Content uploaded by Scott Mccabe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Scott Mccabe on Nov 29, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Nottingham]
On: 26 June 2015, At: 06:45
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Tourism Recreation Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrr20
The rights to tourism: reflections on social tourism and
human rights
Scott McCabea & Anya Diekmannb
a Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8
1BB, UK
b Université libre de Bruxelles, IGEAT, Avenue Franklin Roosevelt 50, 1050 Bruxelles,
Belgium
Published online: 26 May 2015.
To cite this article: Scott McCabe & Anya Diekmann (2015): The rights to tourism: reflections on social tourism and human
rights, Tourism Recreation Research, DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2015.1049022
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2015.1049022
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The rights to tourism: reflections on social tourism and human rights
Scott McCabe
a
*and Anya Diekmann
b
a
Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK;
b
Université libre de
Bruxelles, IGEAT, Avenue Franklin Roosevelt 50, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium
(Received 3 July 2014; accepted 21 January 2015)
There is an increasing emphasis in tourism research on the role that tourism plays in enriching the lives of
tourists, including impacts on health, well-being, happiness and quality of life. Tourism is increasingly being
conceived as a necessity, rather than a luxury. This is especially so in the advanced economies of the world,
but also increasingly in the emerging economies which have driven growth in international tourism demand
throughout the recent global financial crisis. This leads to two interconnected issues: how to ensure that
opportunities to participate in tourism exist for everyone in society, and whether access to opportunities can
or should be considered a right. This paper discusses these issues by considering the position of tourism as a
right and in the context of research on social tourism. It argues that tourism can be considered a form of
social right, rather than a fundamental human right.
Keywords: social tourism; human rights; entitlements; benefits of tourism
Introduction
An important question that forms the underlining
basis for this paper is as follows: what is the status
of tourism in today’s global society? There is no
doubt that tourism has grown to become an important
and powerful economic force, yet there is little con-
sensus on whether this is entirely positive as either
an economic or social activity. Over many years, the
tourism research community has debated the relative
merits and dis-benefits associated with tourism’s
development, including important issues such as the
impact of tourism development on societies and cul-
tures and the contribution of tourism to global
climate change (Gössling, 2002; Milne & Ateljevik,
2001). However, of relatively less intense debate is
the role that tourism participation has on tourists
themselves ‒the benefits or negative consequences
of tourism for people’s lives and well-being. Recent
research has explored the more positive outcomes of
tourism on mental and physical health, well-being,
happiness and quality of life (Dolnicar, Yanaman-
dram, & Cliff, 2012; Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004).
One area where the benefits of tourism experiences
have been highlighted is in Social Tourism
(McCabe, Minnaert, & Diekmann, 2012). This recog-
nition of important benefits of participation in tourism
has naturally led to a discussion on the status of
tourism as a need (entitlement) or a luxury (dessert)
(Minnaert, Maitland, & Miller, 2006). This raises a
fundamental question of whether there is a right to
tourism and if so, what is the basis for this right.
While some commentators regard that the right to
tourism has already been recognized legally in many
countries and by international organizations, such as
the UNWTO, there is a lack of engagement within
tourism social sciences about the legitimacy of
tourism as a right in the context of fundamental
human rights, and how tourism might or might not
be considered a right (Bianchi & Stephenson, 2014
is a recent exception). In part, this may be due to
the historic unevenness in global economic develop-
ment which determined that tourism was a practice
for the people of rich, developed nations rather than
for developing nations which were more preoccupied
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
*Corresponding author. Email: scott.mccabe@nottingham.ac.uk
Tourism Recreation Research, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2015.1049022
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 06:45 26 June 2015
with ensuring their populations had basic necessities
and services. However, in recent years economic
growth and prosperity has shifted increasingly
towards Asian and other emerging regions, a trend
which will increase in the future (Johansson & Ola-
berría, 2014). Faltering economic growth and rising
inequalities between rich and poor since the 1980s
in the developed world economies (Elliot, 2014) high-
light the need for a broader perspective on the right to
tourism, and both are matters of concern for the devel-
oped and emerging nations.
Whilst access to and participation in leisure and,
by extension, tourism have been enshrined in some
countries’social welfare legislation, there is a lack
of understanding about how these rights have been
implemented differentially between nations, the
legal basis for the rights, and how far the rights
have been extended to all members of the population.
In addition, many countries have legally adopted
International Labour Organization (ILO) (1936) rec-
ommendations concerning paid holidays for
workers. However, the right to paid time away from
work is enshrined in employment law and thus pro-
tects only workers and not all members of society.
We argue that there are other international treaties
and statements in which rights to tourism have been
established. However, these are contested, especially
in times of economic difficulties, and in the face of
competing priorities of nations in relation to the
improvement of living standards and securing
growth for the future.
The current global socio-economic situation pro-
vides a timely reminder of the importance of
tourism to people’s sense of quality of life. For
example, in many European countries consumers
have been reluctant to sacrifice holidays during the
current recession, but have modified their behaviour
considerably (e.g. Visit England, 2013). The
ongoing turbulent economic situation places the spot-
light on the rights to tourism because the global reces-
sion has reinforced global inequalities and
exacerbated impoverishment amongst a large group
of members of society (Elliot, 2014). In order to con-
tribute to a better understanding of these issues, we
discuss what constitutes a human right. The paper
reviews the various positions on the rights to
tourism, taking a multi-disciplinary perspective.
Moreover, we discuss the various ways in which
the rights to tourism have been implemented
through social tourism, mainly focusing on the Euro-
pean situation, primarily since this region has a long-
established set of systems and due to the regional bias
of the authors, although we acknowledge the strong
traditions of social tourism in other regions such as
Brazil and Canada. Social tourism aims to extend par-
ticipation to all members of society. It is a construct
that is based on the assertion that people have rights
to participate in tourism. We then go on to review
the impact of the current socio-economic climate,
and argue as a conclusion that the effects of recession
reinforces the need for social tourism and its
implementation in legal system to enshrine the right
to tourism for all. First, the paper outlines what
social tourism is, and shows how it emerged as a con-
sequence of legislation on workers’rights.
