Travel by families with children possessing disabilities: Motives and activities

Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Travel by families with children possessing disabilities: Motives and activities Songee Kim*, Xinran Y. Lehto** School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2115, USA

h i g h l i g h t s < This study identified five motivational factors and seven activity factors for family travelers with disabled children. < Physical competence (mastery) of disabled children appeared to be the most important motivational factor for the families. < Sedentary outdoor activities were revealed as the most prominent activity that they engaged in during family trips. < This study identified significant linkages between the motivation and activity domains.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 17 December 2011 Accepted 14 December 2012

While research to understand the family as a leisure travel unit has received significant attention in recent years, little research has been undertaken on families of children with disabilities. This current study seeks to investigate the tourism motivation and activities of Korean families with disabled children through a sample of 161 such families. Utilizing a factor analysis, this study identified five motivational factors and seven activity factors. Among them, “physical competence (mastery) of disabled children” appeared to be the most important motivational factor for families of children with disabilities, while “sedentary outdoor activities” were revealed as the most prominent activity in which they engaged during family leisure trips. This study further examined the interrelationships between trip motivations and activity domains and identified significant linkages between the two. Also discussed are the theoretical and managerial implications of the findings, and recommendations for more effective service for these groups of families. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Family leisure trip Family with disabled children Leisure Motivation Scale (LMS) Tourism motivation Activities

1. Introduction According to a report from World Bank and UNESCO, the number of children with disabilities worldwide is about 200 million, or 10 percent of the world’s youth population. Given the size of this population, families that have children with developmental or physical disabilities have been a popular topic within disability research (Davis & Gavidia-Payne, 2009; Svraka, Loga, & Brown, 2011). Among the various approaches regarded as beneficial to families with disabled members, many researchers have proposed using family leisure and recreation as a potential mechanism for overcoming the pressure and demands that result from

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 765 413 6662; fax: þ1 765 494 0327. ** Corresponding author. Marriott Hall, Room 257, 900 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2115, USA. Tel.: þ1 765 496 2085; fax: þ1 765 494 0327. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Kim), [email protected] (X.Y. Lehto). 0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.12.011

one family member’s disability (Glidden, 1993). In addition to enhancing overall family well-being, the participation of children with disabilities in recreational and leisure activities has been shown to promote inclusion, optimize physical functions, and enhance long-term physical and mental well-being for these children (Murphy, Carbone, & The Council on Children with Disabilities, 2008). When considering leisure opportunities for children with disabilities, family members play an important role since these children in general spend more time interacting with family members than their typically developing peers (Buttimer & Tierney, 2005; Modell, Rider, & Menchetti, 1997). Family is regarded as an essential component in providing recreational and developmental opportunities for disabled children (Schleien & Ray, 1997). Paradoxically however, such families can often find themselves restricted from participating in many activities, although they have just as much natural desire for such activities. Persons with developmental disabilities have historically been excluded from leisure programs and services (Retish & Reiter, 1999). In particular,

14

S. Kim, X.Y. Lehto / Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24

tourism is one activity that they feel must be sacrificed as it is regarded as a complex interaction between body function, activity participation, and the environment (Yau, McKercher, & Packer, 2004). While the existing tourism literature concerning disability has recently increased in its scope of topical areas and rigor in methodological approaches, there is still an unwillingness to explore the tourism experiences of families with disabled children and some degree of neglect of the wider relations between families with disabled children and the tourism industry. This may be due to multiple reasons. One is the difficulties in gathering empirical data from the disabled population, especially when the unit of investigation is a small dynamic such as family rather than individual travelers. Additionally, the complexity it requires to adequately serve this population, diverse within its own, may have deterred tourism researchers and practitioners from being more actively engaged with this population. A third challenge lies with the lack of proven measures for achieving a more theory based understanding of leisure trip experiences of these families. When it comes to examining family leisure trip experience, researchers have resorted to theorization and measures from the field of leisure studies. While tourism and leisure have been considered as two distinct areas, a growing number of researchers have attempted to understand the relationship between them (Brey & Lehto, 2008; Carr, 2002; Hamilton-Smith, 1987; Mannell & Iso-Ahola, 1987; Ryan, 1994). They suggest that tourist experiences can be better understood using the frameworks and approaches from the field of leisure. For example, the way leisure motivations and benefits are conceptualized is also applicable to the study of tourism. Furthermore, benefits of leisure and recreation for people with disabilities have been examined within the leisure field (Freudenberg & Arlinghaus, 2009; Patterson & Pegg, 2009). It is therefore conceivable that these existing frameworks from leisure and recreation may provide perspectives and paradigms for understanding the tourism experience of families with children of disabilities. The exclusion or negligence of the tourism experience of families with children of disabilities in the literature can be countered by research efforts that draw social attention to families with disabled children. Differences in physical, mental, or emotional conditions between families with and without disabled children may lead different needs, interests, and limitations when it comes to participation in tourism activities. Therefore, those various special needs have to be carefully addressed if the hospitality and tourism industry intends to provide this market segment with quality services. Research that addresses special needs, perceptions, and preferences of families of children with disabilities, based on their real travel experiences, is acutely needed. Against this background, this study examines the tourism motivation and activities of families with disabled children. Through the lens of families with disabled members, this research aims to assess travel motivations of families with disabled children, with an emphasis on the relationship between motives and activities. The outcomes of the present research can provide a helpful interpretation of the viewpoints of families with disabilities, thus linking industry practices to the needs of disabled consumers. 2. Literature background The definition of disability varies by culture because the way societies view disability is determined by a variety of cultural factors, including the nature of the impairment (Coleridge, 2000). For example, across different cultures, persons with physical or intellectual impairments may be considered disabled, but may not be formally counted among groups requiring protection against

discrimination. This may explain why a particular group is classified as disabled in one condition but not in another and why it seems difficult to measure the size of this segment (McKercher, Packer, Yau, & Lam, 2003). Additionally, being designated as ‘disabled’ in developing and developed countries often varies widely due to different reference systems and the lack of registration systems (Ingstad, 2001). Despite such international variation, the social model of disability is fairly widely accepted among researchers concerned with disability (Thiara, Hague, Bashall, Ellis, & Mullender, 2012). This approach considers disability to be a social construct and highlights social issues such as society’s stigmatization and discrimination as potential barriers rather than barriers due to physical capacities (Shaw & Coles, 2004). The development of the social model has contributed to the World Health Organization (WHO)’s definition of disability. The WHO conceptualizes disability from an ecological perspective that considers the social as well as the physical environment. According to the WHO, disability is “an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restriction . . . thus disability is a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives” (WHO, 2007). Regardless of the cultural variability in defining disability, understanding this population’s special needs and wants for participating in a tourism experience is of great importance as leisure travel is a desire shared by disabled individuals as much as others. 2.1. The role of leisure activities for families with children of disabilities Researchers in leisure studies have long shared an interest in families. Leisure is an important part of family life because family members are common and/or frequent leisure companions throughout the life cycle. Since family leisure is essential for healthy family relationships, parents consciously and deliberately plan and facilitate family leisure activities (Shaw & Dawson, 2001). Children’s participation in family leisure activities is significantly related to their positive developmental process and physical and mental well-being (Larson & Verma, 1999). For instance, leisure is of central importance in adolescence, because “it may be a crucial life space for the expression and development of selfhood, for the working out of identities that are important to the individual” (Kelly, 1983, p. 23). Therefore, the role of parents as leisure educators is important. The positive outcomes resulting from leisure activities are also identified in families that have a child with disabilities. In 1998, Mactavish & Schleien identified family leisure as a means of promoting the overall quality of family and for helping family members develop various life and social skills. For children with disabilities, participating in formal and informal activities is fundamental in terms of developing skills and competencies, social relationships, and long-term physical and mental health (Forsyth & Jarvis, 2002). In particular, involvement in recreation and leisure programs may be a significant contributing factor to the development of skills needed for independent functioning by individuals with developmental disabilities (Retish & Reiter, 1999). Researchers have shown that populations with developmental disabilities can improve language, cognition, and physical fitness through participation in leisure related experiences (Schleien & Wehman, 1986). In 1991, Green & Schleien also demonstrated that the development of friendships between individuals with developmental disabilities and their non-disabled peers may be promoted by skills developed during leisure and recreational activities. Furthermore, self-concept (Van Andel & Austin, 1984), social skill development (Savage, Novak, & Heal, 1980), and the successful transition from school to

