Tourist activity inhibitors

Description
The purpose of this paper is to identify tourist activity inhibitors (causes of non-participation
in tourism), assess their impact strength and analyze the social disproportion and exclusion in terms of
tourism participation. The paper also presents the deficiencies in the research methods and proposes
modifications that pertain to method and terms

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Tourist activity inhibitors
Wieslaw Alejziak
Article information:
To cite this document:
Wieslaw Alejziak, (2013),"Tourist activity inhibitors", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 11 -
27
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301327
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:20 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 44 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 829 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Antónia Correia, Metin Kozak, J oão Ferradeira, (2013),"From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 411-424 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0022
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation,
experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp.
401-419 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
J oaquín Alegre, Magdalena Cladera, (2012),"Tourist characteristics that influence shopping participation and expenditures", International
J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 223-237 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211246375
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Tourist activity inhibitors
Wieslaw Alejziak
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify tourist activity inhibitors (causes of non-participation
in tourism), assess their impact strength and analyze the social disproportion and exclusion in terms of
tourism participation. The paper also presents the de?ciencies in the research methods and proposes
modi?cations that pertain to method and terms.
Design/methodology/approach – Empirical studies pertain to Polish residents’ leisure trips in 2005.
The sample (1,026 persons) ful?lls the requirements for the general Polish population, aged 15 years
and older. The statistical methods used were the x
2
test, the tau B-Kendall rank correlation coef?cient,
factor analysis, cluster analysis, and ANOVA. The analyses include the top ten reasons for
non-participation in leisure trips, and are divided on the basis of the length of such trips (longer than
seven days and shorter than seven days).
Findings – The research reveals great social diversity in tourism, which results from numerous
interdependent factors. However, both the standards and the attributes of tourist activity are a measure
of social diversi?cation and exclusion rather than their cause. The analyses that this research carries out
indicate the existence of de?ciencies in terms of methodology employed in the identi?cation of causes of
not participating in tourism. These de?ciencies pertain mainly to the randomness of inhibitor selection by
different authors and various institutions for this particular activity. Subsequently this situation creates an
obstacle when comparing results of studies. Another issue deals with the quite vague distribution of
causes in the surveys, which on the other hand prevent respondents from giving clear answers. The
cluster analysis carried out for trips lasting a week or longer reveals that the ?rst cluster (60 percent) is
the most uniform, being made up of people who most often lack money, and seldom mention the other
inhibitors. The second cluster (20 percent) is much more diverse, and consists of people who often
indicate a few factors – lack of money, lack of time, household obligations, and spending vacations in
their place of residence.
Research limitations/implications – Empirical studies were carried out exclusively among Polish
residents and included only leisure trips.
Practical implications – Research that diagnoses and partially forecasts the standards and attributes
of tourist activity serves as a foundation to support the functioning of the entire tourist industry. The
practical signi?cance of this research is determined by the fact that people are constantly seeking to
increase the demand for tourist products.
Originality/value – Knowledge about people not participating in tourism is insigni?cant. This article
pertains to the above-mentioned group of people, focusing especially on the causes of
non-participation. It presents a critical analysis of studies and points out the diversity and
inconsistencies in methodology. Problems of the lack of participation in tourism and social exclusion
apply to social sciences, especially sociology and economy.
Keywords Tourist activity, Leisure trips, Inhibitors, Disproportion, Diversi?cation, Social exclusion,
Poland, Tourism, Leisure activities
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
This article analyzes factors that constrain tourist activity. Subsequently, these factors will be
referred to in this work as inhibitors. This article consists of two clearly separate parts. The
DOI 10.1108/17506181311301327 VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013, pp. 11-27, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 11
WieslawAlejziak is based at
the School of Economics
and Law, Kielce, Poland
and at the Department of
Tourism Policy, Academy of
Physical Education,
Krakow, Poland.
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
?rst part focuses on theoretical aspects, and presents recent scienti?c contributions. The
study indicates some gaps in methodology and proposes certain modi?cations. The second
part is purely empirical and presents the results of studies pertaining to leisure trips of Polish
residents in the year 2005. The actual data utilized for analyses was obtained fromthe Public
Opinion Research Center (CBOS in Polish). The author purchased the above-mentioned
data set in order to accomplish one of his ongoing research projects, entitled ‘‘Functional
typology of tourist activity conditions and an attempt to create a model elucidating this
phenomenon’’ (carried out in 2006-2007). This data set is utilized for several types of
analyses pertaining to the causes of non-participation in leisure trips, and to study the
population structure of people who do not participate in such trips. The analyses include the
top ten reasons for non-participation in leisure trips, and are divided on the basis of the
length of such trips (longer than seven days, shorter than seven days). The analyses feature
the following techniques:
B cluster analysis;
B factor analysis; and
B ANOVA variance analysis.
The studies are carried out on a representative sample of Polish residents, aged 15 years
and older.
Literature review
The last several decades re?ect dynamic periods in the history of mankind. During this time
numerous transformations have occurred in both social and economic life. The
unprecedented development of tourism is considered one of the designators of these
changes. Tourism underwent transformations from a typically elite phenomenon into a mass
phenomenon, attracting millions of people around the world. Now travel includes about 700
million international trips annually, while the global number of domestic trips in 1995 was
estimated at around 5.6 billion, based on UNWTO data. According to OECD experts, this
number is much higher (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2002,
p. 12). Tourismhas become one of the largest branches of the global economy, as well as an
important component of mass culture. The signi?cance of tourism is acknowledged in both
developed and under-developed countries. In developed countries tourism is considered
an essential component of consumption and a speci?c indicator of modernity and social
wealth. In his book Tourist Gaze, J. Urry writes that ‘‘being a tourist is perceived as an
indicator of being modern. Not traveling at all is comparable with not owning a car or a nice
house. In modern society tourism has become a symbol of status, and at the same time is
regarded as a principal health component’’ (Urry, 2007, p. 17). On the other hand, in
underdeveloped countries tourism is considered one of the best development options,
because it can stimulate economic development and further social and cultural
development.
Tourist activity as an indicator of living standards
Scienti?c studies indicate that tourism is becoming a constant element of human needs
structure, while increasing in tourist activity constitutes an objective standard of
contemporary civilization development. Tourist activity is an excellent indicator of the
social-economic development of a nation, as well as an indicator of lifestyle and living
standard. The records that place tourismwithin the social-economic policy of Poland con?rm
the plausibility of this view. Tourist activity may be treated as an interpretation of the strategic
goals of tourism policy. This record states: ‘‘Tourist activity and travel constitute a function of
quality of life and are an indicator of a nation’s civilized development’’ (Ministry of Economy,
2001, p. 4). Consequently, the signi?cance of tourist activity research is growing. In his work
Frechtling (2001) presents the diagnostic and to a certain degree a forecast of the level and
character of participation in tourism. He provides a speci?c background for the functioning
of the entire tourism branch. On the one hand the knowledge of conditions, level and the
typological structure of tourist activity is a crucial indicator of state tourism policy. On the
PAGE 12
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
other hand it is a decisive component in terms of the activity of tourist enterprises. Tourist
activity research also provides basic information on the causes and the scale of social
diversity of tourist activity including factors that generate so-called exclusion from tourism
participation.
