Altruism in tourism: Social Exchange Theory vs Altruistic Surplus Phenomenon in host volunteering

12 Pages·2016·0.38 MB·English

by  Pavlos Paraskevaidis

AnnalsofTourismResearch62(2017)26–37
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Annals of Tourism Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
Altruism in tourism: Social Exchange Theory vs Altruistic
Surplus Phenomenon in host volunteering
Pavlos Paraskevaidisa,⇑, Konstantinos Andriotisb
aMinistryofEducation,Research&ReligiousAffairs,DirectorateofSecondaryEducationofImathia,Dim.Moumoglou1,59132Veria,Greece
bMiddlesexUniversityLondon,BusinessSchool,DepartmentofMarketing,BrandingandTourism,WilliamsBuilding,TheBurroughs,LondonNW44BT,
UnitedKingdom
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Articlehistory: Takingintoconsiderationthescarcityofresearchonvolunteeringandaltruisticbehaviorof
Received30November2015 hostcommunities,thisexploratorystudyexaminesaltruismintourismfromtheviewpoint
Revised22September2016 of members of voluntary tourism associations. A literature review reveals two general
Accepted20November2016
types of altruism, i.e. reciprocal and true, as well as two theoretical constructs, namely
SocialExchangeTheory(SET)andAltruisticSurplusPhenomenon(ASP).Bytakingasample
of 21 members from two voluntary tourism associations located in the municipality of
Keywords:
Veria, Northern Greece, this study confirms that reciprocal altruism is one of several
Altruism
motivesforparticipatinginvoluntarytourismassociations.Additionally,itisshownthat
SocialExchangeTheory
ASPismoreadequatethanSETtointerpretthestudygroups’socialbehavior.
AltruisticSurplusPhenomenon
Motivation (cid:1)2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCC
Hostvolunteering BY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Voluntarytourismassociations
Introduction
Altruismisthebasisforsomesociallyacceptableactivitiessuchasvolunteering,charity,philanthropy,andblooddona-
tion(Piliavin&Charng,1990).Howeveraltruisticbehavior,suchashelpingstrangers,mayexposeindividualstoriskysocial
environmentsandattractcriminals.Forinstance,Homant(2010,p.1199)suggeststhatbeinghelpfultostrangers‘‘mayleave
onevulnerabletoacrimecommittedbythepersonbeinghelped,suchasascamoratheftofsomesort”.Nevertheless,altru-
isticbehaviorisgenerallydescribedasaselflessbehaviorthatbenefitsthirdparties’welfareandbydoingsoitprovidesan
understanding‘‘ofsocialsolidarityinmodernsocieties”(Wuthnow,1993,p.344).Duetoitssignificanceinunderstanding
social behavior, altruism has been studied in social sciences, in contrast to selfishness and the dominant self-interested
behaviorofmodernman,whofocusesprominentlyonpersonalachievementsandgoals.
Aremarkablefactrelatedtoaltruisticbehavioris‘‘thattheword‘altruism’didnotexistuntil1851”(Wilson,2015,p.4),
whentheFrenchphilosopherAugusteComte(1851,citedinWilson,2015)introducedthistermbyjuxtaposingittoegoism,
andbyconsideringitcompatiblewithahigherandpurermoralsystemofliving.However,theoriginsoftheconceptofaltru-
ismcanbeidentifiedintheancientGreekphilosophyanddramaintheformofself-sacrifice,asinthecaseofEuripides’
Alcestis.TheconceptofaltruismisalsofoundintheearlyChristianphilosophy,wheretheGreekterm‘agape’referredto
selflessand‘‘divineloveforhumanity”(Wuthnow,1993,p.346).Insocialsciences,EmileDurkheim–oneofthefounding
figuresofsociology–notedtheimportanceofaltruismbyopposingittoegoism(Wuthnow,1993),althoughaltruismasa
⇑
Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddresses:[email protected](P.Paraskevaidis),[email protected](K.Andriotis).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.11.002
0160-7383/(cid:1)2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.
ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
P.Paraskevaidis,K.Andriotis/AnnalsofTourismResearch62(2017)26–37 27
conceptgainedincreasedscientificinterestinsociobiologyonlyduringthe70’s(Fennell,2006;Wilson,1975).Nowadays,a
keyissuethatneedstobefurtherexploredconcernsthewaymodernsocietiesunderstandhowaltruisticbehaviorbenefits
group-levelsymbiosisofindividuals(Wilson,2015).
Throughaliteraturereview,44studieswerefoundpublishedbetween1997and2016exploringtheconceptofaltruism
intourism.Themajorityofthem,29intotal,werefocusedonthemotivesandbehaviorsofvolunteertourists(forinstance
Coghlan&Fennell,2009;Sin,2009;Tomazos&Butler,2012;Wearing&McGehee,2013;Weaver,2015);andnoneofthem
hasexaminedaltruismintourismfromtheviewpointofmembersofvoluntarytourismassociations.Instead,altruismhas
been examined in host communities and host-tourist encounters (Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Fennell, 2006; Uriely,
Schwartz,Cohen,&Reichel,2002).
Theliteraturereviewrevealsthataltruismcomprisesaconstantvariableinunderstandingvolunteertourismandmore
specificallythemotivecommonlyascribedtovolunteertourists,whichdiversifiestheirtypicalpatternofleisureseeking.
However,HolmesandSmith(2009)andSmithandHolmes(2009,2012),suggestanobviousdistinctionbetweenvolunteer
touristsandhostvolunteersinthetourismsector.Whilevolunteertouristsvisitadestinationtooffervolunteeringservices,
hostvolunteeringmainly‘‘involvesresidentsasvolunteerswithintheirowncommunity,andtakesplaceinvisitorattrac-
tions,ateventsandindestinationserviceorganisations”(Smith&Holmes,2012,p.563).Hence,hostvolunteeringseems
tohavemorecommonelementswithhostcommunitystudiesthanwithvolunteertourismwhichisoftenperceivedas‘vol-
unteervacations’(Smith&Holmes,2009).Despitethefactthathostvolunteersareoftenlackingprofessionalskillsandtour-
ismtraining(Alonso&Liu,2013;Smith&Holmes,2012)theycontributetothesocialcapitaloftheircommunitymotivated
byplaceattachment,civicprideandtheemotionaltieswiththeircommunity.
Asfaritconcernsaltruisminhostvolunteering,Lockstone-Binney,Holmes,Smith,andBaum(2010)suggestthatlocal
volunteersatevents,museumsandheritagesitesseemtobemoreself-orientedcomparedtovolunteertourists,fortherea-
sonthatthefirstoftenconsidervolunteeringasworkexperience,whilethelatterasanactivitythatfulfilstheiraltruisticas
well as their self-interest needs. Whereas the altruism vs egoism debate is dominant in volunteer tourism (Coghlan &
Fennell,2009;Wearing&McGehee,2013),onlyafewstudiesexaminedaltruismasamotivationalfactorinfluencinghost
volunteers in tourism (Anderson & Cairncross, 2005; Holmes & Smith, 2009; Lockstone-Binney et al., 2010). Whichever
thecase,theconceptofaltruismintourismstudiesremains‘‘largelysubjective,withnoclear,precisecriteria”and,therefore,
itlacks‘‘clarityandprecision”(Wright,2013,p.246).