What is social tourism? An overview
Social tourism is not a novel concept despite relatively
little attention afforded to it in the academic dis-
courses until recently. Indeed, it is as long established
as mass tourism itself. Hunziker (1951,p.1)first
defined social tourism as, ‘the relationships and
phenomena in the field of tourism resulting from par-
ticipation in travel by economically weak or otherwise
disadvantaged elements in society’. Social tourism
came to be recognized specifically as an enabling
form of intervention, generally for those people in
society who did not possess financial means to partici-
pate (Haulot, 1981).
Social tourism can be traced back to the paternalis-
tic and reforming philanthropic and religious move-
ment in most European countries. For example, with
the rapid industrialization and urbanization processes
in the late Victorian era in Britain, employers and faith
communities (mostly protestant) in the form of
Sunday Schools, in addition to Mechanics’Institutes
and organized social groups (such as boys or girls
clubs, or trades-based organizations, including the
cooperative movement), began to provide cheap
excursions for pupils, workpeople and members
(Walton, 2013).
Similar types of organizations emerged in various
countries, such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and
Canada, and more particularly in Europe in Germany,
Austria, Switzerland and Scandinavia with the creation
of, for example, the Nature Friends (Baumgartner,
2012). In the earlier part of the twentieth century,
social tourism ideals were continued through the
mass democratization of travel opportunities arising
in Europe through, for example, workers associations
and organized summer camps. In Germany the KdF
2S. McCabe and A. Diekmann
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 06:45 26 June 2015
‘Strength through Joy’movement virtually subsumed
the entire organization of mass organized holidays
from the mid-1930s through radical social idealism,
which produced seven million packaged tours in five
years, making it the largest travel producer in the
world (Löfgren, 1999). Simultaneously, in North
America the development of summer camps took a
foothold in the cultural psyche of American youth,
and although the ideals were social, these were orga-
nized by private companies and not the social organiz-
ations in Europe. Social tourism thus aims to provide
access to holidays which offer a break from daily life
mainly to domestic tourism destinations and in the
low season.
The growth in commercial mass tourism after the
World War II and consequently the lower prices did
not, as we now know, result in a more equitable
access to tourism opportunities across the spectrum
of society in all the European countries. Indeed,
approximately 45% of European people regularly do
not participate in tourism, a figure that has remained
fairly stable for some decades (Eurostat, 2011a).
Whilst there is a range of reasons why people do
not travel, including a small minority for whom
tourism is not an interest, the largest group would
like to enjoy travel but are constrained by costs/
income. This figure is approximately 25% of Euro-
pean citizens (Eurostat, 2011b). Therefore, the
emphasis for social tourism policy and programmes
has been on tackling exclusionary forces, indicated
by the emphasis placed by the International Social
Tourism Organization on the social outcomes of
social tourism initiatives (ISTO) (http://www.bits-
int.org). This underlying rationale to foster inclusion
requires a particular ethical orientation at either the
level of government or society (Minnaert et al.,
2006). Therefore, a range of systems and mechanisms
has been developed at the macro policy level of gov-
ernment to support disadvantaged groups’access to
holidays (Diekmann & McCabe, 2011). Sustaining
these policies is in fact directly connected to the rec-
ognition of tourism as a right.
Minnaert, Diekmann, and McCabe (2012) distin-
guished between two different types of ‘disadvan-
taged’groups. On the one hand, there are
initiatives aimed at people with disabilities, which
falls under the ‘Tourism for All’approach. On the
other hand, there are the initiatives for low-income
groups, who for various reasons are not able to
afford a holiday in the commercial tourism system.
Falling within this type of approach are a number
of target groups, sections of societies that are gener-
ally more likely to experience deprivation and social
exclusion regardless of the level of economic devel-
opment of the country: young people, low-income
families and older people (Such & Kay, 2012).
Social tourism could therefore be linked to citizen-
ship rights and access to a meaningful and fulfilling
life, particularly for people with disabilities. Haulot
(1981) identified the role of the state in advancing
the dignity and well-being of all its citizens, also
linking social tourism to modernity. This suggests
that tourism has become an established consumer
practice, something that most individuals and
nations aspire to be able to access in order to
enjoy full citizenship rights.
More recently, the rationale for social tourism has
shifted to recognize the economic impacts of these
initiatives. Social tourism can extend the low season
and provide more sustainable employment in mass
coastal tourism resorts where there are high depen-
dencies on tourism. The ongoing global economic
recession, characterized by a rethinking of the role
of the state in the provision of social welfare services,
has sharply impacted on the viability of public spend-
ing programmes on social tourism in Europe
(McCabe, 2014). Despite more general global GDP
growth over the last 20 years, there has been a
growing disparity between the rich and poor, and an
increasing gap in the distribution of wealth across
Europe and the OECD countries, and therefore an
increase in relative poverty within Europe and the
OECD countries (Elliot, 2014; Eurostat, 2011b).
However, whilst recent research in social tourism
has addressed the issues from the perspective of
social equality, economic sustainability or social
policy and welfare, rarely do social tourism commen-
tators appraise the issue from the perspective of rights.
Proponents of social tourism sometimes refer to
their work as the exertion of a ‘right to travel’. Hauke-
land (1990, p. 178), for example, defined social
tourism as follows:
The concept of ‘social tourism’means that every-
body, regardless of economic or social situation,
should have the opportunity to go on vacation.
Seen in this light, holiday travel is treated like any
other human right whose social loss should be com-
pensated by the welfare state.
