outcomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc 25(8):1109–1110

62

B. A. Balogun

Anekoson JI (2013) A comparative analysis of health indicators of Nigeria and Rwanda: a Nigerian volunteer’s perspective. Am J Public Health Res 1(7):177–182 Asagba BO (2007) Perceived impact of leisure activities to societal development of the indigenous people of Kwara central zone, Kwara state, Nigeria. Int J Afr Afr Am Stud 6(2):43–49 Ashraf P, Ayad H, Saadallah D (2017) Sense of community and built environment: how can built environment, social economic conditions and history of place shape our sense of community? Int J Eng Adv Technol 6(3):2249–8958 Bakare TV (2013) Leisure patterns among Nigerian university lecturers: the potential for leisure education in industries. IOSR J Sports Phys Educ 1(2):1–8 Balog JE (2017) The meaning of health in the era of value-based care. Cureus 9(2):e1042. https:// doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1042 Bates BR, Marvel DL, Nieto-Sanchez C, Grijalva MJ (2019) Painting a community-based definition of health: a culture-centered approach to listening to rural voice in Chaquizhca, Ecuador. Frontiers Comm 4:37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00037 Beville JM (2010) A theory-based investigation of leisure time physical activity among college students. (PhD thesis), University of Alabama, Alabama. Retrieved from http://libcontent1.lib. ua.edu/content/u0015/0000001/0000345/u0015_0000001_0000345.pdf Biernat E, Piatkowska M (2020) Leisure-time physical activity participation trends 2014–2018: a cross-sectional study in Poland. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:208. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph17010208 Bird EL, Ige J, Pilkington P, Pinto A, Petrokofsky C, Burgess-Allen J (2018) Built and natural environment planning principles for promoting health: an umbrella review. BMC Public Health 18:930. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5870-2 Bradley KL, Goetz T, Viswanathan S (2018) Toward a contemporary definition of health. Mil Med 183(Suppl. 1):204–207 Caldwell LL, Witt PA (2011) Leisure, recreation, and play from a developmental context. New Directions for Youth Development, 130:13–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.394 Charlier P, Coppens Y, Malaurie J, Brun L, Kepanga M, Hoang-Opermann V, ... Hervé C (2017) A new definition of health? An open letter of autochthonous peoples and medical anthropologists to the WHO. Eur J Intern Med 37:33–37. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2016.06.027 Commission on Social Determinants of Health (2005) Action on the social determinants of health: learning from previous experiences. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/social_determinants/ resources/action_sd.pdf Corcoran N (2007) Communicating health: strategies for health promotion. Thousand Oaks, Sage, California Cordes KA (2013) Applications in recreation & leisure: for today and the future (4th ed). Sagamore Publishing LLC, Urbana, Illinois Dannefer R, Wong BC, John P, Gutierrez J, Brown-Dudley L, Freeman K, … Maybank KA (2020) The neighbourhood as a unit of change for health: early findings from the east Harlem neighbourhood health action centre. J Community Health 45:161–169 Dantata YM (2014) Recreational activities of students with visual impairment in an inclusive setting in Bauchi State. Nat J Inclusive Educ 2(1):45–51 Eberle SG (2014) The elements of play: toward a philosophy and a definition of play. Am J Play 6(2):214–233 Faerstein E, Henrique da Silveira I, Boclin K, Curioni CC, Ribeiro de Castro R, Junger WL (2018) Associations of neighbourhood socioeconomic, natural and built environmental characteristics with a 13-year trajectory of non-work physical activity among civil servants in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: The Pro-Saude Study. Health and Place 53:110–116 Fallon CK, Karlawish J (2019) Is the WHO definition of health aging well? Frameworks for “health” after three score and ten. Am J Public Health 109(8): 1104–1106 Farahani LM, Lozanovska M (2014) A framework for exploring the sense of community and social life in residential environments. Int J Archit Res 8(3): 223–237

Leisure Activities and Recreation Facilities in Nigeria: Implications …

63

Feyzabadi VY, Seyfaddini R, GHandi M, Mehrolhasani MH (2018) The world health organisation’s definition of health: a short review of critiques and necessity of a shifting paradigm. Iranian J Epidemiol 13 (Special Issue):155–165 Friedman C (2020) The social determinants of health index. Rehabil Psychol 65(1):11–21. https:// doi.org/10.1037/rep0000298 Giddens A (1964) Notes on the concepts of play and leisure. Sociol Rev 12(1):73–89. Retrieved from https://student.cc.uoc.gr/uploadFiles/181-%CE%95%CE%9B%CE%95%CE% 9A215/on%20leisure.x.pdf Gomes CS, Matozinhos FP, Mendes LL, Pessoa MC, Velasquez-Melendez G (2016) Physical and social environment are associated to leisure time physical activity in adults of a Brazilian city: a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 11(2):e0150017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150017 Goodman RA, Bunnell R, Posner SF (2014) What is “community health”? Examining the meaning of an evolving field in public health. Prev Med 67(Suppl. 1):S58–S61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ypmed.2014.07.028 Hemingway JL, Parr MGW (2000) Leisure research and leisure practice: three perspectives on constructing the research–practice relation. Leisure Sci 22:139–162 Henderson KA, Presley J, Bialeschki MD (2004) Theory in recreation and leisure research: reflections from the editors. Leisure Sci 26:411–425 Higgerson J, Halliday E, Ortiz-Nunez A, Brown B, Barr B (2018) Impact of free access to leisure facilities and community outreach on inequalities in physical activity: a quasi-experimental study. J Epidemiol Comm Health 72(3):252–258 Hosseini H, Moradi R, Kazemi A, Shahshahani MS (2017) Determinants of physical activity in middle-aged woman in Isfahan using the health belief model. J Educ Health Promot 6:26. https:// doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_68_15 Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L, van der Horst H, Jadad AR, Kromhout D, ... Smid H (2011) How should we define health? British Med J 343[d4163]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4163 Ibama AS, Dotimi DA, Obele R (2015) Community health practice in Nigeria – prospects and challenges. Int J Curr Res 7(1):11989–11992 Ichoku HE, Mooney G, Ataguba JE (2013) Africanising the social determinants of health: embedded structural inequalities and current health outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Health Serv 43:1–13 Jadad AR, O’Grady L (2008, December 10) A global conversation on defining health: Alex Jadad and Laura O’Grady. [Weblog]. Retrieved from http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2008/12/10/alex-jadadon-defining-health/ Jennings V, Larson L, Yun J (2016) Advancing sustainability through urban green space: cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:196. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020196 Kim J, Kaplan R (2004) physical and psychological factors in sense of community: new urbanist Kentlands and nearby orchard village. Environ Behav 36(3):313–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013916503260236 Kravetz K (2017) Teaching and learning about communities. Palgrave Pivot, NY Kusimo O (2015) Addressing health inequalities in Nigeria. Retrieved from https://www.academia. edu/28338716/Addressing_health_inequalities_in_Nigeria Laird Y, Fawkner S, Niven A (2018) A grounded theory of how social support influences physical activity in adolescent girls. Int J Qual Stud Health and Well-being. 13(1):1435099. https://doi. org/10.1080/17482631.2018.1435099 Lawal MS, Bilesanmi FO (2013) People participation in natural outdoors recreation activities and its influences on the conservation of natural environment in south-west Nigeria. J Environ Extension 11:38–44 Lee CG, Park S, Lee SH, Park J (2018) Social cognitive theory and physical activity among Korean male high-school students. Am J Men’s Health 12(4): 973–980 Leung L, Lee PSN (2005) Multiple determinants of life quality: the roles of Internet activities, use of new media, social support, and leisure activities. Telematics Inform 22:161–180