According to Slaby (2006, p. 180) tourist activity, being a form of consumption, mirrors and
conditions the degree of satisfying needs, and at the same time determines the level, quality
and dignity of human life. Two principal research ?elds pertain to the aspects of
consumption. The ?rst ?eld pertains to studying the general level of tourism participation.
The second ?eld is also important, because it studies the diversity of tourism participation at
different typological cross-sections, and in addition it describes the process of social
exclusion. The term‘‘social exclusion’’ in reference to tourist activity is used infrequently. This
scarcity results from tourist needs being higher-type needs and because the lack of tourism
participation reoccurs. The existing situation is quite extraordinary, when we consider the
fact that the general model pertaining to the analysis of social exclusion in EU countries (see
Figure 1) takes tourist trips into account (Mejer, 2000, p. 2).
Consider two issues when discussing the subject of social inequality and exclusion from
tourism participation. The ?rst issue states that tourism consumption, despite its increasing
accessibility (or dissemination) belongs to upper-class consumption. According to the
second issue the majority of studies analyze tourism participation during a speci?c
timeframe, which is usually the last year before the research is conducted. However, this
research rarely focuses on the fact whether the lack of participation possesses a permanent
character. When considering the above-mentioned reasons, scientists should be able to
agree that the cause of social diversity is based on the social diversity of tourism
participation, rather than tourist activity. In other words, the level and character of tourist
activity is an indicator of social diversity rather than its cause.
De?nition of tourist activity inhibitors
Every type of human activity is vulnerable to various types of constraints and obstacles.
People are limited by biological factors (sex, age, health, status), economic factors
(i.e. prices and income), and social-cultural factors (language, type of culture, religion,
social status). They are also limited by human character, temper, personal habits and
previous life experiences. In addition ful?llment of tourist needs is often susceptible to
constraints. In this article such constraints will be referred to as ‘‘inhibitors’’ (in Latin inhibeo
means to stop or restrain something). This de?nition is most often used in the sciences
(especially chemistry and medicine). However, recently representatives of social sciences it
employed it. Among the ?rst Polish social sciences scholars who employed the term
Figure 1 General framework pertaining to the social exclusion analysis
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 13
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
‘‘inhibitor’’ was T. Kocowski (1983). In addition, a small group of English elaborations on
tourism that mention the term ‘‘inhibitor’’ have been recognized. However, they usually
pertain to other issues than tourist activity. For example, Mill and Morrison (1999, p. 19) use
the term ‘‘inhibitor’’ in reference to conditions of tourism development. The authors present
this term on one of the schemes that illustrates the impact of external factors on the
decision-making process when purchasing tourist events. However, they use the term
‘‘barriers’’ in their text, which analyzes individual factors (Mill and Morrison, 1999, p. 39).
The term ‘‘inhibitor’’ depicts rather well the nature of factors that negatively affect tourist
activity. This term is probably more correct than the term ‘‘barrier’’, which emphasizes
stability and suggests that the process is restrained. Having said that, the term ‘‘inhibitor’’
relates to impediment and indicates the dynamic character of conditions that shape tourist
activity. In addition it emphasizes the process feature of this phenomenon. The term
‘‘inhibitor’’ is more appropriate than the previous usage of the term ‘‘cause of not traveling’’.
The latter term includes doubts and reservations that pertain to the de?nition of cause.
Notwithstanding detailed discussions concerning the causality issue, the term ‘‘cause’’ is
relevant. For instance, it depends on whether people estimate a particular event as a
satisfactory cause or an essential cause (Karpinski, 1985; Such, 1992). In tourist activity
studies the situation described is often encountered, especially when the respondents
indicate several causes of not traveling.
The term ‘‘tourist activity inhibitor’’ describes a factor that impedes the process of shaping
tourist activity and undertaking tourist activity, which subsequently leads to a situation when
a person is not going to travel, but he does not rule out this type of activity in the future.
Tourist activity inhibitors can be grouped in many ways. The most common classi?cation
distinguishes general inhibitors (which impede tourist activity of the entire society, in other
words all potential tourists) and other inhibitors, which include such categories as the elderly,
disabled people, children and youth. Individual and group inhibitors can also be
distinguished. However, most of the time tourist activity inhibitors are broken down into
economic and non-economic inhibitors. Economic inhibitors can be subdivided into price
and income inhibitors. On the other hand, non-economic inhibitors can be subdivided into
social and psychological inhibitors. In terms of tourism the use of the supply and demand
group of inhibitors is essential. The following groups of inhibitors may be found in more
detailed analyses:
B legal;
B administrative;
B religious; and
B temporal.
What is noteworthy is the fact that temporal and permanent inhibitors might be very useful in
studying cognitive aspects. The majority of inhibitors are ones that impede tourist activity at
a given moment in time. However, inhibitors that impede tourist activity all the time can also
be distinguished.
Factors constraining tourist activity in the light of earlier research
The scienti?c literature rarely mentions the issues of tourist activity inhibitors and analyses
pertaining to people who do not participate in tourism (both Polish and foreign). On the other
hand, the research on different barriers and constraints of leisure activity is quite impressive.
The work of Scott and Kim (1998) presents a synthetic review of this contribution. In the
scienti?c literature there are a great number of papers that present different theories and
models elucidating the causes and constraints of tourist activity. Ross (1998, p. 22) mentions
this fact. He writes that even if some articles discuss the issue of constraints in tourist
participation, they mainly pertain to various motivations and not the whole scope of tourist
activity. Haukeland (1990a) expresses a similar opinion in his work ‘‘Non-travelers: the ?ip
side of motivation’’. He emphasizes the fact that the de?ciency of studies on constraints of
tourist participation results in a very broad spectrum of scienti?c analyses, and
consequently limits their usage in tourism.
