Resident Attitudes Toward Voluntourism in Vietnam
Photo by Hasan Al-Sawa
Very little research on volunteer tourism has focused on resident attitudes – - Dr. Nancy McGehee and Dr. Kathy Andereck tackled this subject in Tijuana, Mexico, for the first time several years ago. Fortunately, with the increasing awareness of voluntourism, we are beginning to see some additional research appear in this regard.
Most recently, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences’ students – Ha Viet Nguyen and Thao Thanh Nguyen(Laurea) – released the results from their Bachelor’s Thesis entitled “The Influence of Residents’ Perceptions on Their Support Towards Volunteer Tourism – - Case Study: Sapa, Vietnam.” The students developed four hypotheses for their research:
H1: Residents who perceive the benefits from voluntourism will tend to support for its activities.
H2: Residents who have economic dependency on voluntourism will be likely to perceive its benefits.
H3: Residents who have positive attitude towards socio-cultural exchange to voluntourism will be likely to perceive its benefits.
H4: Residents who perceive the benefits of voluntourism will have a tendency of wanting to have more power to influence on voluntourism.
Conclusions from the study:
The students discovered strong correlations between perceptions of benefits and economic dependency and positive attitudes toward socio-cultural exchange. Further, the students discovered that the older the population and/or the more highly educated, the less likely they were to perceive the benefits of socio-cultural exchange or to want to participate in the development of voluntourism programs. In fact, the authors wrote in the final segment of their paper:
The hypothesis 4 testing the relationship between residents’ perceived benefits of voluntourism and the willingness to be involved in voluntourism planning is lightly supported. This means a perceived voluntourism benefit is still greatly uncertain that whether the respondent wants to be involved in voluntourism planning. The study finds out that the three groups which are presenting the most disagreement to participate in voluntourism planning have no formal education (73,7%), elementary school (43,5%) and university level (50%) (Appendix 4). The explanation for the discomfort to participate in local development plan of the two groups no formal education and elementary school could be due to the low level of education, these people are not confident with their knowledge to be part of what so-called “decision making process”. For the university level, it is a questionable result for the researchers. Since the frequency of this level in the study presents only 3 times out of 104 responses this hardly to be considered as representative sample for this group…[p.70]
On one hand, the results indicated that residents who perceive the benefits from voluntourism will tend to support for its activities. On the other hand, the findings surprisingly showed the respondents expect the contribution and support from external parties rather than actively participating in the process. The leading role of authority and voluntourists are therefore inevitable in encouraging residents to support voluntourism. Consequently, local authority and volunteer tourists should approach and offer local people their most wants and needs first. [p.73]“
This is a very important point for all voluntourism stakeholders to consider – is the planning process for voluntourism projects set up in a way to encourage equal representation of all community residents and conducted in a manner that makes it approachable by all? What methods will lead to the engagement of local residents in the voluntourism planning process?
Final Thoughts…
On a number of levels, this is a very interesting study. It speaks to the growing emphasis on student research on volunteer tourism and voluntourism – the fact that these two students are from Vietnam and are conducting research within their own borders is especially noteworthy. It also brings to our awareness that there is still little research on resident attitudes toward voluntourism and that residents’ attitudes are likely influenced by their perceptions of economic and socio-cultural benefits to them, even if voluntourism does not eventually provide such benefits. It also shares a new wrinkle on the perceptions of voluntourism based upon age differences within the population – older residents will be less likely to perceive voluntourism and its purported benefits in a positive light.
Hopefully, students and academics will continue to conduct research and push-pull us to new heights of understanding about voluntourism. The future of this genre of travel will only benefit from new perspectives, new insights, and new discoveries that come from shining the light of research on it.
VolunTourism: Is There Wisdom in Short-term Engagement?
