Facilitators and constraints in leisure travel participation

Description
The purpose of this study is to analyse facilitators and constraints of Portuguese
south-eastern residents face when making decisions for leisure travel participation

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Facilitators and constraints in leisure travel participation: the case of the southeast of
Portugal
Oriana Silva Antónia Correia
Article information:
To cite this document:
Oriana Silva Antónia Correia, (2008),"Facilitators and constraints in leisure travel participation: the case of
the southeast of Portugal", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 Iss 1
pp. 25 - 43
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180810856121
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 62 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 945 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
J eongsun Kimmm, (2012),"How do pleasure travelers manage their travel constraints?", Tourism Review,
Vol. 67 Iss 3 pp. 30-40 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/16605371211259812
Songshan (Sam) Huang, Cathy H.C. Hsu, (2009),"Travel motivation: linking theory to practice",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 Iss 4 pp. 287-295 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910994505
Antónia Correia, Patricia Oom do Valle, Cláudia Moço, (2007),"Why people travel to exotic places",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 45-61 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180710729600
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Facilitators and constraints
in leisure travel participation: the
case of the southeast of Portugal
Oriana Silva and Anto´nia Correia
Faculdade de Economia, University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to analyse facilitators and constraints of Portuguese
south-eastern residents face when making decisions for leisure travel participation.
Design/methodology/approach – The inquiry anchors on a case study research, supported by a
theoretical sampling and data triangulation. The main ?ndings result from an interpretative and
comparative analysis of 48 long interviews.
Findings – The research ?ndings suggest that the main determinants of leisure traveling decisions
of Portuguese south-eastern residents are motivations, travel companion, time and money. The study
?nds 35 other factors, most of which classi?ed as structural factors. It also suggests that the decision
to take leisure travels derives from the tourist’s causal historical wave, and that most of the factors
which in?uence the decision are aggregate ones rather than individual.
Research limitations/implications – The study limitations derive from the geographical and
sampling scope of analysis, restricted to 48 Portuguese south-eastern interviewees; but, it raises some
interesting ideas which, if applied to a more extensive sample, may contribute to give insights of the
usefulness of the ecological systems theory to explain tourist consumer behavior.
Originality/value – The study is the ?rst to explore the decision for travel leisure participation from
an ecological perspective in Portugal.
Keywords Facilitation, Ecology, Travel, Leisure activities, Portugal
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Portugal is nowadays and since the latest years one of the main tourism destinations
within Europe and it shows though low taxes of holiday resources outside the usual
residential area. In 2006, year upon which the study is centered more than half of the
Portuguese population spent holidays (50.7 percent) from which 70 percent enjoyed it
out of their residential area, and 75 percent of those chose their own country for their
travels (ITP, 2007). Though they are unpretentious levels, this is an indicator rising in
recent years. In the 1970s, a period when most of the interviewees of this study
were born, the Portuguese in general, and especially those from the Algarve, have not
the habit of traveling during holidays. This is despite tourism springing in the Algarve
area with the opening of the international airport in Faro in 1965. The following
decades brought the development of the Algarve as a tourist destination and, though
slowly, the tradition of traveling began to spread. Recently, the need to travel is already
evident amongst people in the Algarve, although it still needs to be incremented.
It is in this setting that the present inquiry assumes particular importance as it
analyses different lifestyles, life stages, and diverse travel experiences in order to
describe the determinants of leisure travel decisions. Although the literature includes
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6182.htm
The case of the
southeast
of Portugal
25
Received June 2007
Revised October 2007
Accepted December 2007
International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research
Vol. 2 No. 1, 2008
pp. 25-43
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6182
DOI 10.1108/17506180810856121
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
many inquiries concerning the reasons and factors that justify tourist choices, the topic
still deserves further research (Woodside et al., 2006a), especially in destinations
wherein the traditions of traveling for pleasure are still low as in the case of Portugal.
This paper builds on the facilitators-constraints interaction proposition
(Phillip, 1998; Raymore, 2002; Woodside et al., 2006a, b), the ecological systems
theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1992) and the causal historical wave proposal (Woodside
et al., 2006b). Furthermore, this paper presents the factors Portuguese south-eastern
residents face whenever a leisure travel decision is required and within those factors, it
highlights which ones are facilitators or constraints.
Facilitators and constraints on travel
Research on leisure constraints represents a coherent body of literature con?ned to
explaining the inhibitors of leisure participation (Jackson, 2005). Some recent studies
(Raymore, 2002; Um and Crompton, 1990, 1992; Woodside et al., 2006a, b) introduce a
new research perspective, as they recognize not only constraints but also facilitators
implied in a traveling decision.
The literature de?nes facilitators and constraints as the factors (Jackson, 1997), or
conditions (Raymore, 2002), that are assumed by researchers and perceived or
experienced by individuals to enable/promote or limit/inhibit the formation of leisure
preferences and encourage/enhance or prohibit participation. McGuire et al. (1986)
distinguish two types of constraints: limitors and prohibitors. The former are factors
that reduce participation below desired levels; and the latter are those factors
responsible for the cessation or non-participation in an activity (McGuire and Norman,
2005).
Previous studies on tourism assume facilitators and constraints to be 3D (Crawford
and Godbey, 1987), being intrapersonal, interpersonal or structural (Daniels et al., 2005;
Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Nyaupane et al., 2004; Pennington-Gray and Kerstetter,
2002; Raymore, 2002; Woodside et al., 2006a, b).
The intrapersonal factors re?ect psychological states, personality traits and
psychographic characteristics and beliefs. Previous researches focus on the following
intrapersonal factors: personality (Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Pizam et al., 2004; Plog,
1974; Powel, 1994; Raymore, 2002; Schrader and Wann, 1999); motivations (Correia and
Pimpa˜o, 2007; Fodness, 1994; Kim and Chalip, 2003; Kozak, 2002; Mansfeld, 1992;
Pearce and Lee, 2005; Um and Crompton, 1992, 1990); feelings and psychological
emotions (Daniels et al., 2005); individual fears (Blazey, 1987, 1992; Gilbert and Hudson,
2000; Jackson, 2005; Nyaupane et al., 2004; McGuire, 1984; Sonmez and Graef, 1998),
individual beliefs, such as self-esteem (Raymore et al., 1994; Shaw and Henderson, in
Jackson, 2005), perception of physical (Blazey, 1987, 1992; Daniels et al., 2005; Fleischer
and Pizam, 2002; Mayo, 1985, McGuire, 1984; Nyaupane et al., 2004; Pennington-Gray
and Kerstetter, 2002); perception of mental incapability (Daniels et al., 2005;
Pennington-Gray and Kerstetter, 2002; Tian et al., 1996); perception of the results of
travel participation (Driver et al., 1991; Pennington-Gray and Kerstetter, 2002;
Reisinger and Mavondo, 2005; Um and Crompton, 1990, 1992).