PAGE 14
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Scarce research on this subject pertains usually to constraints experienced by a selected
group of tourists, namely disabled people (Kaganek, 2005, p. 115-21) and the elderly
(Mannell and Zuzanek, 1991, pp. 337-51). These studies present very interesting results. For
example, Blazey (1987), based on the ‘‘Leisure Constraint Questionnaire’’ (McGuire, 1984,
pp. 313-26) identi?es 25 major constraints in tourism practice among the elderly. Besides
traditional constraints such as shortage of money and poor health, his research reveals the
signi?cance of other barriers such as loneliness, lack of travel companions, and reluctance
to travel at night (Blazey, 1987, pp. 7-12). Unfortunately there are very few detailed analyses
of these groups of tourists, despite the fact that interesting concepts have been developed
in this matter. For example, the life cycle concept offers large possibilities in identifying the
constraints and obstacles of tourist activity (Hultsman, 1995, 228-44; Jackson, 1990,
129-45). Unfortunately, this concept is used insuf?ciently because this research often
focuses on the character of tourist participation and consumer products and not on the
people and causes of the lack of tourist activity. The introduction of the diversifying factors
intra-personal, inter-personal and structural had a signi?cant role in the development of
research on participation constraint in various forms of leisure (Crowford et al., 1991,
pp. 119-27). Studies by Mannel and Zuzanek (1991, pp. 337-51) support this viewpoint.
According to Iso-Ahola and Mannell (1985), who consider the issue of tourist activity
constraints among various forms of leisure, the essential role should be attributed to
permanent and temporal inhibiting factors (Iso-Ahola and Mannell, 1985, pp. 111-51). Hinch
and Jackson (2000) have also pointed out an interesting aspect of constraint recurrence in
this matter. They analyzed the impact of tourist seasonality on tourist activity. In their analysis
they go beyond strict climatic conditions. Such conditions usually correspond to a situation
when the ‘‘3x’’ type of tourism can be only possible during summer, while skiing is highly
dependent on snow cover duration. ‘‘Non-climatic’’ causes of seasonality (i.e. holiday
schedule distribution) are at the same time important inhibitors of tourist activity (Hinch and
Jackson, 2000, p. 88). Hinch and Jackson, 2000, p. 91) make a very interesting observation
and formulate an opinion regarding the problems generated by the seasonality
phenomenon. They claim that ‘‘at present we know much more about seasonal bird
migrations, than seasonal migrations of holiday tourists’’.
Noteworthy are the particular characteristics travelers encounter of barriers and constraints
during international trips. Besides traditional barriers, tourists have to deal with new ones
such as the inability to speak a foreign language, lack of the knowledge of the rules and
regulations in the countries visited, lack of knowledge of traditional customs and religious
requirements, lack of political stability, and lack of knowledge pertaining to health hazards,
natural disasters and climate catastrophes (Merski and Koscielnik, 2007, p. 94). Tourist
activity restrictions are also dependent on the forms of tourism. Nyaupane et al. (2004)
discuss this particular aspect in great detail. These authors analyze various factors that limit
the practice of different forms of adventure tourism. This particular form of tourism employs
natural qualities. On the basis of studies carried out in 14 states, they indicate that quite
different constraints apply to sojourn tourism, excursion tourism and quali?ed tourism. In the
latter case there exist considerable differences in constraints, which can be clearly seen
when comparing rafting and horseback tourism. In case of active forms of tourism the role of
risk is important; risk may turn out to be an essential inhibitor of tourist activity. Dolnicar
(2005) con?rms this viewpoint; she distinguishes ?ve principal risk factors in tourism:
1. political risk (terrorism, unstable political situation, wars, military con?icts);
2. environmental risk (natural disasters, earthquakes);
3. health risk (no access to medical care, healthy food and water);
4. risk associated with planning (unreliable organizers, unreliable airlines); and
5. risk of property loss (thefts, loss of luggage).
The issue of security during tourist trips pertains particularly to women who travel alone
(Alejziak, 1992, pp. 29-33). In a similar way this applies to youth and children (Dabrowski
and Rowinski, 2007, pp. 242-57). When analyzing factors that limit tourist activity, the
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 15
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
scienti?c literature most often cites the typology elaborated by Goeldner and Ritchie (2006).
Six main barriers in terms of traveling include expenses, lack of time, health restrictions,
family factors, lack of interest, and fear of security (Goeldner and Ritchie, 2006). Cooper et al.
(2005) propose similar barriers when they refer in their work to a so-called ‘‘suppressed
demand for tourism’’. To the six barriers they add government constraints (i.e. visas, foreign
exchange), while lack of interest is attributed to one group along with the fear factor (Cooper
et al., 2005). In both of these typologies, economic barriers represent the principal
restriction. Empirical studies support this proposition (i.e. Alejziak, 2007) and the elderly
(i.e. Bosiacki, 1987).
Despite the fact that surveys list the options ‘‘lowincome status’’, ‘‘lowincome’’, ‘‘shortage of
money’’ and ‘‘?nancial causes’’, only one of these options is usually selected by the majority
of respondents. Notwithstanding the fact that economic causes possess a prevailing role,
scientists may attempt to speculate whether this surprisingly high percentage of responses
is overestimated. Such a tendency may occur if they consider the fact that the set of causes
listed in the survey and subsequently evaluated by the respondents may not be adequate.
This set may present causes that are similar to each other, and hence it is dif?cult to classify
them into appropriate groups. In such a case the respondents may assign greater
importance to key factors than in reality. Haukeland (1984, 1990a) points out this dif?culty,
and subsequently claims that the issue of lack of tourist activity is a very complex
phenomenon that is frequently underestimated.
The Tourism Institute in Poland conducted research in which they con?rmed the prevailing
signi?cance of income level in terms of tourist activity (Laciak, 2005). These studies show
that in the year 2005, 65 percent of Poles did not participate in a trip lasting at least ?ve days.
In addition such trips could take place either in Poland or abroad and could be attended by
people older than 15. Table I displays the causes of the lack of participation in such trips
(Laciak, 2005, p. 24).
The percentage of individual causes in recent years has been almost identical. This applies
mainly to the value in the ?rst column, which indicates that at least half of the respondents
(52 percent) cannot afford to participate in a tourist trip. The remaining causes comprise
only a few percent. It should be emphasized that 7 percent of the respondents declared
that they were willing to travel in the analyzed period of time. This does not mean, of
course, that the lack of tourist needs should be treated in their case as a permanent status.