Photo by Hasan Al-Sawa
Rachel Lewis – likely you have not heard her name before, neither had I prior to reading her insightful blog post regarding her recent three-month volunteer experience in Nepal – - “What I Learnt in Nepal – Why a Bad Travel Experience Isn’t the End.” Her post introduces the stuff that makes any voluntourism provider, any volunteer manager, any host community or any would-be voluntourist cringe. She writes:
Let me give you a quick run-down of a few other reasons why, for me, this trip was so bad:
We were in an area where nobody needed us, and where we could make little to no difference. We couldn’t speak the language and had been told beforehand that it wasn’t necessary, so we had next to no input. I felt useless. I was acutely aware that I was there for two reasons and two reasons only: to attract attention, because I am white, and to attract money, because I am white. It was made quite clear to us at the end of the programme that the money the UK government invested in the programme, in return for Nepal taking on UK workers, paid the wages of several of the Nepali staff. They didn’t need me – they needed my government’s money. I spent all day every day being stared at like I wasn’t a person. People screamed at me and interrupted my conversations and crashed their bikes into walls because they were so busy staring (alright, I’d admit that the wall crashing was at least partly funny). I know a lot of people really enjoy this kind of attention, but personally, I felt like I didn’t own myself, like I wasn’t my own person. Over at another placement, two locals got brutally murdered and the staff thought it would cheer the UK volunteers up if they could ‘see the body’. I’m not even joking. And, although this pales in comparison to murder, we ate rice, twice a day, every day, for three months.
If I had to choose between eating rice ever again and starving to death, I would choose starving. Have you ever vomited rice back up? It all gets stuck in your nose and you end up sneezing rice for days. It’s thoroughly unattractive.”
Ms. Lewis talks about spiders, people leaving the program, and numerous other misadventures. And she wraps up with five lessons learned. This one I found to be particularly appropriate given the notion of short-term engagement – - “Sometimes it takes more courage to give up than to go on.” How many volunteer travelers are actually faced with this moment of truth at some point during their placements, particularly when the honeymoon phase of the experience begins to wear off? Could it be avoided with shorter-term engagements?
For working folks, shorter-term engagements are a veritable necessity, as the amount of time allotted for vacation is only so long. A recent subscriber to The VolunTourist Newsletter offered the following:
Opportunities that are available for those of us without a ton of vacation time…so shorter term projects. Also, any volunteer options with orphaned animals like orangutans for example.”
People do want to volunteer in conjunction with their travels. If individuals are willing to pay for the privilege to volunteer is it not possible to meet that request with newly structured approaches to short-term volunteering?
Shortening the Service Commitment While Maintaining Excellence in Relevant Service Delivery
It was good to see Susan Ellis talking about voluntourism recently. She spoke on The VolunTourist webcast four years ago and I really appreciated her insights on the volunteering side of voluntourism. Volunteer management is a critical issue when it comes to switching from a long-term to a short-term approach to volunteering. Certain entities have done an excellent job with this in “developed” countries, but how does this translate into LDCs (least developed countries) and “developing” countries?
Holiday with a Heart, which launched recently, is following in the footsteps of Give Back Getaways (TM), You Care We Care(TM), Impact 4 Good(TM) and other short-term engagements which have come to our attention over the last several years. Voluntourists want to “make a difference” – - there is no point in having them participate in projects unless they are truly meaningful and relevant to local communities. In this context, voluntourism is starting to appear like a page out of a corporate volunteer handbook. If short-term voluntourism becomes similarly efficient and relevant simultaneously, then it may be possible for us to avoid some of the challenges like those experienced by Ms. Lewis.
Final Thoughts…
Paradoxically, the long-term sustainability of voluntourism has very much to do with how well NGOs and grassroots organizations can design and develop short-term service engagements. Just as the public sector has transitioned a number of services to the social sector over the decades, the social sector must now think outside of official development assistance (ODA) and consider the contributions that can be made through private development assistance (PDA), in this case, voluntourism.