The interpersonal factors result from the interactions and relations individuals
establish with others. Previous researches focus on the following interpersonal factors:
family (Blazey, 1987, 1992; Caldwell and Baldwin, 2005; Gilbert and Hudson, 2000;
McGuire, 1984; Raymore, 2002; Robertson, 1999; Woodside et al., 2006b); friends
IJCTHR
2,1
26
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
(Blazey, 1992, 1987; McGuire, 1984; Raymore, 2002; Shaw and Henderson, 2005; Um
and Crompton, 1992; Woodside et al., 2006a, b); travel companion (Blazey, 1987, 1992;
Daniels et al., 2005; Fleischer and Pizam, 2002; Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Nyaupane
et al., 2004; Pennington-Gray and Kerstetter, 2002; Raymore, 2002; Woodside et al.,
2006a, b); strangers (Daniels et al., 2005; Raymore, 2002), tourism service providers
(Daniels et al., 2005).
Structural factors link to a broader context, outside of the individual and include
physical and social institutions, organizations and belief systems associated to society
into which the person belongs to. Previous researches pay attention to the following
categories: money (Blazey, 1987, 1992; Fleischer and Pizam, 2002; Gilbert and Hudson,
2000; Pennington-Gray and Kerstetter, 2002; Raymore, 2002; Shinew and Floyd, 2005;
Woodside et al., 2006a, b); time (Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Pennington-Gray and
Kerstetter, 2002; Woodside et al., 2006a, b); socio-demographic factors (Blazey, 1987,
1992; Caldwell and Baldwin, 2005; Crawford and Godbey, 1987; Fleischer and Pizam,
2002; Floyd et al., 1994; Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Kim and Chalip, 2003; McGuire,
1984; Nyaupane et al., 2004; Pennington-Gray and Kerstetter, 2002; Phillip, 1998;
Raymore, 2002; Shaw and Henderson, 2005); lifestyle (Gonza´lez and Belo, 2002;
Woodside et al., 2006a, b); health (Blazey, 1992, 1987; Fleischer and Pizam, 2002;
Raymore, 2002); facilities (Blazey, 1987, 1992; Daniels et al., 2005; Fleischer and Pizam,
2002; Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Hutchinson and Kleiber, 2005; Raymore, 2002); social
beliefs (Nyaupane et al., 2004); familiar events (Woodside et al., 2006a, b); macro-events
(Kim and Chalip, 2003; Woodside et al., 2006a, b); perceptions of destination
characteristics (Blazey, 1987, 1992; Fleischer and Pizam, 2002; Gilbert and Hudson,
2000; McGuire, 1984; Pearce and Lee, 2005; Pennington-Gray and Kerstetter, 2002; Um
and Crompton, 1990, 1992).
As far as tourism is concerned, structural factors, mainly money and time, appear as
constraints of consumer behavior and have been the most mentioned ones.
The main assumption of the present study anchors on the ecological systems theory
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1992) that stands it is the multiple settings in which the person
interacts, or has interacted, that determine his/her development and behavior.
Following previous studies that assumed an ecological perspective (Caldwell and
Darling, 1999; Woodside et al., 2006a, b), the inquiry considers an holistic approach of
the intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural factors without assuming these as
facilitators or constraints.
Conceptual framework
All 3D facilitators and constraints exist within, and emerge from the person’s
situational context and derive from the individuals’ personal history (Allen, 2002;
Woodside et al., 2006b). A person’s macro and micro systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1992,
1979) dictate the decision to travel together with his/her personal history (Allen, 2002),
and enabling factors (Malle, 1999; Woodside et al., 2006b), which make up a causal
historical wave that hits the tourist whenever a leisure travel participation decision is
required (Woodside et al., 2006b). They also determine which factors interact in order
to in?uence the tourist positively, as facilitators, or negatively, as constraints. Tourists’
choices and behaviors derive from this interaction. Figure 1 shows the conceptual
framework that supports this research.
The case of the
southeast
of Portugal
27
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
The micro system is the person’s immediate setting and interrelations, and includes
present and past roles, individuals and activities. The macro system is the larger
setting in which the individual functions and it includes belief systems and other
structures of society and its institutions. The individual personal history includes the
person’s life background (Malle, 1999), and lived experiences (Woodside et al., 2006b),
which give emphasis to previous tourism experiences.
Building from the above assumptions, the present study aims to identify and
describe the contexts in which the respondents live and with which they have already
interacted in the past, in order to explain which of them moderate travel behavior
according to different lifestyles, life stages and facts, as facilitators or constraints.
The study also examines personal history data, particularly the interviewees’ travel
careers, and investigates the relationship between previous tourism experiences and
the leisure travel participation decision. The investigation is supported by Mazursky
(1989) suggestion that today behaviors are in?uenced by the number and nature of
past travel experience. Individuals with high travel experience tend to be more
con?dent (Sonmez and Graef, 1998), as experience increase knowledge about the
activity (Pearce and Lee, 2005) and feelings of safety (Pinhey and Iverson, 1994;
Sonmez and Graef, 1998) and reinforce motivations and the desire to travel (Pearce and
Lee, 2005).
Method
The present study bases on 48 in-depth interviews and lays on a theoretical sampling
approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; McCracken, 1988; Ragin, 1994;
Woodside et al., 2005). The sampling strategy used is not to offer representativeness,
but to focus on exploring and describing facilitators and constraints that a speci?c
branch of the Portuguese tourist population (i.e. young people who have embraced at
least one travel trip in the last two years and live/work in the southeast of Portugal)
report. Theoretical sampling considers unique combinations of case pro?les across 4-7
attributes (Woodside et al., 2005) and recommends 5-8 interviews per cell (McCracken,
1988; Woodside et al., 2005). Table I displays the strati?cation of the interviewees.
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
Personal History
MICRO-SYSTEM
MACRO-SYSTEM
intrapersonal
Facilitators /
Constraints
interpersonal
Facilitators /
Constraints
Sctrutural
Facilitators /
Constraints
Enabling
Factors
Participation
IJCTHR
2,1
28
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
The study also uses a snowball sampling (Noy, 2004). The researchers ?rst meet
interviewees in a local association, and then recruit others by word-of mouth (Samdahl
and Jekubovich, 1997) as each interviewee refers two friends who they know meet the
sampling requirements. Table II displays the characterization of the respondents.
