Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rana20
Anatolia
An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rana20
Examining an inclusive social tourism practices in
Turkey
Hilal Akdemir
To cite this article: Hilal Akdemir (2020): Examining an inclusive social tourism practices in
Turkey, Anatolia, DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2020.1869569
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1869569
Published online: 29 Dec 2020.
Submit your article to this journal 
Article views: 72
View related articles 
View Crossmark data
Examining an inclusive social tourism practices in Turkey
Hilal Akdemir
Department of Tourism, Faculty of Economics, University of Algarve, Gambelas, Portugal
ABSTRACT
This study and its conceptual framework are motivated by the awareness of 
the positive impacts of social tourism on social inclusion. The aim of the 
research is to explore the potential of social tourism for creating an inclusive 
tourism form through investigating alternative camp in Turkey. The camp 
was examined as an ethnographic case study with qualitative research 
methods. Data were gathered by conducting semi-structured interviews 
and participant observations lasting over a year. In addition, the secondary 
data were collected in the form of organizational and other types of docu-
ments. As a result, the study develops an inclusive social tourism manage-
ment model that proposes three components: (1) sustainable financial 
support, (2) a strong volunteer structure, (3) an aspirational goal.
ARTICLE HISTORY 
Received 21 May 2020  
Accepted 23 December 2020 
KEYWORDS 
Social tourism; social 
inclusion; tourism 
management; inclusive 
tourism; ethnographic 
research
Introduction
It is generally accepted that current economic and social developments are gathering around 
sustainability concerns more than ever, which causes the rise of new concepts, practices, and 
governance perspectives in the tourism field. As a tourism type, the evidence that “social tourism 
practices” addresses the sustainability concept since the early stages can be found in its main 
approaches such as “tourism for all” and “accessible tourism”. Since, through history, various 
governments around the world added social tourism to their tourism plans and policies. Indeed, 
scholars recently defined social tourism as (Soler et al., 2018, p. 155):
Accessible social tourism is the set of initiatives aimed at facilitating the active participation in tourism of 
people with special needs (mainly financial and accessibility), while at the same time deriving benefits social 
networks for its users and economic benefits for society and the market.
Considering the evolution of its concept, nowadays, social tourism became more inclusive and 
sustainable (Bélanger & Jolin, 2011). Especially in the European countries, social tourism has been 
a well-known tourism strategy that is implemented to provide a better life to disadvantaged groups 
by including them in social activities.
According to McCabe (2015), the reasons European countries for giving value to social tourism 
are the benefits of social tourism to the state (a cost-effective way to increase the well-being of 
disadvantaged citizens) and its users (escaping from the daily routine, relaxing and so on). 
Consequently, social tourism is a well-known tourism strategy that is implemented to provide 
a better life to disadvantaged groups by including them in social activities (McCabe, 2015). 
Therefore, although there is no extensive academic literature on social tourism, various practices 
and organizations exist.
CONTACT Hilal Akdemir akdemirhilal@hotmail.com Department of Tourism, Faculty of Economics, University of Algarve, 
Gambelas 8005-139, Portugal
ANATOLIA                                                     
https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1869569
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
In the case of Turkey, the literature on social tourism is at an early stage; there are only a few 
studies on the management and the concept of social tourism (Sarıbaş & Akbaba, 2018). The 
practices of social tourism in Turkey are also limited, compared to the variety of social tourism 
practices in Europe. However, Turkey has a social tourism project that is managed by Alternative 
Life Association (AYDER) called the “Alternative Camp.”
The camp has a specific characteristic as being a social entrepreneurship project that collaborates 
with international organizations and operates solely with volunteers which provides holiday 
opportunities for disadvantaged groups in Turkey. The camp has its unique inclusive values that 
bring a new inclusive perspective on social tourism. Therefore, the research aims to explore the 
potential of social tourism to create an inclusive tourism form by investigating a non-governmental 
social tourism organization and its management model.
Literature review
According to Jolin, “social tourism, by its ambition to democratize tourism, contributes to the fight 
against inequality and exclusion and supports social cohesion” (as cited in Minnaert et al., 2019, 
p. 127). Because of the financial incapability, most families are excluded from tourism activities, and 
social tourism includes those individuals in the market. Also, since excluded people from society are 
not integrated into the community at all, tourism activities might be a tool to stimulate the 
integration process (Minnaert et al., 2019).
