ObESITY AS A TOURISM ISSUE
A growing proportion of the population in both the advanced and emerging economies is overweight or obese, and this poses a challenge to a tourism sector that celebrates and flaunts slenderness in its promotional material and in the design of its facilities. The issue is most salient in the airline industry, where seating has become a new contested space. Small and Harris
(2012) found that obese passengers experience discomfort, embarrassment, annoyance, fear and frustration with the
‘one-size-fits-all’ seating practices followed by most airlines.
Non-obese passengers, in contrast, express concerns over violation of rights (i.e. by the incursion of the obese passenger’s body into their seating space), anger, resentment, fear of injury and displeasure at contact with or proximity to obese persons. A few airlines require obese people to purchase two seats while a few others will allocate two seats for the price of one. Other suggested solutions have included
‘excess weight taxes’ and ‘pay by the pound’ policies. In 2013, the latter option was introduced by Samoa Air, a carrier based in American Samoa, a US territory that has one of the world’s highest rates of obesity (Sagapolutele & Perry 2013). Samoa Air has also created an ‘XL’ seating category for those passengers who weigh over 130 kilograms (Pearlman 2013). There are several cases where damages have been paid to people injured from being constricted next to obese passengers, but in general the industry has remained ‘innocent and silent’ on the issue, according to Small and Harris (2012). With 72 per cent of Australians expected to be overweight or obese by 2025, this is an evasion that airlines will not be able to afford much longer (Small & Harris 2012).
Beyond the commercial implications of alienating various passenger segments, there is also the ongoing effort to recognise tourism — and associated transit experiences — as a basic human right. In such cases, whose rights should prevail — obese passengers or their non-obese fellow passengers?
also be misleading to the extent that an ‘alternate’ personality may emerge during a tourism experience, since this constitutes a change of routine for the traveller — that is, today’s partying schoolie can be tomorrow’s volunteer tourist. Because of such com- plexities, psychographic research usually requires more time and money than other types of segmentation, and often yields conflicting and uncertain results.
psychographic typology
The idea of segmenting the tourist market according to levels of individual risk tol- erance is largely associated with Plog (2005). His resilient allocentrics are intellectu- ally curious travellers who enjoy immersing themselves in other cultures and willingly accept a high level of risk. They tend to make their own travel arrangements, travel by themselves or in pairs and are open to spontaneous changes in itinerary. They tend to avoid places that are heavily developed as tourist destinations, seeking out locales in which tourism is non-existent or incipient. Figure 6.5 provides a more detailed list of characteristics and tourism behaviour attributed to allocentrics.
In contrast, psychocentrics are self-absorbed individuals who seek to minimise risk by visiting familiar and extensively developed destinations where a full array of familiar goods and services are available. According to Plog, those leaning toward the allocentric and psychocentric poles of the psychographic spectrum each account for about one-fifth of the US population. The remaining 60 per cent of the population, as depicted in figure 6.6, are midcentrics whose personalities combine elements of the allocentric and psychocentric dimensions. Typical midcentric behaviour, indicating a personal strategy of ‘mediated risk’, is an eagerness to attend a local cultural perfor- mance and sample the local cuisine, but parallel eagerness to have access to comfort- able accommodation, hygienically prepared meals and a clean bathroom.
Curious risk-taker Active and assertive Spontaneous Adventurous
Remote and exotic places New and unusual experiences Travels as much as possible Avoids tourists Seeks out the ‘backstage’
Cautious risk-avoider Passive and non-demanding Structured
Non-adventurous
Accessible and popular places Familiar experiences
Travels only occasionally Seeks out other tourists Stays in the ‘frontstage’
Personality
ALLOCENTRIC PSYCHOCENTRIC
Travel preferences
FIgURE 6.5 Allocentric and psychocentric ideal types
Source: Plog 1991, 2004, 2005
The typology has important implications for the evolution and management of tourism systems. Psychocentrics, for example, tend to visit well-established destinations dominated by large corporations and well-articulated tourism distribution systems, while allocentrics display an opposite tendency. A psychocentric would prefer to eat at McDonald’s, stay overnight at the Sheraton and visit a theme park, all mediated by a package tour, while an allocentric would eat at a local market stall, stay overnight in a small guesthouse situated away from the tourist district and explore the local rainforest.