The European Economic and Social Committee
(2006, p. 68), in its ‘opinion’on social tourism, also
defined social tourism as a right:
Social Tourism and Human Rights 3
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 06:45 26 June 2015
Everyone has the right to rest on a daily, weekly and
yearly basis, and the right to the leisure time …The
right to tourism is a concrete expression of this
general right, and social tourism is underpinned by
the desire to ensure that it is universally accessible
in practice.
Yet there has not been a full discussion of the basis for
this assertion that social tourism is intrinsically linked
to human rights.
Tourism and the concepts of rights
Before we can address whether tourism can be con-
sidered as a right, we need to ask what is a right?
The term ‘rights’has a variety of meanings indicating
different relationships:
Sometimes ‘right’is used in its strict sense of the
right holder being entitled to something with a corre-
lative duty in another. Sometimes ‘right’is used to
indicate an immunity from having a legal status
altered. Sometimes it indicates a privilege to do
something. Sometimes it refers to a power to create
a legal relationship. Although all of these terms
have been identified as rights, each invokes different
protections. (Shestack, 1998, p. 203)
It is important to understand the different interpret-
ations of rights because the question of legitimacy
of rights carries implications for governments in
terms of legal and/or moral obligations which must
be upheld or maintained, either through the confer-
ment of entitlement or protection. Another important
aspect of rights is the historical context in which they
have been introduced. Indeed, there are three gener-
ations of rights. The first generation is traced back to
the American Declaration of Independence, which
drew directly on the Treatise of John Locke, the
moral philosopher, who argued for the inalienable
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
(Locke, 1947/1690). The rights formulated in the
Declaration of Independence were officially
adopted as the Bill of Rights in 1789. At a similar
time, the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were
declared in the immediate aftermath of the French
Revolution. These were based on the American
Declaration of Independence, covering basic rights
such as liberty and political participation (Lauren,
2003). The second generation of human rights are
often termed ‘welfare rights’(Griffin, 2000), which
largely arose after World War II and which refer to
social, economic and cultural rights. These rights
are often associated with the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948), the resolution of
the United Nations General Assembly. They were
followed by a third generation of rights in the
1970s based on solidarity and environmental issues,
including rights to social development, a healthy
environment and the right to participation in cultural
heritage (Griffin, 2000).
A related concept is the differential level of a
right. One level is the universal right, i.e. applying
to all humanity, examples of which include auton-
omy and liberty. These rights require protection via
international law and agencies. Other levels of
right are dependent on the priorities of governments
and states, such as those relating to some minimum
material provision, e.g. a right to welfare. According
to Griffin, only members of a particular group, e.g.
citizens of a country, can claim welfare from their
own government, suggesting that welfare rights
are, at most, ethical rights based on the contract
between citizens and government (Griffin, 2000,
p. 30). Whilst we might intuitively group any idea
of a right to tourism in the latter category of
welfare rights, based on the socio-economic devel-
opment of countries, the right to tourism has been
linked to two fundamental, universal rights ‒the
right to free movement and the right to rest and
leisure as part of the right to work (Breakley &
Breakley, 2013).
These rights are based on two articles from the
UDHR:
Article 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and
residence within the borders of each State. Everyone
has the right to leave any country, including his own,
and to return to his country.
Breakley and Breakley (2013, p. 741) identified that
this article found expression in the International
Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as
a negative right –in that people have entitlements to
protection against interference and harm. Further,
the article does not entitle anyone to enter another
country but once in a country not his/her own law-
fully, is protected to move freely around. The
second is Article 24 which introduces the notion of
leisure and rest by declaring that:
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including
reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic
holidays with pay.
4S. McCabe and A. Diekmann
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 06:45 26 June 2015
This right is embedded within the right to just and
favourable conditions of work and are termed ‘posi-
tive rights’in that they are welfare-based entitlements
requiring active support. Because these welfare rights
might take considerable resources of the state, the law
states that countries should work towards this goal
since they might not be in a position to immediately
ensure the entitlements for everyone (Breakley &
Breakley, 2013, p. 741). In fact, these human rights
have been translated through the recognition of paid
holidays in most countries in the mid-1930s and
through the ILO Convention on Holidays with Pay
(CO52) (1936). This entitles that ‘every person to
whom this Convention applies shall be entitled after
one year of continuous service to an annual holiday
with pay of at least six working days’(www.ilo.
org). In some respects, each of these articles can be
traced back to the fundamental philosophical foun-
dations of universal rights identified by Locke
(1947/1690), even though they only found expression
in second generation, welfare rights legislation.
However, it is important to highlight that the right to
holidays with pay, reasonable time away from work
and the right to rest is entirely linked to worker’s
rights, and in all countries the right to holidays is
legally enshrined within the employment legislation,
rather than social welfare provision.
In one of just two critical reviews of the concepts
of rights in tourism, Breakley and Breakley (2013,
p. 744) argued that there are three moral and
ethical justifications for considering tourism as
rights. First, the right to pursue happiness in free
time and rewards gained from labour, and because
owners of land should not compromise the rights
of others to make their living, the rights of people
to visit and make use of (as well as make money
from) tourism destinations (the Lockean Proviso).
Second, and drawing upon Mill’s(1859) ideas of
human diversity and freedom to flourish, Breakley
and Breakley (2013) argued that tourism could be
seen as a right of people to free choice and indivi-
duality. The third moral foundation of tourism as a
right is based on tourism’s role as a relational and
consensual aspect of the market economy, resulting
potentially at least in benefits for hosts and guests
and thus contributing positively to sustainable devel-
opment. Whilst the latter foundation of rights might
be based on a more utopian ideal than reality for
many participants in the tourism system, it does at
least attempt to incorporate the rights of all protago-
nists. They conclude by arguing that people should
be given the right to pursue tourism based on the
right to private property, security and freedom of
movement, giving them to choice to engage in
tourism, and that if the right to tourism exists on
this basis then it is morally wrong if people are arbi-
trarily excluded from this pursuit.