From the point of view of disabled people, travelling is difficult in terms of inadequate facilities 
or opportunities. However, there are also able or disabled people with financial barriers, in that 
situation, social tourism is the key to include those people into life by using tourism as a tool 
(Kastenholz et al., 2015; Pagan, 2015; Small & Darcy, 2010). According to Gabruc (2016), to increase 
the social inclusion effect of social tourism, related organizations should adopt innovative 
approaches regarding their managerial and financial systems.
Social tourism practices
Hall and Brown (2019) identify some similarities between the European countries in terms of social 
tourism practices. The common points of European social tourism systems consist of demand, 
supply, and intermediaries that are supported by funding structures (Hall & Brown, 2019).
The common part of the demand is the disadvantaged groups in the European Union policy 
which are underprivileged young adults (aged 18–30), families facing financial pressures, people 
with disabilities, over sixty-fives, and pensioners who cannot afford travel or are daunted by the 
challenges of organizing a journey (McCabe, 2015). However, the political conditions, the economy 
of the state, ideologies or the size of each group creates differences in the demand (Hall & Brown, 
2019). For example, while Austria concentrates on families, Belgium focuses on youth and low- 
income families (McCabe, 2015). Similarly, the treatments or the budget allocations while imple-
menting social tourism practices also differ between countries. For example, Italy gives a coupon to 
social tourism users and Denmark supports the whole holiday expenditure of the disadvantaged 
families (Kassa, 2019).
Like treatments, the aims of applying social tourism practices also differ between countries. For 
instance, the Sunshine Fund in Ireland aims to create a social synergy for disadvantaged children 
(MacMahon, 2019). However, Cyprus aims to extend its tourism season and strengthen the image 
of the disadvantaged tourism areas with social tourism practices (McCabe, 2015).
Another similarity of European countries while implementing social tourism is the social 
tourism services (transportation, accommodation, destination services, and visitor attractions) 
that differs according to countries’ political environments and economic systems. For example, 
while Germany has its own hotels for low-income families to stay (Hall & Brown, 2019), the UK 
sometimes arranges family caravan trips (Kassa, 2019). In addition, according to Diekmann et al. 
2 H. AKDEMIR
(2019), the number of intermediaries affects the variety of services to be supplied. The reason is that 
intermediaries are the stakeholders that support social tourism practices by supplying tourism 
services. For example, a social tourism organization creates a network with hotels to find accom-
modation to its target market, and to define the target market, the social tourism organization gets 
supports from charities and serves to disadvantaged people.
In terms of funding, according to McCabe (2015), there are five common types of funding 
schemes in Europe:
● State-funded subsidized packages: e.g. Spain, Portugal, Greece.
● State-backed voucher schemes: e.g. France, Hungary, Romania.
● Regional government schemes: e.g. Belgium, Brussels, Austria, Lithuania.
● Charity (third sector) provision: e.g. the UK, Malta, Latvia, Ireland, Bulgaria.
● Private foundation schemes: e.g. Denmark and Finland.
According to Diekmann & McCabe (2011), the funding system and the amount of the funding are 
the essential factors that determine the implementation method of social tourism in countries. For 
example, if the funding scheme is state-funded, and if the budget allocation is high, generally 
countries have specific social tourism facilities. Moreover, if the budget that state allocates for social 
tourism practices is limited, in most cases, countries give vouchers to target market while imple-
menting social tourism. Furthermore, while some countries use one type of funding, other countries 
might combine the funding systems (Gabruc, 2016).
In Turkey, the government has an indirect positive effect on the development of social tourism 
(Kızılırmak & Ertuğrul, 2012). For example, the 2023 tourism policies do not state to develop social 
tourism clearly and there is not any economic support from the state. The actions to be taken for 
2023 tourism strategies include the development of domestic tourism with fair prices and services 
(Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2007). On the other hand, since 1992, the government has been 
interested with youth travel and made effective programs such as Interrail, Euro Mini group, Euro 
Domino, Student Discount, and so on (Bıçkı et al., 2013).
The local authorities also have an important contribution in terms of the type of social tourism 
practices. However, practicing social tourism is up to municipality initiatives since the management 
of tourism in Turkey is centralized and social tourism is not included in tourism policies by the state 
(Kızılırmak & Ertuğrul, 2012). There are also some individual practices on social tourism as 
individual social responsibility projects of hotel owners or other individuals. To sum up, in 
Turkey, social tourism practices develop according to the initiative of corporates, local authorities, 
private foundations, or individuals.
