ognizant Communication Corporation

Tourism, Culture & Communication, Vol. 7, pp.7-17
1098-304X/06 $60.00 + .00
Copyright © 2006 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

¹University of Westminster, London, UK
²University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK

Although  social tourism has been seen in a number of countries as having potential to counter social exclusion, formulating a definition for the term is difficult. "Social tourism" is used to describe a variety of initiatives for a variety of different social groups. These range from holidays for children from low-income backgrounds, through improving accessibility in hotels, to offering ecological holidays. This article discusses the definitions of "social tourism," distinguishing host-related and visitor-related forms, and aims to clarify its potential value in combating social exclusion. It does so by examining the ethical values underlying the way social tourism is defined and suggesting a theoretical framework for the effects of social tourism. Some ethical views of society place an a priori moral duty on the stronger strata to support the weaker. Others do not judge the support of the weaker strata as an a priori dominant ethical principle, and judge the welfare of the state by the opportunity of all its strata. Ethical positions that see stronger strata as having a moral duty to support the weaker are more likely to be supportive toward both host-related and visitor-related social tourism. Those that do not will probably support host-related social tourism, but will support visitor-related social tourism, if publicly funded, only if it can demonstrate benefits for the whole of society. In Western liberal democracies where this is a prevailing view, visitor-related social tourism might justify public expenditure as a potential tool to combat social exclusion. It can be seen as a merit good if it improves excluded peoples' handicapping characteristics, through, for example, beneficial effects in health, self-esteem, and improvement of family relationships. However, there is little research to test its effectiveness in achieving these outcomes. Further research is required to evaluate whether social tourism can have a significant role in combating social exclusion, and thus justify support from public expenditure.

Key words: Social tourism; Social exclusion; Ethics

Address correspondence to Robert Maitland, The Centre for Tourism, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5LS, UK. Tel: 44-207-911-5000; Fax: 44-207-911-5171; E-mail: R.A. Maitland@wmin.ac.uk

University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK

The World Tourism Organization (WTO) asserts tourism as a vehicle for economic development and poverty alleviation (EDPA) in developing countries. Among EDPA strategies, WTO highlights small enterprise development, stressing government support in such development. Tourism in Kenya is foreign owned, so economic benefits leak from the local economy. It emphasizes safari/coastal products and exploits the southern and coastal regions in an anachronistic and colonial model of tourism development. A new, postcolonial model of tourism development involving small indigenous enterprises and promoting cultural products to new markets would seem an obvious vehicle for EDPA in Kenya. Thus, Kenya's capacity to promote the development of indigenous enterprises is of interest. This study of 12 indigenously owned Kenyan tourism enterprises and six support organizations explores the challenges to tourism entrepreneurship in Kenya. The 12 enterprises fall into three categories: community-based enterprises (CBEs), and formal and informal individually owned enterprises (IOEs). Formal IOE managers had independent means and were well educated and appropriately experienced through public sector careers to deal with bureaucracy. CBEs (community initiatives offering products/services based on the natural environment) employed competent managers to address skills gaps. CBEs provide paths for skills development while raising community tourism awareness. However, community tourism development is externally driven, often by nongovernmental organizations, and can be regarded as a form of neocolonialism. Kenya's draft National Tourism Policy favors the development of CBEs as a way to enhance linkage. This article concludes that formalizing tourism enterprises in Kenya would require significant government investment in support mechanisms to provide sustainable tourism development opportunities for Kenyan communities.

Key words: Economic development and poverty alleviation; Individually owned enterprises; Community-based enterprises

Address correspondence to Geoffrey Manyara, University of Wales Institute, Western Avenue, Cardiff, CF5 25B, UK. Tel: 44-0-29-2041-7142. E-mail: gmanyara@unwic.ac.uk

