Most FLP research focuses on intrafamily communication (1FLP) and how this is impacted by larger contexts. But what happens when different multilingual families interact intensively on a daily basis? This article analyses language use during a holiday in India in and between four deaf-hearing befriended families, and how this evolved over the twelve days of the trip (4FLP). Three of the four families are our (the authors’) own. The family members originate from the UK, Belgium, Denmark and India. All families use more than one language at home (at least one sign language and one spoken language), and all family members are fluent signers. We ask: how does intrafamilial FLP (1FLP) at home inform interfamilial FLP (xFLP) on holiday? And how does interfamilial contact on holiday inform intrafamilial FLP during that same holiday? The data discussed in the article is organised along different multilingual practices, some of them general to multilingual interactions and others specific to multilingual signers: language mixing, switching and learning, language brokering, speaking and signspeaking. The findings reveal rich complexities of interfamilial language practices which inform thinking on FLP and multilingualism.
LINK
In this contribution, we evaluate the degree of measurement equivalence between countries and over time for a measure of experienced holiday quality that has repeatedly been included in a public opinion survey series of high policy relevance: the Flash Eurobarometer survey series (2014–2016). The results indicate that using the measurement instrument for cross-national comparisons between 35 countries may be quite problematic, as neither metric nor scalar measurement equivalence was established. The longitudinal analyses show that for 19 out of 28 countries, scalar measurement equivalence holds between the waves. For the countries for which longitudinal scalar measurement equivalence was established, the comparison of the mean overall score of satisfaction with the holiday shows a very high level of stability. In general, the findings underscore the importance of assessing measurement equivalence of empirical tourism and leisure-related constructs when making systematic comparisons between groups or over time.
LINK
The tourism industry thrives on the notion that holiday travel improves well-being. However, scientific evidence that holiday travel is more beneficial than spending free time at home is lacking. Using the Effort-Recovery and the Limited Resources model as theoretical basis, this study investigates whether workers behave, think, and feel differently during travel than during leisure time spent at home. In a five-week longitudinal field study, we followed 24 workers during free evenings after work, a free weekend at home, and on a free weekend of domestic travel. Within-person differences were investigated between these three occasions in behavior, cognition, and emotions. During travel, employees slept more, engaged more in physical and social activities and less in obligatory activities than during free evenings after work. Hedonic well-being was higher and ruminative thinking lower during travel than during free evenings after work. Physical distance from home and work was related to engagement in resource-providing rather than resource-consuming activities and seems to translate into mental distance from everyday worries. Differences between holiday travel and weekends at home were small. Still, the findings suggest that travel may provide feelings of remoteness in places with novel and fascinating qualities, free of chores.
LINK
In the Netherlands approximately 2 million inhabitants have one or more disabilities. However, just like most people they like to travel and go on holiday.In this project we have explored the customer journey of people with disabilities and their families to understand their challenges and solutions (in preparing) to travel. To get an understanding what ‘all-inclusive’ tourism would mean, this included an analysis of information needs and booking behavior; traveling by train, airplane, boat or car; organizing medical care and; the design of hotels and other accommodations. The outcomes were presented to members of ANVR and NBAV to help them design tourism and hospitality experiences or all.
PBL is the initiator of the Work Programme Monitoring and Management Circular Economy 2019-2023, a collaboration between CBS, CML, CPB, RIVM, TNO, UU. Holidays and mobility are part of the consumption domains that PBL researches, and this project aims to calculate the environmental gains per person per year of the various circular behavioural options for both holiday behaviour and daily mobility. For both behaviours, a range of typical (default) trips are defined and for each several circular option explored for CO2 emissions, Global warming potential and land use. The holiday part is supplied by the Centre for Sustainability, Tourism and Transport (CSTT) of the BUas Academy of Tourism (AfT). The mobility part is carried out by the Urban Intelligence professorship of the Academy for Built Environment and Logistics (ABEL).The research question is “what is the environmental impact of various circular (behavioural) options around 1) holidays and 2) passenger mobility?” The consumer perspective is demarcated as follows:For holidays, transportation and accommodation are included, but not food, attractions visited and holiday activitiesFor mobility, it concerns only the circular options of passenger transport and private means of transport (i.e. freight transport, business travel and commuting are excluded). Not only some typical trips will be evaluated, but also the possession of a car and its alternatives.For the calculations, we make use of public databases, our own models and the EAP (Environmental Analysis Program) model developed by the University of Groningen. BUAs projectmembers: Centre for Sustainability, Tourism and Transport (AT), Urban Intelligence (ABEL).
This project extends the knowledge and scope of carbon footprinting in tourism. Currently, the carbon footprint of holidaymakers is available as time-series based on the CVO (Continue Vakantie Onderzoek) for the years 2002, 2005 and all between 2008 and 2018. For one year, 2009, a report has also been written about inbound tourism. The carbon footprint of business travel has not been determined, whereas there has been considerable interest throughout the years from businesses to assess and mitigate their travel footprints. There is also increasing policy attention for travel footprints. In 2018, a modified setup of the CVO caused the need to revise our statistical model and correction factors to be developed to counter the potential effects of a trend-breach. The project aimed to check and improve the current syntax for Dutch holidaymakers, adjust the one for inbound tourism, and develop a new one for Dutch business travel. The project output includes a report on the carbon footprint of Dutch holidaymakers for 2018, on inbound tourism for 2014, and on Dutch business travel for 2016, based on the CVO, inbound tourim dataset, and CZO. The project ends with a workshop with stakeholders to identify the way forward in tourism carbon footprinting in the Netherlands (tools, applications, etc.)Project partners: NRIT Research, NBTC-NIPO Research, CBS