Methodology
The research field of this study is located in Kaş town connected to the city of Antalya 
(Mediterranean city in Turkey). Alternative Camp is one of the social projects of AYDER which 
was founded in Turkey (2002). The camp has an accessible and wide, open venue to give free social 
tourism services to disadvantaged groups (participants) in summer seasons by the aid of its 
volunteers.
Therefore, the field has a dynamic framework resulting from the mobility of volunteers and 
disadvantaged groups and services that vary according to its participants. However, the camp has 
a build culture, and standard rules which could be referred as core values. Due to this dynamic 
frame and camp’s culture, ethnographic research methods were used to have an in-depth under-
standing and knowledge of the camp by making field observations in its natural environment and to 
get to know the organization members and camp participants (Brewer, 2000).
Since in qualitative researches data validity and reliability are problematic issues (Golafshani, 
2003), the data triangulation method was used. By using the triangulation method, which means 
ANATOLIA 3
combining several types of data gathering methods, the trustworthiness of the research has been 
established. Out of various data gathering methods, the author chose to combine face-to-face semi- 
structured interviews, secondary documents, informal interviews, and observations which are 
commonly used in ethnographic researches (Brewer, 2000).
As a participant-observer, the author volunteered for Alternative Camp three times between 
July 2017 and July 2018 to be sure that this research will reflect the true picture. However, in 
qualitative researches, the debates about single reality (Golafshani, 2003) aroused questions about 
what the true picture is. Since the reality may vary and not certain, the observation method was 
mostly used with parallel to the interviews, also the secondary documents filled the gaps at some 
points, and those various ethnographic data gathering methods lead the research to construct valid 
and reliable realities. Because informants might have caused deviations in the data, the author stayed 
in contact with informants, even out of the research field to increase the confidential of findings.
The first visit to the camp was between 1 and 15 July 2017. The research sample that consists of 
34 informants (Table 1) was defined in this first visit. The sample is grouped as the stakeholders of 
the camp which are volunteers, caretakers, board members and employees, governorship, the 
founder of AYDER. During the first visit, the participants of the camp were children with 
disabilities who came only with two caretakers assigned by their associations. However, the children 
were not taken as informants due to ethical concerns.
The main data were collected by using semi-structured interviews during the first visit. The 
recorded interviews lasted 40 minutes and were made in Turkish. During interviews, the aim was to 
learn more about each informant’s personal life or backgrounds by getting each answer with the 
story behind it. After the first 2 days in the field, to ask questions about the events occurring 
suddenly informal interviews added to data gathering methods.
In the second visit (January 2018), the aim was to verify the first data related to the volunteers as 
some volunteers decided to leave the organization in December 2017. In the third visit, between 24 and 
30 March 2018, the author volunteered for the art workshop in the camp to raise funds for the camp. 
The art workshop helped the author to make a better sense of the financial processes in the camp in 
general, also caused to gain a better understanding of the relationship of the camp with its donators.
The qualitative data gathered were coded using the ATLAS.ti program with a thematic approach 
(Saldana, 2015). All tape-recorded data were written and loaded into the program. After reading the 
data several times, the coding process and defining which sentences to use as quotations started and 
that resulted in the creation of sub-categories. Those sub-categories were represented by more focused 
categories as they came together. The field observations and experiences harmonized with the inter-
view data and are used mostly to present an example case that happened in the field to support the 
other data. Eventually, all primary and secondary data were harmonized under themes and categorizes.
Results
As the founder of the camp refers below, accessibility in the context of (inclusive) social tourism 
should mean more than just disabled-friendly physical spaces in the case of Alternative Camp: “to 
create a high social impact, we are managing the camp in three principles: accessibility, diversity, 
Table 1. Details of respondents.
Informants (34 in total) Interview dates
Fifteen short-term volunteers, 6 long-term volunteers (out of 21 volunteers, 15 were aged between 
16 and 24; 7 were aged between 25 and 34; 1 was 42 years old. 13 female, 8 male informants.)