Voluntourism is indeed a feature of the emerging PDA contributions in today’s world. Short-term service engagements for travelers are one example of this expanding form of “aid” delivery. Travelers like Ms. Lewis can contribute to the well-being of destinations, we simply have to change our approach – nothing more, nothing less, yet certainly easier said than done.
Could Animal Voluntourism Impact Biodiversity?
CNN.com International - "Beauty trumps beast in conservation efforts"
Over the past several months, the journal Biodiversity has released two articles written by Dr. Ernest Small – - “The new Noah’s Ark: beautiful and useful species only Part 1” and “Part 2.” CNN.com International recently inked an article – - “Beauty trumps beast in conservation efforts” – - featuring some quotes from Dr. Small regarding his research:
“‘People have biases towards species that are glamorous,’ said Dr. Ernie Small, author of the study and taxonomist for Agriculture Canada.
‘Animals that are beautiful, entertaining or that command respect due to their size or power are almost always given greater forms of conservation protection.’”
Dr. Small goes on to build a case about the potential undoing of biodiversity that can occur as human beings select “glamorous” species, focusing conservation efforts on giant pandas, lions, tigers, elephants, and others, while leaving the reptiles and insects of the planet – the not so warm and fuzzy characters – to fend for themselves.
Implications for Voluntourism
In volume 40 issue 6 of the journal Geoforum, co-authors Jenny A. Cousins, James Evans, and Jon P. Sadler inked a piece entitled “I’ve paid to observe lions – not map roads! – An emotional journey with conservation volunteers in South Africa.” From the article:
Still in Limpopo (November 2006), four volunteers, a research assistant and I are watching Mandla, a huge 4 year old male lion who is stretched out on the warm red earth within a thorn bush clearing, only a few feet from our backie. ‘‘What’s his belly score?” whispers Ian, a wildlife enthusiast from Ireland. ‘‘He looks quite full. About four?” There are nods of agreement and Ian puts pen to the monitoring sheet. As we watch, captivated, Mandla leisurely glides his tongue down the length of a front leg, turning his paw over to pay particular attention to the deep crevices running between his dust covered pads. As the daylight begins to ebb and is replaced by a hazy red glow, Mandla stands and expels a long deep grunt, followed by another, another and another, forming an earth moving decrescendo. Paul, a recruitment consultant from the UK turns to me:
‘That’s amazing, just amazing. This is what it’s is all about. You don’t mind getting up at four in the morning when you see stuff like this – it makes it all worthwhile.’
‘Just that alone makes it worth the trip’ Ian concurred.
But the concert had only just begun and soon another male lion, Bheka, joined the chorus from somewhere in the darkness.”
We know that the “beautiful and glamorous” species referred to by Dr. Ernest Small are indeed the ones most often showcased in conservation voluntourism expeditions, as the article from Cousins, et al., demonstrates. Animal voluntourism options the world over tend to feature these same types of species. Is it possible, then, that voluntourism could be contributing to a negative impact on biodiversity? If so, how can we educate potential voluntourists as to the importance of supporting the less “glamorous” species?
Dr. Small emphasizes this in his concluding point:
But while recognizing that these methods are ‘not entirely without benefit,’ [suggesting that conservation of the "glamorous" species can support the welfare of the less glamorous] Small believes that more must be done to protect less appealing wildlife.
‘Aesthetic standards have become one of the primary determinants of which species are deemed worthy for conservation and this has to be looked at,’ he said.”
Final Thoughts…
I do not think that Dr. Small is advocating for the creation of “Shellfish Without Borders,” “Operation Reptile,” “Habitat for Amphibians,” or “Entomology Institute,” but existing environmental/conservation-based and “animal-centric” voluntourism programs across the globe could take his comments into consideration. The Ritz Carlton Grand Cayman, for example, has crafted a Give Back Getaway to support the Blue Iguana there. Perhaps other voluntourism programs could take a similar approach – crafting programs to assist the under-appreciated.
