alone什么意思旅游与社会政策---社会旅游业的价值(中英文)

2021年1月26日发(作者：cool什么意思)
英文原文

TOURISM AND SOCIAL POLICY
The Value of Social Tourism
Lynn Minnaert
University of Westminster, UK
Robert Maitland
University of Westminster, UK
Graham Miller
University of Surrey, UK
Abstract:
Social Tourism for low-income groups forms part of social
policy in several countries of mainland Europe, but little research
evidence of its benefits exists. This study empirically examines these
benefits in terms of increases in social and family capital. Interviews and
focus groups were conducted with participating families and their support
workers, in a semi-longitudinal research design. Social Tourism was
found to increase family capital in the short term, and social capital
—
in
terms of social networks, related pro-active behavior and self- esteem
—
in
the medium term. These increases can be seen as beneficial for the
participants and to wider society. Consequently it is suggested that Social
Tourism may be a cost-effective addition to social policy.

Keywords:
Social Tourism, low-income, social capital, family capital.

INTRODUCTION
Hunziker describes Social Tourism as ‘‘the relationships and phenomena

in the field of tourism resulting from participation in travel by
economically weak or otherwise disadvantaged elements in society’’

(1951:1). It encompasses a variety of different initiatives, commercial and
non-commercial, governmental and private, that aim to offer holiday
experiences to groups that would not otherwise have them. It has been
defined as ‘‘tourism with an added moral value,
which aims to benefit
either the host or the visitor in the tourism
exchange’’(Minnaert, Maitland
and Miller 2007:9). Examples of Social Tourism range from holiday
initiatives for people with disabilities

and charity holidays for children
from disadvantaged backgrounds to the development of
community-based tourism in economically underdeveloped areas. This
article focuses on Social Tourism for members of low-income groups
who would not otherwise go on holiday.
In several countries of mainland Europe (for example France, Belgium,
Spain), Social Tourism is supported by public funding, and mostly takes
the form of low-cost domestic holidays. In these countries, the basis for
provision is the perceived right of all to enjoy tourism (EESC 2006).
Social Tourism is provided on the grounds that it increases equality
between groups of society (Minnaert et al 2007). In other countries,
including the UK and USA, Social Tourism is a less well-known
phenomenon, and rarely publicly funded, since tourism is seen as a
discretionary activity, to which no right exists. In these circumstances,
any public funding for Social Tourism depends upon utilitarian
considerations: whether it can confer net benefits to society as a whole
(Minnaert et al 2007). In the UK for example, there is currently little
government policy interest in Social
Tourism. Whilst ‘‘Tourism for All’’,
is a topic in the 1999 ‘‘Tomorrow’s

Tourism’’ policy (DCMS 1999) there
is no reference to it in the 2004 follow-up policy document,
‘‘Tomorrow’s Tourism Today’’
(DCMS 2004). Assistance to low income
groups is largely confined to grants from charitable bodies (Smith and
Hughes 1999). Where Social Tourism is an established part of public
policy, its benefits are strongly asserted. The European Economic and
Social Committee (EESC) for example, in its Barcelona declaration, links
Social Tourism to a set of benefits, which include improvement of
well- being, personal development of the beneficiaries and the host
community, European citizenship, improved health and increased
employment opportunities (EESC 2006), and describes the member state
governments as stakeholders in this form of tourism (EESC 2006).
However, research to assess how far such benefits are actually realized is
very limited. If Social Tourism is to be considered as a potential
component of public policy in countries where it is not already
established on a rights basis, evidence that it confers benefits on
participants and the wider society
—
for example by increasing social and
family capital
—
is needed. And if such benefits exist, research is needed
to investigate how they can be maximized costeffectively. The aim of this
paper is therefore twofold. First to draw together literature on social and
family capital, social policy and learning to show how in principle Social
Tourism might be seen as a contributor to public policy. Second, to test
the ideas empirically through a study of how Social Tourism affects
personal and family development of low-income groups. The study was
carried out with holiday
participants and their ‘‘welfare

agents’’ (WFA)
(support workers, such as health workers, charity workers or social
workers, who apply for the holiday on behalf of the participants). It
examines how far Social Tourism has benefits beyond simply providing
holidays to those who would otherwise not be able to afford them, and
how far it can lead to increases in social and family capital for low
income groups.

SOCIAL AND FAMILY CAPITAL
This section outlines the concepts of social and family capital relevant to
the study. For more extensive reviews of the considerable literature in this
field see for example Baron, Field and Schuller (2000),

Swartz and
Zolberg (2005), and Marjoribanks (2002). Coleman contrasts social
capital with two other forms of capital: physical capital (goods and
services), and human capital (skills and abilities). If physical capital is
comparatively tangible, being embodied in observable material form, and
human capital is less tangible, being embodied in the skills and
knowledge acquired by an individual, social capital is less tangible yet,