The research involves face-to-face interviews of approximately two hours in length,
based on a 26 page questionnaire, divided into three main parts. The ?rst one requires
?lling out a matrix detailing all previous tourist experiences and the second part
comprises 65 open-ended questions, divided into three sections. To start the
conversation, the interviewer gathers information about the person’s life background
and socio-demographics. The next section emphasizes daily life activities and routines,
concerning professional and extra-professional actions and the ?nal section focuses on
tourist opinions, behaviors and factors the interviewees face whenever making a
leisure travel decision. The third part of the questionnaire asks respondents about their
perceptions, either as facilitators or constraints, on a 93 factors list adapted from the
literature.
Age Civil status Living conditions
Childhood/adolescence tourist
experience or inexperience Pro?le
20-35 Single/separated or
divorced
Alone Experience A
Inexperience B
With parents Experience C
Inexperience D
Married Companion/wife/husband Experience E
Inexperience F
Married or single
mother/father
Companion/wife/husband
and children
Experience G
Inexperience H
Table I.
Sampling strati?cation
Gender
Female 34 (71)
Male 14 (29)
Age
21-25 2 (4)
26-30 21 (44)
31-35 25 (52)
Education
Medium 2 (4)
College 43 (89)
Master 3 (6)
Marital status
Single 23 (48)
Single mother 2 (4)
Married 22 (46)
Divorced 1 (2)
Note: Figures given in parenthesis are percentages
Table II.
Characterization of
the sample
The case of the
southeast
of Portugal
29
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
All interviews were recorded and the verbatim transcripts became the object of
interpretative and comparative analyses, in order to discover analytic categories,
following McCracken (1988) recommendations.
In-depth interviews are the most appropriate technique to get a holistic
interpretation of the interviewees, their past and present contexts, and the tourist
participation decision. This is not only because people need time to think over their
experiences (Oppermann, 1995), but also because the long interview method means a
person-to-person interaction and an immersion of the researcher in the research setting,
which results in a better understanding and signi?cance of the social phenomena under
study (Ragin, 1994).
Findings
Four main factors shape the Portuguese south-eastern residents’ leisure travel
decisions: motivations (intrapersonal factors), travel companion (interpersonal factors),
time and money (structural factors). These are the more recurrent factors expressed in
the verbatim records analyzed, which means that these are the factors which are
immediately and consciously recognized by the interviewees.
The facts from the description of eight cases (Figures 2-9), representative of each of
the eight pro?les under study, reveal the main consistencies and contradictions
between the four main factors and distinct life stages and personal histories.
Familiar with traveling very early with parents, who always preferred to take their
children with them, the A2 interviewee is highly motivated for travel. The interviewee
applies all her vacation days to travel abroad and she selects places in which the
Figure 2.
The A2 interviewee case
Contextual setting
- 30 year-old, female, single, doctor
- Lives alone
- Works full-time for the regional hospital
- Is doing a doctor specialization, so
nights are spent studying
- Uses all vacations to travel
- Likes riding bikes and walking
-Last weekend attended a professional
meeting
- 40 leisure travels
- Used to travel with parents annually
during childhood/adolescence
-Lived in Lisbon until the age of 23
-Unsatisfactory experiences while
traveling are not perceived to have a
negative impact
-Adventurous travels, likes riding bikes in
Morocco or trekking in Nepal
“(…) First of all, when we
travel, we are in contact with
other cultures and that enriches
us; on the other hand, it is also
good for us to feel away from
daily concerns (…). But
especially fun, knowledge,
sharing experiences, spending
time with friends, adventure…”
Case A2
Highly frequent travel behavior
(domestic and international) –
Combination of work and leisure trips
“(…) I have already traveled
alone, although knowing
someone at the destination
(…) but I prefer to travel with
a group…”
“(…) Maybe if I had time and
money and did not have any
friends to travel with, maybe
then I would have to pay them
to take the trip!”
“I do not travel more often.
Because I have neither the time
nor the money.”
“I believe it’s especially
time and money, if I had
more time and money, I
would travel more often.
(…)”
Personal history
Money Time
Travel companion Motivations
IJCTHR
2,1
30
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Figure 3.
The B2 interviewee case
Contextual setting
- 31 year-old, female, single, designer
- Lives alone
- Works full-time for a design company
- Works as a part-time freelancer
- Uses all vacations to travel
- Likes running and walking, going to the
cinema or going out with friends
- Last weekend was mostly spent at home
working on freelance jobs
- 14 leisure travels
- Not used to traveling with parents during
childhood/adolescence
- Degree studies accomplished outside the
residential area
- Personal incident while skiing two years
ago
“(...) I believe people return
from traveling with a
completely different mind, with
new ideas, sometimes with
ideas to improve something we
have left behind. It’s like an
opening of the mind, very
healthy; at least, I always feel
that I return from a travel with
renewed energy, more positive
thinking and willing to
accomplish many things…”
Case B2
Frequent travel behavior
(domestic and international)
“(…) people are willing
to travel nowadays and
do it more easily (…)”
“(…) not without my
friends, I appreciate their
company very much…”
“(…) I like taking leave and
enjoy it totally. I like mainly to
travel, even inside the country,
but with an established plan; I
don’t travel without planning
as time to travel is so limited
that I prefer to make the most
of it (…)”
“Not having days to take leave
[restricts traveling]. Not being
able to take more days off -
mainly that.”
“(…) The price is very
important for me (…)
“(…) It’s always an
economic reason, otherwise
I would start traveling right
now…”
Interviewee does not
consider money a restrictive
problem to travel; but
emphasizes it and is
sensitive to low cost factors
and free accommodation
Personal history
Money Time
Travel companion Motivations
Figure 4.
The C5 interviewee case
Contextual setting
- 27 year-old, male, single, entrepreneur
- Lives with mother and sister
- Work-centered lifestyle
- Uses all vacations to travel
- Does not have any extra-professional
activities
- Last weekend was spent working
- 34 leisure travels
- Used to travel with the family annually
during childhood/adolescence
- Travels twice a year in the past 6 years
(once with the family, and the other trip
with friends)
- No unsatisfactory experiences
“Why do I travel? For
pleasure! I like traveling. I like
spending time with my friends,
and it is always an excuse to go
away (…) Sometimes I must
get out of here and vacations
are great to get away, relax and
forget all 300 busy things
which are always going on…”
Case C5
Highly frequent travel behavior
(domestic and international)
“No, I’m very sensitive, I do
not travel alone. Besides I do
not like being alone.”
“(…) Companion is also
important! There have
already been travels that I did
not join because I did not like
the travel company, because
there was this or that guy …”
“(…) I did not know when I
could go on vacations…(…)
There were no holiday
disponibility to go too far…”
“(…) There are two reasons
[for not traveling more often]:
time and money. Income is not
bad, but I must pay for the car
and some other
commitments…” “Usually the
decision is like this: Ok, I’m
going! Then I worry whether I
have the money. If I do not
have it, I’ve always the «Bank
of Portugal» to support me, and
then I pay it back.”