64

B. A. Balogun

Li J, Hsu C, Lin C (2019) Leisure participation behaviour and psychological well-being of elderly adults: an empirical study of Tai Chi Chuan in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(18):3387. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183387 Maraccini AM, Galiatsatos P, Harper M, Slonim AD (2017) Creating clarity: distinguishing between community and population health. Am J Accountable Care 5(2):32–37 Matsumoto VJ (1993) Farming the home place: a Japanese community in California, 1919–1982. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York Meister J (2020, March 31) The impact of the coronavirus on HR and the new normal of work. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2020/03/31/the-impact-ofthe-coronavirus-on-hr-and-the-new-normal-of-work/#733cfd742b60 Misselbrook D (2014) W is for wellbeing and the WHO definition of health. British J General Practice, 64(628):582. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X682381 Muhammad F, Abdulkareem JH, Chowdhury A (2017) Major public health problems in Nigeria: a review. South East Asia J Public Health 7(1):6–11 National Institute of Health (2008, April 28) Environments: theory, research and measures of the built environment. Retrieved on 23 March 2020 from https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/res earch/constructs/environments.html Olaitan OO, Bakinde ST, Ibraheem TO (2012) Recreational activities and body exercise among secondary school students in Kwara state, Nigeria. Int J Ayurveda Pharm 3(5):690–695 Oleribe OO, Ukwedeh O, Burstow NJ, Gomaa AI, Sonderup MW, Cook N, Waked I, Spearman W, Taylor-Robinson SD (2018) Health: redefined. Pan Afr Med J 30:292. https://doi.org/10.11604/ pamj.2018.30.292.15436 Omodior O, Ramos WD (2019) Social determinants of health-related quality of life: a recreation setting analysis. Health Promot Pract 1524839919827572. https://doi.org/10.1177/152483991 9827572 Oyeyemi AL, Kolo SM, Oyeyemi AY, Omotara BA (2018) Neighbourhood environmental factors are related to health-enhancing physical activity and walking among community dwelling older adults in Nigeria. Physiotherapy Theory Prac 23:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2018. 1443187 Pierre J, Letamendi C, Sleiter L, Bailey Z, Dannefer R, Shiman L, … Sierra R (2020) Building a culture of health at the neighbourhood level through governance councils. J Comm Health 45:871–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-020-00804-0 Roser M, Ritchie H (2020) “Burden of disease”. OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved on 11 April 2020 from https://ourworldindata.org/burden-of-disease Sakip SRM, Johari N, Abdullah A, Salleh MNM (2013) Assessing sense of community dimension in residential areas in the Malaysian context. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 105:655–663 Sas-Nowosielski K, Grabara M, Hadzik A (2013) Health belief model variables as predictors of light, moderate and vigorous physical activity among young adults. New Educ Rev 32(2):197–203 Shilton T, Sparks M, McQueen D, Lamarre M, Jackson S (2011) Proposal for new definition of health. British Med J (online) 343:d5359. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5359 Suleiman AG (2016) The need to know and understand recreation, leisure and tourism practices in Nigeria. (10th Inaugural Lecture), National Open University of Nigeria, Lagos. Retrieved from https://nou.edu.ng/sites/default/files/2017-06/Complete%20Inaugural%20Lect ure%20-%20PROF%20%20AG%20SULEIMAN.pdf Vincent-Onabajo G, Blasu C (2016) Participation in leisure activities after stroke: a survey of community-residing stroke survivors in Nigeria. Neuro-Rehabil 38(1):45–52 Walton E (2018) The meaning of community in diverse neighbourhoods: stratification of influence and mental health. Health Place 50:6–15 White SM, Wójcicki TR, McAuley E (2012) Social cognitive influences on physical activity behaviour in middle-aged and older adults. J Gerontol Series B Psychol Sci Social Sci 67(1):18–26 Winters ER, Petosa R, Charlton TE (2003) Using social cognitive theory to explain discretionary, “leisure-time” physical exercise among high school students. J Adolesc Health 32(6):436–442

Leisure Activities and Recreation Facilities in Nigeria: Implications …

65

World Health Organisation (n. d.) What is the definition of health? Retrieved 11 April, 2020 from https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions World Health Organisation (2018) Seventy-first world Health assembly report. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA71/A71_18-en.pdf Xu Y, Matarrita-Cascante D, Lee JH, Lulo AE (2019) Incorporating physical environment-related factors in an assessment of community attachment: understanding urban park contributions. Sustainability 11:5603. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205603 Yu T, Fu M, Zhang B, Feng L, Meng H, Li X, … Zou Y (2020) Neighbourhood built environment and leisure-time physical activity: a cross-sectional study in southern China. Eur J Sport Sci 1–8 (advance online publication). https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2020.1749311

Babatunde Abiodun Balogun has been involved in the research of medical tourism, leisure and health behaviour for the past seven years and has been engaged in social causes focused on public health education in communities for over fifteen years. His core scientific interests include health communication, health policy and consumer behaviour in the healthcare industry.

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities Ricardo Pagan

1 Introduction Loneliness has attracted significant attention from government leaders, policy makers, employers, public institutions, non-profit associations, health and social care providers, academics and researchers in the last decades (e.g. de Jong Gierveld et al. 2006; Hawkley et al. 2010; Tanskanen and Anttila 2016; Courtin and Knapp 2017). Peplau and Perlman (1982) define loneliness as a perceived discrepancy between the desired and actual quantity and quality of social relations. According to the existing literature, loneliness has a significant impact on mental health, cognitive function, mortality, sleep quality, stroke, hypertension, and happiness (e.g. Hawkley et al. 2003, 2010; Wilson et al. 2007; Luo et al. 2012; Saygin et al. 2015; Vatorta et al. 2016; Hawkley 2019), especially among older people who are more likely to have weaker physical health and live alone, with fewer social relationships (Victor et al. 2005; Kobayashi and Steptoe 2018). Furthermore, the prevalence of loneliness can be particularly high for some groups of individuals that traditionally suffer from higher levels of stigmatization, discrimination, marginalization and social exclusion, such as, for example, people with disabilities (Dykstra et al. 2004; Paul el at. 2006; Korporaal et al. 2008; Macdonald et al. 2018).