The research indicates that tourist needs constitute a rather stable component within the
structure of contemporary human needs. For comparison see works of Bosiacki (1987),
Table I Causes of not participating in long-term tourist trips in the years 2003-2005
Causes of not traveling 2003 2004 2005
Due to my ?nancial situation I couldn’t afford to go on a
holiday trip 52 52 52
I couldn’t leave my house and family 7 8 7
I didn’t feel the need to travel 7 7 7
I didn’t go because of my job 6 6 7
I didn’t go because of illness 6 5 6
I didn’t go because I am old 4 5 5
I didn’t go because I am a disabled person 1 1 1
I couldn’t leave the household without supervision 5 5 4
I declined to go because of high expenses that I have
planned (car purchase, home purchase, building a home) 3 3 4
I didn’t go because of household duties, i.e. refurbishment,
house cleaning 3 3 3
I didn’t know where to go, there was nobody who could
organize the trip 2 2 2
I resigned from holidays on account of a paid job 1 2 1
Other 3 1 1
Note: Figures shown are percentages
PAGE 16
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Broclawik (1988), and Naumowicz (1987). Alejziak (1991) con?rms this view. Of course,
this outcome pertains to nations with a high (or at least average) level of social-economic
development.
More detailed analyses enable one to present essential differences in terms of the
signi?cance of various causes in individual categories. This pertains, for instance, to the
place of residence. Consequently, lack of the need to travel is declared more frequently by
people living in villages (8 percent) and towns (10 percent) than by persons living in large
cities, with a population exceeding 500,000 inhabitants (3 percent). A reverse situation is
encountered for the inhibitors ‘‘was unable to travel because of work’’, and ‘‘could not leave
the house or family without protection’’ (Laciak, 2005, p. 25). Unfortunately the report
published on the basis of this study does not provide information concerning the impact of
other variables on the respondents’ opinions as well as the causes of the lack of travel. The
study performed by the Principal Statistics Bureau (GUS in Polish) presents quite a different
structure pertaining to the causes of the lack of tourist trip participation. This study was
conducted in the same year and included 4,006 economic households and 12,444 people
who were not part of these households. The study employs a very similar set of causes of not
traveling, as shown in Table II (Principal Statistics Bureau, 2006, p. 120)
The Polish Principal Statistics Bureau carried out a study that indicates that most
respondents selected ?scal causes. However, the response ‘‘we cannot afford it’’ pertains to
only 32 percent of households in which the members did not participate in short-term tourist
trips, and to 39 percent of households in which the members did not participate in long-term
trips. Nevertheless, essential differences in responses that pertain to remaining causes can
be pointed out. For example, health status was more frequently selected in the study
performed by the Tourism Institute. Surprisingly, this barrier more frequently limited
participation in domestic trips than in international trips. On the other hand, the lack of
participation in short-term domestic trips is frequently explained by the necessity to allocate
leisure time for household duties (9 percent). The studies reveal that both job character and
principal source of income have a great impact on the opinions pertaining to the causes of
lack of participation. It turns out that 50 percent of households in which the person is
employed indicates ?scal causes. In the remaining households the percentage is
signi?cantly smaller. The breakdown is as follows:
Table II Causes of not traveling on holiday in the year 1997 in 15 EU countries – Eurostat
research
Country
People departing in
general
a
Financial
causes
Business
duties
Personal
matters
Remaining
causes
France 49.3 55.1 20.8 19.7 10.5
Belgium 45.8 42.7 7.4 26.0 23.2
The Netherlands 71.0 47.4 10.2 16.5 18.0
Germany (East) 50.0 48.0 11.6 25.9 5.4
Germany (West) 52.1 51.0 15.0 29.4 3.4
Italy 52.0 34.2 17.5 33.1 13.4
Luxembourg 63.9 30.9 12.1 26.6 19.3
Denmark 75.7 35.0 18.1 23.5 14.6
Northern Ireland 39.9 48.1 13.0 19.5 17.2
Republic of Ireland 36.9 58.9 11.5 19.3 9.4
Great Britain 55.4 60.9 8.4 13.1 13.1
Greece 42.4 57.8 31.9 23.1 7.9
Spain 47.4 52.6 24.3 23.7 9.7
Portugal 32.1 67.5 14.3 20.1 8.2
Finland 65.4 44.7 19.2 12.1 16.6
Sweden 69.1 36.1 17.0 18.4 23.3
Austria 41.5 42.9 22.6 28.3 5.7
Note:
a
The ?rst column gives information regarding the percentage of tourists, which means that this
particular question does not refer to the number of respondents surveyed in a given country
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 17
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
B 28 percent – employed as blue collar;
B 29 percent – self-employed and not part of the household; and
B 19 percent – supported by the household (Principal Statistics Bureau, 2006, p. 123).
The Public Opinion Research Center (CBOS in Polish) was the third institution that carried
out studies on tourist activity of Polish residents in the year 2005. The studies carried out by
this institution were limited to leisure trips (lasting more than a week and shorter trips) only.
The respondents were asked to list the causes of not participating in travel. It turns out that
the principal cause for staying at home is shortage of money, which is shown in Figure 2
(Public Opinion Research Center, 2008, p. 7). Causes indicated by the respondents as well
as by the social-demographic features of people who did not participate in any trips con?rm
this viewpoint. It should be emphasized, however, that in this case a considerable
percentage of responses included other causes as well. This mainly pertains to the category
‘‘stayed in a place of residence’’ (48 percent and 43 percent, respectively). Nearly every ?fth
respondent claimed that they did feel the need to travel. On the basis of the responses given
in this survey it turns out that contrary to the study performed by GUS, both causes for not
traveling (short-term and long-term) are basically the same.
The Public Opinion Research Center carried out a study (performed annually since 1992)
which reveals a few interesting tendencies. For example, the respondents indicate business
duties more frequently than in previous years and emphasize that they do not feel the urge to
travel. In addition, in the year 2005 a slightly smaller number of people selected the option
‘‘?nancial reasons’’. The declarations pertaining to the causes of not traveling are strongly
associated with the age and health status of the respondents. According to the authors of this
study, such results may indicate the existence of certain cultural barriers, as well as the fact
that the majority of Poles simply do not participate in leisure trips. Based on the examples
presentedso far, it is evident that the major factor that constrains tourist activity is income and
the general welfare status of a family. However, the importance of one’s income may vary
Figure 2 Tourist activity inhibitors concerning Poles’ leisure trips
PAGE 18
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
signi?cantly depending on the type of tourist trip as well as the methodology employed in the
study (especially in terms of the set of causes of not traveling indicated by the survey). To a
large extent this also depends on the social-economic development level of a given country,
as well as cultural factors. A study carried out in the European Union nations in the year 1997
supports this fact (Melich, 1998, p. 353). This study possesses a unique value since it was
performed at the same time in 15 countries belonging to the then EU. Additionally, this study
employedidentical methodology andresearchtools, which createda backgroundfor making
relevant international comparisons. Eurostat exercised the patronage, and methodological
support of this research was due to the fact that this research was a part of a larger project
entitled ‘‘Eurobarometer 48.0: Holiday Travel (ICPSR 2353)’’.