Personal history
Money Time
Travel companion Motivations
The case of the
southeast
of Portugal
31
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
culture is completely different from western patterns. Besides knowledge motivation,
her job – a doctor looking for her specialty – puts her under psychological stress on a
daily basis, which the interviewee overcomes in her leisure travels which, for her,
constitute an escape and “alienation” period. Her travels constitute socializing and fun
moments, since the interviewee prefers to travel in the company of her friends. Her
travels depend mainly on the participation and interest of friends, though the
respondent, as most of the interviewees under this pro?le, has already traveled
alone and she is not afraid to do it. The existence of a travel companion is a facilitator
but the lack of it is not a proihibitor.
Time and money are perceived as limitors, as the interviewee says, these two factors
are a constraint for embracing more annual trips. The time limitation derives from the
fact that, in Portugal, employees are only entitled to a maximum of 25 vacation days.
The interviewee’s professional responsibilities due to her doctor specialization phase
also limit her travels. As the respondent lives alone, she faces all her personal
responsibilities, which restricts her disposable income and traveling budget. Even so,
she travels for pleasure twice a year, and her last trip was a trekking tour in Nepal.
This individual suggests that the leisure travel decision occurs within the
combination of the interviewee’s tourist experience and her current context of life.
Experience, as well as a demanding profession, is likely to increase travel motivations
(facilitators) and decrease the strength of time and money as constraints. In fact, these
factors are limiters and not prohibitors. Although random factors, such as diseases, can
act as prohibitors, this result highlights the importance of personal history to enable
the decision.
Figure 5.
The D1 interviewee case
Contextual setting
- 29 year-old, female, single, banker
- Lives with mother
- Works full-time for a bank
- Took 17 out of 20 vacations days off to
travel
- Likes dinning out, going to the theatre
or shows, being with cousins, shopping
and going out with friends
- Last weekend traveled around
residential area
- 8 leisure travels
- Not used to traveling with parents during
childhood/adolescence
- Taken leisure travel once a year in the
past 3 years
- No unsatisfactory experiences
“Destination... It also depends
a lot on the state of mind.(…) I
would like to travel to Madrid,
and Barcelona, not only for the
cultural side of it obviously,
but also for the entertainment,
either by day or by night.”
“I am also curious to try
practicing Winter sports.”
Case D1
Frequent travel behavior
(international)
“(…) I had, for instance, the
following situation in
November: there was a cruise
to the Caribbean with a week at
the Dominican Republic. I did
not travel as no friend could
also take 15 days off. I had
taken all my leave for this year,
but I was authorized to take 15
days of next year’s for that
purpose. I was, therefore, able
to travel but I did not have
anybody with spare time to
accompany me (…)”
Work restriction and time
incompatibility with travel
companion
“(…) Nowadays, money is
not that important to be.
honest. Naturally,
regarding holidays, I try to
manage …to travel for a
lower price and not by a
higher price, but it is not a
factor that prevents me
from traveling to any
destination (…)”
Personal history
Money Time
Travel companion
Motivations
IJCTHR
2,1
32
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
The existence of low price ?ights and traveling costs is a crucial factor for interviewee
B2. The low-cost context, which is emerging in the Algarve, also makes the traveling
decision easy for the respondent’s friends and these two combined factors – low price
and the availability of travel companion – are the main facilitators for the interviewee.
Time, on the other hand, is the strongest constraint, being a limitor; it restricts the
number of annual trips the interviewee would like to undertake. Money is a less felt,
and verbalized, constraint, as the interviewee chooses ?ve days trips to European
cities, whenever the price is low enough to be affordable, and where she expects to
learn something different and can amuse herself with friends.
The B pro?le cases travel careers start later than the A cases, but report no great
difference in what affects travel frequency in the last two years and, like interviewee
A2, respondent B2 also uses all her days away from work to travel within the country
or abroad. After ?nishing their degrees, leaving university and starting their
professional careers, which implies a ?nancial independency from their parents,
interviewees in pro?le B develop a predisposition for traveling. Participation, interest
and encouragement of friends, girl or boyfriends strongly reinforce this tendency –
also identi?ed in pro?les D, F and H. With regard to destinations, pro?le B chooses
closer places, within Europe, in contrast to pro?le A interviewees, who are much more
risk takers and courageous, traveling around the world.
The motivations to travel abroad in this case emerge from structural factors, which
diminish the strength of time and money as constraints. This result highlights the
importance of structural factors, mainly the ones that derive from the travel industry.
Figure 6.
The E2 interviewee case
Contextual setting
- 28 year-old, female, married,
psychologist
- Lives with husband in their own house
- Works as a trainee
- Took 19 out of 25 vacations days off to
travel
- Likes walking, riding bike, yoga and
meditation
- Last weekend was spent with some
friends at the interviewee’s house
- 22 leisure travels
- Used to travel with the family annually
during childhood/adolescence
- No unsatisfactory experiences
“(…) I prefer to travel whenever
I can, I do not care how much I
spend, or any other material
reasons, because, for me, the
most important thing is personal
mental healthiness; the fact that
you work and you can have a
specific moment to relax, to
switch off, when you do not
worry about anything, for me is
more important.”
“(…) knowing distant cultures”
Case E2
Frequent travel behavior (domestic and
international)
“(…) going alone would not
mean anything; because we
are social beings and I’ve
always thought of myself
amongst other people, and I
have always associated
leisure travels with friends,
family, someone by my side
(…)”
“(…) due to work
limitations, it was difficult
for me to conciliate vacations
(…)” [with the interviewee’s
husband who is a professor]
“Well, in certain aspects,
because if you don’t have
stability or if you do not
earn at the end of the
month, you cannot provide
for yourself traveling (…)”
Personal history
Money Time
Travel companion Motivations Motivations
The case of the
southeast
of Portugal
33
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Interviewee C5 lives with his family and travels with his family every year and since
childhood, an event made easier by his mother’s job in the tourism sector. All the C
pro?le interviewees, like D pro?le ones, are more predisposed to travel not only with
their friends but also with their families. They seem more sensitive and therefore more
limited by family factors like family commitments and the feeling of missing their
relatives. For these respondents, the lack of a travel companion is a constraint, and can
even be prohibitory, as it is for the C5 interviewee, who does not travel alone due to his
personality traits.
For this person, the decision to travel is much more automatic than planned, and it is
due to a deep fondness for traveling, which implies latent and permanent
escape/relaxation and social motivations, together with an easy ?nancial situation,
derived from the interviewee’s familiar living conditions. The interviewee’s family pays
for his trips or lends him the money whenever necessary.