Consideringthescarcity ofresearchonthistopic, thisexploratory studyaimsatexaminingaltruisticmotivationsand
behaviorsofacommunitysegmentthatplaysavoluntaryandancillaryroleinthedevelopmentoftourism,namelyvolun-
tarytourismassociations.Indoingso,theauthorsinvestigatewhetheraltruisticbehaviorofhostvolunteers(membersof
voluntarytourismassociations)isdrivenbyself-interestbenefitsorbyanattempttoimprovethewelfareoftheircommu-
nities.Duetothecontroversiesoftheconcept,explainedabove,thisstudyexploresaltruismfromtwodifferentperspectives:
truealtruism(i.e.alackofmotivationforreturnfavors)vsreciprocalaltruism(i.e.theanticipationofintendeddirectorindi-
rectbenefits).Twotheoreticalconstructsaretested,thatis,SocialExchangeTheory(SET)asopposedtoAltruisticSurplus
Phenomenon(ASP).
Altruism:reciprocalvstrue
Altruism comprises a multifarious and multidimensional concept. Therefore, it is misleading, to talk about a single
altruistic motive. Wilson (2015), while conceptualizing altruism, states that when we refer to altruism ‘‘we [may] mean
a broad family of motives that cause people” (p. 141) to help others. Altruistic behavior in the context of tourism liter-
ature pertains mainly to the increase of ‘anonymous’ third party welfare in host societies (Fennell, 2006; Zahra &
McGehee,2013). Fromadifferentperspective,Kim,Lee, andBonn (2016), refertodirectaltruismby claimingthat altru-
ism occurs also between individuals ‘‘who feel [a] common-bond attachment” (p. 98). Altruistic acts between two indi-
viduals comprise second party advantages, thus bringing to the forefront the discussion on the concept of reciprocal
exchanges.
ReciprocityasaconcepthasbeenfrequentlyexaminedinrelationtoSETandthestructureofsocialexchanges.According
toMolm,Collett,andSchaefer(2007)socialexchangescanbeeitherdirectorindirect.Directformsofsocialexchangesare:
a)reciprocalexchanges,when‘‘actors’contributionsareseparatelyperformed,non-negotiatedandinitiatedbyperforming
beneficialactsforanother”(Coulson,MacLaren,McKenzie,&O’Gorman,2014,p.135)andb)negotiatedexchanges,when
they‘‘focusonthetermstwoactorsnegotiatetoreachamutuallybeneficialagreement”(Andriotis&Agiomirgianakis,2014,
p.579).Directexchangesusuallyrefertotheresourceexchangesbetweentwoactors(thegiverandtherecipient)incontrast
to indirect (or generalized) exchanges, where the recipient does not reciprocate the giver directly but the latter receives
‘‘fromadifferentactor”(Molmetal.,2007,p.208),thatis,athirdpartyinthesocialenvironment.
Inadaptingtheconceptofreciprocalaltruismtotheformsofreciprocity,altruisticactscanbeeitherdirectbetweentwo
actorsorindirect,thusbenefitingthird-partywelfareinthecontextofthecommunity.However,altruismasamajorcom-
ponentofvolunteeringreferspredominantlyto‘‘multipartyinteractions”(Fennell,2006,p.111).Consequently,volunteering
is characterized mainly by indirect reciprocity (Mofulu, Pan, & Li, 2016). From a different perspective, Ballinger and
Rockmann (2010) refer to altruism as a non-reciprocal form of relationships, whereby the person undertakes an act to
the advantage of another person ‘‘without regard for his or her own outcomes” (p. 379). This state of ‘‘non-reciprocal
28 P.Paraskevaidis,K.Andriotis/AnnalsofTourismResearch62(2017)26–37
exchange relationship” (Ballinger & Rockmann, 2010, p. 385) is identical to true altruism. These differences between
reciprocalandnon-reciprocalexchangesaremanifestedbydifferentmotivesandbehaviors,whichresultinactivitieswith
certaincoreelements,asinthecaseofthetwogeneraltypesofaltruismidentifiedintheliterature,namely,reciprocaland
truealtruism.Atheoreticalanalysisofthesetwotypesisprovidedbelow.
Reciprocalaltruism
Reciprocalaltruismreferstoabeneficialbehaviorinvolvingtwoactorsinthecontextofsymbiosis,yet‘‘withtheexpec-
tationofareturnfavor”(Fennell,2006,p.109).Trivers(1971)statedthataltruistichumansocialbehaviorexistsbetween
non-kinindividualswiththeexpectationofreciprocalinteractionsthatprovidelongevityamongthemembersofasocial
group.Asfarascooperationamongrelativesisconcerned(kinaltruism),Hamilton(1964)introducedthetheoryof‘inclusive
fitness’toexplicatecooperativetraitsamongindividuals,whoarebiologicallyrelated.Wischniewski,Windmann,Juckel,and
Brüne(2009,p.307)notedfortheirpartthat:‘‘sustainingmutualcooperationatahighlevelmayhavepromotednewlevels
ofsocietalorganizationwithincreasingspecializationanddiversitybothbiologicallyandculturally”.Infact,Trivers(1971)
developedtheconceptofreciprocalaltruisminanattempttoexplainaltruisticbehaviorthatleadstocooperativerelation-
shipsfosteredbetweennon-relatives.However,reciprocalaltruismdependsonasetofprerequisites,suchasfutureencoun-
tersbetweenindividualsthatmayresultinabeneficialreturnovertime(Osinski,2009).Itisalsoimportanttotakeinto
accountthatinreciprocalaltruism‘‘thebenefitsenjoyedbyeachshouldbelargerthanthecosts,sothatoveraperiodof
timebothenjoyanetgain”(Plummer&Fennell,2007,p.950).
Intourismstudies,reciprocalaltruismcanbeusedtounderstandthemotivationsofaltruisticbehaviorbetweentourists
andhosts,soastostudycasesofshort-termsymbiosisofnon-relatives(Fennell,2006).Therefore,theconceptofreciprocal
altruismprovidesabasisuponwhichtoexploreintrinsicmotivationofhosts’perceptionsontouristsandtourismdevelop-
ment.Fennell’s(2006)conceptualstudyexaminedreciprocalaltruisminthecontextofformulatingcooperativerelation-
ships between tourists and host service-providers. He found that, in order to provide an efficient cooperative
environment at a given destination, altruistic behavior of both parties, the giver and the recipient, should be recognized
and rewarded by local authorities. Fennel (2006) claimed that reciprocal altruismhas a great disadvantage, namely that,
whileinteractionsbetweentouristsandhostsarelimitedintimeandfrequency,bothpartiesmaychoosetocheateachother
(withoutreturningthereceivedfavor).Atdevelopingdestinationshost-touristencountersareinfrequent.Thus,reciprocal
altruismshouldbeconsideredfromtheviewpointofthesocialbehaviorofresidentswhovoluntarilyattempttoformulate
adequateconditionsfortourismdevelopmentwiththeexpectationofanticipatedrewards.Inthiscasereciprocalaltruistic
behaviorcanbeobservedonhost-to-hostcooperativetraitsaimingatgainingfuturebenefits.
Truealtruism
Two and a half decades ago, Piliavin and Charng (1990) noted difficulties in defining the term ‘true altruism’, and
remarkedthat‘‘foralongtimeitwasintellectuallyunacceptabletoraisethequestionofwhether‘true’altruismcouldexist”.