Can the voluntourism community do more to educate voluntourists on the importance of the entire ecosystem in a given destination? We know that lions can’t exist without the help of insects, neither can people for that matter. Taking a page from Nudge, voluntourism providers might be able to attract would-be voluntourists to participate in meaningful projects designed to help the non-glamorous by putting everything into perspective – - “Take one [a voluntour] for the ‘little guys’. The King of Beasts can’t exist without them.”
Moving Voluntourism to the Developed World
Photo by Hasan Al-Sawa
For a number of years I have argued a point, fairly consistently: voluntourism is “development for the developed world.” Tired of the intricate deception of neo-liberalistic thought, I have wondered why we focus so intently on increasing the wealth and earning power of billions, instead of decreasing the consumptive patterns of millions. Lower the consumptive patterns of millions, I have argued, and see what you do for billions.
Voluntourism, in my way of thinking, has always been about introducing the wealthiest in our global society to the potential of downsizing, realigning thought patterns as to what makes one happy, and living a more sustainable, geo-responsible lifestyle. The way to broach the subject is through service.
It is said that the only way one can know what it is like to walk in another’s shoes is to put them on, or walk beside her/him. In the case of voluntourism, I think we get to do a little of both. And depending on how well a voluntourism program is managed, particularly from the standpoint of educating the voluntourist and prodding her/him to think, to really think about what s/he is observing and feeling through the process, education and provocative thought can be the ideal result of such travel-service engagements.
Do you really think that communities care whether they have $500 extra per family on an annual basis, if they can save $500 annually on fuel costs or electricity because the demand has fallen to a level that allows their existing monies to stretch farther? It’s the same $500, either way. I am not arguing that helping those with less is not important, but what I am advocating is that maybe developing the capacity of citizens from the developed world to stop consuming at unsustainable rates may be more beneficial for everyone. And one way to do this is through well-structured voluntourism programs.
Pro-Poor Tourism in the Developed World
In the most recent online release of articles from the International Journal of Tourism Research, comes a piece entitled “Pro-Poor Tourism in a First World Urban Setting: Case Study of Glasgow Govan.” In it, Richard Butler, Ross Curran, and Kevin D. O’Gorman write:
With significant reductions in public sector funding and high poverty levels in many of the developed world’s cities, research into the PPT [pro-poor tourism] concept could have value to both the tourism industry and development agencies. The industry could benefit both in terms of a public relations perspective and from sustainable long-term investment opportunities, and development agencies, both government and voluntary, could use PPT as a vehicle for fulfilling their aims of delivering real benefits to communities (Evans, 2000).
[Source: Butler, R., Curran, R., and O'Gorman, K. (2012). Pro-Poor Tourism in a First World Urban Setting: Case Study of Glasgow Govan. International Journal of Tourism Research, online, p. 1]
Pro-poor tourism (PPT) has been around for about a decade, conceptually speaking, that is. It has been tied to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and serves as the tourism sectors effort to address the MDGs. As you might imagine, PPT garners an ample supply of criticism from those who are more than put off by the name “pro-poor.” (Voluntourism has been maligned in similar fashion over the years.) With the above article, however, Butler, et al., remind us of the reality of our current global situation – developed no longer means “developed.” In fact, one could argue that the relative poverty of urban residents in some parts of the developed world could be far greater in extent than that of the rural poor who at least have the capacity to grow their own food.
Voluntourism in the Developed World
We have already seen voluntourism at work in the developed world. Following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, we saw a veritable explosion in the influx of voluntourists to the U.S. Gulf Coast region. Estimates have put the figure at greater than 2 million persons who have ventured to volunteer in support of local residents impacted by the storm. Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have also seen an influx of voluntourists in the aftermath of a flood, an earthquake, and a tsunami, respectively, in those three developed countries. With no destination immune to natural or man-made disasters, voluntourism will likely find its way into more areas in the developed world in the years to come.