The fact he manages his own successful business leads the interviewee to feel time
restrictions intensively, due to the daily professional responsibilities he faces. This fact
restricted his last trip since, as the interviewee had only one week away from work, he
chose a closer destination, Tunisia, instead of going to the Caribbean, which is often the
case.
In general, time and lack of a travel companion are the strongest constraints for
interviewee C5, who regards tourism as an intrinsic need.
Interviewee D1 has a stable lifestyle, as she lives in her mother’s place and has
worked for a bank for eight years. This person re?ects easy ?nancial status and,
therefore, money is not perceived as a constraint.
Figure 7.
The F2 interviewee case
Contextual setting
- 26 year-old, female, married,
psychologist
- Lives with husband in their own house
- Works full-time for a pharmacological
company
- Took 13 out of 22 vacation days off to
travel
- Likes walking, gymnastics, art, internet
site management
- House maintenance activities during last
weekend
- 11 leisure travels
- Not used to traveling with parents during
childhood/adolescence
- No unsatisfactory experiences
“It’s important as we leave
day-by-day life and for a pair
it’s important as we face new
cultures and people together,
we live new experiences
together away from the usual
life and work (…)”
Case F2
Frequent travel behavior
(international) - combination of work and
leisure trips
“(…) Now it’s a bit
impossible to get away
from home without him
[husband]; we must travel
together. Only when
travelling professionally
I’ll go alone or with my
work colleagues (…)”
Interviewee is limited by
working rules as the firm
makes her take annual leave in
August; and her husband
cannot take leave in August.
“(…) now all conditions to
travel would be perfect as I have
financial stability and so does he
[husband]; I earn rewards every
3 months when I meet my work
goals and for a whole year I’ve
saved to travel”
Interviewee emphasizes this
factor very much as a main
decision and she’s very sensitive
to travel promotions and low
cost flights.
Personal history
Money Time Time
Travel companion Motivations
IJCTHR
2,1
34
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
The D1 interviewee is limited in her frequent travel behavior by the number of days
she has off from work, but this is not a recurrent verbalized factor. The respondent
manages her vacation days to travel whenever she has an opportunity; which means
when she has a travel companion. Since, time and money are not signi?cant
constraints, the lack of a travel companion is the strongest constraint, being
prohibitory, as the interviewee refuses to travel alone. The lack of a travel companion,
either due to lack of time or money from other parties, prohibits the interviewee from
traveling but, conversely, the existence of a travel companion is a facilitator.
Knowledge and social motivations are the main reasons for interviewee D1 to travel.
This case suggests the strength of an interpersonal factor (travel companion) as one
of the main determinants of the leisure travel participation decision.
All pro?le E interviewees state traveling is a basic and constant need, a priority in
their lives for which they have a deep fondness; which derives from the habit of
traveling, created since childhood, and by the pleasure they know they will experience
before, during and after a leisure travel. Knowledge and escape/relaxation motivations
are the main reasons for these pro?le interviewees to travel. One of E2’s previous trips
was to Brazil, where she had the chance to live like a Brazilian, running alongside the
beach and drinking “a´gua de coco” (coco juice) every morning.
The E2 interviewee is married and usually travels with her husband, which is why
time is not an individual restriction, but a limitation on the pair. The dif?culty is to
plan holidays at the same time as her husband and, consequently, time incompatibility
is prohibitive to travel. When the husband cannot travel, neither can the E2
Figure 8.
The G6 interviewee case
Contextual setting
- 29 year-old, female, divorced, hotel
animating staff
- Lives with a companion and son in their
own brand new house
- Works full-time in a hotel
- Home and work-centered lifestyle
- Took 7 out of 15 vacation days off to
travel
- Last weekend was spent working
- Has a 7 year-old son and is pregnant
- 30 leisure travels
- Used to travel with the family annually
during childhood/adolescence
- No unsatisfactory experiences
“(…) I feared flying in the past
and did not travel much, but
now I do not miss any chance to
travel.” “We need vacations,
no doubt (…) or we would
spend all day here and we would
quarrel with each other (…) that
is not our interpretation of
vacations.” “Now it is almost
an obligation to take 15 days off
from the place where I live…to
consider proper holidays”
Case G6
Frequent travel behavior (domestic and
international)
The interviewee’s
husband did not travel
and that limited her; her
present companion also
likes traveling and that
makes everything easier ,
even overcoming the fear
of flying
Work restriction is more
emphasized then money and
having a child
Money limits, but “(…) we
usually make some plans
…we do not just open an
account…(…) but we take
care with our monthly
expenses …it is less going
out for dinner than buying
new trousers or a blouse”
Personal history
Mone y
Money Time
Travel companion Motivations
The case of the
southeast
of Portugal
35
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
respondent, so the lack of a speci?c travel companion is prohibitory and, conversely,
his/her availability is a facilitator.
The couple carefully examines money, which is also an aggregated factor since their
combined income pays for the trips, unlike single people who rely on a single income.
The travel budget is now more restricted due to family responsibilities, and that limits
the number of annual trips and destination choices.
This case shows that facilitators and constraints for leisure travel decisions derive
not at an individual level but at a family one; therefore, interpersonal factors appear as
the main determinants of the decision.
The strongest motivation to travel showed by interviewee F2 is socialization, in the
sense that, for this person, traveling is a synonym of time and space for her and her
husband to enjoy each other’s company and perform non-routine tasks. This
motivation has an interpersonal implication similar to almost all people in pro?les E-H,
as traveling alone is not an option for those who live as a family.
Time is a strong constraint for interviewee F2. The ?rm where she works makes her
plan vacations in August, the month, which receives most Portuguese tourists in the
Algarve and when her husband is unable to take days off. The pair is thus limited to
only one week to travel, which also restricts broadly the choice of their travel
destination. The situation though is a paradox. The respondent remains in her living
area during the summer, helping her parents in the family business and this fact
reinforces her need to travel in another period of the year. This deep motivation
functions as a strong facilitator.
Figure 9.