Thereasonbehindthisdifficultylayinthat:‘‘anythingthatappearstobemotivatedbyaconcernforsomeoneelse’sneeds
will,undercloserscrutiny,provetohaveulteriorselfishmotives”(p.28).Forthisreason,theterm‘true’altruismdoesnot
refertoanywidelyacknowledgeddefinitionofaltruism,whichcouldbeperceivedastrueasopposedto‘false’or‘pseudo’
altruism.Duetothecomplexityoftheconcept,thisstudydefinestrue(orpure)altruismasaselflessbehavior,whichben-
efits the welfare of others without expected favors in return, and coincides with a ‘‘more pure [and] higher existence to
whichwecanonlyaspire”(Wuthnow,1993,p.356).Theseassumptionsarecompatiblewithanethicalstateoflivingthat
derivesmainlyfromancientGreekandearlyChristianphilosophicalandspiritualtraditions.Whileseveralmodernassump-
tionsdoubttruealtruismonthebasisofconcealedselfishmotivation,somescholarsassertthataltruisticbehaviorisalso
basedonpuremotives(Warneken&Tomasello,2009;Wischniewskietal.,2009;Wuthnow,1993).Fromapracticalstand-
point,truealtruisticbehaviorderivesfromasetofmoralprinciplesandreferstoselflessactsthatbenefitotherswithout
seekinganyreward.Hadtherebeany,theyshouldbeunintended.Thepurenessofaltruisticbehaviormayalsoderivefrom
religiousideals,values,andbeliefsofhelpingothers(Einolf,2011).
Inreality,thereisacontroversywithregardtotruealtruismassuspicionsmayariseabouttheintrinsic,unacknowledged
personalbenefitsbehindaltruisticbehavior.Basedonthis,Wakefield(1993)supportsthattruealtruismishighlydisputed
andquestionswhetherit‘‘ispartofhumannatureorjustonemorelearnedorsociallyconstructedformofmotivation”(p.
417).WildmanandHollingsworth(2009)intheirstudyofblooddonorsinVictoria,Australia,didnotfindany‘‘empirical
evidence of pure altruism” and concluded that ‘‘donation appears more [as] a consequence of social norms and societal
embeddedness”(p.502).However,evenifweweretoacceptthattruealtruismispredominantlyasociallyconstructedthe-
ory/concept,itstillincreasesthirdpartieswelfare.Shouldactorsinthetourismindustryrefusetoadmitintentforrewards,
theambiguityastotheirmotivationwillonlygrowbigger.Inthesamevein,itisimportanttonotethathumanbehaviorcan
alsobesubconsciouslymotivated.Consequently,altruisticactsmayderiveasautomaticandunintendedresponsestocer-
tainsituations(Stajkovic,Locke,&Blair,2006).
Fromatourismperspective,truealtruismhasmainlybeenconceptualizedasapurelymotivatedbehaviorofvolunteer
tourists (Mustonen, 2007; Wearing & McGehee, 2013) and the quest for true altruism in host volunteering seems to be
P.Paraskevaidis,K.Andriotis/AnnalsofTourismResearch62(2017)26–37 29
absentfromtourismresearch(Anderson&Cairncross,2005;Holmes&Slater,2012;Smith&Holmes,2009,2012).Hence,
thereislack ofresearchat thecommunitylevel,whichis tobeaddressed by thisstudy. Exceptionincludes thestudyof
Lockstone-Binney et al. (2010) which found that host volunteers are often more interested in advancing their own goals
insteadofthegoalsofthecommunitiesinvolved.
SocialExchangeTheory(SET)andAltruisticSurplusPhenomenon(ASP)
The concepts of reciprocal and true altruism are theoretical constructs useful in understanding individuals’ altruistic
behavior.Twoconstructs(SETandASP)wereusedtoexplainfurthertheseconceptsinsocialbehavior.Bothofthemareana-
lyzedbelow.
SocialExchangeTheory(SET)
SocialExchangeTheoryhasbeenextensivelyexaminedinhostcommunitystudies(Andriotis&Vaughan,2003;Coulson
etal.,2014;Erotokritakis&Andriotis,2006;Monterrubio&Andriotis,2014;Sharpley,2014).AccordingtoSETahostcom-
munitytendstosupporttourismdevelopmentwheneconomic,environmental,andsocioculturalimpactsareperceivedas
positive; it is worth noting that these impacts comprise extrinsic outcomes for the hosts. However, SET also takes into
accountintrinsicrewards.ΑsRitzer(2010)notesinhisanalysisofBlau’s(1964)study:‘‘rewardsthatareexchangedcan
be either intrinsic (for instance, love, affection, respect) or extrinsic (for instance, money, physical labor)” (p. 427). Blau
(1964)alsostatesthat‘‘organizedphilanthropyprovidesanotherexampleofindirectsocialexchange”(p.260),thusimply-
ingthataltruismisanadditionalfactor,whichaffectssocialinteractions.
WhereasitseemsthatSETisopposedtotruealtruisticmotivesofbehavior(Honeycutt,1981),exchangesinsocialinter-
actionscanbebasedonotherkindsofrewardsthatgobeyondfinancialgains,suchas‘‘altruism,competition,reciprocity,
andstatusconsistency”(Meeker,1971citedinEmerson,1976,p.353).AsfarastheuseofSETintourismstudiesiscon-
cerned,itfocusesmainlyontheextrinsicrewardsresidentsreceive,predominantlytangibleeconomicbenefits(e.g.personal
income,employment).Thisaccountsfor thelack ofresearchonintrinsicand intangiblerewards inthe case ofthesocial
exchanges(e.g.recognition,affiliation).Whicheveritsshortcomings, SETisbasedonrewards,whichexplainswhy,when
combinedwithaltruism,itcouldbeusedinthecontextofreciprocalaltruism.Inthelatter,hostsmaysupporttourismdevel-
opmentinordertogainintrinsicandintangiblerewards.AnotheraspectregardingSETisthatitemphasizestheimportance
ofindividuals’exchangesandbenefitsratherthanthebenefitsdrawnbyagivencommunity.Itisimportanttokeepinmind
that, ‘‘processes at the societal level are fundamentally different from those at the individual level” (Blau, 1964 cited in
Ritzer,2010,p.431).
AltruisticSurplusPhenomenon(ASP)
Fromadifferentstandpoint,FaulknerandTideswell(1997)andCliftonandBenson(2006)identifiedinSETamajordis-
advantage,namelythatthistheoryunderlinesindividualbenefitsovercommunitybenefits.Thisismainlythereasonthese
authors proposed the ASP concept, worthy of exploration at a deeper level of analysis. In the words of Faulkner and
Tideswell:
LikeearliernotionsofcommunityperceptionsoftourismbasedonSET,AltruisticSurplusseesresidents’
responsesbeinggovernedbyatrade-offbetweenthecostsandbenefitsderivedfromthisactivity.Unlike
SET, however, this concept envisages the trade-off being externalized in such a way that costs to the
individualmightbetoleratedintheinterestofbroadercommunitybenefits(1997,p.24).
ASPhasbeenusedpredominantlyinurbanplanningstudiestoexploreurbanresidents’reactionstocollectivecommunity
benefits(Faulkner&Tideswell,1997).However,itseemsthattourismalsoprovidesanadequatefieldofapplication.Tothis
end,FaulknerandTideswell(1997)usedtheASPtoexplainresidents’attitudestowardstourismdevelopmentintheGold
Coast, Queensland, Australia, and noticed that individuals may tolerate personal costs of tourism development for the
broadercollectivebenefitsofthehostcommunity.ThiselementseemstodifferentiatefurtherASPfromSET,asthelatter
does not justify that residents continue to support tourism development when they believe that tourism can result in
adverseeffectstotheirownpersonalgoals(Kayat,Sharif,&Karnchanan,2013).
Besides,thisphenomenonseemstoberelatedtothematurestageofadestination’stourismdevelopmentasitreveals
responsibility and accountability of residents’ attitudes and behavior (Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Hall & Page, 2014).