Table II reveals a great diversity of causes for not participating in holiday trips in different
countries. The percentage of ?nancial factors varies from 67 percent in Portugal to little over
30 percent in the case of Luxembourg, Denmark and Sweden. In addition, the remaining
causes have varying importance in individual countries. For instance, business duties
prevented only a small percentage of Belgians and UK residents fromtraveling. This number
is much greater in Spain (24 percent) and Greece (31 percent). On the other hand, personal
issues were most frequently indicated by Italians and Austrians, and rarely by Finns and UK
residents. The results obtained in this study indicate a surprisingly great diversity of tourist
activity inhibitors. However, they are basically concurrent with Haukeland’s viewpoint in
research performed in Scandinavian countries, which are noted for implementing social
welfare policy (Haukeland, 1990b, pp. 207-14). For instance, in Norway until the middle of
the 1970s, farmers were guaranteed three weeks of paid leisure holiday, which was funded
by the national budget. As it turned out, this was a crucial factor in terms of developing
theses and subsequently verifying them. Based on the results of his study, Haukeland claims
that the material situation is one of the most important factors to determine participation in
tourist trips. He distinguishes four principal types of non-travelers, or people that are passive
in tourism (Haukeland, 1990b):
1. Type A – Represents a group of people who have no restrictions in terms of their material
situation and everyday lifestyle. They simply want to stay at home during vacation and
holidays and subsequently this brings them the most pleasure.
2. Type B – Represents a group of people who have a situation that is a little more
complicated. Their material situation is generally satisfactory, but they have other
restrictions (temporary or permanent) that prevent them from traveling.
3. Type C – Represents a group of people who have a dif?cult material situation. However,
this does not necessarily pertain just to poor ?nancial conditions; other factors can play a
signi?cant role (i.e. health status, family situation, personal freedom, etc.). This study
points out that sometimes lack of tourist activity can deepen a formidable life situation
(frequently manifested as social exclusion) or at least it may trigger such feelings.
4. Type D – Represents a group of people who do not participate in tourist activity because
of other dif?cult and extraordinary causes (i.e. speci?c interests).
The analyses of data obtainedfromthe wealthiest economic households provide an excellent
insight into actual preferences andobstacles of participation in the tourist consumer sector. In
terms of this particular group of households the material factors play a very scarce role.
Subsequently this allows scientists tobetter exploretheactual impact of theremainingcauses
of not traveling. For instance the Principal Statistics Bureau conductedresearchthat revealed
that the majority of the wealthiest people in Poland do not travel simply because they are not
interested in this type of activity. When taking into account short-term trips 22 percent of the
wealthiest households indicate this particular cause. A large number of the wealthiest
households (16 percent) are not interested in making long-term trips abroad.
Method and results
The main purpose of the study here pertains to the analysis of the interdependencies of
tourist activity inhibitors. In addition, this section attempts to verify the thesis of the
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 19
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
overlapping of some factors that have a negative impact on tourist activity. The study was
carried out in 2005 on the basis of real-time data obtained fromthe Public Opinion Research
Center. In order to study the inter-correlations and occurrence of causes of not traveling
(indicated by the respondents) the author employs cluster analysis utilizing k-average
grouping. The above-mentioned analysis is accomplished via distance sorting with a
constant interval. Variables that pertain to tourist activity inhibitors are presented in the form
of dichotomous results, which means that a given inhibitor occurred or did not occur with
regards to the person surveyed. This type of variable on the one hand makes it dif?cult to
interpret the data, but on the other hand, the variables do not have to undergo preliminary
standardization, because each variable has an identical minimum (0) and maximum (1).
Having said that, averages in clusters correspond to the percentage (i.e. an average equal
to 0.67 signi?es that 67 percent of people in a given cluster indicated this inhibitor).
Prior to the analysis all variables (including dichotomous ones, i.e. gender) were
standardized. This was achieved by calibrating to a standard scale (z), which has an
average of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. This forced the identi?cation of three clusters.
First, analyses were carried out, and subsequently the clusters 3, 4, 5 and 6 were
distinguished. The analysis for variable six was impossible to achieve, since one of the
clusters was empty after preliminary attribution. The analysis for clusters 4 and 5 turned out
to be feasible but it resulted in obtaining pro?les of many variables that were similar to each
other. The analysis of cluster 3 generated the best results. These results are displayed in
Table III. They were obtained from 814 respondents who were asked why they had not
participated in leisure trips in 2005. This particular number of respondents is taken into
account since they provided information about all of the inhibitors. The number of the
clusters appears in the column headings.
Considering that the information presented on recreational travel inhibitors is dichotomic in
nature (i.e. that a given inhibitor either appears in a given person or does not), the group
averages mark the indicator percentage of a given inhibitor (e.g. the average for the lack of
money inhibitor in the ?rst group equals 0.84, meaning that 84 percent of people in this
group mentioned this inhibitor). The results turned are quite interesting, and sometimes even
surprising. For trips of a week or longer, the ?rst group had the decided majority, while the
remaining two groups showed similar, though much smaller numbers, and the dominance of
various inhibitors. The ?rst group (491 people) is the most uniform, being made up of people
who most often lack money, and seldommention the other inhibitors. The second group (166
people) is much more diverse, covering people who often indicate a few factors – lack of
money, lack of time, household obligations, and having to spend vacations in their place of
residence. The study particularly emphasizes the fact that the lack of money inhibitor only
came in third place (household obligations and holiday in place of residence were
mentioned more often). Meanwhile, the people in the third group (157 people) most often
Table III Averages in individual clusters
Trips lasting at least one week Trips lasting less than one week
Cluster 1
(60.3 percent,
n ¼ 491)
Cluster 2
(20.4 percent,
n ¼ 166)
Cluster 3
(19.3 percent,
n ¼ 157)
Cluster 1
(55.5 percent,
n ¼ 452)
Cluster 2
(26.9 percent,
n ¼ 219)
Cluster 3
(17.6 percent,
n ¼ 143)
Shortage of money 0.843 0.741 0.631 0.896 0.658 0.528
Lack of time 0.061 0.590 0.879 0.082 0.863 0.254
Lack of possibilities (no
adequate offer) 0.193 0.253 0.025 0.144 0.078 0.338
Lack of holidays 0.026 0.096 0.376 0.033 0.329 0.042
Household duties 0.065 0.873 0.484 0.095 0.694 0.366
Business duties 0.012 0.114 0.726 0.022 0.548 0.056
Additional job 0.016 0.066 0.401 0.015 0.297 0.007
Earning money 0.116 0.217 0.834 0.091 0.644 0.070
No need to travel 0.155 0.373 0.089 0.018 0.128 0.831
Spending holidays at home 0.338 0.867 0.522 0.259 0.534 0.831
PAGE 20
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
point towards a lack of time, service duties, or the necessity of earning money. Lack of
money only comes in fourth place here. It thus turns out that, in the case of recreational trips
of a week or more, around 40 percent of the research subjects (323 people) did not put lack
of money in ?rst place, or even in the top three most frequent responses (see Figure 3).