The H3 interviewee case
Contextual setting
- 30 year-old, male, married, policeman
- Lives with wife and son in their own
house
- Works full-time on shift work
- Took 10 out of 25 vacation days off to
travel
-Likes gymnastics
- Is now doing a professional course
-Last weekend worked and traveled
around residential area
- Has a 3 year-old son
- 5 leisure travels
- Not used to traveling with parents during
childhood/adolescence
- No unsatisfactory experiences
- Was born in Mozambique and lived there
until the age of 2
- Worked in Angola for an ONU Mission
“(…) we meet different people,
different countries, at very
different places…we lose stress
completely, as we leave our
usual environment where we
spend our day-to-day lives and
that only is enough to take us
backwards to our youth”
“(…) to do what I did when I
traveled to Mozambique, to
discover my mother’s roots, on
her father’s side. (…)”
Case H3
Infrequent travel behavior
“(…) to travel alone? No! I
don’t enjoy myself traveling
alone. I always prefer
company, my friends in the
past and now my wife, and
my son. Always with
someone, I don’t enjoy
traveling by myself…(…)
yes, I could do it, but that
would always become an
obligation, never a pleasure,
no!”
“(…) Due mainly to my wife,
due to her work…as she cannot
leave her work piling up too
much nor can she be away
from it. Another cause is my
son as now we need to plan
holidays according to his
holidays…his school closes in
August, so my wife needs to
take leave in August, and I
cannot take leave every year in
August; therefore, our holidays
together are a bit limited by
that fact…”
“Yes, it is [a difficulty to
travel], undoubtedly it is…
I think so: I prefer to wait 3
years without traveling
abroad and then go abroad
and spend freely on my
holidays ( …)”
Personal history
Money Time
Travel companion Motivations
IJCTHR
2,1
36
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Money is a factor that shapes the interviewee’s travel participation decision, even
though it is not acting as a constraint. Interviewee F2 uses her professional performance
incentives as a way to pay for the couple’s trips, and she pays close attention to
last-minute promotions, like the one that enabled her last pleasure trip, a week in a
?ve-star resort in Cape Verde.
This result suggests that intrapersonal factors (motivations) emerge within the
micro system and are conditioned by the interviewees’ causal historical wave.
Interviewee G6’s frequent tourist behavior results from the combination of ?nancial
and emotional stability, which allows her to minimize her intrapersonal constraint: fear
of ?ying. According to the interviewee, who has traveled yearly since childhood
always to the same destination, and very seldom abroad, the fact she specialized in the
tourism area and has a companion who likes traveling facilitates her decision, in
contrast to her past married period when her husband disliked traveling.
Without her present companion, respondent G6 would not travel as, for her, the
social motivation is one of the most important reasons for traveling with her other
main motivation being escape and relaxation. The G pro?le interviewees have a home
and work centered lifestyle with many family obligations, as all six interviewees in this
pro?le are females and feel strongly about family obligations such as house keeping
and the children’s education. This fact means that, when planning holidays, it becomes
almost “an obligation” to leave the residential area.
Interviewee G6 is limited in her frequent travel behavior by her work. Professional
commitments restrict the availability of time as the interviewee has a limited number
of days off, and she can only book vacations in speci?c annual periods (not in the
summer), and when her child is off from school. Time is the major constraint faced by
this person, who views it as a deeper limiter than her seven-year-old son.
Generally, the G pro?le interviewees, who traveled during their
childhood/adolescence with their parents or with their in?uence, more readily accept
traveling with their children, in opposition to those in pro?le H, who barely traveled
with their own families. The existence of children does not inhibit the decision to travel,
but it implies restrictions among destination choices, type of accommodation and the
activities expected to be performed in the destination area. Even if children indirectly
limit the family resources for traveling, due to the expenses with their education and
higher traveling costs, interviewees do not cease traveling annually. Children and
money are constraints, but they are not traveling prohibitors.
This case undoubtedly stresses the importance of individual settings and
interpersonal interactions to overcome intrapersonal constraints.
Although having completely different lifestyles, three out of six interviewees in this
pro?le show less common tourist behavior and so traveling is not a priority in their life.
Interviewee H3’s limitations derive from the fact that he refuses to travel alone and so
he is limited, not only by his work, but also by his wife’s professional commitments.
Additionally, another restriction for this family is that their three-year-old child’s
kinder-garden closes in August and so one of them must take days off to take care of
the child. Since, the respondent is not able to take leave in August every year, there is a
time incompatibility with his wife. Time is a constraint; and money is perceived as a
prohibitor. The interviewee states he will not travel unless he has enough money to
accomplish “nice holidays.” Usually, for the interviewee, the motivation to travel, the
availability of his travel companion and the temporal vacation compatibility
The case of the
southeast
of Portugal
37
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
(facilitators) do not overlap into money constraints. Their last trip to the Azores islands
was an exception and had a strong emotional effect on the interviewee’s wife resulting
from a negative family event, which implied a desire of regression.
For this interviewee, the fact of living in the Algarve, a touristy area, is also a reason
for staying home during vacations. Thus, the interviewee regards the geographical
situation of the Algarve as a constraint for traveling outside his area of residence.
Pro?les B, D, F and H offered this same reason among the arguments for not traveling
with their parents during their childhood/adolescence periods.
Conclusion, limitations and perspectives of future research
This study suggests that the intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural factors
in?uence results from their own interaction within the individual’s causal historical
wave and puts forward that the ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1992)
is appropriate to understand deeply the context of the leisure travel decision. The
research shows intrinsic factors, which emerge from the combination of the
individual’s micro and macro systems with his/her personal history, mostly shape this
decision. After taking the decision to travel, extrinsic factors, such as marketing
variables, act as enabling factors, especially over destination choices.
The ?ndings corroborate Woodside et al.’s (2006b) conclusion that the
facilitators-constraints interaction creates paths to certain behavioral outcomes; and
need at least (3-6) variables to explain and describe those outcomes.
Four main factors shape the Portuguese south-eastern residents traveling
participation decision: motivations (intrapersonal), travel companion (interpersonal),
time, and money (structural). Figure 10 shows all factors that shape the leisure travel
decision of Portuguese south-eastern residents.
Interviewees express mainly push motivations (Crompton, 1979), such as
escape/relax, knowledge and social reasons. Motivations appear as facilitators that
not only bring about the need and desire to travel, but also smooth the progress of
overcoming some of the constraints faced by the individual. Those interviewees, who
used to travel with their families during childhood/adolescence and have high-travel
experiences, express a deeper travel fondness than those who did not, and this implies
that traveling is, for them, a basic need and justi?es their travel destination
motivations and choices. For those with high-travel experiences, the will to experience
different cultures and meet different people has a great in?uence on their decision,
which is in close accordance with Pearce and Lee (2005).
The travel companion is also a strong determinant for the leisure travel decisions of
the Portuguese south-eastern residents. Most people regard tourism as a social activity,
dislike traveling alone and decide to take a trip only if they have someone to travel
with. The lack of a travel companion is a constraint, and for those who have low-travel
experience or live as a family, it can even be prohibitory. On the contrary, the existence
of a travel companion, associated to the participation and encouragement of third
parties (families, friends, girlfriend or boyfriend) are facilitators. This is in accordance
with Samdahl and Jekubovich (1997) for whom social relationships, being this one of
the most in?uential factors, shape the decision to participate in leisure activities.