In another recent critical examination of rights,
Bianchi and Stephenson (2014) argued that in an era
of hyper-mobility, questions of citizenship cannot be
theorized entirely in traditional notions of national
identity. As concepts of the nation state and its
relationships with its citizens has evolved, so the
concept of rights has been extended from civil or pol-
itical rights to social rights such as the rights of access
to social institutions, to live a civilized social life and,
importantly, economic welfare. However, the extent
that these social rights can be considered as entitle-
ments as opposed to claims rests with the ideological
stance of the state Bianchi and Stephenson (2014,
p. 25). Bianchi and Stephenson framed their discus-
sion from a sociological perspective, but the basis
for rights discussed above originate from different
perspectives such as philosophy (e.g. Locke, 1947/
1690), religion, natural law (natural rights theory)
and positivism (Shestack, 1998). The sociological
approach is interesting for this discussion on
tourism as it relates to the process of institutionalizing
rights. According to Shestack (1998), from this per-
spective the varying interests (individual, public and
social) come into play in debates about the wider rec-
ognition of human wants, demands and social inter-
ests. Tourism thus integrates the different aspects
since it responds to current wants and demands and
derives its meaning from a social interest.
Therefore, tourism fits perfectly into the sociologi-
cal approach and process of institutionalizing rights.
However, this is not the justification for tourism to
be considered a right. Alston (1984, p. 615) argued
that there is increased pressure to proclaim more sub-
stantive issues for consideration as human rights.
There are pros and cons to balance such decisions;
on the one hand, the inclusion of a new item as a
human right is perceived to increase its usefulness
and value in society. On the other hand, a proliferation
of human rights would only serve to devalue the
concept overall. Therefore, there are good reasons
for both considering new items as human rights and
also for constraining the range of rights to ensure
practical implementation and a perception of
enhanced value that is interpretable at the inter-
national level. Alston (1984, p. 615) argued that in
Social Tourism and Human Rights 5
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 06:45 26 June 2015
order to be considered a right, an item should meet
certain minimum criteria:
…it should reflect a fundamentally important social
value; be relevant, inevitably to varying degree,
throughout a world of diverse value systems; be eli-
gible for recognition on the grounds that it is an
interpretation of UN Charter obligations, a reflection
of customary law rules or a formulation that is decla-
tory of general principles of law; be consistent with,
but not entirely repetitive of the existing body of
international human rights law; be capable of achiev-
ing a very high degree of international consensus; be
compatible or at least not entirely incompatible with
the general practice of states; and be sufficiently
precise as to give rise to identifiable rights and
obligations.
Tourism is perhaps one of the more questionable types
of rights since in the context of global poverty, unequal
access to good food, water, peace, health, freedom and
self-determination it would not be fair to class access to
tourism as a human right of equivalent value or impor-
tance. Pellet (2013) agreed that the idea of tourism
being a human right is contested. For example,
Alston asserted that the claims made by the UNWTO
for tourism as an increasingly basic need, a social
necessity and a human right, as frivolous (1984).
Posner (2008, p. 1760) acknowledged:
that the absence of an agreed upon philosophical jus-
tification for human rights yields well-known practi-
cal difficulties: States disagree about which rights are
human rights, about which human rights should have
a priority, about how resources should be allocated
for the purpose of correcting human rights violations,
and about how much respect should be given to cul-
tural variation.
Whilst these debates do pose important questions
about the role and relevance of rights in global
society, the question of increasing global inequalities
remains unresolved and seemingly disconnected from
the issue of rights. Can there be a hierarchy in rights?
According to the UN, all rights are indivisible and
interdependent (Lambert, 2009), which suggests that
rights cannot be hierarchical. If this is the case, it is
clear that we cannot include tourism as a human
right given unequal economic development, the
numbers of people living in absolute poverty and
the vast differential in living conditions globally. Yet
for countries in a tertiary stage of economic develop-
ment, tourism has become an activity of profound
meaning, providing important individual and social
benefits, fostering well-being and social inclusion
and is integral to normal functioning. For billions of
people tourism opportunities have become established
as a social norm, and leisure travel has become associ-
ated as a social right. This creates a conundrum since
it is unlikely that agreement will ever be reached
regarding the universality of tourism as a right, so it
is useful now to examine how tourism has been con-
ceived as a right.
Existing tourism rights declarations
Before looking into the various tourism rights declara-
tions which exist, it is important to note the crucial
difference between recognizing the right to paid holi-
days and the right to tourism, as the latter includes a
notion of enabling mobility (often through social
tourism policies and programmes) that is not necess-
arily implicated in the right to paid holidays. There-
fore, it might not be surprising that, as
aforementioned, in national legislations the right to
paid holidays is mainly linked to work legislation.
One exception is France with its law of 1998
against exclusion, including people in difficulties
(and thus without employment) (Diekmann, 2013).
Article 140 stipulates ‘Equal access for everybody,
during the whole life, to culture, to sportive activities,
to holidays and to leisure constitutes a national objec-
tive. It allows to guarantee the effective exercise of
citizenship’.
1
Subsequently, the right to tourism is recognized at
a supranational level rather than at national level. In
fact, the first declaration stipulating the rights to
tourism is the Manila Declaration of World Tourism
of 1980, declaring in its articles:
Art. 4: The right to access to holidays and to freedom
of travel and tourism, a natural consequence of the
right to work, is recognized as an aspect of the fulfil-
ment of the human being by the Universal Declara-
tion of Human Rights as well as by the legislation
of many States. It entails for society the duty of pro-
viding for its citizens the best practical, effective and
non-discriminatory access to this type of activity.
Such an effort must be in harmony with the priorities,
institutions and traditions of each individual country.