In terms of trips lasting less than a week, people from cluster 1 frequently indicate shortage
of money. In cluster 2 the most frequent responses indicate are as follows:
B lack of time;
B shortage of money;
B household duties;
B the need to earn money; and
B spending their vacation in the place of residence.
People belonging to cluster 3 most frequently mention lack of interest in traveling and
spending vacation in the place of residence (see Figure 4).
Variance analysis was also carried out in this study. This particular method focuses on
determining the differences of statistical signi?cance among three or more groups in terms
of averages of selected variables. The calculations performed indicate an ef?cient diversity
among clusters in terms of all the analyzed inhibitors. This is shown in Table IV.
Figure 4 Average values in clusters – trips lasting less than one week
Figure 3 Average values in clusters – trips lasting at least one week
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 21
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Additional statistical methods have been employed in order to obtain the ?nal con?rmation of
interdependencies as well as similarities of the character of selected tourist activity inhibitors
(in this particular case not participating in leisure trips that lasted at least a week). These
methods include component analysis and Varimax variance. The ?rst phase of the study
employs factor analysis. This method is aimed to ?nd certain variables (called factors) that
are responsible for observed inter-variability between these variables and other sets of more
numerous variables. The group of variables analyzed was based on the indication of
individual tourist activity inhibitors. In other words, this analysis was aimed to identify
invisible (latent) factors that cause inter-correlations among visible indicators. These
invisible factors may be referred to as certain constructs that enable us to elucidate why
some inhibitors from a given set correlate more strongly and why others correlate more
weakly. The analysis includes 786 respondents who indicate causes of not participating in
trips lasting at least a week, and 785 respondents who indicate causes of not participating in
trips lasting shorter than one week. This ?nding is for weighed data. This particular number
of respondents possessed information for all of the ten inhibitors analyzed. Tables V and VI
show the results.
The factor analysis, which enables us to reveal concealed dimensions and subsequently the
reduction of variables, is comprised of factor loads. These loads express the level of variable
saturation by a given factor. They also constitute the correlation coef?cients of a given
original variable (for the non-correlated factors) with individual factors. The greater the
variable correlation coef?cient with a given factor, the more signi?cant is that particular
variable for the given factor. Factor loads re?ect common variances for a given variable with
Table IV Variance analysis
Trips lasting at least
one week
Trips lasting less than
one week
F
Signi?cance
level F
Signi?cance
level
Shortage of money 17.383 ,0.001 58.276 ,0.001
Lack of time 448.676 ,0.001 424.132 ,0.001
Lack of possibilities (no offer) 16.980 ,0.001 23.981 ,0.001
Lack of holidays 92.239 ,0.001 81.406 ,0.001
Household duties 402.852 ,0.001 183.354 ,0.001
Business duties 460.450 ,0.001 243.318 ,0.001
Additonal job 129.787 ,0.001 97.130 ,0.001
Earning money 251.092 ,0.001 208.621 ,0.001
No need to travel 27.255 ,0.001 563.090 ,0.001
Spending holidays at home 84.628 ,0.001 96.619 ,0.001
Table V Variance analysis of factors: initial values
Trips lasting at least one week Trips lasting less than one week
Total
Variance
percentage
Cumulated
percentage Total
Variance
percentage
Cumulated
percentage
Shortage of money 2.657 26.565 26.565 2.715 27.147 27.147
Lack of time 1.445 14.452 41.017 1.447 14.469 41.616
Lack of possibilities (no adequate
offer) 1.109 11.086 52.103 1.169 11.688 53.304
Lack of holidays 0.935 9.348 61.451 0.914 9.139 62.444
Household duties 0.895 8.952 70.404 0.814 8.141 70.585
Business duties 0.795 7.953 78.356 0.755 7.547 78.132
Additional job 0.621 6.214 84.570 0.616 6.158 84.291
Earning money 0.584 5.841 90.412 0.581 5.807 90.098
No need to travel 0.504 5.039 95.451 0.541 5.409 95.507
Spending holidays at home 0.455 4.549 100.000 0.449 4.493 100.000
Note: Factor loads signify correlations between the variables and the factors that were selected by default
PAGE 22
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
other variables. When considering leisure trips that lasted for at least one week, we are able
to distinguish (based on factor analysis) three factors each with a value greater than 1. These
factors elucidate approximately 52 percent of variance for the entire scale:
B Factor 1 is comprised of six inhibitors, i.e. earning money, business duties, extra job, lack
of time, lack of holidays, and household duties. After a certain simpli?cation it is possible
to determine these factors as ‘‘work overload’’.
B Factor 2 is comprised of three inhibitors, i.e. holiday in the place of residence, lack of the
need to travel and lack of opportunities. This can be interpreted as ‘‘lack of need or
opportunity to travel (adequate trip offer)’’.
B Factor 3 is comprised of only one inhibitor, which is ‘‘shortage of money’’.
In the case of trips lasting less than one week, three factors were obtained with a value
greater than 1, which elucidate about 53 percent of the variance in the entire scale. It should
be noted, however, that their structure is somewhat different. Factor 1 comprises earning
money, extra job, lack of time, household duties, business duties and lack of holidays. Their
character obviously pertains to the generalized factor ‘‘duties overload’’. However, the
second factor is less clear. It comprises the lack of time inhibitor (similar to the case of longer
trips) but in contrast it is also comprised of lack of the need to travel, and lack of holidays.
The second factor is also comprised of the shortage of money inhibitor, which possesses a
negative load. This factor in general may be associated with work overload. However, due to
its negative factor load (pertaining to the shortage of money) it may relate to an overload that
is not tied to ?nancial dif?culties. The third factor quite clearly refers to the lack of need or
opportunity to travel. In general this analysis presents not as clear results as in the case of
the former analysis (pertaining to shorter trips).
