Tourism, Leisure and Society - Essay Example

Critically discuss the different approaches to defining leisure and tourism and their contribution to understanding the relationships between leisureand tourism. 1. Introduction When having to explain specific social concepts or behaviours, it is necessary to refer to their framework, as influenced by the environment (social, political or economic). Most commonly, the continuous changes in the above environment set barriers to the development of standardized definitions for the particular concepts and behaviours. Such problem has been identified in the case of leisure and tourism, two concepts that are critically described in this paper. Particular emphasis is given on the understanding of their relationship as it can be influenced by their definition. The key approaches used for defining these concepts are presented and critically evaluated. It is proved that, indeed, these definitions can help to understand the relationship of the above two concepts, however, there are still issues that need to be further explored. 2. Approaches used for defining leisure and tourism – contribution of these approaches to understand the relationship between leisure and tourism In order to understand the potential contribution of the definitions of leisure and tourism in the understanding of the potential relationship between leisure and tourism, it would be necessary to present the key approaches used for defining the above two concepts. Then the critical comparison of these definitions would reveal whether there is such relationship or not and which are its key characteristics. 2.1 Definitions of leisure – presentation and analysis Different approaches can be identified in the literature regarding the definition of leisure. It seems that the criteria used by theorists in order to decide on the elements and the scope of leisure are differentiated, being influenced by a series of factors – referring to both the personal perceptions of the researchers and the trends/ ethics of the social environment in which each of these definitions has been developed. At this point, it should be noted that the approaches used for defining leisure are likely to be divided into four major categories; more specifically, in the context of existing literature, leisure is regarded as: a) related to a time period, b) related to a particular activity, c) related to the state of mind or d) related to a particular mode of action, referring to the quality of action which is characterized as leisure. Moreover, it would be necessary to refer to the broad characteristics of these categories – aiming to explain the general aspects of leisure; then, examples of definitions related to these approaches can be presented and critically evaluated. In order to understand the value of these approaches for understanding leisure, reference should be made to the issues to which these approaches are related; these issues are also likely to affect leisure – each time that the specific concept has to be evaluated. Regarding the first approach, the proposition that leisure is related to time, the following issues could appear: a) if related to time, leisure is opposed with work; however, because of the increase of complexity of the forms of work in modern market, the identification of the time period dedicated to leisure can be a challenging task, b) at the same time this approach emphasizes on leisure as a personal choice, c) through this approach the following confusion may occur: how it can be ensured that the time not spared on work is spent on leisure? It can be also spent on other activities (Haworth et al. 2004). In order for this approach to be accurate, it has to be combined with the approach of leisure as an activity – all activities that are a person’s obligations cannot be characterized as leisure (Sheldon et al. 1968). In the context of the second approach, leisure is a concept related to a particular type of activity; in accordance with this approach in order for an activity to be characterized as leisure, it needs to meet the following requirements: 1) to be discretionary, i.e. not imposed on the person involved, 2) to be related to a particular benefit – psychological, educational, 3) not to refer to activities which are prohibited by the law. The third approach on leisure is based on leisure as a state of mind. In accordance with this approach, leisure should meet the following criteria: 1) to respond to the individual’s needs, 2) to have a meaning for the individual, i.e. to be perceived by person as leisure and 3) to be related to the internal motives of the individual. In the context of the fourth approach for defining leisure (the quality-based approach), leisure is considered to be related to: 1) experiences of particular quality, 2) benefits of particular quality, 3) experiences that have been freely decided by the individual (Robertson et al. 2004), 4) experiences which fulfil the needs of the individual for personal pleasure (Goodale et al. 1988). Examples of definitions developed in the context of the above approaches are presented below. In accordance with Leitner et al. (2004) the traditional definition of leisure, as developed by Kraus (1984) should be the basis for understand the particular concept. In the context of the above definition, leisure is considered as ‘a highly desired state of mind or state of being that is realized through participation in intrinsically motivated activities’ (Kraus, 1984, in Leitner et al. 2004, p.10). Through a different approach, Stebbins (2007) characterized leisure as an activity developed during a person’s free time in a way that the person developing this activity can feel satisfaction or fulfilment (Stebbins 2007, 4). The difference of this definition between the one presented previously – referring to the traditional definition of leisure - is that emphasis is given on the feelings of the person involved; it is assumed that if satisfaction or fulfilment does not results from a particular activity, then this activity cannot be characterized as leisure (Apps 1981). The above two definitions reflect the aspects of leisure as highlighted previously – referring to the four major approaches for defining leisure; the definitions on leisure of Kraus (1984) and Stebbins (2007) are based on the following approaches: a) leisure as a state of mind (third category in the analysis made above) and b) leisure as a time related activity (first category in the above list of approaches on defining leisure). From a similar point of view, Tribe (2005) emphasizes on ‘discretionary time’ (Tribe 2005, p.3) as the time period, which can be used for leisure activities. In the context of the above definition, leisure can be related only to activities developed out of the framework of a person’s daily duties (work, family and so on). No requirement of satisfaction or fulfilment is set in order for the above definition to be applied. Other definitions of leisure have been also developed aiming to describe all aspects of the particular concept . For example, from a sociological perspective, leisure can even be perceived as being limited to specific activities or social behavior modes – an approach of leisure developed by Aristotle (Human Kinetics 2005, p.41). 