R. Pagan (B) Department of Applied Economics, University of Malaga, Plaza de El Ejido s/n, 29.071, Malaga, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al. (eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Development and Leisure Services, World Sustainability Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59820-4_5

67

68

R. Pagan

Within this context, the participation in leisure activities has been traditionally considered as a strong predictor of well-being (e.g. Sirgy et al. 2011; Becchettiet al. 2012; Toepoel 2013; Pagan 2015). Leisure activities contribute to satisfying and enhancing some ‘basic needs’ (benefits related to safety, health, economic, sensory, escape, and/or sensation/stimulation needs), and ‘growth needs’ (benefits related to symbolic, aesthetic, moral, mastery, relatedness, and/or distinctiveness needs) (Sirgy et al. 2017). According to McCormick and McGuire (1996), social leisure engagement can become an essential means to integrate individuals (e.g. the elderly, people with disabilities and immigrants) into new groups and networks, providing new opportunities for interaction through which shared symbols, identities and meanings are created. However, in many cases the participation in leisure activities for certain groups, as for example with people with disabilities, still remains very low as compared to people without disabilities (Rimmer et al. 2004; Rimmer and Rowland 2008; Darcy and Dowse 2013; Pagan 2015). The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between loneliness and a set of leisure activities (e.g. social gatherings, cultural events, taking part in sports, volunteer work, etc.) for people without disabilities and with moderate and severe disabilities in Germany. In particular, we are interested in identifying and comparing the contribution of different leisure activities to reducing the levels of loneliness reported by individuals according to their disability status. For this purpose, we have drawn data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) for the years 2013 and 2017, because the loneliness measure (a revised version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale) is only available for those years. Similar to Pagan (2019), the SOEP allows us to differentiate three different groups of individuals: (a) People without disabilities; (b) People who have a moderate disability that limits their daily activities; and (c) People with a severe disability limiting their daily activities. This disability scale is consistent with the concept of the ‘social model of disability’ (wherein the discriminatory barriers in society and disability are seen as an outcome of social attitudes and structures, and the interaction between personal and environmental factors), and allows us to control the heterogeneity of the disabled population in a better way (Gannon and Munley 2009). To our knowledge, this study is the first one to analyse the impact of a set of leisure activities on loneliness scores by those of disability status, and contributes to increasing the existing literature on leisure activities and loneliness, as well as the debate on the particular situation of people with disabilities within society.

2 Data and Methods As noted earlier, to carry out this study we have taken data from the German SocioEconomic Panel (SOEP) for the years 2013 and 2017, which provides information each year from 1984 for nearly 15,000 households and more than 25,000 individuals on household composition, employment, earnings, education, health status, living conditions, social capital and satisfaction indicators, among others (see, for example,

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities

69

Goebel et al. (2018) for further information on the SOEP data). In this study, we only used two years (2013 and 2017) because they are the only ones in which the measure of loneliness was available. Following the works of Russell (1996), Hughes et al. (2004), and Hawkley et al. (2015), we have created a validated three-item version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale, based on three questions included in the SOEP questionnaires for 2013 and 2017: (a) How often do you miss the company of other people? (b) How often do you feel left out? and (c) How often do you feel socially isolated?. The possible answers are: very often, often, sometimes, seldom and never. After recoding these responses (i.e. 0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = very often), and similar to Luhmann and Hawkley (2016), we have created a variable called “loneliness” that is the mean value of the responses to these three questions, and thus taking values from 0 (no loneliness) to 4 (high degree of loneliness). As for the disability measure, and in line with the existing literature (e.g. DeLeire 2001; Gannon 2005; Pagan 2011), the SOEP questionnaire also includes the following two questions: ‘Do you have a health problem that limits you in normal everyday life? (Yes, severely/Yes, somewhat/No, not at all)’. Individuals responding ‘No, not at all’ can be identified as people without disabilities, whereas those answering ‘Yes’ are defined as people with disabilities. Only for those individuals responding ‘Yes, severely’ or ‘Yes, somewhat’ to this first question are they also questioned: ‘Have you had this health problem for more than half a year? (Yes/No)’. Once again, individuals responding ‘No’ are considered as people without disabilities, whereas those answering ‘Yes’ can be defined as people with disabilities (but with different degrees of severity). Following Gannon (2005), two groups can be considered within the latter: (a) Those reporting a health problem for more than half a year that severely limits their normal daily activities; and (b) those who report such a condition but state that it limits them but somewhat (i.e. moderately). Therefore, we can consider three possible groups: (a) People without disabilities, (b) People with disabilities, who are moderately limited, and (c) People with disabilities, who are severely limited.1 Looking at the SOEP questionnaires for 2013 and 2017, we find that they also include a set of questions concerning free time which reveal how often individuals take part in some leisure activities (e.g. engaging in social interaction with friends and relatives, attending religious events, doing volunteer work, watching TV/video, cultural events, among others). However, the total number of these leisure activities is quite different each year (19 and 9 in 2013 and 2017, respectively). Because of this limitation, we have only focused on the answers obtained for 8 different leisure activities that were included in both years: (1) Social gatherings with family, friends and neighbours; (2) Taking part in sports; (3) Artistic and musical activities; (4) Attending church or religious events; (5) Participation in public initiatives, political parties and local government; (6) Volunteer activities; (7) Going to the cinema, pop 1 Although

this disability measure is a self-evaluation and it does not refer to an “objective” definition of disability, the questions of the SOEP incorporate the main objective of the World Health Organization definition that relates disability to limitations on daily activities.

70

R. Pagan

concerts, dance and sport events; and (8) Attending cultural events. According to Becchetti et al. (2012) and Pagan (2015), we have recoded all possible responses using the following codification: 0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = at least once a month, and 3 = at least once a week. As a result, all of our eight leisure variables range from 0 to 3, where a higher value indicates more intense participation in the corresponding leisure activity. To estimate the determinants of loneliness, we have run linear regression models on loneliness including our eight leisure activities, and additional explanatory variables traditionally included in the existing literature, which are: socioeconomic (gender, age (and its square), years of education, real household income (in logarithms), having German nationality, and region of residence), structural (household size, number of children living in the household, employment status (full-time, parttime, and not working), relationship status (single, living with partner, and living without partner), and functional [disability status (i.e. without disabilities/moderate disabilities/severe disabilities)] characteristics/predictors.2 We have run two different specifications, one including the previous regressors and the other including additional interaction terms between each leisure activity and disability status in order to detect any significant difference for each disability group. We have also tested the robustness of our econometric results by re-estimating our loneliness model for males and females, separately. We restricted our sample to individuals aged 16 or over. After dropping respondents with missing information, our final sample consisted of 42,033 individuals (19,535 and 22,498 males and females, respectively). All calculations were made using STATA 14.