Conclusion
The analyses carried out in this research indicate the existence of de?ciencies in terms of the
methodology employed in the identi?cation of causes of not participating in tourism. These
de?ciencies pertain mainly to the randomness of inhibitor selection by different authors and
various institutions for this particular activity (i.e. causes of not participating). Subsequently
this creates an obstacle when comparing the results of studies. Another issue deals with the
quite vague distribution of causes in the surveys, which on the other hand prevent
respondents from giving clear answers. The Public Opinion Research Center performed
statistical analyses that con?rm at least a portion of these remarks. The above-mentioned
analyses indicate that the survey elaborated by the Public Opinion Research Center was not
adequately selected, since many of the responses suggest a clear resemblance to each
other. For instance, this pertains to the following examples of three responses suggested by
the Public Opinion Research Center: ‘‘You have to earn money’’, ‘‘you have business duties’’
Table VI Variance analysis of factors: factor loads after Varimax rotation
Trips lasting at least one week Trips lasting less than one week
Component
1
Component
2
Component
3
Component
1
Component
2
Component
3
Earning money 0.770 Earning money 0.806
Business duties 0.681 Additional job 0.708
Additional job 0.669 Lack of time 0.551 0.493
Lack of time 0.668 Household duties 0.527
Lack of holidays 0.546 Shortage of money 0.813
Household duties 0.465 Business duties 0.517 0.538
Holidays spent at home 0.746 Lack of holidays 0.427 0.436
No need to travel 0.683 Holidays spent at home 0.731
No opportunities 0.514 No need to travel 0.705
Shortage of money 0.869 No opportunities 0.491
Note: Factor loads signify correlations between the variables and the factors that were selected by default
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 23
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
and ‘‘you must take on an extra job’’. These responses are very similar and they basically
refer to identical causes. In contrast, other very important causes of not traveling are omitted
(i.e. security issue).
In discussions regarding the causes of not participating in leisure trips people mention the
so-called classical triad: I do not know where to go, I do not have the time, and I do not have
money (Jankowski and Lenartowicz, 2007, p. 179). The issue is much more complicated.
Certainly, this does not involve the ?rst two reasons. Nowadays there are countless
interesting package tour offers and people generally have more leisure time at their disposal,
so these reasons seem outdated. However, there are an increasing number of different
reasons and some of them are quite sophisticated, so it seems rational that they should be
incorporated into the methodology of tourist activity research. As an example the author of
this study mentions the term ‘‘habitus’’, which basically means a person’s regular behavior
that limits his own choices. Until recently, independent studies of the role of habitus and its
impact on tourismhave not been undertaken. It is possible that habitus might become a very
important inhibitor of tourist activity. This may pertain to a group of people who are not
familiar with a diversi?ed tourist offer. This happens because of the barrier that is created by
an individual habitus. This barrier might be associated with the level of knowledge one
possesses, personal lifestyle, competence and physicality. Habitus provides a person with a
predetermined set of possible choices, which leads to a situation in which he becomes very
predictable and even socially restricted, due to the necessity of making decisions that
belong exclusively to his own sphere.
Cultural barriers that limit or even impede tourist activity relate to the habitus issue. This issue
pertains mainly to international trips. According to Merski and Koscielnik (2007, p. 9), ‘‘It is
not the lack of a passport or distance that is the main obstacle, but the actual cultural
barriers’’. Unfortunately, studies concerning consciousness of issues of not participating in
tourism are rarely carried out. A few of these studies have employed a small and
non-representative sample of the general population (Jankowski and Lenartowicz, 2007,
p. 179).
The methodological drawbacks that this study points out justify questions about the actual
impact strength of economic factors, and whether methodological errors affect a certain
overestimation of responses such as ‘‘I cannot afford a trip’’. Having said that, this study
mentions a very interesting paper elaborated in the USA. The authors of this paper
attempted to identify rather precisely and explore the role of tourist activity barriers. Hence,
they decided to reduce the signi?cance of the ?scal factor. The respondents are asked in the
survey to complete an un?nished sentence, ‘‘Mr. and Mrs. Brown were offered a free tourist
trip around the US but they decided not to go because . . . ’’ Nearly 42 percent of the people
responded that the Browns want to go on the trip but could not due so because of business
duties or taking care of their baby. Nearly 26 percent of the people claim that the Browns
probably stayed home because they were afraid to travel (McIntosh and Goeldner, 1986,
p. 128). They suggest that these fears could concern personal safety during the trip as well
as possessions left at home. Similar in character are fears triggered by contact with new
people, unfamiliar places, lack of knowledge of foreign languages, etc.
Studies pertaining to the causes of not traveling as well as studies on the nature of tourist
activity inhibitors are among the most neglected ?elds of tourist activity research. The image
of tourist activity obtained on the basis of standard research should be supplemented with
detailed analyses that pertain to the causes of not participating in individual forms of tourist
trips. Scientists should explore these causes based on two main reasons. First of all, they
enable establishment of barriers that limit tourist activity, and second of all, they enable the
forecasting of certain trends that might occur, along with changes to various factors that are
decisive for tourist activity. This may pertain mainly to the economic situation of individual
people and households. Therefore, scientists have to agree with the viewpoint proposed by
Przeclawski, who claims that ‘‘in the future it will be necessary to explore not only the motives
which induce tourist trips, but also motives which impede and prevent people from
traveling’’ (Przeclawski, 1999, p. 40). Scientists cannot forget that despite the fact that
participation in tourism is constantly increasing, many people and social groups treat
PAGE 24
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
tourism as a luxury. On the other hand, a certain portion of society does not feel the need to
travel and their choice not to participate in tourism is a conscious one. Consider conscious
participation in tourism. According to Przeclawski (1999) some people go on various trips
(i.e. visiting relatives, professional trips) but they are unaware that they are participating in
tourism. In the light of the broad de?nition of tourism (especially the one UNWTO
recommends), tourism is exactly what they are doing.
References
Alejziak, B. (1992), ‘‘Businesswoman: a special care tourist type’’, Bulletin of the Polish Tourism
Association, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 29-33.
Alejziak, W. (1991), ‘‘Tourist activity of Swedish residents on the example of Stockholmpopulation’’, Folia
Turistica, Vol. 2, pp. 9-33 (in Polish).
Alejziak, W. (2007), ‘‘Determinants and social disproportions of tourist activity based on leisure of Polish
residents in 2005’’, Turystyka i Rekreacja, Vol. 3, pp. 12-33 (in Polish).
Blazey, M.A. (1987), ‘‘The differences between participants and non-participants in a senior travel
program’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 26, pp. 7-12.
Bosiacki, S. (1987), Consumption of Tourist Goods and Tourist Services in Economic Households,
Instytut Turystyki, Warsaw (in Polish).
Broc?awik, K. (1988), ‘‘Tourism within the systemic needs concept’’, Problemy Turystyki, Vol. 2 No. 40,
pp. 19-28 (in Polish).
Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D. and Wanhill, S. (2005), Tourism Principles and Practice, 3rd
ed., Pearson Education, Edinburgh.
Crowford, D., Jackson, E. and Godbey, G. (1991), ‘‘Re-conceptualizing barriers to family leisure’’,
Leisure Science, Vol. 9, pp. 119-27.
