3.8 Article

The paradox of family; creating a family environment without children in luxury accommodation in New Zealand

期刊

WORLDWIDE HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM THEMES
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 226-234

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/WHATT-11-2018-0074

关键词

Children; New Zealand; Family; Innovative solutions; Luxury lodges

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to explore innovative solutions to the challenge of creating a family environment without children in luxury lodges in New Zealand. Design/methodology/approach - In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with guests, staff and managers in a luxury lodge that excludes children. An interpretivist analysis of interviewees' comments was undertaken. Findings - Guests at the childless lodge talked about the serenity and peace they experienced during their stay, and particularly the meal experiences. They thought that not having children on the premises is an advantage for this experience. Lodge managers said that not admitting children is their point of difference for the market that they are targeting. Research limitations/implications - This research contributes to the emerging research theme of family tourism and extends the concept of family tourismto include family units without children. Practical implications - There are significant practical implications in terms of industry approaches to creating a family atmosphere in luxury accommodation without children. Social implications - That a family atmosphere does not need to include children and enables luxury accommodation to cater to a diverse range of family units. There are also implications for social diversity beyond the traditional assumptions of the nuclear family. Originality/value - The exclusion of children from luxury lodges is certainly not new, but the concept of maintaining a family environment without children is innovative and worth investigating to consider the wider implications of the paradox of family without children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据