Might we see a shift – - a move to the developed world – - that is not linked solely to devastation? Much like the case study outlined by Butler, et al., is it possible that voluntourism could change its identity from a form of “pro-poor tourism” to simply a type of tourism that is equally applicable in any destination, regardless of its economic situation?
When I recently broached the subject of private development assistance (PDA) and how voluntourism may be part of this growing phenomenon, I mentioned that PDA does not take into account activities conducted in developed countries. If we are to accurately look at the footprint of voluntourism, it is necessary to take a closer look at exactly how voluntourism may be applied to the developed world – - how it may help in the development process, certainly, yet also questioning its potential role to support the further development of those residing in developed countries.
Final Thoughts…
Pro-poor tourism (PPT) and voluntourism share some similar challenges; voluntourism, however, will likely experience an easier adoption process in the developed world. Voluntourism has certainly seen its fair share of detractors in places such as Thailand, yet Thailand has since changed its stance on voluntourism and has come to include it in its marketing & promotional efforts as recently as 2011 in the European market.
In the developed world, there may be fewer stigmas toward voluntourism, particularly in the CANUU countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and the US), as these countries have a strong volunteering population already. Using voluntourism as a promotional vehicle for domestic tourism may indeed serve a significant purpose – developing destinations and developing citizens alike. Will we see a surge in voluntourism in the developed world as, for example, public sector funds dry up? There will be many questions to answer; hopefully, voluntourism will always be seen as a complementary approach to other strategic initiatives. This will be one of the most important factors if voluntourism is to experience longevity in terms of its applicability.
Ethics, Gap Years and Profitability as It Relates to Voluntourism
Photo by Hasan Al-Sawa
About this time last year, Xtreme Gap Year Blog ran an article that originally appeared in The Times of London (24 April 2011) entitled “Gap-year volunteers sent on ‘pointless’ projects.” Here are the opening paragraphs:
Leading gap-year companies are sending travellers on pointless volunteer placements that cost thousands of pounds but fall far short of brochure promises, according to industry insiders.
Travel experts say that the placements, which are supposed to help underprivileged communities in the developing world, often have little or no positive impact — and in some cases may do harm. They say that this leads to high levels of customer dissatisfaction.
Dr Kate Simpson, of Ethicalvolunteering.org, says: ‘The sector has become much more commercial in recent years. Selling volunteering is now the same as selling safaris — it is simply tourism’. She adds: ‘In my opinion, there is nothing altruistic about most larger companies. Their business is entirely profit-driven and the needs of the destination communities are secondary.’”
After reviewing the article, I am reminded of some interesting, debatable questions – ones that have plagued voluntourism for the better part of the last decade, and certainly the last five years. Let’s take a closer look at some of these.
Question 1: Should there be a “profit-ceiling” on voluntourism and should NGOs and companies report this information to consumers?
Limiting the amount of profit that an NGO (they can make a “profit” after all) or a company can make on voluntourism seems to fly in the face of free market enterprise. Maybe, however, what we want to ensure is that because the profit being made comes from the commitment of local communities that community partners should share in all profits generated by voluntourism providers. Seems to me that a coop relationship between the community and the voluntourism provider would help voluntourism avoid the pitfalls and accusations of exploitation of local communities. We’re not talking about “profit-ceiling” in this case, we are more talking about advancing the concept of “profit-sharing.”
Profit-sharing would likely decrease “voluntourism leakages” from local communities. It might also encourage voluntourism providers to open local offices, further expanding the economic footprint of voluntourism’s contribution in a given destination. Such outcomes, I think, would be more than celebrated by both parties and would be worth sharing with consumers.
Question 2: Just as there has been a request for a passengers’ bill of rights in relation to airline services, does it make sense to have both a voluntourists’ bill of rights and a communities’ bill of rights?