Concerning time and money, the ?ndings are consistent with microeconomic theory,
meaning that these factors are much more perceived as constraints than as facilitators,
although they are not participation prohibitors, only limitors. These limitations,
IJCTHR
2,1
38
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
besides being an individual constraint, are also aggregated ones, as the majority of the
individuals are restricted not only by their own holiday periods and by budgets, but
also by the time and money of the people traveling with them, especially those who live
as families, either with or without children.
The individual time limitation derives mainly from the Portuguese legal and
economic framework, which con?nes holidays to a maximum of 25 days a year, and for
those who have children, it derives also from school restrictions. Concerning money,
the constraint relates to the individuals’ disposable income and their own
responsibilities. Although the economic factor restricts the decision for leisure travel
itself, it affects much more the decision concerning the number of annual trips to be
taken and the selected destinations; this is true especially for those tourists who
assume traveling is a basic need (Crouch, 1994).
Even if money remains as a constraint, lower traveling costs and people managing
their ?nancial resources to include annual travels into their lifestyles, it is becoming a
less restricting factor. The majority of the interviewees have a predetermined way of
overcoming the money constraint, either by saving monthly or by making use of their
vacation subsidies.
The study is the ?rst one to explore the decision for leisure travel participation from
an ecological perspective in Portugal; therefore, further research is necessary to
validate the ?ndings obtained. Although the study limitations derive from the
geographical and sampling scope of analysis, it raises some interesting ideas, which
are intuitive but, if applied to a more extensive sample, may contribute to give insights
of the usefulness of the ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1992) to
Figure 10.
Facilitators and
constraints that shape the
Portuguese south-eastern
residents leisure travel
participation decision
Structural Factors
- Familiar events
- Macro-events
- Participation in leisure activities within
the destination (ski)
- Weather conditions
- Characteristics of the destination
- Time compatibility with the travel
companion(s)
- Availability of time to plan for the trip
- Lowprices
- Free accommodation
- Financial independency
Motivations
Travel companion
Time
Money
Intrapersonal Factors
- Psychological well-being
- Uncomfortable psychological feelings
- Deep fondness for traveling
- Perception of travel benefits
- Feelings experienced while traveling
- Previous satisfactory tourism experiences
Facilitators Constraints
Intrapersonal factors
- Uncomfortable psychological feelings
- Fear of flying
- Fear of traveling alone
Interpersonal factors
- Participation of friends
- Participation of the family
- Interest of friends
- Encouragement of friends
- Encouragement of the family
- Strong friendships
Interpersonal Factors
- Participation of individuals with whom the
tourist has no friendship
Structural Factors
- Labor restrictions
- Professional responsibilities
- Extra-professional commitments
- Academic restrictions
- Time incompatibility with the travel
companion(s)
- Children’s school restrictions
- Participation in leisure activities in the
residential area
- Lack of time to plan for the trip
- Personal commitments (children
education, house or car loans, …)
- Financial dependency
- Participation in leisure activities within
the residential area
- Travel companion’s lack of money
- Lack of health
- Geographical area of the Algarve
The case of the
southeast
of Portugal
39
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
explain tourist consumer behavior. The researcher’s interpretation of the responses of
interviewees also limits the study. A second round of interviews, followed by a cohort
audit (Hirschman, 1986; Woodside, 2004; Woodside et al., 2006a) would overcome this
limitation.
References
Allen, D.E. (2002), “Toward a theory of consumer choice as sociohistorically shaped practical
experience: the ?ts-like-a-glove (FLAG) framework”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 28, pp. 515-32.
Blazey, M. (1987), “The difference between participants and non-participants in a senior travel
programme”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 7-12.
Blazey, M. (1992), “Travel and retirement status”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19,
pp. 771-83.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979), The Ecology of Human Development – Experiments by Nature and
Design, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992), “Ecological systems theory”, in Vasta, R. (Ed.), Six Theories of Child
Development: Revised Formulations and Current Ideas, London, pp. 187-249.
Caldwell, L. and Baldwin, C. (2005), “A developmental approach to understanding constraints to
adolescent leisure”, in Jackson, E. (Ed.), Constraints to Leisure, Venture Publishing Inc.,
State College, PA, pp. 75-88.
Caldwell, L. and Darling, N. (1999), “Leisure context, parental control, and resistance to peer
pressure as predictors of adolescent partying and substance use: an ecological
perspective”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 57-78.
Correia, A. and Pimpa˜o, A. (2007), “Tourists’ behavior in exotic places: a structural and
categorical model for Portuguese tourists”, in Woodside, A.G., Harrill, R. and Crotts, J.
(Eds), Advances in Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2.
Crawford, D.W. and Godbey, G. (1987), “Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure”, Leisure
Sciences, Vol. 9, pp. 119-27.
Crompton, J.L. (1979), “Motivations for pleasure vacations”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 6,
pp. 408-24.
Crouch, G. (1994), “The study of international tourism demand: a review of ?ndings”, Journal of
Travel Research, No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Daniels, M., Rodgers, E. and Wiggins, B. (2005), “’Travel tales’: an interpretative analysis of
constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as experienced by persons with physical
disabilities”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 919-30.
Driver, B.L., Brown, J. and Peterson, G.L. (1991), “Research on leisure bene?ts: an introduction to
this volume”, in Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. and Peterson, G.L. (Eds), Bene?ts of Leisure,
Venture Publishing, Inc., State College, PA, pp. 3-10.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Fleischer, A. and Pizam, A. (2002), “Tourism constraints among Israeli seniors”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 106-23.
Floyd, M., Shinew, F., McGuire, K. and Noe, F. (1994), “Race, class, and leisure activity
preferences: marginality and ethnicity revisited”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 158-73.
IJCTHR
2,1
40
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Fodness, D. (1994), “Measuring tourist motivation”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 555-81.
Gilbert, D. and Hudson, S. (2000), “Tourism demand constraints: a skiing participation”, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 906-25.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, London.
Gonza´lez, A.M. and Belo, L. (2002), “The construct ‘lifestyle’ in market segmentation – the
behavior of tourist consumers”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 1/2, pp. 51-85.
Hirschman, E.C. (1986), “Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method, and
criteria”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, pp. 237-49.
Hutchinson, S.L. and Kleiber, D.A. (2005), “Leisure, constraints, and negative life events: paradox
and possibilities”, in Jackson, E. (Ed.), Constraints to Leisure, Venture Publishing, Inc.,
State College, PA, pp. 137-49.