3 Results Figure 1 shows the mean levels of loneliness (UCLA Loneliness Scale) reported by people without disabilities, with moderate and severe disabilities according to their level of participation in each leisure activity. Overall, we detect that on average people with disabilities (moderate or severe) are more likely to report higher levels of loneliness than people without disabilities in almost all leisure activities. For example, the loneliness differential for the category ‘never’ between people without disabilities and people with a moderate disability is significant for the activities ‘meeting family and friends’ (0.30 points), ‘volunteer work’ (0.21 points), ‘attending church’ (0.20 points), and ‘artistic activities’ (0.19 points). For people with severe disabilities, these differentials are even greater, for example, 0.75 and 0.39 points for ‘meeting family and friends’ and ‘attending church’, respectively. It is worthwhile mentioning how the lack of ‘meeting family and friends’ (i.e. category ‘never’) leads to reporting the highest levels of loneliness as compared to other leisure activities. For people without disabilities, the mean loneliness score is 1.3 points, and going up to 1.6 and 2.05 points 2 We

did not use the variable “number of close friends” as a quantitative measure of social contact because it was only available for year 2013.

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities

71

PEOPLE WITHOUT DISABILITIES

2.2 2.0

UCLA loneliness score

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Meeting Doing sports family and friends

Artistic activities

Political initiatives

Volunteer work

Cinema

Cultural events

Cinema

Cultural events

Cinema

Cultural events

Leisure activities Never

2.2

Attending church

Seldom

Monthly

Weekly

PEOPLE WITH MODERATE DISABILITIES

2.0

UCLA loneliness score

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Meeting Doing sports family and friends

Artistic activities

Attending church

Political initiatives

Volunteer work

Leisure activities Never

Seldom

Monthly

Weekly

PEOPLE WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES

2.2 2.0

UCLA loneliness score

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Meeting Doing sports family and friends

Artistic activities

Attending church

Political initiatives

Volunteer work

Leisure activities Never

Seldom

Monthly

Weekly

Fig. 1 Mean UCLA loneliness scores by participation in leisure activities (i.e. never, seldom, at least once a month, at least once a week) by disability status in Germany (2013 and 2017). Note Weighted data. Individuals aged 16 or over. Source SOEP for the years 2013 and 2017

72

R. Pagan

for people with moderate and severe disabilities. We also find that a higher participation in leisure activities contributes to reducing the levels of loneliness reported by all individuals (with disabilities or not). For example, having meetings with family and friends ‘weekly’ as compared to ‘never’ reduces the loneliness scores around 0.4 points for people without disabilities, whereas for people with moderate and severe disabilities this reduction is 0.52 and 0.90 points, respectively. These differentials in terms of loneliness between the extreme categories ‘never’ and ‘weekly’ are not always the same for other leisure activities. For example, this range is quite reduced for the leisure activities ‘artistic activities’ and ‘attending church’ for people without disabilities. The higher loneliness scores found for people with moderate and severe disabilities, in comparison to people without disabilities, may be explained by the lower levels of participation that people with disabilities (in particular those with severe disabilities) have in some leisure activities. According to Wade and Hoover (1985) and Smith (1987), we can still find many internal and external barriers (e.g. physical, attitudinal, environmental, institutional, social attitudes, lack of physical fitness, and lack of motors and cognitive skills) that limit full participation and access of people with disabilities to leisure environments. To shed further light on this question, Fig. 2 includes the mean levels of participation in our leisure activities by disability status. The highest levels of participation are found for the leisure activities ‘meeting family and friends’ and ‘doing sports’ for all individuals (disabled or not), whereas the activities ‘political initiatives’ and ‘volunteer work’ show the lowest ones. As we expected, in general, people without disabilities are more likely than people with moderate and severe disabilities to participate in leisure activities. According to a test of means, we find significant differentials of participation by disability

Meeting family and friends

**

Doing sports

**

Artistic activities

*

*

*

**

Attending church Political initiatives

**

Volunteer work

**

Cinema

*

**

Cultural events

**

0.0

People without disabilities

0.5

*

1.0

1.5

People with moderate disabilities

2.0

2.5

3.0

People with severe disabilities

Fig. 2 Mean values of participation in leisure activities (0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = at least once a month, and 3 = at least once a week) by disability status in Germany (2013 and 2017). Note Weighted data. Individuals aged 16 or over. * Difference between “people without disabilities” and “people with moderate disabilities” is significant at P < 0.05. ** Difference between “people without moderate disabilities” and “people with severe disabilities” is significant at P < 0.05. Source SOEP for the years 2013 and 2017

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities

73

status in almost all leisure activities, except for ‘attending church’ and ‘political initiatives’ (only between people without disabilities and with moderate disabilities). For example, the highest differentials of participation between people without disabilities and moderate disabilities are found for the leisure activities ‘cinema’ (0.33 points), ‘doing sports’ (0.26 points), and ‘meeting family and friends’ (0.17 points). In addition, the differential is also significant between people with moderate and severe disabilities for ‘doing sports’ (0.63 points), ‘cinema’ (0.57 points), and ‘meeting family and friends’ (0.29 points). For the leisure activity ‘doing sports’, it is worthwhile mentioning that authors such as Anderson and Heyne (2010) and Cress et al. (2006) conclude that physical activity for people with disabilities is even more important than for people without disabilities, because it can help ameliorate or prevent higher rates of deleterious conditions (e.g. obesity and diabetes) and an inadequate sedentary lifestyle that reduces their functional capacities and abilities to work, recreate and participate in community events. In addition, and according to Levinson et al. (1991), the lack of social support (e.g. friends, relatives, sport mates, and colleagues) can become a strong barrier to participation in sports for people with disabilities. Looking at the econometric results shown in Table 1, we find that for both specifications the participation in ‘meeting family and friends’ has the strongest negative effect on loneliness (around 0.14 points). Namely, having a higher participation in social gatherings with relatives, friends and neighbours contributes to having low loneliness scores for all individuals. Leisure activities such as ‘doing sports’, ‘volunteer work’, ‘cinema’, and ‘cultural events’ also reduce the levels of loneliness but in a lower way. These results are in line with those previously shown in Table 1. On contrary, we find a significant and positive effect of ‘artistic activities’, ‘attending church’ and ‘political initiatives’ on loneliness. To investigate this result, we have calculated the correlation matrix between loneliness and the leisure activities. According to Appendix Table A.1, we detect the lowest correlations of these three leisure activities with loneliness. In contrast, we find strong correlations with other leisure activities, which may explain the sign of the coefficients on ‘artistic activities’, ‘attending church’ and ‘political initiatives’. For example, the activity ‘artistic activities’ show a high significant correlation with ‘cultural events’ (0.325), whereas ‘attending church’ and ‘political initiatives’ are strongly correlated with ‘volunteer work’ (0.290 and 0.309, respectively).3 In line with the existing literature (e.g. Dykstra et al. 2004; Paul et al. 2006; Korporaal et al. 2008; Macdonald 2018), we find that people with moderate and severe disabilities have higher levels of loneliness than people without disabilities. According to specification 1, having a moderate and severe disability increases loneliness up to 0.144 and 0.272 points with respect to the reference person (i.e. people 3 We

have re-estimated our regressions on loneliness excluding these three leisure activities (i.e. ‘artistic activities’, ‘attending church’ and ‘political initiatives’) and the results are similar to those shown in Table 1, except for the coefficient on ‘volunteer work’ that becomes insignificant at conventional levels. We have also run a version including only these three activities, and the results showed that only the coefficient on ‘attending church’ was significant and negative at the 5% level.