Passenger Bill of Rights
We have raised this question before, thus far, however, nothing has been done to formalize it. This stems, in part, because voluntourism is another form of mass tourism. Although it has been touted, primarily in academic circles as an “alternative tourism,” it is simply an expansion on the mass tourism offerings of our day via a values-added proposition – put your personal values into practice through volunteering during your next holiday. And because it is a form of mass tourism, it is very difficult to get all of the “would-be” voluntourists on the proverbial same page.
With so many offerings available to voluntourists, and no real community for them to engage in collectively – be it virtually or otherwise, it is very difficult to assist them in having “rights” when it comes to voluntourism. Eventually, this may change.
Whatever rights would be extended to voluntourists, the rights of communities must also be considered. Creating a bill of rights for communities poses its own challenges – language barriers being one such challenge. With a community bill of rights also come the challenges of adherence, enforcement, evaluation, and modification. These hurdles may be sufficiently large enough to prevent a worldwide adoption of a community bill of rights. Could, then, each community create its own bill of rights?
Question 3: Is it time to eliminate altruism from any discussion on voluntourism?
Maria-Carmen Pantea inked an article – - “The changing nature of volunteering and the cross-border mobility: where does learning come from?” – - which appeared online for the journal Studies in Continuing Education. In the abstract for the article, she wrote:
The research argues that volunteering is more complex than previously assumed and calls for a way to overcome the inertia that positions it as inherently altruistic. It argues that hosting organisations and young people may hold different expectations and notions of volunteering. Whilst organisations seem to understand volunteering as a ‘gift of time’, for young people volunteering is rationally driven and instrumental for learning.”
Glad to see that research backs up what we already know – volunteering is no longer merely a form of altruism, at least where the “volunteer” is concerned; so, when it comes to voluntourism, we have more than compelling reason to exclude altruism from the conversation. We have too many motivations to get out there and travel the world and volunteer, many of which have nothing to do with altruism at all. Maybe it’s time we stop treating voluntourism as something that is “wrong” because it isn’t rooted in the “right” of altruism. Let’s honor the fact that altruism is but a small piece of a very complex pie.
Final Question: Should voluntourism be regulated like any other industry?
I have been having quite the philosophical discussion on this very point recently with some of my colleagues. The pros and cons on this issue are deeply divided and there are many things to consider. For example, as the tourism industry is already regulated in most destinations, how would this translate into the regulation of voluntourism providers that are either NGOs or not tour companies? As another example, if public policy is amended and a nation regulates voluntourism, and if surrounding nations do not, is it possible that a voluntourism provider would simply end its programming and move to a surrounding country? And what would be the ramifications of such an act for local communities?
Should we follow in the footsteps of the less-than-stellar adoption of the Kyoto Protocol or the provisions of the Rio Summit, and create a set of guidelines for voluntourism? Or, should we have voluntourism providers simply adhere to the regulations set forth by governments for the tourism sector? A good starting point may be adopting the regulations that apply to the tourism sector.
Final Thoughts…
Exploitation seems to be one of the key terms when discussing the ethics of voluntourism. Taking jobs from local residents, taking advantage of residents in local communities (for example, orphaned children), making significant profits at the expense of voluntourists, failing to deliver sustainable support to communities – all of these items filter into our thinking about why voluntourism should be regulated. Similar arguments led to the regulation of the tourism industry.
Perhaps the first step to remedying the challenges with voluntourism is to simply agree that it is, in fact, tourism – granted, of course, it might be considered, in some circles at least, as a different “type” of tourism, but rest assured, it’s tourism. We might not want to unilaterally adopt the UNWTO’s definition of “tourism,” particularly referring to a period of visitation of 364 days or less, therefore a decision to change the duration parameters could certainly be introduced. Leaving it at 364 days, however, would pretty much include even the Gap Year voluntourism offerings.
Once we agree that it is tourism, then we can talk about phases of regulation for it. Until then, we will have a regulated tourism sector that engages clients in voluntary service, and an NGO sector that works in tourism without being regulated – not a tenable situation over the long-term.