Major social trends that have influenced participation in tourism include the increase in discretionary time, its changing distribution, and shifts in the way that society perceives this use of time. During Phase One, the rhythm of life is largely dictated by necessity, the seasons and the weather. Formal clock time has little or no meaning as nature imposes its own discipline on human activity. People in this phase are ‘task oriented’ rather than
‘time oriented’, and no fine lines are drawn between notions of ‘work’, ‘rest’ or ‘play’.
The effect of industrialisation is to introduce a formalised rigour into this equation.
Phase Two societies are characterised by an increasingly orchestrated system wherein discrete notions of work, leisure and rest are structured into rigorous segments of clock time, and the life rhythm is regulated by the factory whistle and the alarm clock rather than the rising or setting of the sun. Young (usually male at first) adults are expected to enter the labour force after a short period of rote education, and then to retire after a specified period of formal workplace participation. The structure that most symbolises this industrial regime is the division of the day into roughly equal portions of work, rest and leisure activity, with the latter constituting the discretionary time component (Lynch & Veal 2006). Leisure and rest time are not generally seen as important in their own right, but as a necessary interruption to the work schedule to maintain the labourer’s efficiency. The Phase Two industrialising era can therefore be said to be dominated by a ‘play in order to work’ philosophy.
Ironically, the early stages of industrialisation often produce a substantial increase in the amount of time spent at work. For example, the average European industrial labourer by the mid-1800s worked a 70-hour week (or 4000 hours per year), with
the weekly work routine interrupted only by the Sunday day of rest. Since then, the situation has improved dramatically in conjunction with the transition to Phases Three and Four. The average working week for the European labour force declined to 46 hours by 1965 and 39 hours by the 1980s. Australia, however, was the first country to institute a standard eight-hour working day (Lynch & Veal 2006). The difference in available discretionary time in Australia between the beginning and end of the twentieth century is illustrated by the observation that 44 per cent of time for an average Australian male adult born in 1988 is discretionary, compared with 33 per cent for one born in 1888. As of November 2012, the average time actually worked in any given week was 33.8 hours (ABS 2013).
While the reduction in the amount of working time has clear positive implications for the pursuit of leisure activities in general, the changing distribution of this time is also important to tourism. One of the first major changes was the introduction of the two- day weekend, which was instrumental in making stayover tourism possible to nearby (usually domestic) locations. Before this, tourism for most workers was limited to day- time Sunday excursions. A second major change was the introduction of the annual hol- iday entitlement. Again, Australia was a pioneer, being one of the first countries to enact legislation to create a four-week holiday standard. The pressure for such reform, surpris- ingly, came not only from the labour movement, but also from corporations aware that the labour force required more discretionary time to purchase and consume the goods and services they were producing (Lynch & Veal 2006). It can be said therefore that the transition to the more mature phases of economic development is accompanied by the increasing importance of consumption over production in terms of time allocation. In any event, the growing holiday portion of the reduced working year has made longer domestic and international holidays accessible to most of the population.
flexitime and earned time
More recently, the movement of the highly developed Phase Four countries into a technology- and information-oriented post-industrial era has resulted in innovative work options that are eroding the rigid nine-to-five type work schedules and uniform itineraries of industrial society. The best known of these options is flexitime, which allows workers, within reason, to distribute their working hours in a manner that best suits their individual lifestyles. Common flexitime possibilities include three 12-hour days per week followed by a four-day weekend, or a series of 40-hour working weeks followed by a two-month vacation.
Earned time options are production rather than time-based. They usually involve the right to go on vacation leave once a given production quota is met. If, for example, a worker meets an annual personal production target of 1000 units by 10 August, then the remainder of the year is vacation time, unless the individual decides (and is given the option) to work overtime to earn additional income. Such time management inno- vations have important implications for tourism, in that lengthy vacation time blocks are conducive to extended long-haul trips and increased tourism participation in general.
changing attitudes
Social attitudes towards leisure time are also changing in the late industrial, early post- industrial period. As in ancient Greece, leisure is generally seen not just as a time to rest between work shifts, but as an end in itself and a time to undertake activities such as foreign travel, which are highly meaningful to some individuals. This change in per- ception is consistent with the increasing emphasis on consumption over production.
In contrast to the industrial era, a ‘work in order to play’ philosophy (i.e. working
to obtain the necessary funds to undertake worthwhile leisure pursuits) is emerging to provide a powerful social sanctioning of most types of tourism activity.