74

R. Pagan

Table 1 Regression results (OLS) on loneliness in Germany (2013 and 2017) Mean (SD)

Specification 1

Specification 2

2.267

−0.140***

−0.136***

(0.778)

(0.00539)

(0.00569)

Doing sports

1.624

−0.0106***

−0.00865***

(1.362)

(0.00288)

(0.00302)

Artistic activities

0.869

0.0183***

0.0185***

(1.081)

(0.00347)

(0.00361)

0.676

0.0105**

0.00968**

(0.936)

(0.00417)

(0.00437)

Political initiatives

0.143

0.0279***

0.0322***

(0.478)

(0.00708)

(0.00752)

Volunteer work

0.651

−0.0103***

−0.00535

(1.053)

(0.00343)

(0.00360)

0.961

−0.0154***

−0.0180***

(0.785)

(0.00553)

(0.00579)

0.847

−0.0606***

−0.0548***

(0.714)

(0.00610)

(0.00637)

Without disabilities (ND)

0.878

–

–

With moderate disabilities (MD)

0.065

0.144***

0.163***

Leisure activities Meeting family and friends

Attending church

Cinema Cultural events Disability status

With severe disabilities (SD)

0.057

(0.0156)

(0.0531)

0.272***

0.481***

(0.0189)

(0.0543)

–

−0.00716

–

−0.0446*

Interaction terms Meeting family and friends * MD

0.139

Meeting family and friends * SD

0.115

(0.567)

(0.0218)

(0.516) Doing sports * MD

0.095

(0.0234) –

0.00174

–

−0.0359**

–

−0.000901

(0.505) Doing sports * SD

0.061

Artistic activities * MD

0.053

(0.0118)

(0.406)

(0.0143)

(0.337) Artistic activities * SD

0.036 (0.281)

(0.0154) –

−0.00998 (0.0186) (continued)

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities

75

Table 1 (continued) Mean (SD)

Specification 1

Specification 2

Attending church * MD

0.044

–

0.0241

Attending church * SD

0.037

–

−0.00792

(0.293)

(0.0167)

(0.277) Political initiatives * MD

0.010

(0.0194) –

−0.0563**

–

−0.00665

–

−0.0582***

(0.131) Political initiatives * SD

0.007

Volunteer work * MD

0.043

(0.0268)

(0.110)

(0.0324)

(0.320) Volunteer work * SD

0.028

(0.0141) –

−0.0192

–

0.0491**

–

−0.0203

(0.261) Cinema * MD

0.047

Cinema * SD

0.029

(0.0180)

(0.257)

(0.0222)

(0.202) Cultural events * MD

0.051

(0.0259) –

−0.0125

–

−0.0686**

(0.268)

(0.0242)

Cultural events * SD

0.036

Male

0.465

−0.0537***

−0.0539***

(0.499)

(0.00780)

(0.00780)

51.197

0.00618***

0.00647***

(16.943)

(0.00150)

(0.00150)

2.908

−0.118***

−0.122***

(1.780)

(0.0147)

(0.0147)

Single

0.143

0.113***

0.113***

(0.0133)

(0.0132)

Living without partner

0.142

0.186***

0.184***

(0.0127)

(0.0127)

(0.224)

Age Age2 /1000

(0.0281)

Marital status

Living with partner (reference)

0.715

–

–

Household size

2.671

−0.0204***

−0.0206***

(1.335)

(0.00497)

(0.00497)

0.571

0.00338

0.00347

(0.976)

(0.00642)

(0.00641)

Number of children in household

(continued)

76

R. Pagan

Table 1 (continued) Mean (SD)

Specification 1

Specification 2

Years of education

12.484

−0.00169

−0.00192

(2.764)

(0.00147)

(0.00147)

German

0.920

−0.112***

−0.114***

(0.0154)

(0.0154)

5.375

−0.0976***

−0.0981***

(0.551)

(0.00831)

(0.00831)

Full-time (reference)

0.392

–

–

Part-time

0.149

0.00240

0.00168

(0.0109)

(0.0109)

0.116***

0.116***

(0.0103)

(0.0103)

Log (real household income) Employment status

Non-working

0.459

Years 2013

0.414

–

–

2017

0.586

−0.0236***

−0.0245***

(0.00746)

(0.00745)

Regional dummies

–

Yes

Yes

Constant

–

2.033***

2.017***

(0.0625)

(0.0628)

Number observations

42,033

42,033

R-squared

0.088

0.090

Note Robust standard errors in parentheses, stars for significance levels. Individuals aged 16 or over: ***P < 0.01, **P < 0.05, *P < 0.1 Source Author’s calculations using the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) for the years 2013 and 2017

without disabilities), respectively. As noted earlier, specification 2 includes additional interaction terms between each leisure activity and disability status to detect any significant effect of leisure activities on loneliness according to disability status. For people with moderate disabilities, we find statistically significant coefficients on ‘political initiatives’ (−0.0563 points), and ‘volunteer work’ (−0.0582 points). Namely, the participation in these two leisure activities reduces even more the levels of loneliness reported by people with moderate disabilities as compared to the reference person. However, this reduction in loneliness is not great enough to compensate the positive effect of having a moderate disability on loneliness (0.163 points). For people with severe disabilities, we find that the participation in ‘meeting family and friends’ (−0.446 points), ‘doing sports’ (−0.0359 points), and ‘cultural events’ (−0.0686 points) contribute to reducing their loneliness scores compared to the reference person. Once again, none of these reductions compensate the strong positive impact of having a severe disability on loneliness (0.481 points). With regard to the