De? browski, A. and Rowin´ ski, R. (2007), ‘‘Barriers and scope of children and youth tourism participation
belonging to sightseeing and tourist circles in the light of research results’’, Tourism and Travel from the
Axiological Perspective, AWF, Poznan, pp. 242-56 (in Polish).
Dolnicar, S. (2005), ‘‘Understanding barriers to leisure travel – tourist fears as marketing basis’’, Journal
of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 197-208.
Frechtling, D. (2001), Forecasting Tourism Demand – Methods and Strategies, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Goeldner, Ch.R. and Ritchie, B.J.R. (2006), Tourism. Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 10th ed., Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Haukeland, J.V. (1984), ‘‘Socio-cultural impacts of tourism in Scandinavia: studies of three host
communities’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 207-14.
Haukeland, J.V. (1990a), ‘‘Non-travelers: the ?ip side of motivation’’, Annals of TourismResearch, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 172-84.
Haukeland, J.V. (1990b), ‘‘Socio-cultural impacts of tourism in Scandinavia’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 5, pp. 207-14.
Hinch, T.D. and Jackson, E.L. (2000), ‘‘Leisure constraints research: its value as a framework for
understanding tourism seasonality’’, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 87-106.
Hultsman, W.Z. (1995), ‘‘Recognizing patterns of leisure constraints: an extension of the exploration of
dimensionality’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 27, pp. 228-44.
Iso-Ahola, S.E. and Mannell, R.C. (1985), ‘‘Social and psychological constraints in leisure’’,
in Wade, M.G. (Ed.), Constraints on Leisure, Thomas, Spring?eld, IL, pp. 111-51.
Jackson, E.L. (1990), ‘‘Trends in leisure preferences: alternative constraints-related explanations’’,
Journal of Applied Recreation Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 129-45.
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 25
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Jankowski, K.W. and Lenartowicz, M. (2007), ‘‘Variability of factors that restrict tourist activity’’, Cultural
Barriers in Tourism, Almamer/WSE, Warsaw, pp. 175-88 (in Polish).
Kaganek, K. (2005), Tourism Practice Barriers Based on the Opinions of Handicapped Persons in
Sightseeing and Handicapped Tourism, PWSZ, Biala Podlaska, pp. 115-21.
Karpin´ ski, J. (1985), Causality in Sociological Studies, PWN, Warsaw (in Polish).
Kocowski, T. (1983), ‘‘Stimuli and inhibitors of research activity scientists’’, Report No. 227, Wroc?aw
University of Technology, Wroc?aw (in Polish).
Laciak, J. (2005), ‘‘Poles’ participation in tourist trips in 2005’’, Institute of Tourism, Warsaw: available at:
www.mg.gov.pl/Wiadomosci/Turystyka/uczesrnictwoþ2005.htm (accessed December 15m 2008)
(in Polish).
McGuire, F.A. (1984), ‘‘A factor analytic study of leisure constraints in advanced adulthood’’, Leisure
Sciences, Vol. 6, pp. 313-26.
McIntosh, R.W. and Goeldner, Ch.R. (1986), Tourism Principles, Practices and Philosophies, 3rd ed.,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Mannell, R.C. and Zuzanek, J. (1991), ‘‘The nature and variability of leisure constraints in daily life:
the case of the physically active leisure of older adults’’, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 13, pp. 337-51.
Mejer, L. (2000), ‘‘Social exclusion in the EU Member States’’, Statistics In Focus, 3-1/2000, available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/CA-NK-00-001/EN/CA-NK-00-001-EN.PDF
(accessed December 15, 2008).
Melich, A. (1998), ‘ ‘Eurobarometer 48.0: holiday travel October-November 1997’’, European
Commission, Zentralarchiv fu¨ r Empirische Sozialforschung an der Universita¨ t zu Ko¨ ln, available at:
www.za.uni-koeln.de/data/en/eurobarometer/codebooks/s2959cdb.pdf (accessed 15 December
2008).
Merski, J. and Koscielnik, J. (2007), ‘‘Barriers that impede active participation’’, Cultural Barriers in
Tourism, Almamer/WSE, Warsaw, pp. 91-6 (in Polish).
Mill, R. and Morrison, A. (1999), The Tourist System. An Introductory Text, 3rd ed., Kendall/Hunt
Publishing, Dubuque, IA.
Ministry of Economy (2001), Tourism Development Strategy 2001-2006, Ministry of Economy, Warsaw.
Naumowicz, K. (1987), ‘‘Tourism as a sphere of satisfying personal needs’’, Prace Naukowe Politechniki
Szczecinskiej, p. 338 (in Polish).
Nyaupane, G.P., Morris, D.B. and Graefe, A.R. (2004), ‘‘Nature tourism constraints. A cross-activity
comparison’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 540-55.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002), ‘‘Household tourism. Travel trends,
environmental impacts and policy responses’’, OECD Sector Case Studies Series No. JT00124673,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, available at: www.olis.oecd.org/olis/
2001doc.nsf/43bb6130e5e86e5fc12569fa005d004c/1df9e50b1b092650c1256b9f0034b213/$FILE/
JT00124673.PDF (accessed 15 December 2008).
Principal Statistics Bureau (2006), ‘‘Tourism and leisure in economic households in 2005’’, Principal
Statistics Bureau, Warsaw, available at: www.stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/PUBL_turystyka_
wypoczynek_2005.pdf (accessed 15 December 2008).
Przeclawski, K. (1999), ‘‘Man and tourism’’, Overview of Tourism Sociology, Albis, Krakow (in Polish).
Public Opinion Research Center (2005), ‘‘Poles’ leisure trips in the years 1992-2005 (BS/185/2005)’’,
Research Bulletin, Public Opinion Research Center, Warsaw, available at: www.cbos.pl/
SPISKOM.POL/2005/K_185_05.PDF (accessed 15 December 2008).
Ross, G.F. (1998), The Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality Press, Melbourne.
Scott, D. and Kim, Ch. (1998), ‘‘Outdoor recreation participation and barriers to involvement’’, Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department, available at: www.rpts.tamu.edu/faculty/VITA/Scott-Vita.pdf (accessed
15 December 2008).
PAGE 26
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Slaby, T. (2006), ‘‘Consumption’’, Statistical Essays, Di?n, Warsaw (in Polish).
Such, J. (1992), ‘‘Types of determinants and development of science’’, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM,
Seria Filozo?a i Logika, p. 67 (in Polish).
Urry, J. (2007), Tourist Gaze, Polish edition, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warsaw.
Further reading
Um, S. and Crompton, J.L. (1992), ‘‘The roles of perceived inhibitors and facilitators in pleasure travel
destination decisions’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 18-25.
Corresponding author
Wieslaw Alejziak can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 27
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
:
2
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)

doc_926917720.pdf