Art. 8: The economic returns of tourism, however
real and significant they may be, do not and cannot
constitute the only criterion for the decision by
States to encourage this activity. The right to holi-
days, the opportunity for the citizen to get to know
his own environment, a deeper awareness of his
6S. McCabe and A. Diekmann
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 06:45 26 June 2015
national identity and of the solidarity that links him to
his compatriots and the sense of belonging to a
culture and to a people are all major reasons for sti-
mulating the individual’s participation in domestic
and international tourism, through access to holidays
and travel.
Art. 10: Social tourism is an objective which society
must pursue in the interest of those citizens who are
least privileged in the exercise of their right to rest.
(http://www.univeur.org/cuebc/downloads/PDF%20
carte/65.%20Manila.PDF. Retrieved May 30, 2014)
Other attempts to enshrine tourism as a right include
the UNWTO’s Code of Ethics, as well as the Euro-
pean Economic and Social Committee’s Declaration
on Social Tourism in 2002 and 2006:
2.1: The right to tourism as a keystone of social
tourism. Everyone has the right to rest on a daily,
weekly and yearly basis, and the right to the leisure
time that enables them to develop every aspect of
their personality and their social integration.
Clearly, everyone is entitled to exercise this right to
personal development. The right to tourism is a con-
crete expression of this general right, and social
tourism is underpinned by the desire to ensure that
it is universally accessible in practice.
Thus social tourism is not marginal or extraneous to
tourism in general, which is a major industry in the
world, in Europe as a whole and in various Member
States in particular; on the contrary, it is a way of
putting into practice this universal right to participate
in tourism, to travel, to get to know other regions and
countries –the very foundation of tourism.
Nevertheless, all these statements of rights pay mere
lip-service to the institutional processes of implemen-
tation and commitments for national legislation. So,
whilst the pronouncements of the right to tourism
and for tourism for all members of societies are laud-
able in intent, they lack the teeth of a legislative frame-
work and universal agreement on the basis for the right.
The Manila Declaration links the right to tourism to the
right to work, whilst at the same time arguing that
tourism is a means to deepen national identity and citi-
zenship through improved knowledge of the environ-
ment. Both declarations work to weaken the rationale
for considering tourism as a right by weakening the
intrinsic, personal and social rights of people through
the link to economic impacts of tourism activity.
Indeed, Bianchi and Stephenson (2014, p. 35)
argued that notions of leisure and (in some countries
extending directly to) tourism as social rights and
citizenship benefits to be enjoyed by all members of
society regardless of income, social class or ethnicity,
have been increasingly eroded by the ascendancy of
what they call ‘market fundamentalism’, or the increas-
ing spread of neo-liberalist capitalism systems across
the international economic and political world. Fur-
thermore, their analysis concludes that as a conse-
quence, systems of social tourism have shifted from
an emphasis on social rights and citizenship to one of
sustaining the tourism economy and market, thus
making the ideal of ‘tourism for all’little more than a
dream (Diekmann & McCabe, 2011).
While the debates on the right to tourism are
mainly embedded within discourses of beneficial
impacts (economic or social), for people’s identity
and well-being and for the local economy, the under-
pinning arguments are not grounded in empirical
research. In fact, there is a wide range of evidence
emerging on the medical, psychological and socio-
logic positive impacts on the individual arising from
tourism. The contribution of tourism to the well-
being of citizens, an often enshrined component of
national constitutions, adds significantly to the poten-
tial for tourism to be considered a right.
The benefits of participation in tourism
It is generally accepted that holiday tourism is a posi-
tive and healthy pursuit to follow in leisure time
(Hobson & Dietrich, 1995), providing many benefits
to mental and psychical health. The benefits of
tourism have been articulated in the context of indi-
viduals, society and international relations as fostering
intercultural interactions, peace and understanding,
social and personal benefits deriving from economic
growth and prosperity for destination societies and
personal benefits to tourists (EESC, 2006). Individual
benefits of tourism participation have been identified
as: rest and recuperation from work; provision of
new experiences leading to a broadening of horizons
and the opportunity for learning and intercultural
communication; personal and social development;
visiting friends and relatives; religious pilgrimage
and health (McConkey & Adams, 2000;WTO,
1980). Early research in the UK in the context of
workers’rights to time from work, found the benefits
of a regular holiday included rest, a balanced life and
social and personal development (ETB 1976).
There has been a drive within recent research to
demonstrate the benefits of travel in a wide range of
Social Tourism and Human Rights 7
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 06:45 26 June 2015
empirical contexts, both in terms of physical and
mental health and in terms of perceived well-being
and satisfaction with quality of life (de Bloom et al.,
2011; Chen & Petrick, 2013). From a medical and
psychological perspective, holidays have been found
to provide an effective means of tackling work-
related stress and burn-out (Westman & Etzion,
2001). A break or a holiday contributes an ameliora-
tion from external stress factors, such as difficult life
conditions, financial stress, illness etc., and is con-
sidered to be a very efficient and preventive strategy
against mental or health problems, with potentially
long-lasting effects (Luminet, 2008). Other studies
have indicated the possible benefits of regular travel
for middle-aged men at high risk of coronary heart
disease (CHD), as those who travelled were less
likely to die of CHD (Gump & Matthews, 2000). A
lack of regular vacations was amongst a small
number of predictors of coronary death in American
women of the Framingham study (Eaker, Pinsky, &
Castelli, 1992). Several studies found that people
are more satisfied with their lives after holidaying
(Neal, 2000), and holiday trips affect happiness
more than other leisure activities (Nawijn & Veeho-
ven, 2011). Chen and Petrick (2013) found that
there is a greater emphasis on studies linking
tourism to self-reported subjective well-being and
quality of life, where health is just one aspect, than
in measured differences in health outcomes.