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities

77

remaining explanatory variables included in our model, we find, for example, that individuals who identified themselves as male, German, and living with a partner or within a household with a higher number of members reported lower levels of loneliness as compared to the reference person. We also find that age differences in loneliness, as well as having higher real household income, and working statues (full or part-timers) contribute to reporting lower loneliness scores. To check the robustness of our results, we have also re-estimated our model for males and females separately (Table 2). For males and according to specification 1, we find similar results to those shown in Table 1, except for the coefficient on ‘cinema’ that is now not significant at the 5%. Looking at specification 2, we find that the coefficients on ‘doing sports’, ‘volunteer work’ and ‘cinema’ are no longer statistically significant. For both specifications, the coefficients on our disability variables are consistent with those obtained previously. As for the interaction terms, we find that males with moderate disabilities reduce their loneliness scores by participating in ‘meeting with friends’ (−0.656 points), as well as in ‘political initiatives’ (−0.059 points) and ‘volunteer work’ (−0.0501 points), and similar to Table 1. For males with severe disabilities, we detect significant coefficients for the interaction terms with ‘doing sports’ (−0.0467 points), ‘artistic activities’ (−0.0753 points), Table 2 Regression results (OLS) on loneliness by gender in Germany (2013 and 2017) Males Mean (SD)

Females Specification Specification Mean 1 2 (SD)

Specification Specification 1 2

Leisure activities Meeting family and friends

2.228

−0.122***

−0.111***

2.301

−0.158***

−0.157***

(0.788)

(0.00750)

(0.00792)

(0.768)

(0.00769)

(0.00809)

Doing sports

1.597

−0.00982**

−0.00643

1.647

−0.00956**

−0.00842**

(1.350)

(0.00412)

(0.00435)

(1.373)

(0.00403)

(0.00421)

Artistic activities

0.779

0.0153***

0.0206***

0.949

0.0193***

0.0156***

(1.041)

(0.00495)

(0.00517)

(1.108)

(0.00483)

(0.00501)

Attending church

0.622

0.0231***

0.0204***

0.722

0.00141

0.00279

(0.910)

(0.00610)

(0.00642)

(0.956)

(0.00573)

(0.00597)

Political initiatives

0.186

0.0215**

0.0261***

0.106

0.0293**

0.0319**

(0.552)

(0.00877)

(0.00940)

(0.398)

(0.0120)

(0.0126)

Volunteer work

0.709

−0.00993**

−0.00546

0.600

−0.0110**

−0.00556

(1.094)

(0.00469)

(0.00492)

(1.014)

(0.00502)

(0.00526)

Cinema

0.981

−0.00482

−0.00952

0.943

−0.0268***

−0.0275***

(0.800)

(0.00763)

(0.00806)

(0.771)

(0.00799)

(0.00830)

0.813

−0.0466***

−0.0398***

0.877

−0.0696***

−0.0647***

(0.713)

(0.00855)

(0.00895)

(0.713)

(0.00865)

(0.00902)

Cultural events

(continued)

78

R. Pagan

Table 2 (continued) Males Mean (SD)

Females Specification Specification Mean 1 2 (SD)

Specification Specification 1 2

Disability status Without disabilities (ND)

0.866

–

–

0.889

–

–

With moderate disabilities (MD)

0.071

0.134***

0.301***

0.060

0.150***

0.0200

(0.0212)

(0.0710)

(0.0231)

(0.0805)

With severe disabilities (SD)

0.063

0.232***

0.470***

0.313***

0.515***

(0.0256)

(0.0741)

(0.0277)

(0.0792)

Meeting 0.148 family and (0.577) friends * MD

–

−0.0656**

0.132

–

0.0495

(0.0294)

(0.558)

Meeting family and friends * SD

0.126

–

−0.0505

0.106

(0.0317)

(0.500)

Doing sports * MD

0.094

−0.00282

0.096

(0.0159)

(0.513)

Doing sports * SD

0.064

−0.0467**

0.058

(0.0191)

(0.400)

Artistic activities * MD

0.050

−0.0269

0.056

(0.0210)

(0.352)

Artistic activities * SD

0.037

−0.0753***

0.035

(0.0246)

(0.282)

0.051

Interaction terms

(0.533) –

((0.495) –

(0.412) –

(0.318) –

(0.279)

Attending 0.045 church * MD (0.291)

–

Attending church * SD

0.039

–

Political initiatives * MD

0.014

Political initiatives * SD

0.010

(0.279) –

(0.156)

(0.133)

–

0.0160

0.043

(0.0237)

(0.295)

0.0270

0.036

(0.0266)

(0.274)

−0.0590**

0.007

(0.0299)

(0.106)

0.00781

0.004

(0.0395)

(0.084)

(0.0322) –

−0.0476 (0.0342)

–

0.00597 (0.0175)

–

−0.0294 (0.0213)

–

0.0215 (0.0221)

–

0.0431 (0.0264)

–

0.0295 (0.0237)

–

−0.0490* (0.0279)

–

−0.0493 (0.0533)

–

−0.0106 (0.0592) (continued)

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities

79

Table 2 (continued) Males

Females

Mean (SD)

Specification Specification Mean 1 2 (SD)

Volunteer work * MD

0.050

–

Volunteer work * SD

0.031

Cinema * MD

0.051

−0.0501***

0.038

(0.0187)

(0.301)

−0.0273

0.025

(0.0243)

(0.247)

–

0.0558*

0.043

(0.0290)

(0.246)

–

0.00712

0.024

(0.0340)

(0.189)

−0.0118

0.050

(0.0333)

(0.265)

–

−0.0791**

0.034

(0.0373)

(0.220)

1.748***

1.706***

–

(0.0900)

(0.0903)

(0.341) –

(0.275) (0.269)

Cinema * SD 0.033 (0.216) Cultural events * MD

0.053

Cultural events * SD

0.038

Constant

–

–

(0.271) (0.230)

Specification Specification 1 2 –

−0.0690*** (0.0212)

–

−0.0124 (0.0264)

–

0.0406

–

−0.0407

(0.0343) (0.0400) –

−0.0113 (0.0352)

–

−0.0546

2.222***

2.227***

(0.0864)

(0.0867)

(0.0415)

Number observations

19,535

22,498

R-squared

0.084

0.088

Note Robust standard errors in parentheses, stars for significance levels. Individuals aged 16 or over: ***P < 0.01, **P < 0.05, *P < 0.1 Source Author’s calculations using the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) for the years 2013 and 2017

and ‘cultural events’ (−0.0791 points). For the female sample, we identify some differences with respect to the results obtained in Table 1. We find that the coefficient on ‘attending church’ is not significant at the 5% in both specifications, as well as the coefficient on ‘volunteer work’ in specification 2. The rest of the coefficients are similar to those shown in Table 1. Having a moderate or severe disability increases the levels of loneliness reported by females (except for the coefficient on ‘moderate’ in specification 2). As for the interaction terms, we only find significant coefficients on the interaction term ‘attending church * SD’ (−0.049 points), and ‘volunteer work * MD’ (−0.069 points).