Lundberg(2015),whenexploringtheapplicabilityofASP,foundthat,althoughresidentsofsomenon-maturecoastaltourist
settingsnearGothenburg(Sweden)understoodthefalloutoftourismdevelopment,theycontinuedtosupportit.Thissug-
geststhatASPmaynotbeentirelyinfluencedbythedevelopmentstage,butratherbythecommunity’ssocialattitudes.ASP
wasalsoconfirmedinthestudyofWaitt(2003),wheretheempowermentof‘‘communityandnationalspirit”(p.209)was
consideredasignificantmotivationforlocalvolunteersduringtheSydneyOlympics.
30 P.Paraskevaidis,K.Andriotis/AnnalsofTourismResearch62(2017)26–37
Methodsofstudy
SmithandHolmes(2012)notethat:‘‘quantitativestudiesoftenfailtocapturethespecificmotivations”(p.563)ofhost
volunteers,thereforeaqualitativemethodologywasconsideredasmoreappropriatetorevealthemotivationoflocalvol-
unteersunderstudy.Thisexploratorystudyaimsataddressingpastresearchshortcomingsbyusingtwotheoreticalcon-
structs, SET or ASP, in an attempt to explore whether host motivations and behaviors are based on true or reciprocal
altruism.Morespecifically,thisstudyexploresaltruisticbehaviorbyusingasampleunitoftwovoluntarytourismassoci-
ationsbasedinVeria,amunicipalityofNorthernGreece(Fig.1).Voluntaryassociationswereusedbecausetheyembody
socialactorsplayingasupportiveroleatacommunitylevelbyprovidingcivicengagementinlocaladministrationanddevel-
opment.ThiswashighlightedbyNunkooandRamkissoon(2012)whentheynotedthattourismpolicymakers:‘‘shouldpro-
motecivicengagementinthesocietybyencouragingcitizens’participationinvoluntaryassociationsandencouragingsocial
networksamongcommunitymembers”(p.1014).
ThefirstvoluntaryassociationunderstudyistheTourismBoardofVeria(hereafterTBV).TBVwascreatedin1957andits
activitiesincludedanannualparadeoffloatsandmajorettesinthestreetsofthecityaswellasmusicfestivalsandfolklore
dances.In1963,TBVsuspendeditsactivitiesduetoorganizationaldifficulties.Itresumeditsworkin2014,whensomeofits
oldermembers,withthehelpofsomenewcomerselectedanewManagementBoard.ThenewlyappointedBoard’svision
wastoreclaimVeria’sculturethroughtourismandtoworkjointlywithlocalauthoritiestosupportplanninganddevelop-
mentoftourisminthewiderarea.ThesecondvoluntaryassociationistheTourismBoardofSeli(hereafterTBS).TBSwas
foundedin1973inthevillageofKatoVermio(formerlyknownasSeli).Itsinitiativesincludelocaldevelopmentthrough
avarietyofactivitiessuchasbeautifyingandcleaningoflocalparksandwaterfountains,plantingtreesandorganizingcul-
tural(folklore)events.KatoVermiobecamewell-knownafter1934,whenthefirstorganizedskiresortintheregionofCen-
tralMacedonia,NorthernGreece,locatedatabout1.5kilometersfromthevillageofKatoVermio,becameoperational.
Twentyonemembersoftheabove-mentionedassociations(12menandninewomen)wereinterviewedbetweenApril
andOctober2015.Thesevolunteerswereselectedbasedonthefollowingcriteria:first,theirinvolvementintheassociations
isstrictlyvoluntary;andsecond,theiractionsarenotfinanciallydependedontourismfortheirliving.Elevenoftherespon-
dentsweremembersoftheTBSandtenweremembersoftheTBV.Theiragerangedfrom33and76years.Asfarastheir
educationalbackgroundisconcerned,twoofthemheldaMaster’sdegree,12heldaBachelorDegreeandsevenhadcom-
pleted Secondary Education. The interviews lasted between 30minutes and one hour and were recorded in notebooks.
Thesamplesizeof21intervieweeswasconsideredadequatesincethedatacollectedfromthelastinformantsdidnotgen-
erateanynewinsightfulinformationonthethemesandsubthemesofthisstudy.Therefore,itwasassumedthatdatasat-
urationwasachievedandthatallresearchquestionsweresufficientlyanswered(O’Reilly&Parker,2012).
Tobetterunderstandhostperceptionsandtoanswerthequestionwhyspecificsegmentsofresidentsadoptaltruisticor
selfish behaviors towards tourism, in-depth interviews were conducted. A semi-structured format made of open-ended
questions was considered suitable for understanding individuals’ perceptions on altruism because, as reported by
Marshall and Rossman (2011), it allows interviewees to freely express their opinion on broader topics. The fact that one
oftheauthorsresidesintheareawashelpfultoachievecompetentunderstandingoflocalhostperceptionsandtoensure
first-handknowledgeandunderstandingoflocalsocialnormsandculturalhabits(Paraskevaidis&Andriotis,2015).Never-
theless,findingscouldbemisinterpretedasbeingsubjectiverepresentationsofthefirstauthorwhoresidesinthestudyarea
andcollectedprimarydata(Jackson,2008),thussharingsimilarsocialnormsandculturaltraditionwithinterviewees.To
avoid erroneous interpretations, all transcribed primary data findings were extensively analyzed, coded and cross-
checkedbythesecondauthorwhoisanon-residentofthestudyarea.
Fig.1. TheMunicipalityofVeria
P.Paraskevaidis,K.Andriotis/AnnalsofTourismResearch62(2017)26–37 31
Theinterviewschedulewasdesignedfollowingthemainthemesemergingintheliterature,mainlythestudiesconducted
by Faulkner and Tideswell (1997), Fennell (2006), Holmes and Smith (2009), Lockstone-Binney et al. (2010), Uriely et al.
(2002), Wilson (2015), and Wuthnow (1993). The focus of the research was on how informants perceived local tourism
development,whattheyexpectedfromjoiningavoluntaryassociationandiftheyperceivedtheirbehaviorasbeingaltru-
istic. Issues of indirect professional involvement with local tourism development were also raised, so as to understand
whetherparticipantsexpectvocationalbenefitsfromtheirvoluntaryactions.Respondentswerealsoaskedaboutanyindi-
vidualandcollectivebenefitstourismdevelopmentcouldprovide.
Crudedataweresubsequentlytranscribedandthoroughlyreadandrereadseveraltimes.Theywerethencodedintothe
variousthemesandsubthemeswhichemergedfromtheliteraturereviewaswellasduringthecodingprocess.Following
codingofthemesandsubthemes,patternsandtypologieswereappliedtothedatasoastogivemeaningtoeverytheme
andsubthemewhileprovidingmeaningfulinterpretationsofthephenomenonunderstudy.Toavoidfalsifiedinterpretations
ofprimarydata,andtoensureitsvalidityandcredibility(Cho&Trent,2006;Decrop,1999),thisstudyimplementeddata
triangulationbycomparingprimaryfindingswithsecondaryones,namelythosecollectedfromresearcharticlesandsocial
media.Itshouldalsobenotedthatmembercheckingaffirmstheconceptofdatasaturation,sinceintervieweeswereaskedto
confirm the study findings and provide further insights (Hutchison, Johnston, & Breckon, 2011). Member checking was
appliedinthisstudybyaskingtwoinformantstoindicatewhethertheyagreedwiththestudyfindings,whichtheydid.