Social tourism actually concerns matters of well-
being. Well-being is a matter of political and moral
concern. Older people who participate in social
tourism programmes affirm better emotional well-
being (IMSERSO, 2011). Older tourists have gener-
ally expressed greater satisfaction with life (Lee &
Tideswell, 2005). Other studies not in a social
tourism context have also linked tourism with
quality of life (Dolnicar et al., 2012). Holidays
foster subjective well-being and quality of life
(Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004; McCabe, Li, & Joldesma,
2010) and consequently better inclusion in society
(McCabe & Johnson, 2013; Dolnicar et al., 2012).
For people suffering from various forms of social
exclusion and who are experiencing difficult life con-
ditions, such as domestic violence and unemploy-
ment, single parenthood, migrant families, etc., the
benefits of social tourism have a significant and
even more profound impact (Minnaert & Schapmans,
2009). For example, with the development of new
family structures and the increase of single-parent
families, social tourism provides an opportunity for
better intergenerational socialization and family
bonding, which results in a stronger and more cohe-
sive society (Quinn & Stacey, 2010).
On the other hand, economic benefits are also rel-
evant to the discussion of rights. For example, the Por-
tuguese and Spanish governments’senior programmes
highlight the impact of travel both on health insurance
companies (expression of the welfare state) and on the
local economy (Eusebio, Carneio, Kastenholz, &
Alvelos, 2013). Indeed, the study of Eusebio et al.
(2013) revealed that having an annual holiday per
year leads to a reduction in health expenses of approxi-
mately 20% in the months following the holiday. With
regard to the impact on the local economy, social
tourism has turned out to be a useful tool in fighting
seasonality and consequently sustaining local
tourism resort economies, which are largely dependent
on tourism spending. Social tourism can provide
longer-lasting employment, thus contributing to the
well-being and viability of resort communities
(Ramboll Management Consultants, Détente consult-
ants, Labour Asociados, 2010).
Concluding discussion
Despite the different priorities that countries face as
they seek to modernize and develop, the role that
social rights plays can be aspirational, and therefore
tourism could be considered a fundamental right
under this basis, and would provide a legitimacy to
the efforts of social tourism organizations. However,
whilst increasing evidence points to the positive
impact of holidays and social tourism on well-being
and on the role that social tourism can play on econ-
omic development in times of crisis, it is easy to
retreat from programmes and policies that seek to
establish and embed social rights such as access
to tourism opportunities to focus on economic regen-
eration. The issue of rights becomes side-lined against
a discourse of reparation of economic stability;
social rights thus become downgraded (Bianchi &
Stephenson, 2014).
There is a tendency in these circumstances to
revert to the idea that tourism represents a privilege
and not a right, as a frivolous preserve of those not
affected by the crisis. Yet, although the crisis has
had an enormous effect in terms of a reduction in
demand and tourism behaviour patterns, it has recov-
ered and returned to growth (UNWTO, 2014).
However, the negative impacts have been more pro-
nounced in Europe, conventionally the global driver
8S. McCabe and A. Diekmann
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 06:45 26 June 2015
of tourism demand (ILO/UNWTO, 2013). The
tourism market has proved to be remarkably resilient,
and whilst consumers may have modified their travel
patterns (reducing the number of trips per year,
shorter stays and/or distances, replacing international
trips with domestic holidays), they have been reluc-
tant to sacrifice holiday time and spending (Visit
England, 2013). This gives some indication that the
need for holidays is very strongly held, with many
consumers viewing tourism as a necessity, not a
luxury.
In addition, some countries have incorporated a
legal mandate to provide holidays for workers and
those benefiting from unemployment support (e.g.
Germany, Belgium and France), but not many
countries have extended a right to holidays for
excluded sections of society, based on a recognition
of tourism as a right, a need or condition for the
well-being and welfare of its people. Rights to
tourism as a human right are mainly couched in
relation to employment rights, and so effectively
exclude non-working members of societies. The
idea of social rights as the basis for citizenship pro-
vides a surer footing for including tourism as a
welfare right, including social tourism, providing its
‘raison d’être’. Yet, many social tourism systems are
also primarily linked to labour, and thus many
people remain excluded from support.
However, for example, there has been an increase
to 24.8% of the European population who are at risk
of relative poverty and social exclusion
2
in the EU
(Eurostat, 2011b). Although these numbers have not
altered severely in the last eight years, there are
some big regional increases such as Greece and
Spain, which were badly affected by the banking
crisis in the Eurozone economies. The numbers in
poverty have not increased as dramatically in other
countries, but with a quarter of the European popu-
lation living in poverty, there is still a need to try to
improve the lives of a large minority of people. The
incorporation of a right to tourism amongst social
welfare rights would improve well-being and contrib-
ute to society, and act as a stimulus to the economies
of Mediterranean regions, thus reducing poverty.
The very processes of global development have
created a set of conditions (and limitations) upon
which ordinary members of society have little
control and which materially affects their health and
well-being, similar to the conditions which defined
nineteenth-century industrialization processes. In
Europe, the conditions of the technologically
dependent consumer society bring benefits to human
health and flourishing, but also perhaps negative con-
sequences which tourism can be thought to mitigate
against. Various studies have shown how travelling
(even very short distances) can impact on physical
and mental health as well as on social behaviour,
and there is a need to consider the right to tourism
in the context of a global development.
In conclusion, due to the above highlighted argu-
ments and reasons, tourism might not be considered
a human right, and there is no legal basis to support
such a right. However, the social, economic and cul-
tural conditions in a country form the basis for
rights, of which tourism is increasingly an important
facet, contributing to well-being and quality of life;
thus moral incumbency is placed on governments to
protect such rights. It is in this sense that tourism
should be considered a social right. Lack of access
to tourism is not only about financial issues but also
includes issues of competence, disability and lack of
access. Therefore, the right to tourism goes beyond
the employment-based rights to paid leave
entitlement.