Beyond sanctioning, tourism is also increasingly perceived as a basic human right.
Article 7 of the 1999 World Tourism Organization Global Code of Ethics for Tourism, for example, affirms the right to tourism and emphasises that ‘obstacles should not be placed in its way’, since ‘the prospect of direct and personal access to the dis- covery and enjoyment of the planet’s resources constitutes a right equally open to all the world’s inhabitants’ (see Breakthrough tourism: Getting a break through social tourism). A related issue, however, is the tendency of many individuals to spend a growing portion of their discretionary time in additional work activity to maintain a particular lifestyle or to repay debts, thereby constraining their opportunities for engaging in tourism or other leisure activities. Similarly, employees in Australia and other economically developed countries are notorious for stockpiling their recreational leave time (see Contemporary issue: No Leave, No Life).
geTTINg A bReAK THROUgH SOCIAL TOURISM
The idea that leisure travel is an important aspect of personal and collective wellbeing, and also a basic human right, is gaining traction through government-sponsored programs that help members of disadvantaged population groups to take a holiday.
Current examples from Europe, which dominate this phenomenon of social tourism, include the Flanders region of Belgium, where over 100 000 families have been given holiday discounts by travel industry partners.
In Spain, the government offered a free seaside holiday to over one million elderly citizens during the 2008–09 tourism season (Simpson 2012a). The European Commission’s Calypso program, trialled from 2009–11, allowed persons with disabilities, youth (aged 18–30), lower-income families and seniors to have a holiday
experience by facilitating connections between participants and providers. Notably, this program not only tried to increase participant wellbeing, but also sought to promote economic development by restricting these holidays to the low season, and to build geopolitical stability within the European Union by focusing on intercultural contacts through cross-border travel (European Commission 2012). According to some claims, each euro invested by government in social tourism can yield four euros in taxes, expenditures and other benefits (Minnaert, Maitland & Miller 2011).
In most cases, the target groups are offered the same basic experience as other tourists, but some initiatives are more specialised. For example, the UK social charity Break maintains four holiday centres where specialist staff and facilities are available to cater for children with learning and other disabilities (Minnaert, Maitland & Miller 2011). In all cases, social tourism raises the moral issue of whether tourism is a right or a privilege. Influential bodies such as the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) argue that it is a right for all people, yet concurrently designate it as a discretionary activity. Social tourism also raises the question as to what obligations the more privileged segments of society have to the less privileged segments, and whether some disadvantaged persons (e.g. those laid off from employment) are more deserving of support than others (e.g. those who refuse to look for employment).
NO LeAVe, NO LIFe
Overworked Australians not only compromise their own physical and mental wellbeing; they create major financial liability issues for companies (126 million days of stockpiled annual leave as of late 2012) and contribute to an underperforming domestic tourism sector. In response, Tourism Australia, the peak national destination marketing body, introduced the long-term No Leave, No Life campaign (www.
noleavenolife.com) to encourage holiday taking. Aimed mainly at businesses, the campaign provides web- based tools that help the employer to profile typical stockpiler employees (characteristically accounting for one in four employees), understand and address underlying reasons for stockpiling, encourage (rather than force) employees to take accrued leave, and ultimately change corporate culture to make it more leave-friendly. Frequent short breaks are encouraged, not just because of their more positive workplace implications, but also because they are more conducive to domestic than outbound tourism. Executives are encouraged to lead by example. Beeton (2012) contends that this marketing campaign, unusual in its focus on ‘push’ rather than ‘pull’ factors to stimulate domestic tourism in Australia, has a high probability of succeeding if it can change the salient workplace beliefs of stockpilers. Common reasons for not taking leave, for example, include the normative perceptions that it is a sign of weakness, causes more work for others and is inconsistent with the internal work culture. Personal attitudes of stockpilers include the belief that leave is an impediment to moving up the corporate ladder. Also notable are preferences to keep working, a desire to stockpile time for a really big future trip and/or fears of being bored during leave time.
Such attitudes can be challenged by pointing out the correlation between taking leave and higher productivity, allocating leave in between projects or during slower business periods, and removing perceived penalties for being absent from work. It is also recommended that 4 weeks of leave be factored into business-planning processes so that it becomes normative, and that objectives be set based on a 48-week work plan.