S. Kim, X.Y. Lehto / Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24

adult life (Bedini, Bullock, & Driscoll, 1993) can be reinforced through participating in leisure education programs and recreational activities. 2.2. Tourism motivation and activities Motivation has been a significant interest among leisure and tourism researchers, and a number of motivational theories of tourism that have been proposed have contributed to a better understanding of psychological reasons to travel. Among them, the most commonly used theories within the leisure and tourism field include Iso-Ahola’s four-dimensional motivation, Pearce’s Travel Career Ladder, and the “pushepull factor” theory (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977, 1981; Iso-Ahola, 1982, 1983; Pearce, 1982, 1993). IsoAhola (1982) pointed out that individuals’ leisure participation is based on approach (seeking) and avoidance (escaping) motivations, both of which have personal and interpersonal dimensions. Another prevalent framework applied by recent tourism researchers is the Travel Career Pattern (TCP) developed by Pearce and Lee (2005). Based on Maslow’s (1943) hierarchical model, this approach suggested that an individual’s motivation to travel systematically moves with the level of his or her previous travel experience and life stages (Hsu & Huang, 2008). Lastly, the “pushe pull factor” theory of tourism motivation appears to be the most recognized theory within the realm of tourism research. Dann’s anomie and ego-enhancement theory (1977) and Crompton’s socio-psychology and alternate cultural theory (1979) laid a solid foundation for the “push” and “pull” factors of motivation. While “push” factors are more related to the internal and psychological issues that drive individuals to travel, “pull” factors are the specific attributes or situational aspects of a destination that attract tourist to visit the destination (Brown & Lehto, 2005; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). While there has been a relative lack of exchange of theories between leisure and tourism (Smith & Godbey, 1991), the number of researchers who have begun to draw tentative relationships between the two fields is growing (Brey & Lehto, 2008; Ryan, 1994). The mainstream of academic efforts to understand the relationship between leisure and tourism has indicated that the two are interconnected and that concepts developed in one field may be used in the other (Fedler, 1987; Hamilton-Smith, 1987; Ryan, 1994). Butler (1999) suggested that when tourism is something that takes place during leisure time, leisure tourists’ activities can logically be viewed as a part of leisure and recreation. Ryan (1994) insisted that intrinsic motivations and enjoyment experiences theoretically overlap between leisure and tourism and suggested that Beard & Ragheb’s (1983) Leisure Motivation Scale (LMS), derived from the hierarchical needs of Maslow (1970), could be applied to tourism motivations. The four factors of the Leisure Motivation Scale (LMS), based on a list of 48 leisure motivation items, have since been established. The resulting factors are intellectual components (exploration, learning, and discovery), social components (interpersonal relationships and friendship), competence mastery (the ability to meet challenges, engage in competition, and achieve tasks), and stimulus avoidance (relaxation and avoidance of daily stressors). The LMS has been adopted as the basis for research in a variety of leisure and tourism settings (Faulks, Ritchie, & Dodd, 2008). Researchers subsequently have found that the LMS has a high degree of reliability and validity in the tourism context (Mohsin & Ryan, 2007; Ryan & Glendon, 1998). It is noted that this leisure motivation scale would be appropriate for examining leisure motivations of individuals experiencing mental disabilities (Lloyd, King, McCarthy, & Scanlan, 2007). While tourism issues surrounding people with disabilities, including the growing number of people with disabilities and the enactment of disability-related laws, have drawn increasing

15

research attention (Gröschl, 2007; Huh & Singh, 2007; Yates, 2007), few studies have attempted to examine the perception and behavior of families with disabled members. While these families may share some similar traits and characteristics when it comes to tourism participation, their engagement in leisure and tourist activities evidently requires special scrutiny as the result of the special needs of a family member with disabilities. This current study focuses on investigating not only the psychological aspect (motivations) of leisure travel for families with disabled children, but also behavioral aspects (activities). Moscardo, Morrison, Pearce, Lang, and O’Leary (1996) have posited that activities are the consequential link between tourist motivation and destination choice. Activities have also been highlighted as a useful variable for market segmentation since the 1990s (Sung, Morrison, & O’Leary, 2000). Following this research tradition, the current research attempts to establish the associations between travel motivation and activities for families that have children with disabilities. As such, it was hoped that the outcome of this research would represent a valuable step toward understanding these families’ special needs and preferences, and thus provide useful insights for tourism organizations to more effectively serve this group of families. 3. Methodology 3.1. Questionnaire structure A structure survey was used for this research. The development of the questionnaire was based on initial qualitative assessments, including an extensive literature review of family leisure, tourism, and disability studies and in-depth interviews in 2010 with 7 Korean families with disabled children to derive insights on the motivations and leisure travel patterns of families with disabled children. For measures of travel motivation among families that have children with disabilities, 42 measurement statements were developed. Among the 42 items, 32 were adapted from the Leisure Motivation Scale (LMS) developed by Beard and Ragheb (1983). These 32 items belong to the four dimensions of the LMS, namely, competence mastery, stimulus avoidance, and intellectual and social components. Another six items were developed from the indepth interviews, while the final four items were derived from literature regarding disabilities. A collection of 56 activities was used for assessing the participation of leisure trip activities of families that have children with disabilities. This list was developed based on a review of disability research and family leisure activity literature and personal interviews. Literature on patterns of family recreation with disabled children (e.g., Mactavish, 1997; Mactavish & Schleien, 2000) and the leisure/recreation activity participation of children with disabilities (e.g., King et al., 2007; Law et al., 2006) was examined and incorporated into the development of the activity items utilized for this research. The families surveyed were asked about their leisure trip motivation and activities, and were informed that such a trip is defined as making a trip, as a family, to destinations outside their normal places of work and residence. The particular activities undertaken during their stay in those destinations away from the family’s home community were investigated. The questionnaire also included several items measuring characteristics related to children’s disabilities (e.g., types of disabilities and severity of disabilities), demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, household role, children composition, age, education level, income, and occupation), and travel-related characteristics (travel companions, frequency and length of leisure trip, and preferred transportation and destinations). The survey was initially designed in English and was later translated into Korean by two researchers who had