This is particularly relevant to those countries
which are modernizing rapidly and which are
already becoming the future drivers of global
growth in international tourism ‒the BRICS (Brazil,
Russia, India and China) and MINT (Mexico, Indone-
sia, Nigeria and Turkey) economies, and the develop-
ing world. As consumer demand for tourism grows in
the developing world, there is a consequent need to
consider matters of equality of access to tourism
opportunities. The debate on social tourism and the
right to tourism is an important step towards recogniz-
ing the role of tourism in social and cultural life glob-
ally. Social tourism is at a turning point. It is more
relevant than ever as the inequality gap widens. At a
global level, new innovations in social welfare are
needed that are not reliant on conventional models
of public financing. Therefore, Jolin and Proulx
(2005) insisted that social tourism has to develop
and adapt to the societal changes of the modern and
post-modern society and shift its concerns by focusing
particularly on excluded sections of society, and on
how tourism can be developed in the future to
enhance the well-being and quality of life of all
people.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Social Tourism and Human Rights 9
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 06:45 26 June 2015
Notes
1. Law n° 98-657 of 29 July 1998 ‘d’orientation relative à
la lutte contre les exclusions’art. 140 : L’égal accès de
tous, tout au long de la vie, à la culture, à la pratique
sportive, aux vacances et aux loisirs constitue un
objectif national. Il permet de garantir l’exercice effec-
tif de la citoyenneté
2. The European Union fixes the threshold at 60% of
national median income (http://www.inequalitywatch.
eu)
Notes on contributors
Scott McCabe is Professor of Tourism Management/Mar-
keting at Nottingham University Business School, UK.
His research interests are in tourist consumption, experi-
ence and behaviour, marketing communications and desti-
nation image, and social tourism and issues of equity in
tourism. He is also interested in socio-linguistic approaches
to tourist narratives and texts.
Anya Diekmann is Professor of Tourism at the Université
libre de Bruxelles, Belgium. Her research and publications
focus on cultural and social tourism. Amongst others, she
co-edited with Scott McCabe and Lynn Minnaert the
book ‘Social Tourism in Europe: Theory and Practice’
(2011), and with Louis Jolin ‘Social Tourism: International
Perspectives. The Contribution of Research’(2013).
References
Alston, P. (1984). Conjuring up new human rights: A pro-
posal for quality control. The American Journal of
International Law,78(3), 607–621.
Baumgartner, C. (2012). Social tourism and sustainability.
In S. McCabe, L. Minnaert, & A. Diekmann (Eds.),
Social tourism in Europe: Theory and practice (pp.
166–177). Clevedon: Channel View.
Bianchi, R., & Stephenson, M. (2014). Tourism and citizen-
ship: Rights, freedoms and responsibilities in the global
order. Oxon: Routledge.
de Bloom, J., Geurts, S. A. E., Sonnentag, S., Taris, T., de
Weerth, C., & Kompier. M. A. J. (2011). How does a
vacation from work affect employee health and well-
being? Psychology & Health,26(12), 1606–1622.
Breakley, N., & Breakley, H. (2013). Is there a right to
tourism? Tourism Analysis,18, 139–148.
Chen, C-C., & Petrick, J. F. (2013). Health and wellness
benefits of travel experiences: A literature review.
Journal of Travel Research,52(6), 709–719.
Diekmann, A. (2013). Le droit aux vacances: Concept fon-
dateur du tourisme social. Cahier Espaces,310,70–74.
Diekmann, A., & McCabe, S. (2011). Systems of social
tourism in the European Union: A comparative study.
Current Issues in Tourism,14(5), 417–430.
Dolnicar, S., Yanamandram, V., & Cliff, K. (2012). The
contribution of vacations to quality of life. Annals of
Tourism Research,39(1), 59–83.
Eaker, E. D., Pinsky, J., & Castelli, W. P. (1992).
Myocardial infarction and coronary death among
women: Psychosocial predictors from a 20-year
follow-up of women in the Framingham study.
Am. J. Epidemiol,135(8), 854–864.
Elliot, L. (2014). Britain’sfive richest families worth more
than poorest 20%. Retrieved from http://www.
theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/17/oxfam-report-
scale-britain-growing-financial-inequality
English Tourist Board/ Trade Union Congress (ETB).
(1976). Holidays: The social need. London: English
Tourist Board.
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).
(2006). Opinion of the economic and social committee
on social tourism in Europe. Brussels: EESC.
Eurostat. (2011a). Attitudes of Europeans Towards
Tourism. European Flash Barometer No 334.
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/
flash/fl_334_en.pdf
Eurostat. (2011b). Statistics on Income and Living
Conditions (SILC). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.
eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=
en&pcode=t2020_50&plugin=1
Eusebio, C., Carneio, M., Kastenholz, E., & Alvelos, H.
(2013). The socioeconomic impacts of INATEL social
tourism programs for the senior market. In A.
Diekmann & L. Jolin (Eds.), Regards croisés sur le
tourisme social dans le monde [Tourism: International
perspectives - The contribution of research] (pp. 197–
213). Quebec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holidaytaking and the
sense of well-being. Annals of Tourism Research,31
(1), 103–121.
Gössling, S. (2002). Human –Environmental relations with
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,29(4), 539–556.
Griffin, J. (2000). Welfare rights. Journal of Ethics,4(1/2),
27–43.
Gump, B. B., & Matthews, K. A. (2000). Are vacations
good for your health? The 9-year mortality experience
after the multiple risk factor intervention trial.
Psychosomatic Medicine,62, 608–612.
Haukeland, J. (1990). Non-travellers: The flip side of
motivation. Annals of Tourism Research,17, 172–184.
Haulot, A. (1981). Social tourism: Current dimensions and
future developments. International Journal of Tourism
Management,2(3), 207–212.