2.2 Common definitions of tourism Through the decades, a series of attempts has been made for defining tourism; up today, there is no standardized definition of tourism; the existing definitions are related to the conditions of the social environment involved. It could be noted that the broad context of tourism, which can be characterized as a multi-disciplinary sector, makes the standardization of its definition quite difficult. At a first level, tourism cannot be related to time – a point at which tourism is opposed from leisure, which can be related to time periods. Furthermore, definitions of tourism are likely to be divided into two major categories, instead of four used in leisure: the technical and the conceptual definitions on tourism. In the context of the first category, tourism is regarded as: 1) an economic activity (for example, visiting a place for buying specific goods), (Middleton et al. 2009, p.8); 2) a personal need (visiting a place because of a family reason, for meeting a relative, or for personal reasons, for instance, a problem of health, Vanhove 2005, p.4), 3) an educational/ scientific need (visiting a place for the needs of a research), 4) a legal need (visiting a place for renewing the card of insurance/ residence). The definitions of tourism based on the above category usually refer to the length of stay in a place, the distance from the place of residence, the purpose of the travel, the cost of tourism (for example, the social tourism, which has been introduced for those who cannot afford the costs of tourism, Goeldner et al. 2009, 11) and so on. In accordance with the second category, tourism is related to: 1) specific motivations, 2) specific psychological needs or 3) leisure (Aitchison, 2003). Definitions of tourism used in the context of the second category are likely to refer to the motives of the travellers, their psychological needs or perceptions regarding tourism or the relationship between tourism and leisure (an example is the space tourism for those who perceive visiting the space as an important leisure activity, Buhalis et al. 2006, p.159). . 2.3 Can the definitions of leisure and tourism be used in order to understand the relationship between leisure and tourism? The definitions of leisure and tourism provided above revealed the following fact: leisure can be related to tourism but their relationship has one direction. This means that an individual can choose to travel in order to fulfil his needs for leisure. In this context, tourism is regarded as the reflection of the need of individuals for leisure. On the other hand, leisure is not necessarily related to tourism; for example, the visit of a historical place for educational purposes meets the requirements of tourism. However, it does not necessarily meets the requirements of leisure – referring to the case that the participants (for example, pupils/ students) do not perceive the particular activity as leisure but rather as an obligation. From this point of view, leisure and tourism can be independent. However, a different approach regarding to the relationship between tourism and leisure could be developed; this approach is graphically represented in the Graph 1, below. Through this graph it is made clear that tourism and leisure can be considered as being at the same level; their interaction can be continuous influencing all their aspects. It should be noted though that the above graph does not take into consideration the potential independency – even regarding specific cases – of leisure from tourism – as described in the example mentioned above. In this way, the specific view – as developed by Carr (2002) ignores the characteristics of leisure as a state of mind, as this issue is highlighted in the relevant approach used for defining leisure. In other words, the participation of a person in an activity which has the characteristics of tourism, does not necessarily mean that the person involved perceive the particular activity as leisure, as explained above. Of course, the explanations given on tourism, will define the level at which a particular activity – which meets the requirements of tourism – will also meet the requirements of leisure. Graph 1 - Tourism- Leisure Continuum (source: Carr, 2002: 976) On the other hand, the relationship between leisure and tourism is characterized by the following fact: the leisure behaviour of persons in their home environment can be differentiated from their tourist behaviour in the holiday environment. The above fact could be explained as follows: when being in their home environment people are likely to be restricted by the local social rules; usually, the place chosen for developing activities which are perceived as leisure is near their home – or, in any case, within a short distance from their place of residence or work. For this reason, leisure behaviour is likely to be developed within the context of the local ethical and social rules; on the contrary, when being in the holiday environment, individuals are not likely to feel such obligations, or at least the level at which such restrictions are set is lower. In this case, the tourist behaviour can be highly differentiated from leisure behaviour. 3. Conclusion The concepts of leisure and tourism, as defined above, are related but the terms of their relationship are not standardized; each of these concepts has been proved to respond to different personal needs and for this reason it is influenced at different level from the conditions and the rules of the environment (social, political and economic). In any case, the definitions of tourism and leisure reveal the points at which these two concepts interact; at the same time, these definitions reveal the following fact: the understanding of the relationship between tourism and leisure requires the reference to the characteristics of each of these concepts; these characteristics can vary, as explained through relevant examples above, since the needs served by tourism and leisure in each case are likely to be differentiated. References Aitchison, C. (2003) Gender and leisure: social and cultural perspectives. London: Routledge Apps, P. (1981) A theory of inequality and taxation. Cambridge: CUP Archive Buhalis, D., Costa, C. (2006) Tourism business frontiers: consumers, products and industry. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Carr, N. (2002) The tourism-leisure behavioural continuum. Annals of Tourism Research 29(4): 972-986. Goeldner, C., Ritchie, B. (2009) Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons Goodale, T., Godbey, G. (1988) The evolution of leisure: historical and philosophical perspectives. Taylor & Francis Haworth, J., Veal, a. (2004) Work and Leisure. London: Routledge Human Kinetics (2005) Introduction to recreation and leisure. Champaign: Human Kinetics Leitner, M., Leitner, S. (2004) Leisure enhancement. London: Routledge Middleton, V., Fyall, A., Morgan, M., Ranchhod, A. (2009) Marketing in Travel and Tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Robertson, M., Williams, M. (2004) Young people, leisure and place: cross cultural perspectives. New York: Nova Publishers Sheldon, E., Moore, W. (1968) Indicators of social change: concepts and measurements. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1968 Stebbins, R. (2007) Serious leisure: a perspective for our time. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers Tribe, J. (2005) The economics of recreation, leisure & tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Vanhove, N. (2005) The economics of tourism destinations. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Read More