16

S. Kim, X.Y. Lehto / Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24

bilingual backgrounds and who were familiar with the questions being asked, as well as the nature of the research. 3.2. Data collection and analysis Data was collected in two locations in South Korea: Gangneung O-sung School and Gangneung Presbyterian Church in Gangneungshi, Gangwon-do, South Korea. Osung School, established in 1985, provides special education for children with disabilities. This educational facility contains a nursery school, a kindergarten, an elementary school, a junior high school, a high school, and a vocational school. There are currently a total of 214 students, 194 of whom are students with learning disabilities. With the assistance of the school administration, these families were invited to participate in this research. Gangneung Presbyterian Church provides Sunday school for children with disabilities, and approximately 70 such children belong to this program. With the permission of the church, these children’s parents were approached about participating in the survey. A total of 250 families that have disabled children were recruited to participate in the selfadministered survey. Each family was asked to fill out one survey. 161 valid questionnaires were returned, yielding a 64.4% response rate. The obtained data was analyzed using SPSS 17.0. Descriptive statistics were used to profile the characteristics of the sample family travelers. Principal component analyses with VARIMAX rotations and reliability assessments using Cronbach’s alpha were undertaken to identify the dimensionality of motivations and activities, respectively. Canonical correlation analysis was used for assessing the relationship between the motivations and destination activity choices of the sampled families. Canonical correlation analysis allows for the investigation of the relationship between a set of predictor (independent) variables and a set of criterion (dependent) variables or between two pairs of vectors (Hotelling, 1936). Canonical correlation analysis in this case allows the revelation of specific relationships between the set of motivational measurement items and the set of activity items. 4. Results Of the respondents, the proportion of women (68.3%) was approximately two times greater than men (31.7%). This is not surprising, given the fact that in Korean society, it is the mother that plays the dominant role in the caretaking of the family. About 41.8% of the respondents were in the age range of 35e44 years, followed by those in the age range of 45e54 years (29.9%). In terms of education levels, about 34% were high school graduates or below, and 37.3% had a Bachelor’s degree. The majority (71.6%) had a yearly household income of less than US $20,000. The largest occupational categories were homemaker (65.7%), followed by professional/ technical (9.0%), student (9.0%), and manufacturing (6.0%). Most of the respondents identified themselves as occupying the role of mother in their respective household (67.2%). About 62.5% of sample had one disabled child and one child without a disability. Concerning types of disabilities, about 84% of them reported that their child(ren) had learning and developmental disabilities. As for the severity of disabilities, 55.2% of the disabled children in the sampled families fell into the category of Level 1, which is the most severe, according to the classification system developed by the Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare. Regarding travel-related characteristics of the respondents, about 40% of the families took a leisure trip one to two times a month. The places they frequented most were recreational places (26.4%) such as parks, recreation centers, and swimming pools. These places are destination settings away from the home

community environment. About 35% responded that they usually had a day trip. According to a study on the Travel Pattern of Koreans in 2010 conducted by the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, the average trip length was three days, which is quite different from the findings of this study. It seems that families with a disabled member are more likely to have shorter trips compared to the general Korean population. 4.1. Motivations and activities Two separate exploratory factor analyses were performed on the sample (n ¼ 161) using the principal component method with VARIMAX rotation on the items of motivations and activities (Table 1). Factors were extracted based on the rule of extracted eigen value being higher than one (SPSS 17.0). They accounted for 67% and 68% of total variances, respectively. The procedure revealed a five-factor underlying structure for motivations and a seven-factor solution for leisure travel activities undertaken by families with disabled children. The Cronbach’s alphas obtained in the study ranging from .72 to .90 were all above the generally agreed-on lower limit of .70 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2002), indicating satisfactory reliabilities for the overall scale and all the extracted factors. The first factor, labeled “Children’s intellectual competence,” contains the largest number of items. It includes six items related to learning and curiosity, expanding knowledge, and discovering new things for disabled children. Themes related to new and unique

Table 1 EFA of leisure travel motivation items. Factor Factor 1. Children’s intellectual competence To learn about nature To improve children’s intellectual skills To nurture children’s creativity To experience different cultures and ways of life To discover new places and things To be socially competent and skillful Factor 2. Socializing To develop close friendships with others To meet new and different people To gain a sense of belonging To teach children how to get along Factor 3. Physical competence (mastery) of disabled children To improve physical/mental health To give children a sense of accomplishment To challenge physical ability To improve children’s self-confidence To develop children’s physical skills and abilities Factor 4. Relaxation and escape To be in a calm atmosphere To avoid the hustle of daily life To relax physically To refresh the mind and gain inspiration To relieve stress and tension Factor 5. Family closeness To make the family feel closer To enjoy quality family time together To alleviate and relieve family stress/problems To share interests and experiences with each other Total variance explained (%)

Factor Mean Eigen Variance loading value explained (%) 3.33 .841 .839 .751 .748

3.56 3.35 2.98 3.55

.736 .638

3.32 3.20 2.73 2.75 2.65 2.86 2.66 3.51

.882 .880 .864 .762

.772 .747

3.55 3.43

.719 .681 .645

3.49 3.51 3.59

.825 .723 .721 .647

2.89 3.06 2.77 3.08 2.86

.571 .876 .752 .712

2.70 3.36 3.52 3.50 3.24

.490

3.19

4.376 18.234

3.447 14.361

3.108 12.951

2.695 11.230

2.439 10.161

66.936

S. Kim, X.Y. Lehto / Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24

experiences of leisure travel are linked closely to this factor. The next factor, “Socializing,” is directly associated with social interaction. This factor includes interaction with people that have similar interests, as well as health and fitness benefits for the family. The third factor, “Physical competence (mastery) of disabled children,” includes variables related to the physical challenge dimension. In the original LMS, the factor of “competency/challenge” pertains primarily to issues of physical prowess, but this factor in the current study centers on improving disabled children’s self-confidence and fostering in them the ability to overcome their handicaps through various physical challenges and accomplishments. The factors of “Physical competence (mastery) of disabled children” distinguish themselves from the rest by focusing on opportunities for disabled children. Based on personal interviews conducted in this study, parents tend to focus on disabled children’s physical aspects through family leisure travel participation compared to other aspects such as ‘intellectual competence’ and ‘socializing.’ Therefore, items grouped in this factor emphasize the priorities that parents put on developing disabled children’s physical abilities. The fourth factor, identified as “Relaxation and escape,” refers to the ultimate need to simply rest and relax and to relieve stress and tension. The last factor, “Family closeness,” reflects benefits sought through family leisure travel in general. The four items under this factor derived from the literature review and interviews emphasize sharing quality time and being together as a family through leisure travel. It is interesting to note that “family closeness” is not included in the original LMS. While social components of the LMS tend to focus on general interpersonal relationships and friendship through leisure activities outside of the family, the current study found that the family relationship is another critical motivation. Since this study concentrates on experiences of family leisure travel, it was determined that the family relationship is closely related to why families participate in leisure travel. Among the five motivational factors, the factors of “Physical competence (mastery) of disabled children” (3.51) and “Family closeness” (3.36) have the highest average mean scores. This study also resulted in the attainment of seven dimensions of activities of family leisure travel (Table 2). The “Sports” factor comprises a very broad set of items related to recreational sports such as soccer, swimming (water sports), and tennis. The second factor, “Nature appreciation,” refers to interest in nature and environmental quality. The “Socializing/special events” factor represents the need for social engagement and interpersonal relationships through various socializing activities, including attending sports events (Special Olympics) and participating in local events and festivals. The fourth factor, “Active outdoor activities,” refers to the various outdoor/soft adventure activities that the family may engage in, such as fishing, biking, running, and hiking. The fifth factor, “Entertainments,” describes activities that are essentially related to cultural/historical and entertaining places such as museums, historical sites, and art galleries. The factor “Sedentary outdoor activities” generally encompasses a less intensive range of outdoor activities compatible with preserving natural resource functions. The last factor is labeled “Wellness activities.” These activities illustrate a family’s desire to maintain the condition of positive physical and mental health as exemplified by a sense of well-being. Among the seven factors of leisure vacation activities, the factors “Nature appreciation” and “Sedentary outdoor activities” produced the highest average mean score, with 3.14 and 3.10, respectively. 4.2. Association between motivations and activities This study further attempted to examine the relationship between motivations and leisure travel activities for families with