Hobson, J. S. P., & Dietrich, U. C. (1995). Tourism, health
and quality of life. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing,3(4), 21–38.
Hunziker, W. (1951). Social tourism: Its nature and pro-
blems. International Tourists Alliance Scientific
Commission.
IMSERSO. (2011). Social tourism inquiry. Retrieved from
http://nationbuilder.s3.amazonaws.com/appgonsocialt
ourism/pages/23/attachments/original/IMSERSO_-_S
OCIAL_TOURISM_INQUIRY.pdf?1314889620
ILO. (1936). C052 –Holidays with pay convention.
Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?
p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_ILO
_CODE:C052
10 S. McCabe and A. Diekmann
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 06:45 26 June 2015
ILO/UNWTO. (2013). Economic crisis, international tourism
decline and its impact on the poor. Madrid: UNWTO.
Jolin, L., & Proulx, L. (2005). L’ambition du tourisme
social: Un tourisme pour tous, durable et solidaire!.
Interventions économiques,32,73–82.
Lambert, M. (2009). Les droits fondamentaux de la deuxième
generation: Droits fondamentaux de seconde zone.
Journal Indépendant et militant (http://www.lejim.com)
Lauren, P. G. (2003). The evolution of international human
rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lee, S. H., & Tideswell, C. (2005). Understanding attitudes
towards leisure travel and the constraints faced by
senior Koreans. Journal of Vacations Marketing,11
(3), 249–263.
Locke, J. (1947/1690). Two treatise of governments.
New York: Hafner.
Löfgren, O. (1999). On holiday: A history of vacationing.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Luminet, O. (2008). Psychologie des émotions.
Confrontation et évitement. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
McCabe, S. (2014). Current trends in social tourism in
Europe and beyond: A comparative analysis. The
Family Holiday Association. Retrieved from http://
www.familyholidayassociation.org.uk/news_story.
php?id=74&storyID=2488&mpid=6
McCabe, S., & Johnson, S. (2013). The happiness factor in
tourism: Subjective well-being and social tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research,41,42–65.
McCabe, S., Li, C., & Joldesma, T. (2010). Understanding
the benefits of Social tourism. International Journal of
Tourism Research,12(6), 761–773.
McCabe, S., Minnaert, L., & Diekmann, A. (Eds.) (2012).
Social tourism in Europe: Theory and practice. Bristol:
Channel View.
McConkey, R., & Adams, L. (2000). Matching short break
services for children with learning disabilities to family
needs and preferences. Child Care, Health and
Development,26(5), 429–444.
Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. London: Longman, Roberts,
& Green Co.
Milne, S., & Ateljevic, I. (2001). Tourism, economic devel-
opment and the global–local nexus: Theory embracing
complexity. Tourism Geographies,3(4), 369–393.
Minnaert, L., Diekmann, A., & McCabe, S. (2012).
Defining social tourism and its historical context. In
S. McCabe, L. Minnaert, & A. Diekmann (Eds.),
Social tourism in Europe: Theory and practice (pp.
18–31). Bristol: Channel View.
Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2006). Social
tourism and its ethical foundations. Tourism, Culture
& Communication,7,7–17.
Minnaert, L., & Schapmans, M. (2009). Tourism as a form
of social intervention: The holiday participation centre
in Flanders. Journal of Social Intervention: Theory and
Practice,18(3), 42–61.
Nawijn, J., & Veenhoven, R. (2011). The effect of leisure
activities on life satisfaction: The importance of holi-
days trips. In I. Brdar (Ed.), The human pursuit of
well-being: A cultural approach (pp. 39–54). London:
Springer Science + Business Media, B.V.
Neal, J. D. (2000). The effects of different aspects of
tourism services on travelers’quality of life: Model
validation, refinement, and extension. Blacksburg,
Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Johansson, A., & Olaberría, E. (2014). Global trade and
specialisation patterns over the next 50 years. OECD
economic policy paper no. 10. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Pellet, A. (2013). Tourisme. In J-M. Thouvenin, & A.
Trebilcock (Eds.), Le droit international social :droits
économiques, sociaux et culturels. Tome 2: Regles du
droit international social (pp. 1864–1880). Brussels:
Bruylant.
Posner, E. A. (2008). Human welfare, not human rights.
Columbia Law Review,108(7), 1758–1801.
Quinn, B., & Stacey, J. (2010). The benefits of holidaying
for experiencing social exclusion: Recent Irish evi-
dence. Leisure Studies,29(1), 29–52.
Ramboll Management Consulting, Détente consultants,
Labour Asociados. (2010). Calypso study final report.
DG Enterprise and Industry of European
Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/
enterprise/sectors/tourism/files/docs/calypso/calypso_
study_annexes_en.pdf
Shestack, J. J. (1998). The philosophy foundations
of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly,20(2),
201–234.
Such, E., & Kay, T. (2012). The family factor in social
tourism. In S. McCabe, L. Minnaert, & A. Diekmann
(Eds.), Social tourism in Europe: Theory and practice
(pp. 126–141). Bristol: Channel View.
UNWTO. (2014). Tourism highlights. Madrid: UNWTO.
Visit England. (2013). Future of the Staycation –2014
and Beyond. Retrieved from http://www.visitengland.
org/Images/Summary%202%20pager_tcm30-40332.
pdf
Walton, J. K. (2013). ‘Social tourism’in Britain: History
and prospects. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,
Leisure & Events,5(1), 46–61.
Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (2001). The impact of vacation
and job stress on burnout and absenteeism. Psychology
and Health,16, 595–606.
WTO (1980). Manila Declaration on World Tourism.
Retrieved from http://www.univeur.org/cuebc/down
loads/PDF%20carte/65.%20Manila.PDF
Social Tourism and Human Rights 11
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 06:45 26 June 2015