1–15.07.2017 (Kaş)
Two caretakers of disabled individuals 1–15.07.2017 (Kaş)
Kaş District Governorship 21.07.2017 (Kaş)
Two individual supporters (people who are helping the academy in many ways on personal basis) 1–15.07.2017 (Kaş)
Three board members (2 male, 1 female aged 30+), 4 permanent staff (3 female, 1 male, aged 28+) 1–15.07.2017 (Kaş)
The founder of AYDER (male, aged 56) 13.07/04.10.2017 
(Istanbul/Kaş)
4 H. AKDEMIR
and integrity which leads to inclusion. Accessibility comes first. And accessibility here is not only 
cover the destinations.”
Indeed, in 2009, Dr. Scott Rains, who was an honorary member of ENAT, observed that while 
the physical environments of tourism destinations could be accessible for a disadvantaged indivi-
dual, the activities and experiences offered were often neither accessible nor inclusive to all. He 
suggests that in order to call a place accessible, putting ramps next to stairs on public places are not 
enough (Rains, 2009, October 28). The concept of accessibility that is used in tourism should 
include accessible activities, communication, experiences, and pricing (Soler et al., 2018). Indeed, 
the camp defined the term in three phases:
The first phase of accessibility is the accessibility of information to the social tourism practices by 
those who need it. The interviews conducted with caretakers of camp participants (disabled 
individuals), showed that, with media coverage and a well-structured network, is very well 
known in its target market, as the founder of the camp refers: “Think about a disabled person 
living in Artvin. Where could he learn about Dreams Academy if we do not have media coverage?”
The second phase of the accessibility is the accessibility of the architecture and the reachability of 
the destination. During volunteering, there were lots of visitors from various places who happened to 
have a look at the centre. In terms of disabled-friendly architecture, the camp has toilets that are built 
for disabled people, the place is flat, and there is no dangerous equipment or machinery in the field.
The last phase of accessibility is the financial accessibility (Soler et al., 2018). The statement of the 
founder of the camp mentioned below has been confirmed by the attendants of the camp’s 
participants by the informal interviews:
Most people in Turkey who have a disability do not have the economic power to cover the amount of 
a holiday, so without reasonable prices there is not any sense to having accessible tourism [accessible 
destinations]. That is the reason we are serving free of charge to disabled people, as a charity.
After the accessibility, the second dimension of the social tourism called as diversity means 
“welcoming all”. Which, according to the founder of AYDER, refers to non-discrimination. 
During the first field research, 10 individuals with Down’s Syndrome arrived in the first week 
and the 10 youths with cerebral palsy came on the following week, and during the year they hosted 
even seniors who are patients with dementia. Being open to “all” also refers to individuals that are 
not disadvantaged. In this regard, it is observed that there were a wide range of volunteers of varying 
age groups and nationalities.
All the board members, employees, and caretakers in the sample used the terms “inclusion”, 
“social cohesion”, and “integrative design” while describing the camp. For the interviewees, the 
camp is designed to improve the social integration of disabled individuals:
We made an integrated design where the volunteers and disabled individuals come together in doing the same 
activities. By this integration we aimed the disabled individuals to realize that they can achieve the things that 
they previously perceived as impossible and socialize in a natural field. Indeed, we do not accept the families of 
children in the camp and we try to accept children who has self-care ability. (Staff 2)
Here the informant emphasizes that accepting disabled individuals without their families creates 
a natural setting where they truly feel “alone” and “free”. Hereby, the volunteers believe that the 
participants build sincere friendships and social interactions with their own-willing. Furthermore, 
according to caretakers, children with Down’s adopt the camp rules easily and integrate with the 
camp’s culture and activities. According to interviewees and the observations in the camp, social tourism 
is practiced with accessibility, diversity, and integrity dimensions which leads to social inclusion.
The management of human resources
As the founder of the camp states, the camp uses volunteerism as the main human resource and self- 
produces its services instead of outsourcing them through the volunteer source.