17

Table 2 EFA of leisure travel activity items. Factor Factor 1. Sports Baseball Volleyball Racquet ball Softball Basketball Tennis Soccer Swimming/water sports Factor 2. Nature appreciation Tour countryside Appreciating seaside scenery Visiting scenic landmarks Visiting mountains Nature walk Observing wildlife Factor 3. Socializing/special events Participating local events/festivals Participating in local organizations’ leisure outings Visiting friends/relatives Church meeting/retreat Attending sports events (e.g., Special Olympics) Factor 4. Active outdoor activities Fishing Running/jogging Biking/cycling Hiking/climbing Factor 5. Entertainments Visiting art galleries Visiting amusement/theme park Visiting historical sites Visiting museums Watching sport games Factor 6. Sedentary outdoor activities Walking/trails Gardening Picnic Playing in park Visiting nature parks/forest Rustic cabin rental Factor 7. Wellness activities Wellness class/training Yoga Health spa Total variance explained (%)

Factor loading

Mean

Eigen value

Variance explained (%)

5.317

14.371

5.252

14.193

3.222

8.708

.856 .797

1.64 1.49 1.50 1.30 1.49 1.61 1.53 1.72 2.46 3.14 3.09 3.34 3.40 3.32 3.02 2.66 2.73 2.69 2.66

.728 .701 .643

2.94 2.82 2.56 3.108

8.400

3.020

8.161

2.851

7.704

2.425

6.555

.866 .848 .820 .798 .710 .674 .658 .492 .903 .850 .843 .840 .636 .619

.771 .742 .694 .575 .822 .685 .659 .580 .534

.674 .664 .644 .638 .574 .529 .788 .729 .608

2.49 2.21 2.53 2.56 2.64 2.46 2.22 2.18 2.88 2.71 2.30 3.10 3.37 2.52 3.02 3.78 3.68 2.20 2.03 1.71 1.49 2.88

68.094

disabled children. To understand the relationship between the two, this research went beyond the factorial dimensional relationships. Utilizing canonical correlation analysis, this research was able to provide a more in-depth picture of what specific activities were tied to what specific motives. Canonical correlation analysis is a technique for finding the correlations between one set of variables (multiple dependent variables) and a second set of variables (multiple independent variables), so it is a method of analyzing the degree of independent dimensions of the relationship between two sets of variables (Christensen, 1983). The multivariate tests indicated statistical significance between leisure travel motives and activities of Korean families with disabled children at a ¼ .01 (Table 3). According to the results, only the first five pairs of canonical variates accounted for a significant portion of the relationship between the two sets of variables. The analysis revealed five significant variates with F(308, 1986.77) ¼ 2.16861, p < .0001, F(273, 1867.82) ¼ 1.67602, p < .0001, F(240, 1746.86) ¼ 1.47948, p < .0001, F(209, 1623.71) ¼ 1.35722, p ¼ .001, and F(180, 1498.14) ¼ 1.21997, p ¼ .032.

18

S. Kim, X.Y. Lehto / Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24

Table 3 Overall model fit for canonical correlation analysis and multivariate tests of significance. Canonical function

Canonical correlation

Squared canonical correlation

F statistic

Probability

1 2 3 4 5 Wilks’ lambda Pillai’s trace HotellingeLawley trace Roy’s greatest root

.79596 .63633 .55739 .53554 .45559 F ¼ 2.16861 F ¼ 1.96515 F ¼ 2.40440

.63356 .40492 .31068 .28680 .20757

2.16861 1.67602 1.47948 1.35722 1.21997 p  .0001 p  .0001 p  .0001

<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 .001 .032

F ¼ 6.48034

p  .0001

To determine which variables are most important in a given pair of canonical variates, standardized canonical coefficients or canonical loadings can be used. However, in most cases, the canonical loadings are utilized to interpret the meaning of canonical variates (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1992). In this study, only variables with canonical loadings greater than .32 were considered for the interpretation of the variates based on the criteria established by Comrey & Lee (1992). The first canonical variate reveals a noteworthy relationship between 6 items mostly related to children’s intellectual skill building and 6 items related to cultural/entertainment activities. The significant items pertaining to children’s intellectual skill building include “To learn about nature” (.724), “To improve children’s intellectual skills” (.715), “To discover new places and things” (.698), “To experience different cultures and ways of life” (.657), “To be socially competent and skillful” (.548), and “To nurture children’s creativity” (.539). This variate pair shows that the leisure travel motivation items relating to children’s intellectual skillbuilding are directly associated with mostly city-based activities, such as “Visiting historical sites” (.768), “Art galleries” (.687), “Museums” (.636), “Amusement/theme park” (.552), and “Watching sport games”(.432). Additionally, “Playing in park” (.501) was highly correlated with this variate as well. The second canonical variate pair reveals a significant relationship between relaxation/ escape and sedentary outdoor activities. More specifically, motivation items such as “To relax physically” (.428), “To make the family feel closer” (.415), “To be in a calm atmosphere” (.410),

and “To refresh the mind and gain inspiration” (.356) are matched with leisure travel activities that provide opportunities to enjoy natural resources such as “Visiting nature parks/forest”(.513), “Walking/trails” (.474), and “Health spa” (.409). The third variate indicates that “To teach children how to get along” (.508), “To gain a sense of belonging” (.454), and “To meet new and different people” (.441) are moderately correlated with activity items such as “Participating local events/festivals” (.453), “Church meeting/ retreat” (.409), and “Participating in local organizations’ leisure outings” (.399). These results show that families that consider social engagement and interpersonal relationships as important motivational factors for leisure trips are more likely to participate in socializing activities and special events. The fourth canonical variate pair consists of “To enjoy quality family time” (.457) and “To share interests and experiences with each other” (.427) for travel motivation and “Nature walk” (.473), “Touring countryside” (.431), and “Visiting scenic landmarks” (.372) for leisure travel activity. In the fifth canonical variate, motivation items related to physical competence (mastery) including “To challenge physical ability” (.444), “To improve children’s self-confidence” (.398), and “To improve physical/mental health” (.389) had the relatively higher scores, paired with outdoor activities such as “Biking/ cycling” (.439) and “Attending sport events” (.384). A summary of the significant canonical correlates is presented in Fig. 1. 5. Discussions and conclusion This research is unique in the sense that we examine family as a consumer unit. Given the fact that children with disabilities in general require more constant adult companionship, it makes this family population different from families with typically developing children. The encumbrance placed upon caregivers should not be ignored. For this population, the parents’ well-being is much more closely tied to the children’s. How to effectively improve family function through leisure trip activities is a topic worthy of investigation. This research argues that families with children of disabilities have a much closer interpersonal dynamic that need to be carefully considered in the tourism context. Studies that are based on the general travel population or even the general family traveling population are inadequate for accounting for this unique family dynamic. This research has developed an empirical approach and lent insights into better understanding their needs and experiences.

Fig. 1. Leisure travel activity choices by different motives.