4 Conclusions This study has analysed the impact of the level of participation in different leisure activities (i.e. meeting family and friends, doing sports, artistic activities, attending

80

R. Pagan

church, political initiatives, volunteer work, cinema and cultural events) on the levels of loneliness reported by people without disabilities and with moderate and severe disabilities in Germany. To carry out this study, we have used data taken from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) for the years 2013 and 2017, and have run linear regression models on loneliness by including explanatory variables measuring the level of participation in each of the leisure activities and the individual’s disability status, as well as interaction terms between both set of variables in order to detect any significant effect of any leisure activity by disability status on loneliness. First, we have found that the levels of participation in all leisure activities, with the exception of ‘attending church’, are lower for people with disabilities (especially if the individual has a severe disability) as compared to their non-disabled counterparts. Second, being disabled (moderate or severe) has a negative impact on loneliness. Namely, people with disabilities are at significant risk of suffering strong levels of loneliness when compared to people without disabilities. Third, the leisure activity ‘meeting family and friends’ is the most important factor to combat loneliness, followed by ‘cultural events’. We have also identified that ‘meeting family and friends’, ‘doing sports’ and ‘cultural events’ are significant contributors to reducing the levels of loneliness reported by people with severe disability. Although we have found some differences in terms of loneliness by gender, all of our results suggest thinking about the possible mechanisms and actions to prevent people with disabilities from loneliness and its sustainability in the long-term. From a public policy perspective, we have to create environments at a local level where all kinds of people (particularly, people with disabilities) can interact socially and have the adequate tools and support to boost their levels of well-being and combat loneliness. As our results have shown, the promotion and development of volunteering within the community can reduce loneliness scores among people with disabilities. It is also important to carry out public campaigns of information to identify the groups of risk that are more vulnerable to feeling lonely (e.g. those living alone, with low income levels, older people, retired, or having a disability), and the potential actions and interventions to guarantee a ‘life course approach’ at an individual and community level. Furthermore, it is necessary to have available and updated data on loneliness through the use of specific surveys and datasets (especially at a local level). The creation and use of ‘heat maps’ to measure loneliness scores may be very useful to identify the prevalence and evolution of loneliness in a specific region or area. Finally, the aging demographic tsunami should not been seen as a threat but as an opportunity for the innovation and creation of new affordable products and services that promote and support active and healthy ageing (Sacrédeus 2019).

Appendix See Table A.1.

0.104*

0.045*

0.116*

0.251*

0.181*

−0.036*

−0.022*

−0.064*

−0.076*

−0.126*

Attending church

Political initiatives

Volunteer work

Cinema

Cultural events

Note *P < 0.05

0.200*

0.152*

Doing sports

−0.085*

−0.149*

Artistic activities −0.024*

1

1

Meeting family and friends

Meeting family and friends

Loneliness

Loneliness

0.301*

0.332*

0.189*

0.082*

0.087*

0.247*

1

Doing sports

0.325*

0.221*

0.200*

0.112*

0.150*

1

Artistic activities

Table A.1 Correlation matrix between loneliness and leisure activities

0.154*

0.002

0.290*

0.130*

1

Attending church

0.159*

0.074*

0.309*

1

Political initiatives

0.228*

0.144*

1

Volunteer work

0.403*

1

Cinema

1

Cultural events

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities 81

82

R. Pagan

References Anderson L, Heyne L (2010) Physical activity for children and adults with disabilities: an issue of amplified importance. Disabil Health J 3:71–73 Becchetti L, Ricca E, Pelloni A (2012) The relationship between social leisure and life satisfaction: causality and policy implications. Soc Indic Res 108:453–490 Courtin E, Knapp M (2017) Social isolation, loneliness and health in old age: a scoping review. Health Soc Care 25(3):799–812 Cress M, Buchner D, Prohaska T, Rimmer J, Brown M, Macera G, Dipietro L, Chodzko-Zajko W (2006) Best practices for physical activity programs and behaviour counseling in older adult populations. Eur Rev Ageing Phys Activity 3(1):34–42 Gannon B (2005) A dynamic analysis of disability and labour force participation in Ireland 1995– 2000. Health Econ 4(9):925–938 Goebel J, Grabka M, Liebig S, Kroh M, Richter D, Schröder C, Schupp J (2018) The German socio-economic panel (SOEP). J Econ Stat 239(2):345–360 Darcy S, Dowse L (2013) In search of a level playing field- the constraints and benefits of sport participation for people with intellectual disability. Disabil Soc 28(3):393–407 De Jong Gierveld J, Van Tilburg T, Dykstra P (2006) Loneliness and social isolation. In: Vangelisti A, Perlman D (eds) The cambridge handbook of personal relationships. Cambridge handbooks in psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 485–500 DeLeire T (2001) Changes in wage discrimination against people with disabilities: 1984–93. J Hum Resour 36:144–158 Dykstra P, Van Tilburg T, De Jong J (2004) Gender and marital-history differences in emotional and social loneliness among Dutch older adults. Can J Aging/La Rev Can Du Vieillis 23:141–155 Gannon B, Munley M (2009) Age and disability: explaining the wage differential. Soc Sci Med 69:47–55 Hawkley L (2019) Social isolation, loneliness and health. In: Lobel J, Scharff P (eds) Solitary confinement. Effect, practices and pathways toward reform. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 185–198 Hawkley L, Burleson M, Berntson G, Cacioppo J (2003) Loneliness in everyday life: cardiovascular activity, psychosocial context, and health behaviors. J Pers Soc Psychol 85(1):105–120 Hawkley L, Thisted R, Masi C, Cacciopo J (2010) Loneliness predicts increase blood pressure: 5-year cross-lagged analyses in middle-aged and older adults. Psychol Aging 25(1):132–141 Hawkley L, Duvoisin R, Ackva J, Murdoch J, Luhmann M (2015) Loneliness in older adults in the USA and Germany: measurement invariance and validation. Working paper series, Paper 2015-002. NORC at the University of Chicago Hughes M, Waite L, And HL, Cacioppo J (2004) A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: results from two population-based studies. Res Aging 26:655–672 Korporaal M, Broese van Groenou M, van Tilburg T (2008) Effects of own and spousal disability on loneliness among older adults. J Aging Health 20(3):306–325 Kobayashi L, Steptoe A (2018) Social isolation, loneliness, and health behaviors at older ages: longitudinal cohort Study. Ann Behav Med 52(7):582–593 Levinson L, Reid G (1991) Patterns of physical activity among youngsters with developmental disabilities. Can Assoc Health Phys Educ Recreat J 3:24–28 Luo Y, Hawkley L, Waite L, Cacioppo JT (2012) Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: a national longitudinal study. Soc Sci Med 74(6):907–914 Luhmann M, Hawkley L (2016) Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence to oldest old age. Dev Psychol 52(6):943–959 Macdonald S, Deacon L, Nixon J, Akintola A, Gillingham A, Kent J, Ellis G, Mathews D, Ismail A, Sullivan S, Dore S, Highmore L (2018) The invisible enemy: disability, loneliness and isolation. Disabil Soc 33(7):1138–1159 McCormick B, McGuire F (1996) Leisure incommunity life of older rural residents. Leisure Sci 18:77–93