Studyfindings
Forabetterunderstandingofthemotivationsandbehaviorsofmembersofvoluntarytourismassociationsandforiden-
tifyingwhethertheiraltruisticbehaviorisrelatedtotrueorreciprocalaltruismaswellastoSETorASP,findingshavebeen
classifiedasfollows.
Tourism’sdevelopmentpotential
Tourism’s development potential refers to community members who earn their living through tourism and tourism
impactsgreatlyonthedevelopmentoftheircommunity(Andriotis,2000).Withthatinmind,membersofvoluntarytourism
associations,needtobelievethatthetourismsectorhasthepotentialtocontributetothedevelopmentoftheircommunity.
Therefore,respondentswereaskedwhethertheybelievethattheircommunitieshavethepotentialtodeveloptheirtourism
industry.Thepotentialoftourismforthedevelopmentofthestudyareawasevidentintheresponsesprovidedbyallmem-
bersoftheTBV,whoindicatedthatlocaltourismdevelopmentisavitalfactorforjobgeneration,economicrejuvenationand
possiblyinternationalculturalrecognition.Justtociteoneexample,a76-yearoldmalenoted:
WecanshowimpressivesightseeingspotstoGreeksandforeigners.Ourcityhasimpressivehistoricaland
culturalmonumentsworthvisiting,suchasByzantinechurches,andtheshrineofApostlePaul,theplace
wheretheApostlepreached.
UnexploitedmonumentsofVeriawerealsomentionedbya55-yearoldfemalememberoftheManagementBoardwho
stated:‘‘Iwouldliketoseetouristsvisitingourcityanditsmonuments”.Another43-yearoldfemalememberoftheMan-
agementBoardsaid:‘‘thecitywillgaingreatlyiftourismflowincreases.Weneedtopromoteourareaaswellasourlocal
products.Ican’tbearwatchourcitydyingbitbybit”.Apartfromtheresponses,theinterestofTBVfortourismisevidentin
theirFacebookpage,whichincludesmanypicturesoflocalsights,suchasmonumentsandlandmarks(TourismBoardof
Veria,2015). Thereis,for example,apictureofanold building(uploadedonFacebook18-07-2015) accompanied by the
comment:‘‘Veria:Palimpsestofcivilizations”.
Obviouslyrespondents’eagernessfordevelopingtourismintheirareaistheresultofnegativeeffectsoftheGreekfinan-
cialcrisis(Paraskevaidis&Andriotis,2015).AccordingtoLapavitsas(2013),after2010austeritymeasuresresultedinsevere
economicrecession.ThelatterproducedasharpdecreaseofGreece’sGDPaswellasasignificantreductionofpercapita
income.IntheviewofallTBVmembers,tourismcanbeusedasasourceofincometoarecession-hitarea,suchasVeria.
DespitethefactthattourisminGreeceismainlydevelopedininsularandcoastalareas,duringthelastyearsmanyurban
locationsstartedtopromotetourisminordertoreinforcelocaleconomicdevelopment(Papadimitriou,Apostolopoulou,&
Kaplanidou,2015).AccordingtothePresidentofTBV:‘‘factoriesarenotgoingtoopeninthisareaandagricultureisnotable
toprovidesufficientincome.Theonlysectorwhichisabletoincreaseeconomicbenefitsistourism”.Thisquoteisinline
withfindingsbyStylidisandTerzidou(2014),whoreportedthatresidents’ofKavala,NorthernGreece,supportfortourism
developmentincreasedasaresultoftheon-goingeconomiccrisis.Tousetheirownwords,‘‘thecurrenteconomicturmoilin
GreeceispushingresidentsofKavalatoadoptamorepositiveoverallattitudetowardstourism”(p.222).
TheTourismBoardofSeli(2015)hasadifferentperspectiveasfarasthedevelopmentoflocaltourismisconsidered.In
fact,itsmembersdonotconsidertourismasviableandattractiveoptiontoeconomiccrisis.Themainreasonforthisisthat
whileallintervieweeshaverootsinKatoVermio,theirmainresidenceisinthecityofVeria.KatoVermioistheirsecondary
residence,usedascottageduringthesummertime,fortheweekendsorduringstatutoryholidays,suchasChristmasand
Easter(Paraskevaidis,2007). Thisismainlythereasonwhytherespondentsinquestionwouldratherprefertheirvillage
32 P.Paraskevaidis,K.Andriotis/AnnalsofTourismResearch62(2017)26–37
toremain‘intact’,thatis,withlimitedifanytourismdevelopment,thelatterbeingviewedfromanegativestandpoint(con-
gestion,environmentalandculturaldecline,etc.).
Consequently,allmembersofTBSnotedthattheirmaininterestliesinimprovinglivingstandardsoftheircommunity
insteadofincreasingeconomicoutputthroughtourism-induceddevelopment.Tothisend,allmembersofTBSstatedthat
theirinterestfocusesonthevillageitselfratherthanontourism.AstheSecretaryofTBSexplained‘‘thisisnotabouttourists
inthestrictsense;itismoreaboutvisitors,mainlyrelativesandfriendsoftheresidentswhovisitthevillageoccasionally”.
Asfarasthenearbyskiresortisconcerned,respondentsadmittedthattouristsvisitingtheskiresortusuallydonotvisitthe
village.Thisrevealsthelackofsynergiesbetweenlocalbusinessesandtheskiresortfacilities.Thisissuccinctlyputbythe
TBSTreasurer:
Seliskiresortisagovernment-runbusiness.Inthepast,thereweresomediscussionsforeffortsofmutual
cooperationwiththemanagersoftheresort.However,thereisnocooperationbetweenSkiresortoperators
andlocalbusinessmen.Asfarasweareconcerned,ourmaininterestisthevillageitselfandthewell-being
andqualityoflifeofitsresidents.
Apparently,thistrendcanbeunderstoodbytheexplanationofferedbytheSecretaryoftheManagementBoard,a33-year
oldmalewhoclaimsthat‘‘ifthesnowfallwasheavier,residentswouldrecognizethepotentialortheopportunityfortour-
ismdevelopment.Currently,theskiingperiodisparticularlyshortduetoinsufficientsnowfall,whichmeansthattourism
developmentcannotprogressinKatoVermio”.Inasimilarvein,a57-yearoldmaleexplains‘‘localtourismdevelopment
couldonlybeachievedthroughourskiresort.Butsincetheskiresortactivitieshavedeclinedduetoreducedsnowfall,there
actuallyarenotourismopportunitiestogoafter”.Infact,globalwarmingandtheassociatedreducedsnowfallhaveimpacted
negatively tourist flows in Kato Vermio, as has been reported from many winter resorts worldwide (Gilaberte-Búrdalo,
López-Martín,Pino-Otín,&López-Moreno,2014).
ThefactthatTBSmembersdonotbelieveinKatoVermio’stourismdevelopmentdoesnotmeanthattheyarenotinter-
estedinpeoplevisitingthearea.AstheVice-presidentdeclares‘‘Ourinterestliesinimprovingourqualityoflife,aswellasour
visitors’stay”.AlthoughKatoVermioisconsideredanunderdevelopedmountainousdestination,thevillageattractshundreds
ofvisitorseveryyearattheeveofVirgin’sMarycelebrationonAugust15(Paraskevaidis,2008).Incomparingtheresponses
givenbyintervieweesfrombothassociations,itisevidentthattheirperceptionsdiffersignificantly.Ontheonehand,TBV
membersfocusprimarilyonthedevelopmentoftourisminthecityofVeriaandthebroaderregionandbelievethattourism
maybetheirlastchancetoimprovefinancialwell-beingwhilereversingthenegativeeffectsoftheeconomiccrisis.Onthe
otherhand,TBSmembersaremainlyinterestedinthedevelopmentofthevillagewhilerelyingminimallyontourism.This
variationonattitudescanbeexplainedbythefactthatTBVmembersarepermanentresidentsofthecityofVeria,asopposed
toTBSmembers,whoarecottageownersinKatoVermioandconsiderthevillageasvacationdestination.