University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Previous research, focusing upon the travel behavior of care recipients, established that leisure travel has an important contribution to make to well-being. Personal health, social effectiveness, personal identity, and regaining independence were each highlighted as benefits of tourism participation. Such work focused specifically upon the circumstances of cancer patients, and highlighted a number of gaps in current understanding of the ill-health and holiday-taking relationship. Arising from the research, a further hidden population was identified: the caregiver. The significance, opportunities, and support available for holiday-taking for those in an informal caregiving role were suggested to suffer at least equal neglect. This article focuses upon the caregiving population, particularly from a UK perspective. Drawing from disparate pockets of health, social care, and tourism research, it attempts to explain the complicated meaning of informal care, and outlines the different schools of thought regarding the role of respite care in contemporary society. Presenting the health benefits, both physical and psychological, of leisure participation, the case for enabling participation for marginalized populations such as caregivers is developed. The complexity of enabling such participation is explored through specific reference to leisure travel. Contested terminology, complicated emotions, and a poorly supported consumer provide an insight into the holiday-taking challenges caregivers face. The article concludes by outlining a future research agenda that includes the need to increase choice for caregivers alongside combating the apathy of both the tourism industry and society towards this population.

Key words: Caregiving; Respite; Marginalized participation; Behavior

Address correspondence to Phillipa Hunter-Jones, The University of Liverpool Management School, Chatham Building, Liverpool, L69 7ZH, UK. Tel: +44151-795-3018; Fax: +44151-795-3018; E-mail: P.Hunter-Jones@liverpool.ac.uk

University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland G1 1XQ

The low-cost revolution that has impacted upon North America, Western Europe, and, increasingly, other parts of the world, is, on initial examination, a development that has created opportunity for wider travel for all sectors of the community. This is certainly true in terms of price in that the impact of the emergence of low-cost carriers on major, generally short-haul, air routes has been to reduce headline prices significantly across all service providers. However, there are operating features within low-cost air travel which, notwithstanding price, may create barriers to access for some sections of the community. This article looks at the operating features of low-cost airlines and evaluates these in terms of social exclusion criteria. Based on an exploratory study of consumers in Glasgow, Scotland, the article concludes that access to low-cost airlines is considerably easier in both practical and perceptual terms for consumers with a flexible relationship to working and leisure time, and also access to the technology and financial systems required to avail of the best travel opportunities.

Key words: Social exclusion; Social inclusion; Air travel; Low-cost airlines

Address correspondence to Tom Baum, University of Strathclyde, 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XZ, Scotland. Tel: 44-141-548-3954; Fax: 44-141-552-2870; E-mail: t.g.baum@strath.ac.uk

University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AB, UK

In a UK context, the importance of heritage tourism, the potential of the disabled market, and government policies concerning tourism, social inclusion, and the historic environment provide the setting within which access improvements at heritage attractions for disabled visitors are studied. At issue is how disabled access and conservation can be reconciled. The stakeholders range from the central actors, the disabled tourists and the heritage tourism service providers, through to the gatekeeper and lobby players in the conservation, disability, and tourism contexts. The critical power structures are identified. Changes to the historic environment are managed through the conservation planning system in which disability interests are not formally represented. Recent disability discrimination legislation has not altered this balance of power, and is a source of uncertainty over the access standards that should apply to heritage attractions. An evaluation of progress in implementing access improvements at heritage attractions reveals the limited extent of improvements undertaken to date. Consideration is given not only to physical access but also to alternative methods (intellectual access) of providing the heritage tourism service. In conclusion, the situation is examined from three perspectives. From the disabled tourists' perspective, choice of heritage attractions to visit remains restricted compared to that of nondisabled tourists. The lack of consultation with disabled stakeholders in the access improvements decision-making process is discussed, including the acceptability of alternative methods of service delivery to disabled tourists. The uncertainties facing heritage tourism service providers arising from the disability discrimination legislation are considered but, to ensure a more balanced recognition of disability interests, both conservation planning and disability discrimination legislation need to be amended, adjusting the roles of the legislative gatekeepers.

Key words: Disabled access; Heritage attractions; Conservation planning; Intellectual access; Disability discrimination legislation

Address correspondence to Brian Goodall, University of Reading, Whiteknights, P.O. Box 217, Reading Berkshire RG6 6AB, UK. Tel: 8-378-8738/8747; Fax: 8-975-5865; E-mail: b.goodall@reading.ac.uk