ANATOLIA 5
When looking into academic studies about volunteer management or volunteer involvement 
models as human resources, Zimmerck states that there are two different approaches for volunteer 
management: the first one is the bureaucratic or modern approach, which is mostly for organiza-
tions that are more prominent. The second one is the collectivist-democratic or home-grown 
volunteer management approach, which has few bureaucratic rules and procedures (as cited in 
Rochester et al. (2016)):
We [AYDER] decided not to create a bureaucracy model by preparing job descriptions, etc. Usually, charities 
follow that traditional method and that is the reason they are only able to make less activity with excessive 
costs. (Founder of AYDER)
Our [AYDER] organizational structure is horizontal, as is the delegation of wages. . . . for example, I am the most 
authorized person after the chairman of AYDER, but I get the same wage as the driver. (Board member 3)
Here, the informants describe the organizational structure of the camp as horizontal and underline 
the cost-effectiveness of its management system. According to field observations, the main opera-
tions of the camp can be divided into eight: planning, decision-making, organizing, staffing, 
communicating, motivating, leading, and controlling. Without the perspective of horizontal man-
agement, the camp would need to hire paid staff for all these roles as there will be a traditional 
approach in management (Rochester et al., 2016).
Moreover, the camp does not have training costs for staff since the camp hire its permanent 
employees from inside of the organization (from its volunteers), who know the culture of the 
organization and the responsibilities. For example, the research participant long-term (6) has 
become the director of Dreams Academy – Kaş in the winter season. On contrary, sometimes the 
camp does not hire anyone permanent since the volunteers are already sufficient to complete the 
tasks and responsibilities: “I can trust a volunteer and ask him to write an article, or shoot a video . . . 
You can see that collective work and solidarity” (Staff 3).
The secondary data that were collected in the field revealed that instead of rules and regulations or 
written job descriptions, there are core values, which is common in home-grown managerial approach, 
to manage volunteers which are mainly – love, diversity, respect, freedom, tolerance, and sharing:
Because there is democracy in the camp, and everyone behave according to values of the camp, we don’t have 
any bureaucracy or written processes. (Founder of AYDER)
According to the founder of AYDER, those values create the flexibility, self-authority amongst staff 
and volunteers, and they take the place of rules or regulations, and the management sustains itself 
with trust and belief model (Safrit & Schmiesing, 2012).
The organizational continuity
According to the interview below, it can be said that in the camp, the organizational continuity depends 
highly on volunteer circulation, and volunteer retention: “Without volunteers we would not be here 
today. Everything you see is made by volunteer power.” Firstly, the camp creates volunteer circulation 
through word of mouth. Volunteers act like they are permanent members of the organization, and 
without realizing it, they advertise the camp to other people, leading to a circulation of volunteers. For 
instance, during the field research, all the short-term volunteers suggested that they joined the camp 
because of the recommendation of their friends who volunteered in the camp before.
Also, the camp building a strong bond by creating a family atmosphere and treating the volunteers 
like they are a part of the organization are the tools to control the retention. In the orientation 
(welcoming new volunteers) that was provided by long-term volunteers on 1 July 2017, the question 
of “what your expectation is from the camp” has been asked to short-term volunteers and all answers 
were recorded. All short-term volunteers told their expectations from the camp. According to the 
records of the answers, short-term volunteers believed that the camp would provide them food, shelter, 
love, knowledge about people with disabilities, emotional maturity, meaning of equality in society, 
6 H. AKDEMIR
solidarity, clean acceptance, and impartial attitudes towards people. These answers suggest that as the 
camp communicates its core values strongly, those who have similar values apply for volunteering, 
which eventually leads to a higher/easier retention of volunteers.
However, in the case of Alternative Camp, there is a domino effect, which means that volunteers 
who see their close friends leave stop volunteering as well (Haski-Leventhal & Bargal, 2008). In the 
camp, after the founder changed the manager of the camp, one volunteer left the organization and 
the others followed him. However, because of family feeling, some of them returned to the 
organization after several months.
After volunteerism, another factor of sustainability is the financial supporters. The reason for that 
bond is the funding mechanism of the camp which is charity provision (McCabe, 2015). Although 
AYDER has low human resources cost, for the main expenses of the buildings, there is a bond with 
a global telecommunication company for 10 years; the charity gets funding from the telecommunication 
company on behalf of Dreams Academy, and using it to pay the expenses of facilities.
The social changemaker image
Another result is that the camp creates a “social changemaker” image to its stakeholders to ensure 
organizational continuity of their social tourism practice.