Anotherdifferenceinattitudesisrelatedtotheperceptionsofeconomiccrisisperse.Ontheonehand,TBVmembersare
concernedwithandengagedinvoluntaryactivitiesintheirattempttohelptheircityovercomethenegativeeffectsofthe
crisis.Ontheotherhand,TBSmembersarenotengagedintheirassociationasareactiontotheeconomiccrisis,although
theyexpresstheirdissatisfactionwithhowrecessionhasaffectednegativelythepotentialoftheirassociationtoorganize
cultural events. As the Treasurer of TBS admitted: ‘‘Before the recession, our organization was subsidized by municipal
authorities;nowadaysfundingdriedout.Asaresult,wedonothavethefinancialresourcesnecessarytoachieveourgoals”.
Voluntaryassociationsmembers’motivations
Althoughaltruisticmotivation,thatisthemotivationof‘helpingothers’andspecifically‘helpingthelocalcommunity’,
was predominant in members’ responses for their engagement in local associations, self-oriented motivations, mainly
self-development,werealsoapparent.
Placeattachment
ThefindingsrevealedthatplaceattachmentisasignificantfactorinencouragingrespondentstojoinTBV.Insevenoutof
tencases,themainreasonforjoiningtheassociationisthespecialbondrespondentshavewiththeirhometown.Thisishow
theyexpresstheirmotivation:‘‘Ijoinedoutofloveformyhometown”.Inasimilarvein,allTBSmembersadmittedthattheir
voluntaryactivitiesstemfromthespecialbondwiththeirhometownandtheirculturalroots.Asa55-yearoldmalesays:
‘‘I’vegotinvolvedintheTBSbecauseIlovemyvillageandIwanttocontributetotherevivaloflocalcustoms,whichare
atthecoreoftheAssociation’smandate”.DespitethefactthatTBSmembersarenotprimarilyconcernedwithtourismdevel-
opment,anadditionalmotivationwastoimprovelivingconditionsintheircommunity,whichsuggeststheirattachmentto
theplace.
Clearly,allrespondentsstatedthebondstheydevelopedwiththeirhometownsastheirmainmotivetogetinvolvedin
volunteering.AccordingtoNeedhamandLittle(2013)themostcommoncomponentsofplaceattachmentare:‘‘belonging-
ness,rootedness[and]bonding”(p.71),aviewpointthatwasconfirmedbythemajorityoftheinterviewees.Likewise,Smith
andHolmes(2012)intheirstudyonlocalvolunteersinvolvedinvisitorcentresinAustralia,notedthatthe:‘‘passionand
enthusiasmforthelocalarea”(p.566)wereimportantmotivesforhostvolunteering.
P.Paraskevaidis,K.Andriotis/AnnalsofTourismResearch62(2017)26–37 33
Reciprocalaltruism
Helpingotherswithintendedfuturecommunityrewardsisundoubtedlyaprimealtruisticmotive.Thismotivecanbe
combinedwiththeexpectationthattourismdevelopmentcanimprovelivingconditionsandresultinpositivefutureout-
comes.Apparently,suchaltruisticmotivesandbehaviorscannotbeconsideredastruealtruism,butratherasreciprocal.This
wasevidentinthecaseofthePresidentofTBVwhoisalsoanelectedtowncouncillor,whenhestated:‘‘Iamalsointerested
inpolitics.Socialexposureisachievedthroughparticipatinginlocalauthoritiesandassociations,suchastheTBV.Ibelieve
thatmostpeoplewhoareactivemembersofassociationsareinterestedingainingrecognition”.Althoughthismotivewas
addressedinBozandPalaz’ssurvey(2007),inwhichtheyexaminedthemotivesofcommunityvolunteersinTurkey,noneof
otherTBVmembersanticipatedanycomparablebenefitfromtheirparticipationintheassociation.
ResponsesofTBSmembersconfirmthatthemotivationofhelpingothersisaccompaniedwithintendedfuturebenefits.
Asa55-yearoldmalementioned:‘‘I believethatTBSpromotesdevelopmentinKatoVermio.Thankstotheeffortsofits
members, footpaths were constructed and folklore events were organized”. However, even though TBS members did not
expressanydirectinterestinsupportingtourismdevelopmentinKatoVermio,theirinterestinbeautificationactivities,such
ascreatingfootpathsandorganizingculturalevents,revealsanindirectinterestinvisitorsandtourists.Forexample,a39-
yearoldmaleadmitted:‘‘Iwouldliketoseeouractivitiestobemorerelatedtotourism”.Therefore,theiractivitiesprimarily
addresslocalresidentsandconcernvisitorsonlyindirectly.Inasimilarvein,theSecretaryofTBSexplained:‘‘oureffortsaim
at developingour village”.These responsesreveal that the altruistic behavior of the TBS membersis linked to reciprocal
altruism;hencemembersaremotivatedbyacommonvisiontoprovidecommunitybenefitsevenifdeepdown,theyexpect
somekindofpersonalbenefits.AccordingtotheVice-president:
Manyresidentsreachouttouswhentheyarefacedwithaproblem,forexample,watersupply.Insuch
instances,weinformthemthatwewillcontactthemunicipalauthorities,evenifourmainfocusisonother
initiatives, such as tree care and park conservation. The municipality of Veria provides us with the
necessaryequipmentandweprovidemanuallabor.Weloveourvillage.Thisisthereasonwhywehelp
andsupportourco-villagers.
Inthiscontext,theroleofTBSisperceivedbytheresidentsofKatoVermioasalocal‘authority’bodythatcontributes
voluntarilytothesolutionofthevillage’sdailyproblems.DespitethefactthatTBSisnotanofficiallocalgovernmentbody,
it cooperates closely with local authorities. This finding confirms the study of Schofer and Fourcade-Gourinchas (2001),
whichanalyzedthecorporateadministrativecultureofSwedenandfoundthat‘‘thecarriersofcorporateinterestsplaysub-
stantive social roles, often being closely integrated with policymaking institutions and assuming broad administrative
responsibilities”(p.814).WhichevertheimportantsocialroleofTBS,itisnotbasedontheencouragementofthepublicsec-
tor,butitistheresultofvolunteering.
Althoughreciprocalaltruismexplainsthealtruisticbehaviorofbothassociations’ members,astheyexpectcommunal
future benefits from local development, it also contributes to the empowerment of social interactions among members
and their respective communities. This was also confirmed in the studies of Holmes and Smith (2009) and Holmes and
Slater(2012),whohighlightedthesignificantroleofsocialinteractionsinhostvolunteering.InthecaseofTBV,itisquite
earlytorealizethetotaleffectsofreciprocalaltruism.AlthoughTBVisanoldassociationitwasreactivatedin2014.There-
fore,trustfulandlong-termrelationshipsneedtobeachievedbetweentheassociationandtheresidentsofVeria.However,
TBSseemstohavealreadyestablishedfruitfulandadvantageouscooperationamongitsmembersandthelocalcommunity.