Leisure Activities and Loneliness Among People with Disabilities

83

Paul C, Ayis S, Ebrahim S (2006) Psychological distress, loneliness and disability in old age. Psychol Health Med 11(2):221–232 Pagan R (2011) Ageing and disability: job satisfaction differentials across Europe. Soc Sci Med 72:206–215 Pagan R (2015) How do leisure activities impact on life satisfaction? Evidence for German people with disabilities. Appl Res Qual Life 10:557–572 Pagan R (2019) How important are holiday trips in preventing loneliness? Evidence for people without and with self-reported moderate and severe disabilities. Curr Issues Tourism 23(11):1394– 1406 Peplau L, Perlman D (1982) Loneliness: a sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy. Wiley, New York Rimmer J, Riley B, Wang E, Rauworth A, Jurkowski J (2004) Physical activity participation among persons with disabilities: barriers and facilitators. Am J Prev Med 26(5):419–425 Rimmer J, Rowland J (2008) Health promotion for people with disabilities: implications for empowering the person and promoting disability-friendly environments. Am J Lifestyle Med 2(5):409–420 Russell D (1996) UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess 66(1):20–40 Sacrédeus B (2019) Easing the demographic tsunami. The parliament: politics, policy and people magazine. Available at Retrieved 20 Feb 2020. https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/ opinion/easing-demographic-sunami Saygin Y, Akdeniz S, Deniz M (2015) Loneliness and interpersonal problem solving as predictors of subjective wellbeing. Int J Inf Educ Technol 5(1):32–35 Sirgy M, Kruger P, Lee D, Grace B (2011) How does a travel trip affect tourists’ life satisfaction? J Travel Res 50:261–275 Sirgy MJ, Uysal M, Kruger S (2017) Towards a benefits theory of leisure well-being. Appl Res Qual Life 12:205–228 Smith R (1987) Leisure of disabled tourists: barriers to participation. Ann Tourism Res 14:376–389 Tanskanen J, Anttila T (2016) A prospective study of social isolation, loneliness, and mortality in Finland. Am J Public Health 106(11):2042–2048 Toepoel V (2013) Ageing, leisure and social connectedness: how could leisure help reduce social isolation of older people? Soc Indic Res 113:355–372 Valtorta N, Kanaan M, Gilbody S, Ronzi S, Hanratty B (2016) Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart 102(13):1009–1016 Victor C, Grenade L, Boldy D (2005) Measuring loneliness in later life: a comparison of differing measures. Rev Clin Gerontol 15(1):63–70 Wade M, Hoover J (1985) Mental retardation as a constraint on leisure. In: Wade MG (ed) Constraints on leisure. Charles C. Thomas, Chicago, IL Wilson R, Krueger K, Arnold S, Schneider J, Kelly J, Barnes L, Bennett D (2007) Loneliness and risk of Alzheimer disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry 64(2):234–240

Ricardo Pagan is an associate professor in Economics at the University of Malaga (Spain), with special interest in the situation of people with disabilities in all areas of society (labour markets, leisure, tourism activities, accessibility, etc.), older people, gender inequalities, sleep, medical tourism, wages, time use, working time, training, happiness, social capital and loneliness. He has been a visiting professor at Cornell University (2007), and London School of Economics and Political Science (2014, 2016–2019). He has also been the Head of the Chair ‘Tourism, Health and Well-being’ at the University of Malaga (2013–2016). He has published widely on these topics in journals of labour and health, economics, gerontology, psychology, and public health.

Physical Activity of Male and Female University Students as a Manifestation of Sustainable Development Daniel Puciato and Michał Rozpara

1 Introduction The concept of sustainable development, in addition to economic and environmental components, also encompasses social systems, including state public health policies. The available literature emphasizes the links between sustainable development policy and public health (Borys 2014). Research results indicate that regular leisuretime physical activity (LPA) should be an important component of disease prevention policies (Lubowiecki-Vikuk and Podgorski 2016; Mynarski et al. 2013; Puciato et al. 2011). Physical activity can enhance the educational process, have a significant role in social integration—manifested, for example, in tolerance and respect for others— and contribute to individual sustainable development (ISD). The aim of individual sustainable development is to promote a long, healthy, and autonomous life, in conformity with the physical and social environment and economic needs (Mariéthoz and Bakonyi-Moeschler 2003). The links between sustainable development and physical activity were addressed by Bestard and Machado (2015), Zhao and Li (2017), and Zou et al. (2019). An essential manifestation of sustainable development is gender equality, which includes equal access to leisure-time physical activity (Cela et al. 2014). Meanwhile, the vast majority of studies indicate marked gender differences in physical activity in favor of men (Drygas et al. 2013; Gerovasili et al. 2015; Seiluri et al. 2011; Puciato et al. 2013). However, the progressing cultural changes, reflected

D. Puciato (B) Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Opole University of Technology, Prószkowska 76, 45-758 Opole, Poland e-mail: [email protected] M. Rozpara Institute of Sport Sciences, The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education, Mikołowska 72, 40-065 Katowice, Poland e-mail: [email protected] © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al. (eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Development and Leisure Services, World Sustainability Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59820-4_6

85

86

D. Puciato and M. Rozpara

in the equality of men and women, should lead to the disappearance of these differences. An interesting social group, in which tendencies to erase gender differences should be particularly pronounced, seems to be male and female university students. Considering the above introductory remarks, the aim of this study is to assess the gender differences in physical activity of male and female university students from Wrocław.

2 Material and Methods The study was conducted in 2014 and 2015 in Wrocław, Poland. The study sample comprised 637 participants (441 women, 196 men) aged between 18 and 34 years, who were full-time and part-time students of Wrocław universities. The research project was granted a positive opinion by the Commission of Bioethics of the University School of Physical Education in Wroclaw. Table 1 presents the biometric characteristics of the studied female and male students. The average age of women was 26.0 ± 4.5 years, and of men 24.0 ± 2.5 years. The average body height, body weight, and body mass index (BMI) were 167.0 ± 4.5 cm, 59.0 ± 5.5 kg, and 21.1 ± 1 kg/m2 in women; and 180.0 ± 4.4 cm, 78.0 ± 6.9 kg, and 23.4 ± 1.4 kg/m2 in men, respectively. The women were statistically and significantly (p < 0.001) older, smaller and lighter than the men (Table 1). The distribution of variables such as age, education and body build type of the surveyed female and male students from Wrocław shows that 44.0% of the respondents (39.2% of women and 54.6% of men) were aged 18–24 years, and 56.0% (60.8% of women and 45.4% of men) were aged 25–34 years. Most of the respondents (92.9% in total, 95.0% of women, and 88.3% of men) had a secondary education, and only 7.1% of the respondents had a higher education (5.0% of women, 11.7% Table 1 Biometric variables of female and male university students from Wrocław Variable

Gender

Age (years)

Women Men

Body height (cm) Body mass (kg) Body mass index (kg/m2 )

QD

MR

Z

p

26.0

4.5

337.9

−3.89