First, the camp established on the base of volunteer power since the foundation believes that each 
volunteer could be a changemaker or in other words, they can be social entrepreneurs. Indeed, in 
volunteer orientation sessions, the long-term volunteers stated that volunteers are part of that 
particular social change: “If we want to change something, we should first change ourselves to be 
a role model to our society, because volunteering is like being a mirror to people that we share the 
same culture, beliefs, or problems” (long-term 4). Thus, volunteers act like they are part of the 
organization and spread that vision to others.
Second, the media coverage of AYDER about being a role model to society is the primary source of 
volunteer circulation and building a sustainable relationship with its supporters. Finally, according to the 
founder of AYDER, the reason of the telecommunication company in being the sponsor for 10 years is 
the role that AYDER and Alternative Camp play in society. For example, in the third visit to the field, 
there was a group of painters who came to support the academy financially. The painters selected the 
Dreams Academy, Kaş as the venue for their international art festival, and they left their paintings to the 
academy as a donation. Some of the painters from that event tried to find more supporters for the camp 
by using their networks, since each of them believed that the camp stands for creating a social change in 
society.
Social entrepreneurship perspective on social tourism
Etchart & Comolli (2013, p. 1) define social entrepreneurship as:
“. . . businesses that solve critical social problems in a sustainable manner”, which differs from a charity or non- 
profit organization because they “. . . create and sell products or services that improve the quality of life for low- 
income or disadvantaged people, while also earning financial revenues for the enterprise to sustain and grow its 
activities.”
The definition of social entrepreneurship shows that the camp meets some of the components of 
being a social entrepreneurship. According to the founder of the association, the camp had to start 
as a social entrepreneurship, and later evolved to an association:
Alternative Camp had been an example of innovator entrepreneurship thanks to its facilities supported the 
first time in the world to all disability groups; its structure is based on volunteerism and its philosophy is based 
on not supplying free services. And it has been awarded national and international prizes . . . (The founder 
AYDER) (extracted from a documentary on YouTube channel, 29 May 2013)
ANATOLIA 7
According to the İnceiplik (2018), AYDER has been classified as social entrepreneurship because 
the management of the charity has the following strategies which are a horizontal hierarchy, 
working with a professional crew, having volunteer support, a flexible business model, creating 
social change, developing strategic alliances, adopting innovative approaches, getting to the core of 
social problems, accepting social entrepreneurs from the target market’s discourse, and doing 
entrepreneurship-based revenue-generating activities (p. 77). However, the data suggest that the 
camp does not have any products that can sustain a stable financial revenue for the association. 
Therefore, the components that create products for organizational continuity and do entrepreneur-
ship-based revenue-generating activities are lacking in the case of Alternative Camp.
Conclusion and implications
This study contributes to one of the approaches that Turkey follows in implementing a country- 
specific social tourism model. First, the results showed that with implementing the three-layered 
approach, which is “the triangle of inclusive social tourism”, social tourism could turn into a vehicle to 
reduce inequalities by integrating disadvantaged people into tourism as well as, creating awareness to 
the problems of society about social exclusions. Second, the camp provides a model in European social 
tourism standards that can be applied who aims to create high-social impact with low-cost (Figure 1).
As a result, it could be said that to operate social tourism practices in contexts like Turkey, there 
are three main principles for low cost and high social impact: Sustainable financial support (1), 
a strong volunteer structure (2), an aspirational goal (3). After implementing those three basic 
principles of zero-cost process, having a social entrepreneurship perspective led to a more acces-
sible, diverse, and integrating social tourism practice which leads to social inclusion.
To discuss the results thoroughly, it should be considered that in countries like Turkey where the 
support of governmental organizations to social entrepreneurship is lacking (Arslan, 2017), most of the 
social entrepreneurs had to form a charity to create sponsorship relations for the financial continuity of 
their projects like Alternative Camp (İnceiplik, 2018). Because that reality causes the organizational 
Social Entreprenuership Perspective
A strong volunteer 
Structure
Sustainable 
financial support
An aspirational goal
The process of zero-cost
Accessible;
Diverse; 
Integrating;
Inclusive Social Tourism Practice
Figure 1. The conceptual model for an inclusive social tourism management.
8 H. AKDEMIR
continuity of the camp to depend on its volunteers, donors, and its aspiration for being a social 
changemaker.