Self-developmentmotives
Beyond altruistic motives, all members mention self-oriented motives for getting involved in TBV, such as self-
developmentandself-improvement. Thiswassummarizedinthewordsofa 55-yearoldfemalewhosaid:‘‘volunteering
helpsmetobecomeabetterperson”.ThisfindingalsoreferstothefactthathalfofTBVmembersarealsomembersofother
voluntaryassociationsaimingatpromotingculturalandfolkloreinterests.Consequently,suchbehaviorsarerelatedtoper-
sonality traits. As Bekkers (2005, p. 448) explains: ‘‘openness to experience was typical of citizens participating in non-
political associations”. This was also confirmed by a 76-year old male: ‘‘thanks to my involvement in the Association, I
wasgiventheopportunitytoeducatemyselfonmattersrelatedtoourculture”.
Similarly seven out of 11 TBS members admitted that their participation was also motivated by the need for self-
development and self-improvement. A 55-year old female states to that effect: ‘‘I think that through my participation in
theAssociationIbenefitfrominteractingwithothermembersandfromlisteningtodiverseopinions”.However,thepres-
enceofself-interestmotivesislinkedtothebroaderphilosophyofvolunteering.Thesamerespondentadded:‘‘ifvolunteer-
ingdidn’texist,nothingcouldbedone.Iwanttosupportmyplacethroughvolunteering”.Moreover,a39-yearoldmale
admittedself-improvementthroughcloserrelationshipswithmembersasmotiveforparticipatinginvolunteeringactivities:
‘‘Ithinkteam-buildinghelpsmebecomeabetterperson”.
Inthecontextofthepresentstudy,volunteeringseemstobeawayofliferelatedtopersonalitytraits.Thishasalsobeen
confirmed by Uriely’s et al. (2002) study on local volunteers in Israel. In our case, respondents from both associations
declaredthatprovidinghelptotheirrespectivecommunitieswastheirprimarygoalasopposedtoself-developmentand
self-improvement,bothofwhichwerestatedassecondarymotives.Anexplanationtothisbehaviormaybebasedonthe
34 P.Paraskevaidis,K.Andriotis/AnnalsofTourismResearch62(2017)26–37
fact that helping the community comprises a high-valued motive in contrast to self-development and self-improvement,
whichwereperceivedaslow-valuedmotives.
Collectivebenefits
Asfarascollectivebenefitsareconcerned,allTBVmembersstressedtheimportanceofvolunteeringforlocaltourism
development.Tothisend,a56-yearoldfemalememberoftheTBVManagementBoardstated:‘‘InourAssociationwesup-
portvoluntaryactivitiesthatreflectacollectiveattitudetowardsthecity’sproblems”.Likewise,a43-yearoldfemalemem-
berofTBVsaid:‘‘IhopemorecitizenswouldfollowourleadandbecomeactivelyinvolvedinourAssociation.Weneedto
becomeacollectivebody”.Thedevelopmentofcollectiveconsciousnessisperhapsamajorfactorinvoluntaryassociations,
although the latter’s social role depends on the political environment that encourages or hinders such a development
(Schofer & Fourcade-Gourinchas, 2001). Whateverthe case, the overall attitudes and behaviors of TBV membersindicate
theirfirmbeliefinvoluntaryactivitieswhileconfirmingASP.
InthecaseofTBSmembers,ASPisalsoconfirmedbytheabsenceofexpectingindividualtangible,financial,andvoca-
tional future gains. The case of TBS’ Vice-president is an exception, since he implied unintended tangible and intangible
gains: ‘‘I am a local small business owner. My involvement in the Association helps me professionally, because I meet a
lotofpeople.However,IneverjoinedtheAssociationsoastohaveapersonalgain”.AllothermembersofTBSemphasized
thattheiractivitiesareprimarilyfocusedontheircommunity’sbestinterest,aswellasonthepreservationoflocalculture,
thusrevealingtheirvisionofcollectivebenefits.
AtypicalexampleofthiswasaneventorganizedbyTBVandpromotedthroughitsFacebookpage.Onthe22ndofMarch
2015,TBVorganizedstreetcleaningintwodistrictsofthecityofVeria.TheAssociation’scallwasmetwithgreatenthusiasm
sincemanymembersaswellas non-members activelyparticipated in it(TourismBoardofVeria,22-03-2015).Asimilar
eventwasorganizedonthe3rdofAugust2015bytheTBS(Facebook,04-08-2015)whereresidentswereinvitedtovolun-
tarilycleanaparkinthevillage.TheseeventsconfirmASPforparticipantsmayhaveofferedtheirservicesvoluntarilybut
theyalsobenefitednotonlythemselvesbutalsotheirco-citizensfromtheuseofacleanpark.
Inbrief,ASPisconsideredmoreadequateinexplainingthefindingsofthisstudysimplybecausealtruisticbehaviorofTBV
andTBSmemberswasadoptedforthepurposeofachievingcollectivebenefits.Additionally,bothregions,namelyVeriaand
KatoVermio,areunderdeveloped(Paraskevaidis,2007)thusmakingtheapplicationofASPirrelevanttotheircurrentdevel-
opmentstage.Thatbeingsaid,ASPisappropriatelyapplicabletomembers’socialattitudesandbehaviors.
Conclusion
Uponidentifyingalackofresearchonaltruisticmotivationsofhostvolunteers,thisstudyadoptedaninterdisciplinary
approachbycombiningtheoreticalandempiricalevidencedrawnfromevolutionarybiology,andsocialsciencestotheoret-
icallysubstantiatealtruisticbehaviorintourism.Toexplorealtruismintourismfromtheperspectiveofhostcommunities
andmorespecificallyfromtheviewpointofvoluntarytourismassociationstwentyoneinterviewswereconducted.
Toprovideadeeperunderstandingofaltruisticmotivationandbehaviortwoopposingconcepts,i.e.truealtruismand
reciprocalaltruism,wereexplored.Adoptingaltruisticbehaviorwithoutexpectingreturnfavorsandpositiveindividualout-
comes is characterized as true altruism in contrast to reciprocal altruism where actors tolerate personal costs in helping
others,butindoingsotheyexpectfuturerewards.Inthisstudy,theconceptofreciprocalaltruismaccountsformotivational
factorsthatinfluencedthemembersofbothassociationstooffervoluntarilytheirtimeandlaborinanattempttoimprove
theirrespectivecommunities’standardsofliving.Drawninbothstudiedassociations,itcanbeconcludedthatTBVwasmore
focusedonpromotingtourismdevelopmentasawayofovercomingunfavorableimpactsofthecurrenteconomicrecession
inGreece,whereasTBSwastryingtoreinforcelocaldevelopmentbasedprimarilyonculturalregeneration.
Toexplorefurthersocialbehaviorstwotheoreticalconceptswereused:SETandASP.InthisstudyASP,asopposedtoSET,
wasconsideredmoreappropriatetointerpretthebehaviorofthemembersofthetwoassociationsfortworeasons.First,one
oftheprerequisitesofSETisthatresidentssupporttourismdevelopmentwhentheirindividualgainsaregreaterthantheir
personalcosts.AccordingtoRitzer(2010)rewardsofsocialexchangescanbeextrinsic(suchasmoney)orintrinsic(suchas
respect).InthecaseofTBVandTBS,memberstoleratedpersonalcosts,suchasofferingvoluntaryserviceswithoutreceiving
any extrinsic gains. Even if self-development and self-exploration are considered as intrinsic rewards, these were of sec-
ondaryimportanceforrespondents’primemotivation.Therespondents’incentivesforparticipatingin voluntarytourism
associationswereselflesssincetheultimategoalwastohelpthecommunity.Second,allintervieweesfrombothassocia-
tionsdisregardedindividualnegativeconsequencesforcollectiveprosperity,thusconfirmingASPwhich:‘‘hasitsrootsin
emphasizingcollectiveoverindividualbenefits”(Clifton&Benson,2006,p.248),asopposedtoSET.Therefore,ASPismore
adequateinunderstandingcommunityperceptionsincaseswherehostsenduregreaterindividuallossesthanbenefitsand
continuetosupporttourism.ThisphenomenoncannotbeexplainedthroughSET.