ITP (2007), As fe´rias dos Portugueses 2006 – S? ´ntese dos aspectos mais relevantes, Instituto do
Turismo de Portugal, Lisboa.
Jackson, E.L. (1997), “In the eye of the beholder: a comment on Samdahl and Jekubovich (1997),
a critique of leisure constraints: comparative analyses and understandings”, Journal of
Leisure Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 458-68.
Jackson, E.L. (2005), Constraints to Leisure, Venture Publishing, Inc., State College, PA.
Kim, N. and Chalip, L. (2003), “Why travel to the FIFA World Cup? Effects of motives,
background, interest, and constraints”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25, pp. 695-707.
Kozak, M. (2002), “Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 23, pp. 221-32.
McCracken, G. (1988), The Long Interview, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
McGuire, F. (1984), “A factor analytic study of leisure constraints in advanced adulthood”,
Leisure Sciences, Vol. 6, pp. 313-26.
McGuire, F. and Norman, W. (2005), “The role of constraints in successful aging: inhibiting or
enabling”, in Jackson, E. (Ed.), Constraints to Leisure, Venture Publishing, Inc., State
College, PA, pp. 89-101.
McGuire, F.A., Dottavio, D. and O’Leary, J.T. (1986), “Constraints to participation in outdoor
recreation across the life span: a nationwide study of limitors and prohibitors”,
The Gerontologist, Vol. 26, pp. 538-44.
Malle, B.F. (1999), “How people explain behavior: a new theoretical framework”, Personality &
Social Psychology Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 23-48.
Mansfeld, Y. (1992), “From motivation to actual travel”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19,
pp. 399-419.
Mayo, E.J. (1985), The Psychology of Leisure Travel, CBI Publishing, Boston, MA.
Mazursky, D. (1989), “Past experience and future tourism decisions”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 333-45.
Noy, C. (2004), “This trip really changed me – backpacker’s narratives of self-change”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 78-102.
Nyaupane, G.P., Morais, D. and Graefe, A. (2004), “Nature tourism constraints – a cross-activity
comparison”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 540-55.
Oppermann, M. (1995), “Travel life cycle”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 535-52.
The case of the
southeast
of Portugal
41
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Pearce, P. and Lee, U. (2005), “Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp. 226-37.
Pennington-Gray, L. and Kerstetter, D. (2002), “Testing a constraints model within the context of
nature-based tourism”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40, pp. 416-23.
Phillip, S.F. (1998), “Race and gender differences in adolescent group approval of leisure
activities”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 214-32.
Pinhey, T.K. and Iverson, T.J. (1994), “Safety concerns of Japanese visitors to Guam”, Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 87-94.
Pizam, A., Jeong, G., Reichel, A., van Boemmel, H., Lusson, J.M., Steynberg, L., State-Costache, O.,
Volo, S., Kroesbacher, C., Kucerova, J. and Montmany, N. (2004), “The relationship between
risk-taking, sensation-seeking, and the tourist behavior of young adults: a cross-cultural
study”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, pp. 251-60.
Plog, S.C. (1974), “Why destinations areas rise and fall in popularity”, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 55-8.
Powel, L. (1994), “Personality and affective correlates of leisure activity participation by older
people”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, p. 138.
Ragin, C.C. (1994), Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method, Pine Forge
Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Raymore, L. (2002), “Facilitators to leisure”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 34, pp. 37-51.
Raymore, L., Godbey, G. and Crawford, D.W. (1994), “Self-esteem, gender and socioeconomic
status: their relation to perceptions of constraint on leisure among adolescents”, Journal of
Leisure Research, Vol. 26, pp. 99-118.
Reisinger, Y. and Mavondo, F. (2005), “Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally:
implications of travel risk perception”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp. 212-25.
Robertson, B.J. (1999), “Leisure and family: perspectives of male adolescents who engage in
delinquent activity as leisure”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 335-59.
Samdahl, D. and Jekubovich, N.J. (1997), “A critique of leisure constraints: comparative analyses
and understandings”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 430-52.
Schrader, M. and Wann, D. (1999), “High-risk recreation: the relationship between participant
characteristics and degree of involvement”, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 426-42.
Shaw, S.M. and Henderson, K. (2005), “Gender analysis and leisure constraints: an uneasy
alliance”, in Jackson, E. (Ed.), Constraints to Leisure, Venture Publishing, Inc., State
College, PA, pp. 23-34.
Shinew, K.J. and Floyd, M.F. (2005), “Racial inequality and constraints to leisure in the post-civil
rights era: toward an alternative framework”, in Jackson, E. (Ed.), Constraints to Leisure,
Venture Publishing, Inc., State College, PA, pp. 35-51.
Sonmez, S.F. and Graef, A.R. (1998), “Determining future travel behavior from past travel
experience and perceptions of risk and safety”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 37,
pp. 171-7.
Tian, S., Crompton, J.L. and Witt, A. (1996), “Integrating constraints and bene?ts to identify
responsive target markets for museum attractions”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35
No. 2, pp. 34-45.
Um, S. and Crompton, J. (1990), “Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 17, pp. 432-40.
IJCTHR
2,1
42
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Um, S. and Crompton, J. (1992), “The roles of perceived inhibitors and facilitators in pleasure
travel destination decision”, Journal of Travel Research, Winter, pp. 18-25.
Woodside, A.G. (2004), “Advancing from subjective to con?rmatory personal introspection in
consumer research”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21, pp. 987-1010.
Woodside, A.G., Caldwell, M. and Spurr, R. (2006a), “Advancing ecological systems theory in
lifestyle, leisure, and travel research”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44, pp. 259-72.
Woodside, A.G., Krauss, E., Caldwell, M. and Chebat, J. (2006b), “Advancing folk theory of
behavior explanation, ecological systems theory, and the ?t-like-a-glove model for
understanding lifestyle, leisure, and travel behavior”, working paper, Boston College,
Chestnut Hill, MA.
Woodside, A.G., MacDonald, R. and Burford, M. (2005), “Holistic case-based modelling of
customers’ thinking-doing destination choice”, in March, R. and Woodside, A.G. (Eds),
Tourism Behavior: Travellers’ Decisions and Actions, CABI Publishing, Wallingford,
pp. 73-111.
Corresponding author
Anto´nia Correia can be contacted at: [email protected]
The case of the
southeast
of Portugal
43
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Helena Reis, Antonia Correia. 2013. Gender Asymmetries in Golf Participation. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management 22, 67-91. [CrossRef]
2. Byunggook Kim, Jinmoo Heo, Sanghee Chun, Youngkhill Lee. 2011. Construction and initial validation
of the leisure facilitator scale. Leisure/Loisir 35, 391-405. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
5

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)

doc_537891007.pdf