S. Kim, X.Y. Lehto / Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24

Since little theoretical or practical guidance exists in the literature regarding leisure trip experience for families that include children with disabilities, the findings of this study contribute to the existing literature. This study represents an initial step in the development of a framework that seeks to more accurately pinpoint what motivational and vacation activity factors are important for such families. The findings also support the proposition that psychological constructs can be linked to behavior. This established linkage between motivations and specific vacation activities bears not only conceptual but also practical ramifications. 5.1. Motivation This research uncovered five motivational dimensions among leisure family travelers with disabled children. They appear to encompass five levels of needs as illustrated by Fig. 2. The primary motivation of leisure travel for these families is to develop children’s physical skills and competences. It seems that most families that travel with disabled children seem to seek a strong childcentered focus when it comes to family leisure travel. Parents appear to utilize leisure trips as a means to not only develop the physical ability of their children, but also to nurture their children’s self-confidence. This study notes that building children’s confidence through leisure trips presents one way to help children to reevaluate themselves as their confidence is cultivated through a sense of accomplishment. The importance of children’s physical development through leisure participation has been emphasized by families of children with developmental disabilities. While the first level of motivation seems to center on the physical well-being and improvement of children with disabilities, the second level is associated with family closeness and cohesion. Other researchers have similarly noted that family leisure travel presents opportunities for family members to bond and grow closer by sharing quality time and participating in activities of common interest (Lehto, Choi, Lin, & MacDermid, 2009). The role of leisure travel in enhancing family relationships seems to be valued by families of children with developmental disabilities

19

even more, as evidenced by the results of the current research. A child with a developmental disability has ramifications for the parents, family system, and siblings (Pfeiffer, Gerber, & Reiff, 1985). The presence of such a child can potentially change family routines and disrupt sibling interaction to some extent. According to the study of Dyson (1996), parents who have a child with a developmental disability tend to have concern about the siblings of the disabled child. A main concern is that parents tend to feel guilty for investing significantly more time in the child with disabilities than in their other children. Some parents reported various negative experiences in sibling interactions and relationships. These issues, in return, can produce greater stress for the parents and the family system as a whole. Coping with the stress of parenting a developmentally disabled child can be a challenge, but the shared leisure experiences of family members seems to allow a modicum of relief from some of the stress and tension. Family travelers found leisure travel crucially important to develop close relationships with their children and to promote a sense of “togetherness” in their families. The next level of motivations is the anticipation of the benefits of leisure travel experience for children’s intellectual, creative, and emotional growth. The fourth level appears to be more self-oriented. Parents appear to seek personal relaxation and consider the leisure travel to be a good opportunity to have some time off from routine duties and responsibilities. Relaxation and escape have been routinely identified as a baseline motivation in studies investigating travel motivations for the general travel population (Pan, 2012; Van der Merwe, Slabbert, & Saayman, 2011). This motivational theme was similarly recognized for the population with disabled children but perhaps to a lesser degree, as indicated by the lower overall mean values of the construct. The fifth level demonstrates a need for social support. Children with disabilities sometimes have more difficulties with social skills. A lack of social skills caused by the barriers that exist within society and exclusion from involvement and participation in society can be improved by leisure travel experiences. The current study clearly identified that parents seek social benefits from leisure travel to teach their children how to get along with others and to help them gain a sense of belonging. Additionally, having a chance to meet families with similar needs appears to be motivating these families as church or school organized trips appear to facilitate this. Together, the five identified levels of motivations present a holistic view of the motivational themes that intertwine the special needs of children with individual needs of parents, as well as the needs of the family as a whole. The ordering of importance of needs was presented based on the overall mean values of each motivational construct; the ordering certainly needs to be further substantiated empirically by future research efforts. 5.2. Activities

Fig. 2. Leisure travel needs of families of children with disabilities.

While travel motivations are related to driving factors that are internally oriented, travel activities are linked to external or situational factors. This study notes that there are a variety of leisure travel activities that can help children with developmental disabilities challenge their limitations, socialize, express their feelings, and become healthier. This research suggests that one way to conceptualize the leisure travel activity choices of these families is to place them in two dimensions (Fig. 3). The first corresponds to physical energy. Required physical energy is an important classification factor, because families that include children with disabilities can be limited by the physical and/or mental impairments of their children. The second dimension of activity choices pertains to the specific activity setting, be it outdoor or indoor. Four divisions can be made under this classification: indoor-based active

20

S. Kim, X.Y. Lehto / Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24

activities, outdoor-based active activities, indoor-based sedative activities, and outdoor-based sedative activities. Among the various activities, this study reveals that family travelers with disabled children prefer outdoor activities that require a relatively low level of physical energy, including natureoriented experiences, such as observing wildlife and enjoying unspoiled natural beauty. The participation of children with disabilities in outdoor physical activities is recognized both as an important means of maintaining and enhancing physical and mental function and as a way to socialize outside the home. This notion is evidenced by the outcomes of this research and that of other researchers (Damiano, Dodd, & Taylor, 2002). In addition to the physical benefits overall, physical activity for children with disabilities has been shown to help in controlling or slowing the progression of chronic diseases, improving overall health and function, and mediating the psychosocial impact of the condition on children and their families (Rimmer, 2007). Away from the normal routines of home, work, and school, family members on these trips are seemingly placed in a more calming environment. In addition to enjoying natural resources, family members also appreciate the therapeutic value provided by nature-oriented activities. According to Shivers (2010), the therapeutic value of the outdoors comes from simply experiencing it, living at an unhurried pace. In the case of families with disabled children, activities such as nature walks/trails can be flexible in accommodating varying or lower levels of physical energy and skills while at the same time allowing family members to freely engage or

disengage in conversations and exchanges. Such situations appear to suit families with children of disabilities well. Socializing and special events have been identified as one of the preferred activity categories by family travelers with disabled children. While this study indicated that such activities were highly recognized by families with disabled children in their family vacation, it was known that the actual participation of children with disabilities in socializing activities is relatively low compared to typically developing children (Geisthardt, Brotherson, & Cook, 2002). Solish, Perry, and Minnes (2010) noted, however, that although children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability participated in relatively fewer social activities with peers compared to typically developing children, they participated in more social activities with adults. In other words, the socializing of children with disabilities can be influenced by who was involved in the activities, especially parents. As discerned in this study, parents may also acknowledge the benefits of socializing activities for their children and have a desire to participate in such activities. The socio-demographic characteristics of respondents can have potential influences on the activity choices of family leisure travel. While the current study examined the differences of identified activity factors by various demographic variables such as age, education level, occupation, and income, only household income was identified as a critical factor influencing the activity choice of family leisure travel. Specifically, “Sports,” “Nature appreciation,” and “Wellness activities” were more likely to be preferred by respondents who have the highest annual family income.

Fig. 3. Matrix of leisure travel activity classification.

S. Kim, X.Y. Lehto / Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24

21

5.3. Linkages between motivations and activities This study also suggests that a positive relationship exists between leisure travel motivation and activity. The results indicate that a successful matching of motives and activities will make a destination more appealing. Most notably, families seeking intellectual development for children with disabilities tend to participate in arts and cultural activities such as visiting museums and art galleries. The potential benefits of art education to children with disabilities have been discussed by a number of authors (Dalke, 1984; Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1970; Schleien, Rynders, & Mustonen, 1988). The results of this research have provided empirical evidence for the desire of parents to nurture children’s intellectual development through participation in arts and cultural related activities. Another noteworthy relationship between motivations and activities is that families that seek relaxation and escape from everyday routines are more likely to participate in activities related to natural resources. It notes that the families with children of disabilities particularly appreciate the restorative effect of a natural environment. This suggests the need to promote the quality of experiences provided by nature oriented places such as nature parks and hot spring destinations to families with special needs. Practitioners of parks/forests and hot springs can provide more satisfactory leisure experiences if they are knowledgeable about such corresponding tendencies between specific motivations and specific activities, and if they can also bear in mind the dynamics and characteristics of families that include children with disabilities. The current study also suggests that families that are motivated by seeking social support and socialization tend to participate in activities that are sociable in nature, such as local events/festivals, church gatherings/retreats, and nonprofit organizations’ leisure outings. Using the outdoors for leisure as part of a group or association provides many participants with a significant opportunity to socialize and develop bonds and networks with other people with disabilities (Burns, Paterson, & Watson, 2009). 5.4. Managerial implications Findings of this study suggest that family travelers that include children with disabilities should be studied as a distinct tourist population. Living with children with disabilities can have intense effects on the entire family (Reichman, Corman, & Noonan, 2008). This study underscores a family’s desire to maintain the physical and mental well-being of their children with disabilities through leisure trips. Family is a vital element in providing leisure travel opportunities for children with special needs given that these children often require more assistance and continuous attention of parents to participate in such activities than typically developing children would. This population’s leisure trip experiences and needs deserve not only academic recognition but also industry practitioners’ attention. This research bears a number of insights that may facilitate the tourism industry to provide relevant and meaningful services to these families. This research suggests that a strong emphasis on interpersonal dynamic needs to be placed on families of children with disabilities. These needs should be proactively considered in the design of tourism experiences and services. These designs need to cater to the needs of three separate and yet somewhat intertwining perspectives, including children’s development, interpersonal relationship, and personal relaxation (Fig. 4) as these three domains of needs are clearly identified in this research. First, this study highlights the importance of providing activities and programs that facilitate physical and intellectual development of children with disabilities as that is shown to be a main factor

Fig. 4. Catering to the tri-level of needs of family travelers of children with disabilities.

motivating families for leisure travel. For families with children with developmental disabilities, these children’s well-being is front and central when parents consider leisure travel choices. To cater to the needs of physical well-being, tourism attractions and destinations may provide child-friendly programs and experiential activities that are oriented toward that goal. For instance, adaptive and accessible sports and recreational activities, which are modified or designed to allow children with disabilities to participate, may attract these families. Activities and programs that are geared toward learning and discovery for children can be attractive to these families. A range of educational programs including heritage touring and art classes custom-designed for these children are a few such examples. Active tourism experience has been suggested as having the best therapeutic value as a rehabilitation process for people with disabilities (Kaganek & Stanuch, 2005). The therapeutic aspects that may alleviate adverse physical and mental conditions of people with disabilities have been highlighted in the medical model of disability. According to Laing (1969), the medical model of disability is paradigm by which disability is the result of a physical condition inherent to the individual and may diminish the individual’s quality of life. While the medical model does not necessarily present as comprehensive of a view of disability as the social model of disability has posited, it does provide a foundation for advocacy for specialized services and facilities in the tourism context. This perspective may help service managers and providers who are focusing their work on understanding the special needs of children with disabilities and their families and developing more targeted managerial solutions for serving this population. Therapeutic programs and services at the destination may provide good opportunities for children with disabilities to acquire new leisure and recreational skills appropriate to their level of skill and interests. It is thus proposed that nature-based tourism resorts and attractions should consider creating therapeutic programs that specifically cater to such needs. For instance, specialized summer camps providing various types of therapeutic activities and events such as arts and crafts, water play, cook-outs, competitive and noncompetitive sports, adaptive physical education, and animal-assist therapies (e.g., horseback riding, swimming with dolphins) may appeal to families who are interested in therapeutic benefits for their children with disabilities. The medical model of disability has been criticized for placing the ‘problem’ of disability on the individual (Northway, 1997). The social model of disability was developed in a reaction to the medical model of disability (Oliver, 1990). While these two approaches have contrasting concepts of interpreting a disability, they have influenced the development of disability-related legislation and policies (Darcy, 2004; European Commission, 1996). In addition, academics in various fields have advocated the integration of the models of disability (Shakespeare & Watson, 2002; Thomas, 2004). In particular, the importance of integrating the two

22

S. Kim, X.Y. Lehto / Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24

models for children with disabilities has been highlighted by Bricout, Porterfield, Tracey, and Howard (2004). Children with disabilities encounter unique challenges because of their status as dependents and the special needs of both child and family (Bricout et al., 2004). These challenges require incorporated services and dynamic multilevel interventions that support both the child and the family (Heiman, 2002; Middleton, 1998; Reiter, 2000; Ward, 1999). Thus, service providers’ inclusive interpretation of children with disabilities may lead to more balanced and effective strategies for servicing this family population. Both the social and medical perspectives should provide both policy makers and the tourism industry with practical insights and a heightened sense of social obligations. It is hoped that this research will bring attention to these issues. The outcomes of this research also underscore the role of leisure travel in the interpersonal relationship development of families of children with disabilities. To satisfy family travelers’ need for bonding and communication, service providers may offer a variety of activities that can engage all family members and design activities/programs that help build shared experience and emotional connections. While this may be true for all family travelers, it is especially relevant for the family population of this research. Additionally, these families appear to use travel as a way to socialize and wish to extend social contacts outside of the family. Providing opportunities for families to gain social support can be gratifying. While relaxation was not a prominent motive, family travelers indicated that leisure travel could play a role in stress relief and escape from daily routines. To respond to these needs, the results of this research seem to suggest that the tranquility of the natural environment of a destination can be especially beneficial to these families. For instance, rural landscape may provide an interesting and unique experience for these family travelers. The more relaxing settings and the warm country hospitality may help parents to relax. It is noted by this research that these families gravitate toward community center based activities. Access to leisure/tourism facilities is an important issue for many families with disabled children, as their outings may be limited due to lack of funds, transport, and disability facilities and concerns about distress (Clarke, 2006). The existing leisure services and programs at a destination may be great resources for this family population and can be marketed as such. However, the social inclusion that children with disabilities experience through the activities provided by the destination community varies greatly depending on whether the activities were affordable, accessible, and inclusive. Hence, it is important for destinations to uphold social inclusion as a sincere value when offering tourism services to families with disabled children. Community centers at the destinations can play an important role in providing a meaningful space for these families. A number of scholars have considered various types of events and festivals as critical spaces for providing social benefits for attendants (Allen, O’Toole, Harris, & McDonnell, 2002; Light, 1996). Therefore, marketers and organizers of events and festivals may play a special role in this regard by creating and promoting special programs, such as games and competitions among different families, that can respond the socializing need of these family travelers. In fact, more recently, many organizations in various countries have been holding various events and festivals for people with disabilities (e.g., “disability film festivals” and “ability art festivals”). As families with disabled children do not have as many opportunities to meet peers with common interests or preferences, attending festivals provides a great opportunity for them to establish social engagements and interpersonal relationships. Eliminating physical and attitudinal barriers could facilitate a warm and greeting environment. For example, since the generalized design of the festival cannot meet the special and sometimes individualized needs of

attendees with disabilities, thoughtful designs of a festival with flexibility and tailored options may be helpful in accommodating families of children with disabilities. In particular, the festival marketers should ensure that festival programs and facilities are designed to accommodate a wide range of families that include disabled children of different ages, skill levels, and interests. In addition to the tangible aspects, human resources training can be critical. According to the study of Darcy (2010), a less ideal access situation in the service industry can be made bearable through the precise and detailed presentation of access information with a positive attitude of service providers. As such, one of the key determinants of the quality of tourism experiences for families with children of disability is the attitude and communication skills of service providers. 5.5. Limitations Although this study provides useful information related to family leisure travelers with disabled children, it has limitations. A first concern is that the specific questions, such as relative weight of leisure travel choice being dependent upon the child with a disability, were not included in the questionnaire. It may present as a significant but un-captured variance regarding the effect of having a child with a disability on different travel patterns. It should be further examined. The collection of data may also present a concern, given that the sample size is limited and that data was collected in Korea. Because it was a challenge to recruit participants from such a specific group of families, and because the results would be limited to Korea, liberal generalizability of findings to the broader population of families with disabled children needs to be cautioned. As noted by researchers, disability can be a culturally varied phenomenon; data from one culture may not be completely applicable to another culture. Further, because the study was limited by the sample size, more rigorous analyses, such as a Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the factors identified through exploratory factor analysis, were unable to materialize. Therefore, it would be useful for future research to incorporate larger samples that comprise a broader cross-section of this group. Moreover, because this study was conducted in terms of a parental perspective, it could be worthwhile to incorporate the children’s perspective as well. Each of the family members is likely to have a different perspective about family leisure travel. In addition, it would be useful to examine these constructs within various disability settings to determine if differences in leisure travel motivations and preferred activities exist by levels of severity and types of disabilities. Finally, investigating any differences between families with and without disabled children could further reveal valuable information. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary material related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.12.011. References Allen, J., O’Toole, W., Harris, R., & McDonnell, I. (Eds.), (2002). Festival and special event management (2nd ed.). Australia: Wiley, John & Sons. Beard, J. G., & Ragheb, M. G. (1983). Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(3), 219e228. Bedini, L. A., Bullock, C. C., & Driscoll, L. B. (1993). The effects of leisure education on factors contributing to the successful transition of students with mental retardation from school to adult life. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 27(2), 70e82. Brey, E. T., & Lehto, X. Y. (2008). Changing family dynamics: a force of change for the family-resort industry? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 241e248.

S. Kim, X.Y. Lehto / Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24 Bricout, J. C., Porterfield, S. L., Tracey, C. M., & Howard, M. O. (2004). Linking models of disability for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 3(4), 45e67. Brown, S., & Lehto, X. Y. (2005). Travelling with a purpose: understanding the motives and benefits of volunteer vacationers. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(6), 479e496. Burns, N., Paterson, K., & Watson, N. (2009). An inclusive outdoors? Disabled people’s experiences of countryside leisure services. Leisure Studies, 28(4), 403e417. Butler, R. W. (1999). Understanding tourism. In E. L. Jackson, & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 97e116). State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc. Buttimer, J., & Tierney, E. (2005). Patterns of leisure participation among adolescents with a mild intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability, 9(1), 25e42. Carr, N. (2002). The tourism-leisure behavioral continuum. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4), 972e986. Christensen, J. E. (1983). An exposition of canonical correlation in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 14(4), 311e322. Clarke, H. (2006). Preventing social exclusion of disabled children and their families. Literature Review Paper produced for the National Evaluation of the Children’s Fund. London: DfES, Retrieved from. https://www.education.gov.uk/ publications/eOrderingDownload/RR782.pdf. Coleridge, P. (2000). Disability and culture. In M. Thomas, & M. J. Thomas (Eds.), Selected readings in CBR series 1: CBR in transition (pp. 21e38). Bangalore: Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal Group. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (Eds.), (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408e424. Dalke, C. (1984). There are no cows here: art and special education together at last. Art Education, 37(6), 6e9. Damiano, D. L., Dodd, K., & Taylor, N. F. (2002). Should we be testing and training muscle strength in cerebral palsy? Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 44(1), 68e72. Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4(4), 184e194. Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourist motivation: an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2), 187e219. Darcy, S. (2004). Disabling journeys: The social relations of tourism for people with impairments in Australia e An analysis of government tourism authorities and accommodation sector practices and discourses. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Technology, Sydney. Darcy, S. (2010). Inherent complexity: disability, accessible tourism and accommodation information preferences. Tourism Management, 31(6), 816e826. Davis, K., & Gavidia-Payne, S. (2009). The impact of child, family, and professional support characteristics on the quality of life in families of young children with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 34(2), 153e162. Dyson, L. L. (1996). The experiences of families of children with learning disabilities: parental stress, family functioning, and sibling self-concept. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 280e286. European Commission. (1996). Making Europe accessible for tourists with disabilities: Handbook for the tourism industry. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Directorate General XXIII-Tourism Unit. Faulks, P., Ritchie, B., & Dodd, J. (2008). Bicycle tourism as an opportunity for recreation and restoration? Investigating the motivations of bike ride participants. In Paper presented at the New Zealand tourism and hospitality research conference. New Zealand: Hanmer Springs. Fedler, A. (1987). Introduction: are leisure, recreation and tourism interrelated. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 311e314. Forsyth, R., & Jarvis, S. (2002). Participation in childhood. Child: Care, Health and Development, 28(4), 277e279. Freudenberg, P., & Arlinghaus, R. (2009). Benefits and constraints of outdoor recreation for people with physical disabilities: inference from recreational fishing. Leisure Sciences, 23(1), 55e71. Geisthardt, C. L., Brotherson, M. J., & Cook, C. C. (2002). Friendships of children with disabilities in the home environment. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(3), 235e252. Glidden, L. M. (1993). What we do now know about families with children who have developmental disabilities: questionnaire on resources and stress as a case study. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97(5), 481e495. Green, F., & Schleien, S. (1991). Understanding friendship and recreation: a theoretical sampling. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 25(4), 29e40. Gröschl, S. (2007). An exploration of HR policies and practices affecting the integration of persons with disabilities in the hotel industry in major Canadian tourism destinations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(3), 666e686. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (Eds.), (1992). Multivariate data analysis with readings (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (Eds.), (2002). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hamilton-Smith, E. (1987). Four kinds of tourism? Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 322e344. Heiman, T. (2002). Parents of children with disabilities: resilience, coping, and future expectations. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 14(2), 159e171.

23

Hotelling, H. (1936). Relations between two sets of variates. Biometrika, 28(3/4), 321e377. Hsu, C. H. C., & Huang, S. S. (2008). Travel motivation: a critical review of the concept’s development. In A. G. Woodside, & D. Martin (Eds.), Tourism management: Analysis, behaviour and strategy (pp. 14e27). Oxford: CAB International. Huh, C., & Singh, A. J. (2007). Families travelling with a disabled member: analysis the potential of an emerging niche market segment. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(3e4), 212e229. Ingstad, B. (2001). Disability in the developing world. In G. L. Albrecht, K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 772e792). London: Sage. Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: a rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 256e262. Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1983). Toward a social psychology of recreational travel. Leisure Studies, 2(1), 45e56. Kaganek, K., & Stanuch, H. (2005). Regression models of active tourism practiced by persons with visual and motoric disabilities. Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems, 1(1/2), 221e226, Journal edited by Medical College e Jagiellonian University. Kelly, J. R. (1983). Leisure identities and interactions. Winchester, MA: Allen, Ltd. King, G. A., Law, M., King, S., Hurley, P., Hanna, S., Kertoy, M. K., et al. (2007). Measuring children’s participation in recreation and leisure activities: construct validation of the CAPE and PAC. Child: Care, Health and Development, 33(1), 28e39. Laing, R. D. (1969). The politics of the family and other essays. New York: Vintage. Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 701e736. Law, M., King, G. A., King, S., Kertoy, M. K., Hurley, P., Rosenbaum, P., et al. (2006). Patterns of participation in recreational and leisure activities among children with complex physical disabilities. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 48(5), 337e342. Lehto, X. Y., Choi, S., Lin, Y.-C., & MacDermid, S. (2009). Vacation and family functioning. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 459e479. Light, D. (1996). Characteristics of the audience for events at a heritage site. Tourism Management, 17(3), 183e190. Lloyd, C., King, R., McCarthy, M., & Scanlan, M. (2007). The association between leisure motivation and recovery: a pilot study. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54(1), 33e41. Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W. (Eds.), (1970). Creative and mental growth (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Mactavish, J. B. (1997). Patterns of family recreation in families that include children with a developmental disability. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(1), 21e46. Mactavish, J. B., & Schleien, S. J. (1998). Playing together growing together: parents’ perspectives on the benefits of family recreation in families that include children with developmental disability. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 32(3), 207e230. Mactavish, J. B., & Schleien, S. J. (2000). Beyond qualitative and quantitative data linking: an example from a mixed method study of family recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 34(2), 154e163. Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 314e331. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370e396. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row. McKercher, B., Packer, T., Yau, M. K., & Lam, P. (2003). Travel agents as facilitators or inhibitors of travel: perceptions of people with disabilities. Tourism Management, 24(4), 465e474. Middleton, L. (1998). Services for disabled children: integrating the perspectives of social workers. Child and Family Social Work, 3(4), 239e246. Modell, S. J., Rider, R. A., & Menchetti, B. M. (1997). An exploration of the influence of educational placement on the community recreation and leisure patterns of children with developmental disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85(2), 695e704. Mohsin, A., & Ryan, C. (2007). Exploring attitudes of Indian students toward holidaying in New Zealand using the leisure motivation scale. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 12(1), 1e18. Moscardo, G., Morrison, A. M., Pearce, P. L., Lang, C., & O’Leary, J. T. (1996). Understanding vacation destination choice through travel motivation and activities. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 2(2), 109e121. Murphy, N. A., Carbone, P. S., & The Council on Children with Disabilities. (2008). Promoting the participation of children with disabilities in sports, recreation, and physical activities. Pediatrics, 121(5), 1057e1061. Northway, R. (1997). Disability and oppression: some implications for nurses and nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(4), 736e743. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan. Pan, T. J. (2012). Motivations of volunteer overseas and what have we learned e the experience of Taiwanese students. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1493e1501. Patterson, I., & Pegg, S. (2009). Serious leisure and people with intellectual disabilities: benefits and opportunities. Leisure Studies, 28(4), 387e402. Pearce, P. (1982). The social psychology of tourist behavior. Oxford: Pergamon. Pearce, P. (1993). Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In D. G. Pearce, & R. W. Butler (Eds.), Tourism research, critiques and challenges. London: Routledge. Pearce, P., & Lee, U. (2005). Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 226e237. Pfeiffer, S. I., Gerber, P. J., & Reiff, H. B. (1985). Family-oriented intervention with the learning disabled child. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 1(4), 63e69.

24

S. Kim, X.Y. Lehto / Tourism Management 37 (2013) 13e24

Reichman, N. E., Corman, H., & Noonan, K. (2008). Impact of child disability on the family. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 12(6), 679e683. Reiter, S. (2000). Society and disability: a model of support in special education and rehabilitation. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(8), 1e10. Retish, P., & Reiter, S. (1999). Adults with disabilities: International perspectives in the community. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rimmer, J. H. (2007). Obesity and secondary conditions in adolescents with disabilities: addressing the needs of an underserved population. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3), 224e229. Ryan, C. (1994). Leisure and tourism: the application of leisure concepts to tourist behavior: a proposed model. In A. Seaton (Ed.), Tourism, the state of the art (pp. 294e307). Chichester: Wiley. Ryan, C., & Glendon, I. (1998). Application of leisure motivation scale to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 169e184. Savage, V. T., Novak, A. R., & Heal, L. W. (1980). Generic services for developmentally disabled citizens. In R. N. Novak, & W. H. Laird (Eds.), Integration of developmentally disabled individuals into the community (pp. 75e90). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks. Schleien, S. J., & Ray, M. T. (1997). Leisure education for a quality transition to adulthood. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 8(2), 155e169. Schleien, S. J., Rynders, J., & Mustonen, T. (1988). Art and integration: what can we create? Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 22(4), 18e29. Schleien, S. J., & Wehman, P. (1986). Severely handicapped children: social skills development through leisure skills programming. In G. Cartledge, & J. Milburn (Eds.), Teaching social skills to children: Innovative approaches (2nd ed.) (pp. 219e245). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2002). The social model of disability: an outdated ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9e28. Shaw, G., & Coles, T. (2004). Disability, holiday-making and the tourism industry in the U.K.: a preliminary survey. Tourism Management, 25(3), 397e403. Shaw, S. M., & Dawson, D. J. (2001). Purposive leisure: examining parental discourses on family activities. Leisure Sciences, 23(4), 217e231. Shivers, J. S. (2010). Programming recreational services. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Smith, S., & Godbey, G. (1991). Leisure, recreation and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(1), 85e100. Solish, A., Perry, A., & Minnes, P. (2010). Participation of children with and without disabilities in social, recreational and leisure activities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23(3), 226e236. Sung, H. Y., Morrison, A. M., & O’Leary, J. T. (2000). Segmenting the adventure travel market by activities: from the North American industry providers’ perspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 9(4), 1e20. Svraka, E., Loga, S., & Brown, I. (2011). Family quality of life: adult school children with intellectual disabilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(12), 1115e1122. Thiara, R. K., Hague, G., Bashall, R., Ellis, B., & Mullender, A. (2012). Disabled women and domestic violence: Responding to the experiences of survivors. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Thomas, C. (2004). How is disability understood? An examination of sociological approaches. Disability & Society, 19(6), 569e583.

Van Andel, G. E., & Austin, D. R. (1984). Physical fitness and mental health: a review of the literature. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 1(3), 207e220. Van der Merwe, P., Slabbert, E., & Saayman, M. (2011). Travel motivations of tourists to selected marine destinations. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13(5), 457e467. Ward, L. (1999). Supporting disabled children and their families. Children & Society, 13(5), 394e400. World Health Organization (WHO). (2007). Disabilities. Retrieved from. http://www. who.int/topics/disabilities/en. Yates, K. (2007). Understanding the experiences of mobility-disabled tourists. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 1(2), 153e166. Yau, M. K.-S., McKercher, B., & Packer, T. L. (2004). Traveling with a disability more than an access issue. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 946e960. Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45e56.

Songee Kim is a doctoral student in hospitality and tourism management at Purdue University. She received her Master’s degree in same department at Purdue University. Songee’s specific academic field is tourism with disabilities. She has been studying disabled tourists by using various approaches and methods.

Xinran Y. Lehto is an associate professor of hospitality and tourism management at Purdue University. Prior to her academic appointments, Dr. Lehto spent 6 years working in the travel and tourism industry as a marketing executive. Dr. Lehto’s research addresses how destinations can effectively market experience-based vacation products to unique segments such as family travelers. Much of her work is concerned with developing understanding of 1) how tourists interact with a destination through leisure and hospitality experiences; 2) what their motivations and images are; and 3) what personal, interpersonal and cultural factors contribute to their destination satisfaction.