Anotherelementtobetakenintoaccountininterpretingaltruisticbehavioristhatintervieweesundertooksignificant
risks while expecting future development. This is due to the fact that their associations’ role is unofficial. Additionally,
long-termplansforlocaldevelopmentmightneverbeachieved.Thusoneofthemainpracticalimplicationsofthisstudy
suggests that tourism authorities and policy makers should involve voluntary tourism associations in tourism planning.
P.Paraskevaidis,K.Andriotis/AnnalsofTourismResearch62(2017)26–37 35
Bydoingso,localcommunitieswillbenefitgreatlyfromtheirinitiatives,andvoluntarytourismassociationswillbefurther
motivatedtosupporttourismdevelopmentoftheirrespectivecommunities.
Bothcommunitiesunder studyare developingdestinationsandthereforehosts-tourists’interactionshavebeenrarely
observed. Henceforth, altruistic behavior cannot be retrieved in host-tourists’ encounters. In fact, ASP is not as innocent
asoneshouldexpect.Somerespondentsmaytoleratepersonalcostsstemmingfromvoluntaryworkinordertocreateasolid
basisforthecommunity’sfuturedevelopment.But,inthelongrun,localdevelopmentmaycontributetohigherstandardsof
livinginfinancialandenvironmentalterms,whichwillinduce,onaverage,collectivecommunitybenefits.Therefore,resi-
dentswhosupportvoluntarilytourismdevelopmentbyassistingvoluntarytourismassociationsmightexpectintendedmul-
tiplepositiveoutcomesfortheircommunity.Inthefuture,thiswilltranslateintolocaldevelopment,whichwillcomeback
tothem,intheformofpersonalandcollectivegain.Forthisreason,itbecomesobviousthatASPcannotbeassociatedwith
truealtruismbutwithreciprocal.
Moreover,bothdevelopingdestinationsunderstudy,i.e.VeriaasmallcityandKatoVermioavillage,haveinsignificant
tourismimpacts.Consequently,members’personalcostsarenotassociatedwithtourism;rathertheypertaintomembers’
individualcostsofofferingtheirservicesvoluntarily.ContrarytothefindingsofFaulknerandTideswell(1997)thatcorre-
latedASPwithmaturedestinationswherenegativeimpactsoccur,inthisstudy,ASPwasrelatedtosocialattitudesobserved
inTBVandTBSmembersandnottothedevelopmentstageoftheregionsstudiedherein.SimilarlytoLundberg(2015),who
confirmed ASP in non-mature settings, this study revealed that this phenomenon is not only related to the destinations’
developmentstage,butalsotoresidents’attitudesandbehaviors.
Althoughithasbeenproventhatthecollectionofdatafromdifferentsources(interviews,socialnetworks,andpublished
studies)hasresultedinasolidmethodologicalapproach,usefulinexploringaltruismatacommunitylevel,thereareseveral
limitationsthathavetobeconsidered.Onelimitationthisstudyattemptedtoovercomewasthe‘value-actiongap’inres-
idents’perceptionsdefinedbySharpley(2014)as:‘‘whatpeoplesaytheywoulddoisnotreflectedinwhattheyactuallydo”
(p. 46). To overcome this gap, the current study asked interviewees to indicate the altruistic activities they have been
engagedin;theirresponseswerethentriangulatedandconfirmedthroughsecondarydatacollection.
Duetotheexplorativenatureofthisstudy,primaryresearchwaslimitedtomembersoftwoGreekvoluntaryassociations
locatedinasinglemunicipality.Onemightexpectthatthefactthatbothassociationsaimatpromotingaspecificdestination
wouldlikelyinfluencetheresults.Therefore,findingsneedtobeenrichedbyothersurveyswithlargersamplesthatwill
include voluntary tourism associations based on several locations as well as associations whose purpose is not focused
exclusivelyupontourism(e.g. learnedsocieties andenvironmentalgroups)in orderto justify,modifyor extendtheout-
comesofthecurrentstudyandclarifywhethernon-tourismvoluntaryassociationshavedifferentattitudesandbehaviors
towardstourism.
Additionally, differences on respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics were not used to explain attitudes and
behaviors,as theaimofthisexploratorystudywasto provideabetterunderstanding ofresidents’altruisticbehavior.In
order to enrich tourism knowledge on community altruistic behavior, further research is required to explore whether
socio-demographicvariablesinfluencesuchbehavior.
Toconclude,thefindingsofthisstudyprovidethepotentialofatheoreticalframeworkintourismstudies.Inparticular,in
underdeveloped tourism destinations host community members are more likely to participate in volunteering and to
developaltruisticbehavior,first,to achievecollectivebenefitsfor the communityand, second, to benefittheir individual
self-interests (e.g. self-development, affiliationetc.). Basic prerequisites for hosts to getinvolved in volunteeringseem to
beplaceattachmentandpersonalitytraits(e.g.opennesstonewexperiences,compassionateconcernetc.).Suchaltruistic
behaviorisstronglylinkedtoreciprocalaltruismasitcomprisesadesirableindirectreciprocalexchange.Hostvolunteers
arewillinglyofferingservicesandperhapsmoneytohelptheircommunityachievetourismdevelopment.Inreturn,they
expectpositiveoutcomessuchaseconomic,socialandenvironmentalrejuvenationforthebenefitnotonlyoftheircommu-
nitybutofthemselves.Moreover,hostvolunteersarealsointerestedinself-orientedbenefitsinadditiontotheirprimary
concernforcommunitygains.Theseself-interestedbenefitsmightconsciouslybeconcealedandarepossiblythemainrea-
sonforparticipatinginvolunteering.However,suchmotivationalintentionsmayneverbeconfessed(e.g.gainsocialrecog-
nition)asthiswouldhavetheexactoppositeoutcome;individualswhowouldadmitthattheirprimaryintentionforoffering
voluntaryservicesistogainsocialrecognitionwouldbeaccusedofmoralhypocrisybythecommunity.Thisissueneedsfur-
therfutureresearch.
References
Alonso,A.D.,&Liu,Y.(2013).Localcommunity,volunteeringandtourismdevelopment:ThecaseoftheBlackwoodRiverValley,WesternAustralia.Current
IssuesinTourism,16(1),47–62.
Anderson,E.,&Cairncross,G.(2005).Understandingandmanagingvolunteermotivation:Tworegionaltourismcases.AustralianJournalonVolunteering,10
(2),7–17.
Andriotis,K.(2000).Localcommunityperceptionsoftourismasadevelopmenttool:TheislandofCrete(Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation).UnitedKingdom:
BournemouthUniversity.
Andriotis,K.,&Agiomirgianakis,G.(2014).Marketescapethroughexchange:Homeswapasaformofnon-commercialhospitality.CurrentIssuesinTourism,
17(7),576–591.
Andriotis,K.,&Vaughan,R.(2003).Urbanresidents’attitudestowardtourismdevelopment:ThecaseofCrete.JournalofTravelResearch,42(2),172–185.
Ballinger, G. A., & Rockmann, K. W. (2010). Chutes versus ladders: Anchoring events and a punctuated-equilibrium perspective on social exchange
relationships.AcademyofManagementReview,35(3),373–391.