Midcentrics
Near–allocentrics
Allocentrics
Near–psychocentrics
Psychocentrics
FIgURE 6.6 Psychographic typology
Source: Adapted from Plog (1991, 2004, 2005)
The conceptual simplicity of the psychographic spectrum makes it very popular in tourism research. Recent applications include Weaver (2012), who found that vis- itors to a relatively isolated private protected area in South Carolina, United States, were mostly allocentrics. Critical from a management perspective is that these visitors — who are disproportionately older and female — were more likely to indi- cate loyalty to that protected area and a willingness to engage in activities to help its ecology. In another study, allocentrics and psychocentrics were both well repre- sented among a sample of international and domestic guests at Malaysian homestay facilities, but the allocentrics were more likely to evaluate the experience as extra- ordinary and highly satisfying, and accordingly were more likely to want similar experiences in the future (Jamal, Othman & Muhammad 2011). These researchers therefore recommended that homestay managers target market their facilities to allo- centric consumers.
Segmentation applications of the psychographic typology need to consider its shortcomings, which include the lack of a single reliable scale that would facilitate comparison across a variety of case studies. As stated earlier, the degree to which a person’s psychographic profile is fixed or can change with life experience is also unclear — does travel to an ‘allocentric’ destination make psychocentric people more open, or do they simply withdraw even further into their shell? Revealed mis- matches between psychographic types and destinations (e.g. psychocentrics staying at Malaysian homestays) are common, and may indicate the influence of intervening
factors such as financial necessity, time limitations, or preferences of other family members (Litvin 2006).
motivation
Travel motivation is different from travel purpose (see chapter 2) in that it indicates the intrinsic reasons the individual is embarking on a particular trip. Thus, a person might be travelling for VFR purposes, but the underlying motivation is to resolve a dispute with a parent, or to renew a relationship with a former partner. A stated pleasure or leisure purpose often disguises a deeper need to escape routine. In all these cases, the apparent motivation may itself have some even more fundamental psychological basis, such as the need for emotional satisfaction or spiritual fulfillment.
Motivation is implicit in the psychographic spectrum, in that allocentrics are more driven by curiosity than psychocentrics, who in turn are more likely to be motivated by hedonism. Top motivations for older residents of Changsha, China (55 or older) who define as ‘frequent’ travellers (at least two leisure tourism trips per year) are depicted in table 6.2.
TAbLE 6.2 Reasons for taking a holiday, frequently travelling Changsha residents (55+), 2011
Reason Mean1 Reason Mean1
Seek intellectual enrichment 4.44 Have new things to tell friends 3.99
Visit historical sites 4.40 Reduce loneliness 3.96
Enjoy life 4.36 Experience new things 3.94
Visit new places 4.30 Visit old friends 3.87
Seek spiritual enrichment 4.29 Meet people and socialise 3.78
Rest and relax 4.26 Spend time with immediate
family
3.73
Engage in physical exercise 4.13 Attend festivals/special events 3.04 Escape the daily routine 3.99 Be with the opposite sex 2.73
1 Based on a 5-point scale where 1 = not at all important and 5 = very important
Source: Chen & Gassner (2012)
There are numerous theories and classification schemes associated with motivation.
One of the best known is Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs (in Hsu & Huang 2008), which ranges from basic physiological needs (e.g. food, sleep, sex) to the needs for safety and security, love, esteem, self-actualisation, knowledge and understanding, and finally, aesthetics (see figure 6.7). A complex experience such as participation in vol- unteer tourism demonstrates how these needs can all factor into a single tourism experi- ence. The volunteer tourist might be motivated by the need to achieve something important and to grow personally as a result. Being a member of a volunteer team fulfils a need to belong, while an experience is selected that is safe and provides for basic physiological needs.
Source: Adapted from Hsu and Huang (2008)
Self-actualisation personal growth and fulfilment
Esteem needs
achievement, status, responsibility, reputation
Belongingness and love needs family, affection, relationships, work group
Safety needs
protection, security, order, law, limits, stability
Biological and physiological needs
basic life needs — air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep
FIgURE 6.7 Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs