Progress in Tourism Management

Volunteer tourism: A review

Stephen Wearing
a,
*
, Nancy Gard McGehee
b,1
a
UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
b
Hospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Tech, 363A Wallace Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 July 2012
Accepted 1 March 2013
Keywords:
Volunteer tourism
Voluntourism
Decommodication of tourism
Motivations of volunteer tourism
Volunteer tourism and community
Non-Governmental organizations (NGOs)
a b s t r a c t
This paper examines the current state of volunteer tourism, both as a eld of study and modern phe-
nomenon. The foundation of the review rests upon themes initiated over 10 years ago in Volunteer
Tourism: Experiences That Make a Difference (Wearing, 2001). The review begins with a discussion of the
explosive growth of volunteer tourism (research and practice) and continues with an analysis of the
literature utilizing a multiphasic format that reects the volunteer tourism process. Specically, the
paper includes a review of research in the area of pre-trip motivations, continues through work focussing
on the volunteer tourism experience itself with emphasis on the role of the volunteer tourism organi-
zation and the community, and ends with discussion of the literature in the areas of post-trip reections
and transformations. Conclusions include recommendations for future research.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Whether you feel that volunteer tourism simply represents an
expanding tourism niche, an alternative form of tourism, or a sign
of major socio-cultural change, its explosive growth is evident in
academic literature, global trends, and the popular press. Volunteer
tourism originated as a primarily British and European phenome-
non (as an offshoot of the Grand Tour), then expanded into a range
of countries including Australia and the United States (in a some-
what different form that included the middle class and evangelical
mission trips), and is now growing to include Asian and African
participants as well (Alexander, 2012; Lo & Lee, 2011). Elliott (2008)
found that both participation and the study of volunteer tourism
have grown exponentially over the past 20 years. Another recent
study claims that signicant growth in the volunteer tourismsector
has occurred since 1990, estimating that 1.6 million people
worldwide participate in volunteer tourism projects annually and
that volunteer tourists spend between 832 m and 1.3 bn per year
(AUD 1.3 bne2.1 bn) (Tourism Research & Marketing, 2008). Some
individual volunteer tourism organizations have reached an
impressive scale. For example, between 1971 and 2008, Earthwatch
has involved upwards of 90,000 volunteers in 1350 projects across
120 countries, contributing US$67 million and 11 million hours to
scientic eldwork (Earthwatch Institute, 2008; Weiler & Richins,
1995).
Still more evidence of growth in volunteer tourism is found on
the World Wide Web. A Google search of the words volunteer
tourism on April 17th 2008 returned 230,000 hits; that same
search on the 17th April 2012, just four years later, returned
4,850,000 hits, and included published research, volunteer tourism
operators and NGOs, and the popular press (Voluntourism.org,
2008). The scope of the volunteer tourism industry was also
demonstrated by Callanan and Thomas (2005), who identied 698
individual volunteer tourism products on a single volunteer
tourism website database (Go Abroad.com). Volunteer tourism
participants come from diverse origins (Vrasti, 2013) and are
expanding geographically as well. Such growth e both in the in-
dustry and the resulting research e is certainly worthy of a closer
look.
This review will update the state of the literature in a format
that expands upon the topics and themes covered in Volunteer
Tourism: Experiences That Make a Difference, written over 10 years
ago (Wearing, 2001). In Volunteer Tourism, Wearing set out to clarify
the notion of a newly emerging form of alternative tourism with a
specic focus on tourists who volunteer for part or all of their
travels. At that time, his ndings emerged from his foundational
work in community-based ecotourism(Wearing & Mclean, 1997) as
well as his volunteer-tourism specic research conducted in the
Santa Elena Rainforest, Costa Rica between 1991 and 1994
(Wearing, 1993; Wearing & Larson, 1996; Wearing & Neil, 1997). A
denition for volunteer tourism emerged as a product of that
research: those tourists who, for various reasons, volunteer in an
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 61 2 9514 5432; fax: 61 2 9514 5195.
E-mail addresses: Stephen.wearing@uts.edu.au (S. Wearing), nmcgehee@vt.edu
(N.G. McGehee).
1
Tel.: 1 1 540 231 1201; fax: 1 1 540 231 8313.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Tourism Management
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ t ourman
0261-5177/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.03.002
Tourism Management 38 (2013) 120e130
organized way to undertake holidays that might involve aiding or
alleviating the material poverty of some groups in society, the
restoration of certain environments, or research into aspects of
society or environment (Wearing, 2001:1).
Since publishing this denition, others have provided deni-
tions as well. For example, Brown (2005) offers a tour operators
perspective of volunteer tourism as a type of tourism experience
where a tour operator offers travellers an opportunity to participate
in an optional excursion that has a volunteer component, as well as
a cultural exchange with local people (p. 480). This differs from
what Wearing (2001) offered, where the entire trip was focused on
the volunteering component. McGehee and Santos (2005) also
dened volunteer tourism from the volunteers perspective, refer-
ring to the notion that it involves discretionary time and it takes
place outside of the regular sphere of daily life for the participant.
The conceptualization of volunteer tourism has been further
expanded in the literature to include terms such as voluntourism or
volunteering for development, sometimes falling under the umbrella
of sustainable tourism. Clemmons was one of the rst to dene
voluntourism in the mainstream media in a way that gives equal
credence to both the volunteer and travel experience as the
conscious, seamlessly integrated combination of voluntary service
to a destination and the best, traditional elements of travel darts,
culture, geography, history and recreation d in that destination
(Voluntourism.org).
In addition to the variety of denitions, there are a variety of
contexts and perspectives regarding the place of volunteer tourism
amidst the larger body of tourism research. Many see volunteer
tourism as a form of alternative tourism (Britton & Clarke, 1987;
Cohen, 1987, 2003; Dernoi, 1981, 1988; Ellis, 2003; Halpenny &
Caissie, 2003; Holden, 1984; McGehee, 2002; Pearce, 1980; Singh,
2002, 2004; Sorensen, 1997; Uriely, Reichel, & Ron, 2003;
Wearing, 2001, 2003). Some have placed it broadly as an extension
of ecotourism(Gray & Campbell, 2007; Wearing & Neil, 1997), while
others have presented it as new tourism (Poon, 1993), niche tourism
(Novelli, 2005), or new moral tourism (Butcher, 2003, 2005). Some
authors position volunteer tourism with labels such as charity,
justice, pro-poor, or goodwill tourism (Butcher, 2003; Butcher &
Smith, 2010; Rogerson, 2011; Scheyvens 2007; Stoddart &
Rogerson, 2004; Theerapappisit, 2009). Still others call for differ-
entiations and delineations between domestic and international
tourists, volunteer tourists, voluntourists, and volunteers in
tourism (Benson & Henderson, 2011; Lyons & Wearing, 2012; Smith
& Homes, 2009). These varying denitions and conceptualizations
reect the growing debate and critique within the study of tourism.
For the purposes of this review, the authors will focus specif-
ically on international volunteer tourism, exclude volunteering at
home, and place volunteer tourism within the alternative tourism
perspective. International volunteer tourism generally aligns itself
with ideas of development aid and appears to have increased in
response to both 1) growing social and environmental issues in
developing countries and 2) disasters like the September 11 attacks
in the U.S. and the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami that affected much of
South East Asia. International Volunteer Tourism often focuses on
humanitarian and environmental projects with the intention of
serving communities in need. Wearing (2001) suggested that these
could include, but are not limited to, conservation projects, scien-
tic research (wildlife, land and water), medical assistance, eco-
nomic and social development (including agriculture, construction
and education), and cultural restoration. Indeed, volunteers can
nd themselves participating in activities ranging from assisting
with mass eye surgeries to constructing a rainforest reserve. In their
research, Callanan and Thomas (2005) found that generally these
projects were short term, with the majority lasting less than 4
weeks. Despite the growing popularity of volunteer tourism,
systematic academic research in this area is still limited, with much
of it targeting the demand side; with few exceptions, it is only
recently that the host communities are starting to be the primary
subject of research on any scale.
1.1. Structure and method of the review
This literature review will present an overview of volunteer
tourism research in the context of its maturity within the tourism
literature overall using Jafaris (2001) four platforms of research
(advocacy, cautionary, adaptancy, and scientic platforms). Next,
current literature in volunteer tourism will be analysed and
critiqued more deeply utilizing Clawson and Knetchs (1966)
multiphasic structure, beginning with the pre-trip section and
nishing with the return home (Adler, 1981; Sussman, 2000). More
specically, the authors will rst explore the literature that has
targeted volunteer tourists pre-trip motivations; next, they will
review the research that has examined the role of the volunteer
tourism organization; the third section of this component exam-
ines work that has targeted the community-centred approach to
volunteer tourism; the last section discusses the research that has
explored the transformative potential of the volunteer tourism
experience when the participant returns home. Discussion of
Jafaris platforms of research will continue within the context of
each section, with recommendations for scientic-based platforms
for each.
In terms of howthe current literature was unearthed, organized
and analysed, various methods were used to gather the information
for this review. Initially, database searches where undertaken using
the phrases volunteer tourism, volunteering international
volunteering and voluntourism. The various data bases used to
search for articles in this area included Scopus, CAB direct, Google
Scholar, and the Library Catalogues of both authors respective
universities. Once the initial list of articles was gathered, a snowball
technique was used whereby the reference list of each article was
also examined to provide additional citations to explore. This pro-
cess was repeated until no newarticles were discovered. Of course,
given the rapid pace of publication, particularly in the area of
volunteer tourism, new articles are appearing nearly daily, so
gathering a truly exhaustive list is impossible. Every attempt was
made to be as inclusive of a variety of elds and disciplines,
including tourism, sociology, recreation and leisure, anthropology,
geography, political ecology, and economics. Once the articles were
collected, they were evaluated for methodological rigour, content
analysed, and categorized according to each of the phases of
volunteer tourism mentioned above.
1.2. Evolution of volunteer tourism
According to Young (2008, p. 207) volunteer tourismis certainly
an expanding sector of the tourism industry in many countries in
both the developed and developing world. The increase in this type
of tourism has been explored by a number of authors (Callanan &
Thomas, 2005; Raymond & Hall, 2008; Sderman & Snead, 2008;
Wickens, 2010). Although international volunteering has existed
for a number of years, the industry report, Volunteer Travel In-
sights 2009 (Nestora, Yeung, & Calderon, 2009) interestingly notes
that it was not until after the September 11th incident and the
Indonesian Tsunami that travellers started to think about this type
of travel and the market came (sic) more aware of the opportunities
to have a holiday that involved volunteering. These events have
also coupled with a serendipitous alignment over the past 10e15
years of a reduction in barriers to travel, an increase in the middle
class in many developing countries, and the desire of that middle
class to seek out more unusual travel experiences.
S. Wearing, N.G. McGehee / Tourism Management 38 (2013) 120e130 121
Whilst prior to 2000 there were a few articles associated with
volunteer tourism, the majority of the research has been under-
taken in the last decade (Broad, 2003; Brown, 2005; Brown &
Morrison, 2003; Campbell & Smith, 2006; Clifton & Benson, 2006;
Galley & Clifton, 2004; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2003; Holmes & Smith,
2009; Lyons, 2003; Lyons & Wearing, 2008; McGehee & Andereck,
2008; 2009; McGehee & Santos, 2005; McIntosh & Zahra, 2005;
Mustonen, 2005; Raymond & Hall, 2008; Singh, 2002, 2004;
Stoddart & Rogerson, 2004). Upon close examination, volunteer
tourism research seems to be following the same four phases of
study as mainstream tourism (Jafari, 2001), which includes advo-
cacy, cautionary, adaptancy, and scientic platforms. It is important
to note that, just as with mainstreamtourism, the progression is not
perfectly linear; however, there does seem to be a growing pro-
gression and sophistication within the literature that mirrors these
phases.
Initially, much of the research in volunteer tourism took an
advocacy stance, dening the phenomenon and promoting it as an
ideal activity with few negative impacts (Broad, 2003; Broad &
Jenkins, 2008; Brown & Morrison, 2003; McGehee, 2002;
Stoddart & Rogerson, 2004). The research generally accepted that
the volunteer tourist sought altruistic experiences that were
different from the mass tourist. Furthermore, the research identi-
ed a number of positive motivations for volunteer tourism,
including altruism, self-development, giving back to the host
community, participating in community development, and cultural
understanding (Brown, 2005; Brown & Morrison, 2003; Callanan &
Thomas, 2005; Coghlan, 2008; McIntosh & Zahra, 2007; Stoddart &
Rogerson, 2004; Wearing & Dean, 2003). They also pointed to a
variety of types of positive volunteer tourism, including cultural/
historical restoration, medical assistance, educational support,
ecological conservation, and contributing to the environment
(Coghlan, 2008; Cousins, 2007; Cousins, Evans, & Sadler, 2009a;
Gray & Campbell, 2007; Rattan, Eagles, & Mair, 2012; Uriely et al.,
2003).
After the initial urry of advocacy-based research, a range of
commentators and researchers emphasized a more cautionary
platform outlining the potential pitfalls and negative impacts of
volunteer tourism. Early criticism came from authors such as
Brown (2003) and then later as research on this area expanded,
from a range of authors such as Conran (2011), Guttentag (2009),
Palacios (2010) and Sin (2009). The potential for volunteer tourism
as a new form of colonialism, creating yet another layer of de-
pendency between the developed and developing world, is also a
primary concern amongst researchers (Caton & Santos, 2009;
Guttentag, 2009; Vrasti, 2013). Others point critically to the po-
tential for exploitation of the host community (Palacios, 2010;
Theerapappisit, 2009). It is interesting to note that while the shift
from advocacy to cautionary platforms took nearly two decades for
mainstream tourism, it appears to have happened well within a
decade for volunteer tourism.
Even as this platform shift from advocacy to cautionary was
occurring in the mid-to-late 2010s (and continues today), an
emerging body of research was merging to create an adaptancy
platform, consisting of increased research prescribing specic ways
to develop and maintain forms of volunteer tourism that maximize
the positive impacts and minimize the negative impacts (Benson &
Blackman, 2011; Broad, 2003; Coghlan & Gooch, 2011; Ledwith,
2005; Sin, 2010; Theerapappisit, 2009; Wickens, 2010). For
example, Broad (2003) presented a case study of a Gibbon Reha-
bilitation Center that implemented very community-oriented
volunteer tourism experiences. Coghlan and Gooch (2011) pointed
out that the concept of transformative learning could be of great
value to volunteer tourism organizations looking to enhance the
transformative potential of a volunteer tourism experience. Benson
and Blackman (2011) presented an island-based case that allowed
for the culture of the destination to dictate the mode of leadership
for the volunteer tourism organization. In spite of these examples
and cases, the primary critique by many researchers is that whilst
there is much evidence to suggest that there are examples of
volunteer tourism ideal types, the industry overall is still far from
ideal and begs for additional empirical work.
While it has certainly been in existence on some level since the
early days of the study of volunteer tourism (McGehee, 2002;
McGehee & Norman, 2002; Wearing, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004;
Wearing & Neil, 2000, 2003; Weiler & Richins, 1995), there is some
evidence that the literature in volunteer tourism is on the cusp of
entering the fourth phase e the scientic platform e in force. This
platform calls for the utilization of structured, interdisciplinary,
transdisciplinary, transnational, and mixed method approaches to
examine volunteer tourism in a more systematic and logical way.
This can include a full range of methodological approaches,
including everything from qualitative case analyses to macro-
quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive picture of the
breadth and depth of the phenomenon of volunteer tourism glob-
ally. A scientic platform research agenda should encompass con-
ceptual and empirical research, particularly where it contributes to
the dissemination of new ideas that represent best practice in the
social development of communities through volunteer tourism.
Additionally, this approach must begin with a theoretical founda-
tion, as exemplied by the following research in volunteer tourism
located rmly on the scientic platform: decommodication and
feminist theory (Cousins, Evans, & Sadler, 2009b; Lyons, Hanley,
Wearing, & Neil, 2012; Lyons, Wearing & Benson, 2009); indus-
trial relations theory (Vrasti, 2013); social movement theory
(McGehee, 2012); development theory (Guttentag, 2009); social
exchange theory (McGehee & Andereck, 2009); equity theory
(Pearce & Coghlan, 2008); critical theory (McGehee, 2012) and neo-
colonialism (Palacios, 2010).
In addition to appropriate methodological and theoretical ap-
proaches, a research agenda in volunteer tourism built upon a
scientic platform must of course have its parameters. These
boundaries are drawn generously and include the study of re-
lationships between developing and developed countries that
occur through the social, economic, and environmental aspects of
volunteer tourism development, from the local to the global, in all
regions around the world. While this agenda will be driven by a
social scientic approach, it will seek to make links to disciplinary
areas both within the social sciences and beyond. It is hoped
through this broadening and setting of the research parameters, the
intersection of volunteering and tourism can be more deeply
explored, more richly understood, and more adeptly managed.
These attempts to create an overall framework for volunteer
tourism research will help to add to the momentum and further
facilitate the scientic platform phase.
The following sections will utilize the multiphasic approach
previously discussed as a way to organize the current literature in
volunteer tourism and to call attention to areas whereby the sci-
entic platform may be best utilized for the study of volunteer
tourism. This includes a review of research in the area of pre-trip
motivations, continues through work focussing on the volunteer
tourism experience itself with emphasis on the role of the volun-
teer tourism organization and the community, and ends with dis-
cussion of the literature in the areas of post-trip reections and
transformations.
2. Pre-trip motivations of the volunteer
One of the deeper streams of research in volunteer tourism re-
volves around motivations, e.g. why a volunteer travels, and
S. Wearing, N.G. McGehee / Tourism Management 38 (2013) 120e130 122
whether those motives are different from mainstream tourists
(Andereck, McGehee, Lee, & Clemmons, 2012; Benson &Seibert,
2009; Brown, 2005; Brumbaugh, 2010; Callanan & Thomas, 2005;
Chen & Chen, 2011; Grimm & Needham, 2012a, 2012b; Lo & Lee,
2011; Scheyvens, 2011; Tomazos & Butler, 2010). Much of the
debate about the motivations for volunteer tourists centres around
the self-interest versus altruism issue (or personal versus
interpersonal, as Chen & Chen, 2011 argue), which is certainly
unique from mainstream tourism. Callanan and Thomas (2005)
propose a conceptual framework of volunteer tourist motivation
that includes three types (shallow, intermediate and deep volun-
teer tourists) based on six main criteria: destination, duration of
project, focus of experience (self-interest versus altruistic), quali-
cations, active versus passive participation, and level of contri-
bution to locals. They suggest the shallow volunteers are
dominated by personal interest, similar to Wymer, Self, and
Findleys (2010) ndings concerning sensation-seeking volunteer
tourists, while those at the deep end tend to think more about the
community. This framework creates a typology of target markets
for volunteer tourism organizations. For instance, NGOs may wish
to focus on the altruistic deep volunteer, whereas the commercial
tourism operator may focus on the more extrinsically-motivated
shallow volunteer (Smillie,1995). Therefore we would suggest
that there is a need to understand the motivations of the volunteer
tourist. Brown (2005) and Callanan and Thomas (2005) generally
found that there are four motivations that underpin volunteer
tourism: (1) cultural immersion, (2) making a difference, (3)
seeking camaraderie, and (4) family bonding. Similarly, Seibert and
Benson (2009) found ve main intrinsic motives: (1) to experience
something different/new, (2) to meet African people, (3) to learn
about another country and culture, (4) to live in another country,
and (5) to broaden ones mind.
This line of research has led to the debate as to whether altruism
or self-interest is the more dominant common theme in volunteer
tourist motivations (Coghlan & Fennell, 2009). Some researchers
nd it is an altruistic pursuit (Callanan & Thomas, 2005; Ehrichs,
2000), while others maintain that volunteers are not born altru-
ists; they can adopt any position on the continuum between pure
altruism and pure egotism (Hustinx, 2001:65; Tomazos & Butler,
2010). The latter would appear to provide us with a more inclu-
sive, scientic platform approach to the variety of experiences and
organizations that have evolved around this phenomenon; rather
than thinking in terms of absolute dichotomy of altruism versus
self-interest, volunteer tourists are quite able to possess multiple
motivations simultaneously.
Some have found connections between demographics differ-
ences and the self-interest versus altruism debate. The younger
demographic in the volunteer tourism market may be the most
likely to report self-interest as a primary motivator (Lepp, 2008;
Wearing, Deville, & Lyons, 2008). Simpson (2004) suggests this is
because most participate in volunteer tourism during a period of
transition between school and tertiary education or work. Brown
(2005) found that the older, baby boomer age group (40e70),
which is seen as a lucrative target market by many volunteer
tourism organizations (Bakker & Lamoureux, 2008), do not neces-
sarily have egoistic motivations for volunteering. Instead they are
motivated by cultural immersion, seeking camaraderie, giving
something back and family bonding (for those with children). Lo
and Lee (2011) found nearly the exact ndings in their work on
motives of volunteer tourists from Hong Kong: cultural immersion
and interaction with local people; desire to give back; shared
experience with family members; religious involvement; and
escape from everyday life.
McGehee, Lee, andClemmons (2009) foundsimilar demographic-
based differences in self-interest versus altruism motivations
amongst potential volunteer tourists. They found their respondents
fell into three motivational categories: the Vanguards, the Pragma-
tists, and the Questers. The smallest, youngest, but most highly
motivated group was the Vanguards. They are most interested in
the skill-building (e.g. self-interest) that can come from a volunteer
tourism experience, and seek the most physically and mentally
intense volunteer tourism experience. The largest and middle-aged
group was the Pragmatists. They were mostly motivated by the
idea of developing a relationship with members of the host com-
munity, whichdiffers fromeither self-interest or altruism, fallinginto
more of a desire for human connection. The third and oldest group
was known as the Questers. They were the least sure of what their
motivations were to participate in a volunteer tourism experience,
but tend to gravitate slightly towards the altruistic.
Still other researchers have not found differences by age, but
instead found commonalities across demographics. Carter (2008),
who interviewed a varied group of volunteer tourists between the
ages of 17 and 65, found that the primary motivation was to
experience something new and to help others. Similarly, Stoddart
and Rogerson (2004) also found the primary motivation across all
age groups was to help the less fortunate. This was followed by
building skills, relationship building, and travel, all egoistic motives.
This work in volunteer tourism motivations supports the notion
that niche markets differ from mainstream tourism and change
over time, place, and experience (Blackman & Benson, 2010). A
large component of this difference may stem from the fact that the
nature of the volunteer tourism experience involves greater and
more profound interaction between host and guest (Wearing &
Grabowski, 2011; Zahra & McIntosh, 2007). Even within the
volunteer tourism niche, there are no doubt variations in the de-
gree of hosteguest interactions. It is for this reason that Brown
(2005) call for a distinction of types of volunteers, regardless of
age, who are vacation-minded rather than volunteer-minded,
where the volunteering component is often only a small portion of
the trip. While a strong foundation currently exists in the area of
volunteer tourism motivation, there is much room for growth uti-
lizing the scientic platform to address this and many other issues.
3. Agents of change? The role of volunteer tourism
organizations in the journey
In addition to the work in pre-trip motivations, another
important area of study revolves around the organizations that
facilitate volunteer tourism. As mentioned previously, the size and
scope of volunteer tourism organizations is growing rapidly. One of
the earliest organizations to develop programs for volunteer tour-
ists was the non-prot British Trust Conservation Volunteers,
which commenced programs in the 1950s, initially offering projects
in the UK. The emphasis on environment was important, as there
was growing concern at that time regarding environmental issues
(Holden, 2000; Russo, 1999). This environmental focus subse-
quently spread across a wide range of organizations that used travel
as a mechanism for engaging people in projects that aided com-
munities, the environment and science. The success of volunteer
tourismhas created numerous commercial organizations who have
entered the market, shifting the organizations engaged in this area
fromthe not for prot to the commercial, through what we suggest
is a process of commodication (Coren &Gray, 2012; Cousins, 2007;
Tomazos & Cooper, 2012; Wearing & Wearing, 2006). Great in-
creases in the number of commercial operators motivated by
prots have also changed the face of volunteer tourism. Although
no research in this area was discovered at the time of this review,
these organizations which are prot-driven may have a different
impact on the community than those which emerge from NGOs;
they may be less established within the community and more
S. Wearing, N.G. McGehee / Tourism Management 38 (2013) 120e130 123
focused on satisfying their primary customer e the volunteer e
than on the host community. This notion is certainly worthy of
empirical study and would fall within the boundaries of the sci-
entic research platform established previously in the paper.
Additional research would need to recognize that this is not a
simplistic or acute process; gradually, the product becomes more
attuned to the experiences that are in demand rather than the
needs of the destinations indigenous inhabitants. Over time, best
intentions can often be submerged and eclipsed to becoming
merely more of what the subjugating tourist desires in conjunction
with an organizations desire for prot (Wearing, McDonald, &
Ponting, 2005; Wearing & Ponting, 2006).
As a result, some suggest a need to look at better ways to
manage volunteer tourism, which is of course an applied approach
still rmly, and rightfully, aligned with the adaptancy platform
approach to volunteer tourism research (The International
Ecotourism Society, 2012). This is in concert with mainstream
tourism researchers who argue for the need to better manage
tourism-related businesses and organizations (Barbieri, Santos, &
Katsube, 2012; Benson & Henderson, 2011; Cousins, 2007; Evans,
Campbell, & Stonehouse, 2003; Moutinho, 2000; Murphy &
Murphy, 2004; Teare & Hadyn, 1994; Tribe, 2008). Perhaps this is
even more important for volunteer tourism, as many larger projects
are funded by non-tourism oriented institutions such as the World
Bank, which may lack an awareness and understanding of the
tourism industry; further to this, much of volunteer tourism is
undertaken by volunteers working on small community, environ-
mental, and scientic projects, which are outside the tourism in-
dustry (Devereux, 2008). A number of these organizations do not
recognize themselves as being part of the tourism industry,
resisting the categorization and insisting that their organizations
are more serious than that (McGehee, 2002).
This wide range of organizations that are involved in engaging
the volunteer tourist include tour operators, environmental and
humanitarian Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), and aca-
demic groups who offer volunteer tourists the opportunity to un-
dertake projects that can assist in community development,
scientic research, or ecological and cultural restoration
(Brightsmith, Stronza, & Holle, 2008; Wearing, 2004; Wight, 2003).
While limited research has been conducted that focuses on good
practice in volunteer tourism and how these maximize potential
benets and reduce potential negative impacts (Ellis, 2003; Jones,
2002; McGehee & Andereck, 2008; Spencer, 2008), it can be
argued that the organizations that engage in the operation of
volunteer tourism are a key factor in maximizing good practice.
Research has indicated that volunteer tourism organizations can be
considered to have the potential to act either as catalysts for posi-
tive socio-cultural change or facilitators of neo-colonialism and
dependency (Palacios, 2010). Over the last 20 years, research has
targeted a wide range of NGOs that have identied with
ecotourism, using income from tourists seen to be wishing to help
save the environment (Brightsmith et al., 2008; Scheyvens, 2002).
In order to truly pursue a scientic platform approach to volunteer
tourism, there is a need to focus on additional research that in-
cludes volunteer tourism organizations that engage in a wider
range of programs that support local communities beyond simply
the environmental (Butcher, 2005; Zahra & McGehee, 2013). Many
of these types of organizations are associated with local NGOs. In
2001, Wearing identied the role of NGOs as a new and vital op-
portunity to change more than just volunteer tourism but in fact
the face of tourism overall.
It is important to note that there is already a small but growing
body of work in this area that is utilizing the scientic platform
approach. Raymond and Hall (2008) used appreciative inquiry to
explore how volunteer tourism organizations of all types can best
develop and manage their programs through volunteer selection,
pre-departure preparation, orientation, and debriengs. In terms of
volunteer selection, Atkins (2012) presented an innovative model
using online human-resource psychological assessments in the
context of volunteer tourism of all types so that volunteers can be
assessed pre-trip in order to create a better match between the
volunteer and the activity, creating a positive experience for all
stakeholders. Additionally, McGehee and Andereck (2008) main-
tained the importance of volunteer tourism organizations as gate-
keepers between volunteer tourists and hosts in community-based
projects. Recently, McGehee (2012) made an argument for the role
of volunteer tourismorganizations as social change agents with the
ability to shift the dominant hegemony away from stereotypes and
neo-colonial thinking and towards a more emancipated society.
Benson and Blackman (2011) pointed out the importance of uti-
lizing forms of leadership that mesh with the host culture. While
these are good rst efforts, the need continues for additional
empirical research that falls within the scientic platformapproach
to volunteer tourism.
4. At the destination: a community-centred approach
Volunteer tourists and volunteer tourismorganizations make up
two of the three major stakeholders of volunteer tourism. The host
community forms the third, and some would argue most impor-
tant, leg of the table (Singh, 2002). In general, the volunteer tourism
literature has focused less attention on the host, either individually
or as a community (Holmes, Smith, Lockstone-Binney, & Baum,
2010; Uriely & Reichel, 2000; Uriely et al., 2003). Part of the reason
for this lack of focus on the host may derive from the difculty in
identifying and including the full spectrum of stakeholders who
may fall under the terms host and community. Issues of power and
socio-economic status often prevent the full participation and in-
clusion of marginalized groups as part of the community (McGehee
& Andereck, 2009). In addition to issues of dening and including
all members of the community, tourists of all types tend to receive
the lions share of the attention when it comes to research for a
number of reasons (Hall, 1994): Tourists are more accessible for
researchers, as they often share similar socio-cultural backgrounds;
tourists may be more able to take the discretionary time needed to
participate in a research project; there are more funding and sup-
port opportunities available for research targeting those who
consume the tourism product than for those who produce it. Spe-
cic to volunteer tourism, members of the community are often
inaccessible or unable to participate, due to socio-cultural, eco-
nomic, or language differences, and hosts also often do not have an
awareness of the scope and breadth of volunteer tourism activities
within their communities, nor do they think of those outsiders
coming to assist with programs as volunteer tourists (McGehee &
Andereck, 2008).
As discussed earlier in the review, early research in volunteer
tourism and the host community originally took an advocacy
platform, focussing on how volunteer tourism is potentially bene-
cial (Broad, 2003; Clifton & Benson, 2006; Higgins-Desboilles,
2003; McIntosh & Zahra, 2007; Singh 2002). Singh (2002) was
one of the rst to explore the hosteguest relationship in volunteer
tourism, highlighting the value of the person-to-person relation-
ships between members of the host communities and their
volunteer tourism guests. Broad (2003) conducted a participant
observation case study that argued for the informal, yet valuable,
cultural exchange component of volunteer tourism. Higgins-
Desboilles (2003) framed volunteer tourism as a potential form of
reconciliation between aboriginal Australians and Australians of
European descent. Clifton and Benson (2006) examined what they
dubbed as research ecotourism and its impacts on a Muslim
S. Wearing, N.G. McGehee / Tourism Management 38 (2013) 120e130 124
community in Indonesia, and reported residents as accepting and
enthusiastic about the presence of the research ecotourists. In
their quantitative examination of resident attitudes towards
volunteer tourism, McGehee and Andereck (2009) found that, just
as with tourism in general, there is a direct relationship amongst
residents who benetted personally from volunteer tourism and
their support for additional volunteer tourism activities.
Conversely, those who did not benet directly were not as
supportive.
While this research has contributed to our understanding of
volunteer tourism and the host community, it is not with critics. A
second, more cautionary (and recent) platform of research focus-
sing on the volunteer tourism host community does exist
(Devereux, 2008; Guttentag, 2009; McGehee & Andereck, 2008;
Palacios, 2010; Raymond & Hall, 2008; Simpson, 2004; Sin, 2009).
Guttentag (2009) claimed that many volunteer tourism activities
organized by western nations have a negative impact on tourism
development in host communities. For instance, volunteer tourism
expeditions can lead host communities to become dependent upon
volunteer tourism sending organizations, undermining the dignity
of local residents, exceeding the carrying capacity of the commu-
nity if not properly managed, and impeding the need of host
communities regarding tourism development. This discrepancy
between host communities and sending organizations can result in
friction between host communities and volunteer tourists. Some
argue that the very foundation of volunteer tourism exists in a
commodied environment and serves as a stronghold for the
privileged (Raymond & Hall, 2008). Simpsons (2004) study focused
on issues of power whereby she utilized development theory to
highlight the dangers of over-reliance on volunteer tourism as a
prescription for international development. She argued that
dependence on untrained or under-trained GAP year volunteers
who possess a strong Western perspective towards development
could jeopardize decades of work by experienced NGOs and
empowered communities. While her work did focus on GAP year
students, who are in some ways different from other forms of
volunteer tourism, her argument is still valid. Palacios (2010) pro-
vided yet more support for this argument when he utilized neo-
colonialism to warn that international volunteering and service
programs must engage themselves in the development aid
discourse and recognize the challenges of volunteer tourism. Most
recently, Tomazos and Butler (2010) highlighted the negative im-
pacts of volunteer tourists on a child refuge in Baja California,
Mexico.
The third platform, adaptancy, is manifest in host community-
focused volunteer tourism research through the notion that suc-
cessful volunteer tourismmust be, rst and foremost, relevant to its
host communities, and account for both positive and negative im-
pacts. Wearing (2001) emphasized this in his early work, and
continues to argue for a community-centred approach (Ponting,
McDonald, & Wearing, 2005; Wearing & Wearing, 1999). The
fundamental argument is that if we accept the traditional models of
tourism that are based on commodied agendas as ideal for
volunteer tourism, they will continue to hold dominance in both
theory and practice. Tourism in a so-called free market economy
represents the commercialization of the human need to travel,
exploiting natural and cultural resources as a means to prot
accumulation. Ultimately, the demand for these experiences is
what drives the market, often leaving the destination community
outside of the process. Generally, through high rates of imports,
prot repatriation, high levels of expatriate management stafng
and investment incentive schemes, neoliberal models of tourism
generally result in tourist experiences which not only prevent
tourists and destination communities from interacting on an equal
footing, but also provide limited contributions to local communities
in developing countries (Crossley, 2012; Meyer, 2007; Prins &
Webster, 2010; Schilcher, 2007). Perhaps there is now room here
for the scientic platform of volunteer tourism to be expanded in
this area as explained in the following paragraphs.
Volunteer tourism has as one of its fundamental tenants a po-
sition of helping poorer countries to develop. However, research
has revealed that it can be threatened by the dogmatic pursuit of
economic neoliberalism which actually prevents alternative
models of tourism being investigated and pursued, and kicks away
the ladder of careful government regulation and control, which the
rich countries utilized in their ascention to prosperity in the rst
instance (Chang, 2008). Volunteer tourism has the potential to
provide a shift away from commodied, neoliberal approaches to
tourism and tourism research and provide a path towards an
alternative paradigm of practice and analysis, but it can struggle to
achieve community participation when this cost becomes
perceived as too high.
For some researchers, the promise of a decommodied agenda
provides the ability to empower destination communities and has
driven their research agendas (Wearing & Ponting, 2006) while
conversely, some have challenged the notion of volunteer tourism
as truly decommodied (Gray & Campbell, 2007) and the value of a
decommodied research agenda (Butcher, 2006, 2011). It is
considered essential to move away from the subjugating tourist
approach (Wearing & Wearing, 2006) which creates a situation
where destination communities have limited input. To outline how
this occurs we can look at research by Gray and Campbell (2007),
whos study of a volunteer tourism expedition which failed to
deliver a decommodied experience provides an example of what
Callanan and Thomas (2005) describe as shallow volunteer
tourism. That is, a short term, exible itinerary decided upon by
the tourists in a setting where the destination and promise of
specic wildlife sightings dominate motivation and thus satisfac-
tion (Gray & Campbell, 2007). In order to provide some clarity to
the discussion, we suggest that although this simplies the much
more complex nature of volunteer tourism, this spectrumenables a
perspective that provides a view where many forms of shallow
volunteer tourism experiences can be seen to be a form of
commodied tourism (with the subjugating tourist). What is seen
as the deeper volunteer tourism products described by Callanan
and Thomas represents a glimmer of resistance to neoliberal
models of tourism. Due to this position away from centrality of the
tourist and towards a central role for the community a perspective
of deep volunteer tourism can be subscribed and thereby offer
mechanisms that can empower the destination community. Dis-
cussion around this can be seen in Butchers (2006) arguments
against a decommodied research agenda and in Wearing and
Ponting (2006) work, who posit that Butcher both over-simplied
the idea of decommodication and mistakenly assume it to be
synonymous with anti-development. These debates will most
likely continue and are a sign of a healthy and robust area of
research.
In addition to the commodication/decommodication debate,
research has revealed other complex relationships between host
and guests. Volunteer tourism, particularly where NGOs are
involved, provides a framework from which to reconceptualize the
cultural space of a destination, and hence the interaction between
host and guest (Gustafson, 2001; Meethan, 2001). When destina-
tion communities views are given credence, possibilities emerge
for alternate programs of tourism and counter-discourse to hege-
monic modes of interaction. Otherness within this framework can
include difference without inferiorization and identity xity, and
can allow for a uid multi-way process of co-presence and co-
construction between tourist, host community, and volunteer
tourism organization, with possible benets for all. This re-
S. Wearing, N.G. McGehee / Tourism Management 38 (2013) 120e130 125
presentation of touristic identities can allow for a cultural and
experiential process of interaction and exchange between tourist
and host communities. In this way, the domination of the tourist
experience by Western countries can be challenged and, following
de Certeaus (1988) arguments on experiential resistance, the bal-
ance of knowledge-power destabilized and resisted to favour the
cultural uniqueness of host communities. Some research has found
that volunteer tourism can enable social value and identities to be
developed within the hosts cultural presentation by allowing a
higher degree of experiential interaction (Wearing, 2001). Specif-
ically, social value is developed where cultural Third Spaces of
hosts, guests, and intermediaries are included through community
consultation, policy decision making, and other participation op-
portunities. This enables a breakdown of the self-other in the
dominant-subordinate dichotomy, and provides sufcient freedom
in the re-presentation of host identity to explore a Third Space of
the hybrid selves created for all parties (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006;
2009; Wearing 2001; Zahra & McGehee, 2013). How these cultural
worlds are accessed and experienced is inuenced by the socially
constructed nature of otherness in tourist experiences, the resis-
tance and subversion of host cultures to this programmatic coding,
and the counter-discourses to the gaze/surveillance of power. Zahra
and McGehee (2013) report an example of such Third Spaces in
their study of volunteer tourismin the Philippines, where volunteer
tourists, hosts, and the organizing NGO were united in resistance
against political leaders. Perhaps there is room to further explore
this phenomenon through social capital theory, particularly with
the utilization of the concepts of bridging and bonding social cap-
ital (Flora, 2004; Jones, 2005).
Research in the aforementioned areas of commodication/
decommodication and hosteguest relations often concludes with
recommendations for additional research exploring the role of
policy and governance in volunteer tourism (McGehee, 2012;
Wearing et al., 2005). This is an area that has received some
attention, but deserves more. There is a need to examine cases of
public ethic spearheaded by local governance, local economies, and
indigenous self-management by host communities (Wearing et al.,
2005; Wearing & Ponting, 2006). In effect, exposing these and other
strategies that can provide a revitalized social ethic of association
amongst minority and marginal groups in developed and devel-
oping nations may help to transform and tame the highly
commodied, normalizing nature of globalized Western tourism
that currently prevails (Lyons et al., 2012). There is certainly room
for a great deal of additional, scientic-platform-based research in
this area, particularly with the emergence of the recently-
developed International Voluntourism Guidelines for Commercial
Tour Operators (The International Ecotourism Society).
5. Reections and transformations: the return home
As evidenced by the previous discussion, volunteer tourism
research has covered a broad range of topics. One area that appears
to have limited study, however, is the impact of the volunteer
tourismexperience after the trip is completed. A number of authors
have begun to explore this area (Alexander, 2009; Bailey & Russell,
2010; Broad, 2003; Christo & Thompson, 2007; Coghlan & Gooch,
2011; Grabowski & Wearing, 2011; Lepp, 2008; McGehee, 2002;
McGehee & Santos, 2005; Zahra, 2011), however there is much
room for additional exploration.
Early, advocacy-oriented work in this area found that partici-
pation in volunteer tourism changed behaviours upon returning
home as a result of both the networks established and the
consciousness-raising component of the experience (McGehee,
2002; McGehee & Norman, 2002; McGehee & Santos, 2005). Spe-
cically, participants altered the way they made purchasing
decisions, their involvement in social movement organizations at
home, and even their relationships with family, friends, and co-
workers. Later, Bailey and Russell (2010) also found that a volun-
teer tourism experience had positive immediate impacts on
openness, civic attitudes, and wisdom of its college participants.
While the work was not specically targeting post-trip change,
Broad (2003:63) found that volunteers were able to go beyond the
supercial interactions that travel is often restricted to, resulting in
personal growth and a changed world view. This was a result of
volunteers being engaged in village life and socializing with the
local people. Similarly, Lepps (2008) study showed that a key
outcome of the experience was an enhanced notion of self, due to
the greater personal reection undertaken. The development of self
has also been found to be a signicant outcome in several other
studies (Matthews, 2008; Sin, 2009; Wearing, 2002).
More recently, Grabowski and Wearing (2011) as well as
Alexander (2009) also approached the idea of change in the
volunteer tourist on returning home using a psychological
perspective. Their preliminary research suggested that the experi-
ence caused signicant changes to the volunteer tourist; specif-
ically, changes in trust, artistic interest, and assertiveness. Zahra
(2011; Zahra & McIntosh, 2007) utilized a longitudinal perspective
to examine the potential for volunteer tourism as a life changing or
epiphany experience. Her research participants reected on the
impact of the experience in their everyday life even eight years
after the experience. While some have examined impacts on a
shorter timespan (Bailey & Russell, 2010), Zahras is the only long-
term study to have done so thus far.
Some research has revealed that the return home is not always
an easy one for volunteer tourists. Grabowski and Wearings (2011)
work suggests that the process of re-entry can be explained as
deculturation, where the returning volunteer tourist is trapped
between two cultural settings, that of the host country and his/her
home country (Kagitibasi, 1987). McGehee and Santos (2005) also
made similar assertions as a result of their focus group study of
participants in several volunteer tourism organizations across the
U.S. Participants described the difculties of returning to daily life
as if nothing had happened, often experiencing feelings of isolation
if they did not have contact with others who had also participated
in a volunteer tourism experience. Gudykunst and Kim (2003, p.
359) explain that the deculturation which occurs as a result of a
volunteer tourism experience is the unlearning of old cultural
habits; adaptation occurs as a result of the interplay between
acculturation and deculturation. Coghlan and Gooch (2011) argue
for the application of the concept of transformative learning as a
viable way for volunteer tourism organizations to improve the
quality of the transformative process. This includes continued
involvement with volunteers upon their re-entry into their home
environments.
But not everyone is nding similar results inthis area of research.
For example, Callanan (2010) did not nd evidence of deculturation
in the re-entry of returned missionaries, primarily because they
foundlittle difculty inreadapting totheir home culture. There are a
number of possible explanations for these confounding results.
Mitchell (2006) noted that, due to increased information technol-
ogies and social media, the re-entry experience is different than it
was twenty years ago. Volunteer tourists now are able to stay in
touch with the communities that hosted them, as well as with each
other, via facebook and other social media (Sink 2011). This may be
the cause for the difference in results. As some research suggests,
what is real for a traveller is not necessarily the physical happen-
ings at the destination, but the impact of the tourismexperience on
the self e which is often related more to the way it is remembered
through lm, photography and travel writing (Wearing et al.,
2010:15). In the case of volunteer tourism, where a rich cultural
S. Wearing, N.G. McGehee / Tourism Management 38 (2013) 120e130 126
experience occurs due tothe highlevels of intercultural contact with
the host community, this is then reinforced back at home through
both recollection and continued interaction through social media.
As Ledwith (2005) suggests, we tell and retell the stories of our lives
differently according to our audience, our recollection, and our
insight; thus, stories become shaped by time, and space, and un-
derstanding, and the telling of stories can, in turn, be the vehicle of
our consciousness (2005, p. 257).
Beforemovingontothe conclusions, it is veryimportant tonote a
glaring absence in this area of research, and that is the area of post-
tripchanges andtransformationof members of the host community.
Two studies were found to have presented cases targeting NGO-run,
decommodied, volunteer tourism experiences, that while they
were not perfect, they did allowfor Third Spaces that in turn created
a positive post-experience buzz for the community (McIntosh &
Zahra, 2008; Zahra & McGehee, 2013). For example, the Maori
young people in the McIntosh and Zahra (2008) study, after many
conversations with volunteer tourists, reported feeling that nish-
ing their education was not only possible but probable; the Filipino
residents described how they had become more condent and
persistent in their dealings with local government as the result of
assistance fromthe volunteer tourists, demanding the trashservices
they were due and encouraging their young people to maintain the
playgrounds and parks of the community.
6. Conclusion
As the previous review indicates, the study of volunteer tourism
stands on the cusp of opportunity. There are a number of debates
emerging from the literature, including the uid and multiple lo-
cations of volunteer tourism in the four platforms of research
(Jafari, 2001); the expansion of the theoretical foundations of
volunteer tourism; the self-interest versus altruism debate;
volunteer tourism organizations as agents of change or simply a
new version of commodication; the opportunity for volunteer
tourism to create a new paradigm in tourism that places the
community at the centre; and the transformative potential of the
post-trip volunteer tourist. Perhaps all of these debates and dis-
cussions fall under one larger, meta-debate, and that is the question
of where volunteer tourismfalls in the larger continuumof tourism.
Is it merely another tourism niche, another minor blip on the
tourism radar screen; is it an emerging, more sustainable form of
tourism; or does it truly represent the potential for a major para-
digm shift as a completely decommodied form of tourism? These
are all exciting areas of discussion and research.
If volunteer tourism does in fact belong under the sustainable
tourism banner, some authors (Rees, 1990) suggest caution, as it
could eventually be encompassed into the mainstream neo-liberal
agenda central to continued economic growth. On the other end of
the spectrum, Butcher (2011) suggests it is at risk of becoming a
form of Charity or welfare-based tourism. Perhaps the ideal falls
somewhere between these two points. For volunteer tourism to
succeed it has to be sustainable for both the social and natural
environments of the area visited, while also not becoming another
form of tourism based mainly on the commodication of at least
partly altruistic intent. Approaching the study of volunteer tourism
utilizing Jafaris (2001) fourth stage of study, the scientic platform,
will go a long way towards answering the question of where
volunteer tourism lies and what it will eventually become.
One cannot look ahead to future exploration of volunteer
tourism without recognizing the need for additional theoretical
contributions as well. As mentioned previously, while some good
work has begun in this area (Alexander & Bakir, 2011; Lee &
Woosnam, 2010; Lyons et al., 2012; McGehee, 2002, 2012;
Woosnam & Lee 2011) which includes the use of critical theory,
conict theory, social movement theory, community capitals the-
ory, development theory and interactionist theory, to name just a
few, there is great opportunity for exploration. In particular, more
can be drawn from both the psychology and sociology literatures;
there is also untapped potential amidst the theories of political
science, anthropology, geography, political ecology, economics.
Theory will be especially valuable in further legitimizing any ar-
guments made regarding the previous discussions of self-interest
versus altruism (psychology), volunteer tourism organizations as
agents of change (sociology, anthropology), compassions of geog-
raphy (geography), the opportunity for volunteer tourism to create
a newparadigmin tourismthat places the community at the centre
(sociology, political science, economics, political ecology), and the
transformative potential of the post-trip volunteer tourist (psy-
chology and sociology).
While the area of volunteer tourism research is broad and holds
great potential, there are some topics that are particularly timely.
Some of these areas have begun to be explored, but all have room
for growth. For example, the development of criteria and creden-
tials for good practices in volunteer tourism is certainly gaining
interest. Evaluation mechanisms that enable potential volunteer
tourists to examine what can be achieved, as well as provide in-
sights into the likely outcome of projects, is likely to be a major
factor in the future. The topic of volunteer tourismand mobility has
great potential in a number of areas, including the grey nomad
phenomenon (Leonard & Onyx, 2009); its uniqueness in bringing
global communities together across socio-economic, cultural, and
physical landscapes begs for further exploration. Examining
volunteer tourism alongside other forms of decommodied
tourism such as couch surng (Moltz & Gibson, 2007), backpacker
tourism(Oii & Laing, 2010) and wwoong (McIntosh & Bonnemann,
2006) may be one of the most cutting edge areas of research,
closely followed by the mostly untapped area of social media and
volunteer tourism (Atkins, 2012; Grimm & Needham, 2012b; Sink,
2011). For example, the rise of new social media has empowered
tourists to develop their own experiences independent of travel
agents and other intermediaries in the tourism supply chain,
rendering a possibility of a return to the days of the independent
backpacker. However, at the same time, the trend towards pack-
aged experiences has meant that commercial service providers,
including travel services, have mobilized to support the demand for
diverse volunteer tourism experiences. What is not known is
whether social media, especially the likes of Facebook and Twitter,
will lead volunteer tourists away from packaged experiences and
towards independently developed volunteer tourism opportunities
and less commodied forms offered by NGOs (Grimm & Needham,
2012a). Likewise, it is not known what role demand-generated
content will play in the volunteer tourism space. Additionally, in
mainstream tourism, there has been a great deal of interest in the
area of community well-being and quality of life, but little, if any,
has targeted volunteer tourism. Related to this, the role of volunteer
tourism and the creation and expansion of social capital begs for
additional research.
The debates about what volunteer tourism offers the tourism
industry and greater society will continue to be contentious and
heavily dependent on rigorous, scientic-platform based research.
We suggest over the next few years that research focus on which
forms of volunteer tourismare most deserved of support, as well as
the debate about ways to maximize the positive impacts while
minimizing the negative impacts for all involved. This, however,
pales in comparison to the greater research question of the role
volunteer tourism plays in civil society. Eventually it is hoped that
these debates will be resolved and the emergence of the unique
potential of volunteer tourism to create a decommodied and
genuine human experience will come to the forefront.
S. Wearing, N.G. McGehee / Tourism Management 38 (2013) 120e130 127
References
Adler, N. J. (1981). Re-entry: managing cross-cultural transitions. Group & Organi-
zation Studies, 6(3), 341e356.
Alexander, Z. (2009). The effects of voluntourism (volunteer tourism) on the
volunteer (the self). The Voluntourist, 5(2). www.voluntourism.org.
Alexander, Z. (2012). International volunteer tourism experience in South Africa: an
investigation into the impact on the tourist. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 21(7), 779e799.
Alexander, Z., & Bakir, A. (2011). Understanding voluntourism, A Glaserian grounded
theory study. In A. M. Benson (Ed.), Volunteer tourism: Theory framework to
practical applications (pp. 9e29). Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Andereck, K., McGehee, N. G., Lee, S., & Clemmons, D. (2012). Experience ex-
pectations of prospective volunteer tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 51(2),
130e141.
Atkins, S. (2012). Smartening-up voluntourism: SmartAids expansion of the
personality-focused performance requirements Form (PPRF). International
Journal of Tourism Research, 14(4), 369e390.
Bailey, A., & Russell, K. (2010). Predictors of interpersonal growth in volunteer
tourism: a latent curve approach. Leisure Sciences, 32(4), 352e368.
Bakker, M., & Lamoureux, K. (2008). Volunteer tourism e International: Travel and
tourism analyst. Mintel International.
Barbieri, C., Santos, C., & Katsube, Y. (2012). Volunteer tourism: on-the-ground
observations from Rwanda. Tourism Management, 33(3), 509e516.
Benson, A., & Blackman, D. (2011). To distribute leadership or not? A lesson from the
islands. Tourism Management, 32(5), 1141e1149.
Benson, A., & Henderson, S. (2011). A strategic analysis of volunteer tourism orga-
nisations. Service Industries Journal, 31(3), 405e424.
Benson, A., & Siebert, N. (2009). Volunteer tourism: motivations of German par-
ticipants in South Africa. Annals of Leisure Research, 12(3/4).
Blackman, D., & Benson, A. (2010). The role of the psychological contract in man-
aging research volunteer tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(3),
221e235.
Brightsmith, D., Stronza, A., & Holle, K. (2008). Ecotourism, conservation biology,
and volunteer tourism: a mutually benecial triumvirate. Biological Conserva-
tion, 141(11), 2832e2842.
Britton, S., & Clarke, W. C. (Eds.). (1987). Tourism in small developing countries). Suva:
University of the South Pacic.
Broad, S. (2003). Living the Thai life ea case study of volunteer tourismat the Gibbon
Rehabilitation Project, Thailand. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 63e72.
Broad, S., & Jenkins, J. (2008). Gibbons in their midst? Conservation volunteers
motivations at the Gibbon Rehabilitation Project, Phuket, Thailand. In K. Lyon, &
S. Wearing (Eds.), Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: International case
study perspectives (pp. 72e85). Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.
Brown, P. (2003). Mind the gap: Why student year out may do more harm than good.
Retrieved November 12, 2008, from The Guardian. Web site: http://www.
guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/06/highereducation.gapyears.
Brown, S. (2005). Travelling with a purpose: understanding the motives and ben-
ets of volunteer vacationers. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(6), 479e496.
Brown, S., & Morrison, A. (2003). Expanding volunteer vacation participation e an
exploratory study on the mini-mission concept. Tourism Recreation Research,
28(3), 73e82.
Brumbaugh, A. (2010). The impact of diversity seeking and volunteer orientation on
desire for alternative spring break programs. Journal of Travel & Tourism Mar-
keting, 27(5), 474e490.
Butcher, J. (2003). The moralization of tourism: Sun, sand. and saving the world?
London: Routledge.
Butcher, J. (2005). The moral authority of ecotourism: a critique. Current Issues in
Tourism, 8(2), 114e124.
Butcher, J. (2006). A response to Building a decommodied research paradigm in
tourism: the contribution of NGOs by Stephen Wearing, Matthew G. McDonald
and Jess Ponting. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14, 307e310.
Butcher, J. (2011). Volunteer tourism may not be as good as it seems. Tourism
Recreation Research, 36(1), 75e76.
Butcher, J., & Smith, P. (2010). Making a difference: volunteer tourism and devel-
opment. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(1), 27e36.
Callanan, C. (2010). Going home: deculturation experiences in cultural reentry.
Journal of Intercultural Communication, 22. Available 03/03/12 at: http://www.
immi.se/intercultural/nr22/callahan.htm.
Callanan, M., & Thomas, S. (2005). Volunteer tourism: deconstructing volunteer
activities within a dynamic environment. In M. Novelli (Ed.), Niche Tourism:
Contemporary issues, trends and cases (pp. 183e200). Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Campbell, L., & Smith, C. (2006). What makes them pay? Values of volunteer
tourists working for Sea Turtle Conservation. Environmental Management, 38(1),
84e98.
Carter, K. A. (2008). Volunteer Tourism: An exploration of the perceptions and expe-
riences of volunteer tourists and the role of authenticity in those experiences.
Unpublished Masters. Lincoln University.
Caton, K., & Santos, C. (2009). Images of the other: selling study abroad in a post-
colonial world. Journal of Travel Research, 48(2), 191e204.
de Certeau, M. (1988). The practice of everyday life. Berkley: University of California.
Chang, H. J. (2008). Bad Samaritans: The myth of free trade and the secret history of
capitalism. New York: Bloomsbury press.
Chen, L., & Chen, J. (2011). The motivations and expectations of international
volunteer tourists: a case study of Chinese Village Traditions. Tourism Man-
agement, 32(2), 435e442.
Christo, V., & Thompson, C. L. (2007). You cannot go home again: a phenomeno-
logical investigation of returning to the sojourn country after studying abroad.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 85(1), 53e64.
Clawson, M., & Knetch, J. L. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore: The
John Hopkins Press.
Clifton, J., & Benson, A. M. (2006). Planning for sustainable ecotourism: the case of
research ecotourism in developing country destinations. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 14(3), 238e254.
Coghlan, A. (2008). Exploring the role of expedition staff in volunteer tourism. In-
ternational Journal of Tourism Research, 10(2), 183e191.
Coghlan, A., & Fennell, D. (2009). Myth or substance: an examination of altruism as
the basis of volunteer tourism. Annals of Leisure Research, 12(3/4), 377e402.
Coghlan, A., & Gooch, M. (2011). Applying a transformative learning framework to
volunteer tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(6), 713e728.
Cohen, E. (1987). Alternative tourism e a critique. Tourism Recreation Research,
12(2), 13e18.
Cohen, L. (2003). A consumers republic: The politics of mass consumption in postwar
America. New York: Knopf Publishers.
Conran, M. (2011). They really love me! Intimacy in volunteer tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 38(4), 1454e1473.
Coren, N., & Gray, T. (2012). Commodication of volunteer tourism: a comparative
study of volunteer tourists in Vietnam and in Thailand. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 14(3), 222e234.
Cousins, J. A. (2007). The role of UK-based conservation tourism operators. Tourism
Management, 8(4), 1020e1030.
Cousins, J. A., Evans, J., & Sadler, J. (2009a). Ive paid to observe lions, not map
roads! e an emotional journey with conservation volunteers in South Africa.
Geoforum, 40(6), 1069e1080.
Cousins, J. A., Evans, J., & Sadler, J. (2009b). Selling conservation? Scientic legiti-
macy and the commodication of conservation tourism. Ecology and Society,
14(1), 32.
Crossley, . (2012). Poor but happy: volunteer tourists encounters with poverty.
Tourism Geographies, 14(2), 235e253.
Dernoi, L. A. (1981). Alternative tourism: towards a new style in northesouth re-
lations. International Journal of Tourism Management, 2(4), 253e264.
Dernoi, L. A. (1988). Alternative or community based tourism. In L. DAmore, &
J. Jafari (Eds.), Tourism e A vital force for peace). Montreal: DAmore. L.
Devereux, P. (2008). International volunteering for development and sustainability:
outdated paternalism or a radical response to globalisation? Development in
Practice, 18(3), 357e370.
Earthwatch Institute website. Retrieved 17.04.08, from: http://www.earthwatch.
org/earthwatch_fact_sheet.
Ehrichs, L. (2000). Volunteering in development: A post-modern view. Retrieved from:
21.01.09. http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/browse/countries/lao-pdr/doc/
volunteering-in-development.html.
Elliott, D. (2008). Voluntourism. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from Cond Nast Traveler.
Web site: http://www.concierge.com/cntraveler/articles/12200.
Ellis, C. F. (2003). Participatory environmental research in tourism e a global view.
Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 45e55.
Evans, N., Campbell, D., & Stonehouse, G. (2003). Strategic management for travel and
tourism. Oxford: Elsevier.
Flora, C. B. (2004). Community dynamics and social capital. In D. Rickerl, & C. Francis
(Eds.), Agroecosystems analysis (pp. 93e107). Madison, Wisconsin.
Galley, G., & Clifton, J. (2004). The motivational and demographic characteristics of
research ecotourists: operation Wallacea volunteers in South-east Sulawesi,
Indonesia. Journal of Ecotourism, 3(1), 69e82.
Grabowski, S., & Wearing, S. (2011). Volunteer tourism, acculturation and re-entry:
the blend of three concepts. In M. Gross, B. Brougham, & T. Morganella (Eds.),
CAUTHE, Proceedings of the 21st annual CAUTHE conference, 8e11 February).
Adelaide: CD-ROM, University of South Australia.
Gray, N., & Campbell, L. M. (2007). A decommodied experience? Exploring
aesthetic, economic and ethical values for volunteer tourism in Costa Rica.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 463e482.
Grimm, K., & Needham, M. (2012a). Moving beyond the I in motivation: attributes
and perceptions of conservation volunteer tourists. Journal of Travel Research,
51(4), 488e501.
Grimm, K. E., & Needham, M. D. (2012b). Internet promotional material and con-
servation volunteer tourist motivations: a case study of selecting organizations
and projects. Tourism Management Perspectives, 1(1), 17e27.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to
intercultural communication (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gustafson, P. (2001). Meanings of place: everyday experience and theoretical con-
ceptualizations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 5e16.
Guttentag, D. A. (2009). The possible negative impacts of volunteer tourism. In-
ternational Journal of Tourism Research, 11(6), 537e551.
Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and politics: Policy, power, and place. Chichester, UK:
Wiley and Sons.
Halpenny, E. A., & Caissie, L. T. (2003). Volunteering on nature conservation pro-
jects: volunteer experience, attitudes and values. Tourism Recreation Research,
28(3), 25e33.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2003). Reconciliation tourism: tourism healing divided so-
cieties! Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 35e44.
S. Wearing, N.G. McGehee / Tourism Management 38 (2013) 120e130 128
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2006). More than an industry: the forgotten power of
tourism as a social force. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1192e1208.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2009). International solidarity movement: a case study in
volunteer tourism for justice. Annals of Leisure Research, 12(3/4), 333e349.
Holden, P. (1984). Alternative tourism: Report on the workshop on alternative tourism
with a focus on Asia. Bangkok: Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism.
Holden, A. (2000). Environment and tourism. London: Routledge.
Holmes, K., & Smith, K. (2009). Managing volunteers in tourism: Attractions, desti-
nations and events. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Holmes, K., Smith, K. A., Lockstone-Binney, L., & Baum, T. (2010). Developing the
dimensions of tourism volunteering. Leisure Sciences, 32(3), 255e269.
Hustinx, L. (2001). Individualisation and new styles of youth volunteering: an
empirical investigation. Voluntary Action, 3(2), 57e76.
Jafari, J. (2001). The scientication of tourism. In V. L. Smith, & M. Brent (Eds.), Hosts
and guests revisited: Issues of the 21st century (pp. 28e41). Elmsford, NY:
Cognizant.
Jones, S. (2002). The underside of service-learning. About Campus, 7, 10e15.
Jones, S. (2005). Community-based eco-tourism: the signicance of social capital.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 303e324.
Kagitibasi, C. (1987). Alienation of the outsider: the plight of migrants. Interna-
tional Migration, 25(2), 195e210.
Ledwith, M. (2005). Personal narratives/political lives: personal reection as a tool
for collective change. Reective Practice, 6(2). London: Taylor & Francis.
Lee, Y. J., & Woosnam, K. M. (2010). Voluntourist transformation and the theory of
integrative cross-cultural adaptation. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 1186e
1189.
Leonard, R., & Onyx, J. (2009). Volunteer tourism: the interests and motivations of
grey nomads. Annals of Leisure Research, 12(3/4), 315e332.
Lepp, A. (2008). Discovering self and discovering others through the Taita Discovery
Centre Volunteer Tourism Programme, Kenya. In K. Lyons, & S. Wearing (Eds.),
Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: International case study perspectives
(pp. 86e100). Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Lo, A., & Lee, C. (2011). Motivations and perceived value of volunteer tourists from
Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 32(2), 326e334.
Lyons, K. (2003). Ambiguities in volunteer tourism: a case study of Australians
participating in a J-1 visitor exchange programme. Tourism Recreation Research,
28(3), 5e13.
Lyons, K., Hanley, J., Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2012). Gap year volunteer tourism: myths
of global citizenship? Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 361e378.
Lyons, K. D., & Wearing, S. (2008). Volunteer tourism as alternative tourism: jour-
neys beyond otherness. In K. D. Lyons, & S. Wearing (Eds.), Journeys of discovery
in volunteer tourism: International case study perspectives (pp. 3e12). London,
UK: CABI.
Lyons, K. D., & Wearing, S. (2012). Reections on the ambiguous intersections be-
tween volunteering and tourism. Leisure Sciences, 34(1), 88e93.
Lyons, K., Wearing, S. L., & Benson, A. (2009). Introduction to the special issue on
volunteer tourism. Special issue on volunteer tourism. Annals of Leisure
Research, 12(3 & 4), 269e271.
McGehee, N. (2002). Alternative tourism and social movements. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29, 124e143.
McGehee, N. G. (2012). Oppression, emancipation, and volunteer tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 39(1), 84e107.
McGehee, N., & Andereck, K. (2008). Pettin the critters: exploring the complex
relationship between volunteers and the voluntoured in McDowell County, WV,
USA and Tijuana, Mexico. In S. Wearing, & K. Lyons (Eds.), Journeys of discovery
in volunteer tourism: International case study perspectives). Oxfordshire, UK:
CABI.
McGehee, N., & Andereck, K. (2009). Volunteer tourism and the voluntoured: the
case of Tijuana, Mexico. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 39e51.
McGehee, N. G., Lee, S., & Clemmons, D. (2009). The mystery of the voluntourist:
Utilizing Pearce and Lees travel career pattern model to examine motivations,
typologies, and preferences of potential voluntourists. Greater Western chapter of
the Travel and Tourism Research Association, March 17e20, 2009.
McGehee, N. G., & Norman, W. (2002). Alternative tourism as impetus for con-
sciousness-raising. Tourism Analysis, 6, 239e251.
McGehee, N., & Santos, C. (2005). Social change, discourse, and volunteer tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 760e779.
McIntosh, A. J., & Bonnemann, S. M. (2006). Willing workers on organic farms
(WWOOF): the alternative farm stay experience? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
14(1), 82e99.
McIntosh, A. J., & Zahra, A. (2005). Alternative cultural experiences through volunteer
tourism. Paper presented at the Association for Tourism and Leisure Education
(ATLAS), Catalonia, Spain.
McIntosh, A. J., & Zahra, A. (2007). A cultural encounter through volunteer tourism:
towards the ideals of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5),
541e556.
McIntosh, A., & Zahra, A. (2008). Journeys for experience: the experiences of
volunteer tourists in an indigenous community in a developed nationda case
study of New Zealand. In K. Lyons, & S. Wearing (Eds.), Journeys of discovery in
volunteer tourism: International case study perspectives (pp. 166e181). Cam-
bridge, MA: CABI Publishing.
Matthews, A. (2008). Negotiated selves: exploring the impact of local-global in-
teractions on young volunteer travellers. In K. Lyons, & S. Wearing (Eds.),
Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: International case study perspectives
(pp. 101e117). Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Meethan, K. (2001). Tourism in Global Society: Place, culture, consumption. Basing-
stoke: Pelgrave.
Meyer, D. (2007). Pro-Poor Tourism: from leakages to linkages. A conceptual
framework for creating linkages between the accommodation sector and poor
neighbouring communities. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(6), 558e583.
Mitchell, P. (2006). Revisiting effective re-entry programs for returnees from US aca-
demic programs. Washington, DC: NAFSA Association of International Educators.
Moltz, J. G. (2007). Cosmopolitans on the couch: mobile hospitality and the
internet. In J. G. Moltz, & S. Gibson (Eds.), Mobilizing hospitality: The ethics of
social relations in a mobile world (pp. 65e82). Hampshire, England: Ashgate
Publishing.
Moutinho, L. (2000). Strategic management in tourism. Wallingford: CABI.
Murphy, P., & Murphy, A. (2004). Strategic management for tourism communities:
Bridging the gaps. Clevedon: Channel View.
Mustonen, P. (2005). Volunteer tourism: postmodern pilgrimage? Journal of Tourism
and Cultural Change, 3(3), 160e177.
Nestora, A., Yeung, P., & Calderon, H. (2009). Volunteer travel insights 2009. Bradt
travel guides, Lasso communications. GeckoGo. Report can be found online at:
http://www.geckogo.com/volunteer/report2009.
Novelli, M. (2005). Niche tourism: Contemporary issues, trends, and cases. Amster-
dam: Elsevier.
Oii, N., & Laing, J. H. (2010). Backpacker tourism: sustainable and purposeful?
Investigating the overlap between backpacker tourism and volunteer tourism
motivations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(2), 191e206.
Palacios, C. (2010). Volunteer tourism, development and education in a postcolonial
world: conceiving global connections beyond aid. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
18(7), 861e878.
Pearce, D. (1980). Tourist in the South Pacic: The contribution of research to devel-
opment and planning. Christchurch NZ: National Commission for UNESCO.
Pearce, P. L., & Coghlan, A. (2008). The dynamics behind volunteer tourism. In
S. Wearing, & K. Lyons (Eds.), Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: Inter-
national case study perspectives (pp. 130e143). Oxfordshire, UK: CABI.
Ponting, J., McDonald, M., & Wearing, S. (2005). De-constructing Wonderland:
surng tourism in the Mentawai Islands, Indonesia. Society and Leisure, 28(1),
141e162.
Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology, and competitive strategies. Oxon, UK: CABI.
Prins, E., & Webster, N. (2010). Student identities and the tourist gaze in interna-
tional service-learning: a university project in Belize. Journal of Higher Educa-
tion Outreach and Engagement, 14(1), 5e32.
Rattan, J., Eagles, P., & Mair, H. (2012). Volunteer tourism: its role in creating con-
servation awareness. Journal of Ecotourism, 11(1), 1e15.
Raymond, E., &Hall, C. (2008). The development of cross-cultural (mis)understanding
through volunteer tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 530e543.
Rees, N. E. (1990). The ecology of sustainable development. The Ecologist, 20(1),
18e23.
Rogerson, C. (2011). Youth tourism in Africa: evidence from South Africa. Tourism
Analysis, 16(2), 105e120.
Russo, M. V. (1999). Environmental management: Readings and cases. New York:
Houghton Mifin Company.
Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for development: Empowering communities. England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Scheyvens, R. (2007). Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. In C. M. Hall (Ed.), Pro-
poor Tourism: Who benets? Perspectives on tourism and poverty reduction (pp.
121e144). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Scheyvens, R. (2011). Tourism and poverty. London: Routledge.
Schilcher, D. (2007). Growth versus equity: the continuum of pro-poor tourism and
neoliberal governance. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2&3), 166e192.
Simpson, K. (2004). Doing development: the gap year, volunteer-tourists and a
popular practice of development. Journal of International Development, 16(5),
681e692.
Sin, H. L. (2009). Volunteer tourism: Involve me and I will learn? Annals of Tourism
Research, 36(3), 480e501.
Sin, H. L. (2010). Who are we responsible to? Locals tales of volunteer tourism.
Geoforum, 41(6), 983e992.
Singh, T. V. (2002). Altruistic tourism: another shade of sustainable tourism: the
case of Kanda community. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal,
50(4), 371e381.
Singh, T. V. (2004). New horizons in tourism: Strange experiences and stranger prac-
tices. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Sink, L. (2011). The voluntourist gaze: Framing volunteer tourism experiences as por-
trayed in Facebook. Unpublished thesis. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech.
Smillie, I. (1995). Altruism under re e Non-prot organizations and international
development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd.
Smith, K., & Homes, K. (2009). Researching volunteers in tourism: going beyond.
Annals of Leisure Research, 12(3/4), 403e420.
Sderman, N., & Snead, S. (2008). Opening the gap: the motivation of gap year
travellers to volunteer in Latin America. In K. D. Lyons, & S. Wearing (Eds.),
Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: International case study perspectives
(pp. 118e129). Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Sorensen, H. (1997). International travel and tourism. New York: Delmar.
Spencer, R. (2008). Lessons from Cuba: a volunteer army of ambassadors. In
S. Wearing, & K. Lyons (Eds.), Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: Inter-
national case study perspectives). Oxfordshire: UK: CABI.
Stoddart, H., & Rogerson, C. M. (2004). Volunteer tourism: the case of Habitat for
Humanity South Africa. GeoJournal, 60(3), 311e318.
S. Wearing, N.G. McGehee / Tourism Management 38 (2013) 120e130 129
Sussman, N. M. (2000). The dynamic nature of cultural identity throughout cultural
transitions: why home is not so sweet. Personality & Social Psychology Review,
4(4), 355e373.
Teare, R., & Hadyn, I. (1994). Strategic management: A resource-based approach for
the hospitality and tourism industries. London: Cassell.
Theerapappisit, P. (2009). Pro-poor ethnic tourism in the Mekong: a study of three
approaches in Northern Thailand. Asia Pacic Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2),
201e221.
The International Ecotourism Society (TIES). (2012). International voluntourism
guidelines for commercial tour operators. Retrieved 16 November 2012 at: http://
www.ecotourism.org/voluntourism-guidelines.
Tomazos, K., & Butler, R. (2010). The volunteer tourist as hero. Current Issues in
Tourism, 13(4), 363e380.
Tomazos, K., & Cooper, W. (2012). Volunteer tourism: at the crossroads of com-
mercialisation and service? Current Issues in Tourism, 15(2), 405e423.
Tourism Research & Marketing. (2008). Volunteer tourism: A global analysis. A report
by tourism research and marketing. Barcelona, Spain: Association for Tourism
and Leisure Education.
Tribe, J. (2008). Tourism: a critical business. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 245e255.
Uriely, N., & Reichel, A. (2000). Working tourists and their attitudes to hosts. Annals
of Tourism Research, 27(2), 267e283.
Uriely, N., Reichel, A., & Ron, A. (2003). Volunteering in tourism: additional thinking.
Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 57e62.
Voluntourism.org. (2008). Voluntourism. Retrieved 17 April 2008 from: http://www.
voluntourism.org/.
Vrasti, W. (2013). Volunteer tourism in the global south: Giving back in neoliberal
times. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Wearing, S. L. (1993). Ecotourism: the Santa Elena rainforest project. The Environ-
mentalist, 13(2), 125e135.
Wearing, S. (2001). Volunteer tourism: Experiences that make a difference. Wall-
ingford: CABI.
Wearing, S. (2002). Re-centering the self in volunteer tourism. In G. M. S. Dann (Ed.),
The tourist as a metaphor of the social world (pp. 237e262). New York: CABI
Publishing.
Wearing, S. (2003). Volunteer tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 3e4.
Wearing, S. (2004). Examining best practice in volunteer tourism. In R. A. Stebbins,
& M. Graham (Eds.), Volunteering as leisure/leisure as volunteering: An interna-
tional assessment (pp. 209e224). Wallingford: CABI.
Wearing, S., & Dean, B. (2003). Seeking self: leisure and tourism on common
ground. World Leisure Journal, 45(1), 4e12.
Wearing, S., Deville, A., & Lyons, K. (2008). The volunteers journey through leisure
into the self. In K. Lyons, & S. Wearing (Eds.), Journeys of discovery in volunteer
tourism: International case study perspectives (pp. 65e71). Wallingford, UK:
CABI.
Wearing, S., & Grabowski, S. (2011). Volunteer tourism and intercultural exchange:
exploring the Other in this experience. In A. M. Benson (Ed.), Volunteer tourism:
Theoretical frameworks and practical application (pp. 193e210). Oxon: Routledge.
Wearing, S., & Larsen, L. (1996). Assessing and managing the sociocultural impacts
of ecotourism: revisiting the Santa Elena rainforest project. Environmentalist,
16(2), 117e133.
Wearing, S., McDonald, M., & Ponting, J. (2005). Building a decommodied research
paradigm in tourism: the contribution of NGOs. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
13(5), 424e439.
Wearing, S. L., & Mclean, J. (1997). Developing ecotourism: A community based
approach. Melbourne: Hepper Marriott and Associates.
Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (1997). Tourism that counts: ecotourism, volunteerism and
serious leisure. In Tourism research: Building a better industry (pp. 141e154).
Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research.
Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2000). Reguring self and identity through volunteer tourism.
Society and Leisure, 23(2), 389e419.
Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2003). Expanding sustainable tourisms conceptualization:
ecotourism, volunteerism and serious leisure. In S. F. McCool, & R. N. Moisey
(Eds.), Tourism, recreation and sustainability: Linking culture and the environment
(pp. 233e254). Wallingford: CABI.
Wearing, S., & Ponting, J. (2006). Reply to Jim Butchers response (Vol. 14 No. 3) to
Building a decommodied research paradigm in tourism: the contribution of
NGOs (Vol. 13, No. 5). Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 512e515.
Wearing, S., Stevenson, D., & Young, T. (2010). Tourist cultures, identity, place and the
traveller. London: Sage Publications.
Wearing, S., & Wearing, M. (1999). Decommodifying ecotourism: rethinking
globalelocal interactions with host communities. Society and Leisure, 22(1),
39e70.
Wearing, S. L., & Wearing, M. (2006). Re-reading the subjugating tourist in
neoliberalism: postcolonial otherness and the tourist experience. Tourism
Analysis, 11(2), 145e162.
Weiler, B., & Richins, H. (1995). Extreme, extravagant, and elite: a prole of eco-
tourists on Earthwatch expeditions. Tourism Recreation Research, 20(1), 29e36.
Wickens, E. (2010). Journeys of the self. Volunteer tourists in Nepal. In A. Benson
(Ed.), Volunteer tourism. Theory framework to practical applications). Oxon, UK:
Routledge.
Wight, P. A. (2003). Supporting the principles of sustainable development in
tourism and ecotourism: Governments potential role. In M. Lck, & T. Kirstges
(Eds.), Global ecotourism policies and case studies: Perspectives and constraints
(pp. 50e72). Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.
Woosnam, K. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2011). Applying social distance to voluntourism
research. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 309e313.
Wymer, W., Self, D., & Findley, C. (2010). Sensation seekers as a target market for
volunteer tourism. Services Marketing Quarterly, 31(3), 348e362.
Young, T. (2008). Mediation of volunteer tourism alternatives: guidebook repre-
sentations of travel experiences in Aboriginal Australia. In K. Lyons, &
S. Wearing (Eds.), Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: International case
study perspectives). Oxfordshire: CAB International.
Zahra, A. (2011). Volunteer tourism as a life-changing experience. In A. M. Benson
(Ed.), Volunteer tourism: Theoretical frameworks and practical application (pp.
90e101). Oxon: Routledge.
Zahra, A., & McGehee, N. G. (2013). Host perceptions of volunteer tourism: a
community capital perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 22e45.
Zahra, A., & McIntosh, A. J. (2007). Volunteer tourism: evidence of cathartic tourist
experiences. Tourism Recreation Research, 32(1), 115e119.
Stephen Wearings research falls into the social sciences
areas with a specialization in the social and cultural di-
mensions and impacts on self-identity and community
development through global travel. He has authored sem-
inal contributions to the critical tourism, leisure and
ecotourism elds and have provided path breaking links
within and between these areas of study. One of my
most signicant publications is his book on Volunteer
Tourism, which has been hailed as the rst book to address
this new genre of tourism. This work both initiated volun-
teer tourism as a eld of study and provided the rst ac-
count of research and practice in this area. His latest
book is with Sage is Tourism Cultures: Identity, Place and
the Traveller (2010).
Nancy McGehee received her MS and PhD in Sociology
from VirginiaTech in 1995 and 1999 respectively. Previous
to that she worked in the regional rural tourism devel-
opment eld. She is currently an Associate Professor and J.
Willard and Alice S. Marriott Junior Faculty Fellow of
Hospitality Management in the Hospitality and Tourism
Management Department at Virginia Tech. Throughout her
academic career, Dr. McGehee has focused on the volun-
teer tourism segment of the industry, which began
with her dissertation and continues through her most
recent research and manuscript submissions. She has
worked with numerous volunteer tourism organizations
throughout the US, in Mexico, and most recently in Haiti.
S. Wearing, N.G. McGehee / Tourism Management 38 (2013) 120e130 130