In the camp, there were major funding problems threating the financial continuity which could 
not be found out because the camp and its donator were sensitive to sharing data about financial 
accounts. Therefore, it was impossible to understand in which percentage does the main donor 
support the camp. Assuming that the telecommunication company was the only main financial 
supporter, it could be said that rather than having one big donor, having multiple firms to get fund 
would be wise for such organizations. Indeed, most of the European countries started to implement 
multi-funding schemes to ensure the business continuity of their social tourism practices (Gabruc, 
2016), which should be studied by future researchers.
The main risk of organizational continuity was having volunteers as human resource. The most 
problematic part of the research was verifying the causes of volunteer retention. The reason is that 
deciding to stay in the association or quitting the association depends on highly personal factors 
(Haski-Leventhal & Bargal, 2008). Also, there were contradictory statements of the board members 
and the founder of AYDER about their expectations from volunteers and their interpretation of the 
nature of volunteerism. Therefore, there might be further research in the subject of nature of 
volunteerism in Turkey to define the limits of volunteerism.
As a last point to the success factors about ensuring the organizational continuity of the camp is having 
an aspirational goal. By having an aspirational goal, the stakeholders of the camp intentionally want to 
support the organization, since they all feel like they are part of a social change. However, at that point, the 
transparency and accountability of the camp to its users and the public come into play. Because the camp 
has a horizontal hierarchy and democratic management, it should be expected from the camp to be more 
transparent. Neither the website of AYDER nor the published reports were providing open access to the 
information about the distribution of revenue. Therefore, it could be said that the accountability of the 
organization is lacking. In that case, building trust in society may only depend on AYDER’s social 
changemaker position in society and its media coverage which can be challenging in future.
According to the literature, problems of the financial and organizational continuities are not 
peculiar to the camp; in fact, the source of the problems and the difficulties caused by a broader 
perspective. According to İnceiplik (2018), because of the inadequate financial support of govern-
ment for social entrepreneurship practices or charities, their futures are threatened. Considering 
that the venue of the camp is donated by the municipality, it is not true to say that the state does not 
support the Academy at all. However, considering the funding mechanism of the camp, it can be 
said that the contribution of government organizations is lacking.
By referencing this study, in terms of the social tourism policies of Turkey, the fact that European 
countries started to adopt several funding mechanisms to social tourism practices takes attention for 
future studies. In that context, the government support might be an alternative for Turkey, because in 
most European countries, state allocates budget for social tourism practices. That is why the real question 
might be the position of government organizations, and how the social tourism policies should be 
arranged to make them more supportive in that context. Therefore, in further research, there should be 
more focus on the governance of social tourism in Turkey.
Acknowledgments
This study has been re-organized from the thesis of H. Akdemir (2019). Social tourism as a tool for creating an inclusive 
society: Examining Turkey’s Alternative Camp, Bogazici University, Istanbul, 10270591. The study is dedicated to 
disadvantaged people. The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose critical observations and suggestions 
have greatly improved the study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
ANATOLIA 9
Notes on contributor
Hilal Akdemir graduated from the School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Yeditepe University, Turkey 
(2015). She obtained her master’s degree in sustainable tourism management, Bogazici University, Turkey (2019). 
She is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Algarve, Portugal.
ORCID
Hilal Akdemir http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7684-1004
References
Arslan, A. (2017). Belediyelerin engelli hizmetleri ve kurum imajı [Disability services and corporate image of munici-
palities]. Ekin Yayınevi.
Bélanger, C. É., & Jolin, L. (2011). The International Organisation of Social Tourism (ISTO) working towards a right 
to holidays and tourism for all. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011. 
568056
Bıçkı, D., Ak, D., & Özgökçeler, S. (2013). Avrupa’da ve Türkiye’de sosyal turizm [Social tourism in Europe and 
Turkey]. Mugla Sitki Koçman Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitu¨su¨ Dergisi, 31(5), 49–73. https://dergipark.org. 
tr/tr/download/article-file/216103
Brewer, D. J. (2000). Ethnography. Open University Press.
Diekmann, A., & McCabe, S. (2011). Systems of social tourism in the European Union: A critical review. Current 
Issues in Tourism, 14(5), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011.568052
Diekmann, A., McCabe, S., & Minnaert, L. (2019). 3. Social tourism today: stakeholders, and supply and demand 
factors. In S. McCabe, L. Minnaert, & A. Diekman (Eds.),  Social tourism in Europe. Theory and practice (pp. 
35–47). Channel View Publications. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781845412340-009
Etchart, N., & Comolli, L. (2013). Social enterprise in emerging market countries. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/ 
10.1057/9781137342102
Gabruc, J. (2016). Multi-channel funding of social tourism programs: The case of the association of friends with 
youth. Academica Turistica, 9(2), 97–105. http://www.hippocampus.si/ISSN/2335-4194/9-2_97-105.pdf
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 
594–606. https://doi.org/10.3367/UFNr.0180.201012c.1305
Hall, D., & Brown, F. (2019). 7. The welfare society and tourism: European perspectives. In D. Hall & F. Brown (Eds.), 
Social tourism in Europe; theory and practice (pp. 108–121). Channel View Publications. https://doi.org/10.21832/ 
9781845412340-017
Haski-Leventhal, D., & Bargal, D. (2008). The volunteer stages and transitions model: Organizational socialization of 
volunteers. Human Relations, 61(1), 62–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707085946
İnceiplik, G. (2018). Sürdürülebilir sosyal girişimler: Türkiye örneği üzerine teorik bir model [Sustainable social 
enterprises: A theoretical model on the example of Turkey]. Ekin Basım Dağıtım.
Kassa, C. (2019). Case study 8: The Family Fund, UK. In L. Minnaert, A. Diekmann, & S. McCabe (Eds.), Social 
tourism in Europe; theory and practice (pp. 142–145). Channel View Publications. https://doi.org/10.21832/ 
9781845412340-020
Kastenholz, E., Eusebio, C., & Figueiredo, E. (2015). Contributions of tourism to social inclusion of persons with 
disability. Disability & Society, 30(8), 1259–1281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1075868
Kızılırmak, İ., & Ertuğrul, M. S. (2012). Sosyal turizmin gelişiminde yerel yönetimlerin rolü ve yapılan uygulamalar 
[The role of local governments and practices in the development of social tourism]. Manas Journal of Social 
Studies, 1(2), 33–53. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/576821
Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. (2007). Türkiye turizm stratejisi 2023 [Turkey’s tourism strategy 2023].
MacMahon, T. (2019). Case study 6: The Sunshine Fund, Ireland. In L. Minnaert, A. Diekmann, & S. McCabe (Eds.), 
Social tourism in Europe; theory and practice (pp. 104–108). Channel View Publications. https://doi.org//10.21832/ 
9781845412340-016
McCabe, S. (2015). Is the UK being left behind? Current trends in social tourism in Europe and beyond, commissioned 
by Family Holiday Association. Laurance Paper Co.
Minnaert, L., Diekmann, A., & McCabe, S. (2019). 2. Defining social tourism and its historical context. In 
L. Minnaert, A. Diekmann, & S. McCabe (Eds.), Social tourism in Europe; theory and practice (pp. 18–30). 
Channel View Publications. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781845412340-007
Pagan, R. (2015). The impact of holiday trips on life satisfaction and domains of life satisfaction: Evidence for German 
disabled individuals. Journal of Travel Research, 54(3), 359–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513517424
10 H. AKDEMIR
Rains, S. (2009, October 28). What is inclusive tourism. SlideShare. https://www.slideshare.net/guest6390726/what- 
is-inclusive-tourism-scott-rains
Rochester, C., Paine, A. E., Howlett, S., & Zimmeck, M. (2016). Volunteering and society in the 21st century. Palgrave 
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230279438
Safrit, D., & Schmiesing, R. (2012). Volunteer models and management, chapter 1, p.3-31, In; Connors, T. (Eds.), The 
Volunteer Management Handbook: Leadership strategies for success (2nd ed.), (pp. 3–31). New Jersey: John Wily 
& Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781118386194
Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Sarıbaş, Ö., & Akbaba, A. (2018). A general overview of social tourism literature [Paper presented]. 3rd International 
Eastern Mediterranean Tourism Symposium Iskenderun, Turkey.
Small, J., & Darcy, S. (2010). Tourism, disability and mobility. In S. Cole & N. Morgan (Eds.), Tourism and inequality; 
problems and prospects (pp. 1–48). CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845936624.0001
Soler, J. A. C., Díaz, M. B., & Vera, P. S. (2018). The accessible social tourism: A new tourist model. Cuadernos de 
Turismo, 41, 139–155. https://doi.org/10.6018/turismo.41.326981
ANATOLIA 11