lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 33 (2012) 562e568

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Visitor centre staffing: Involving volunteers

Karen A. Smith a,*, Kirsten Holmes b,1

aVictoria Management School, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6040, New Zealandb School of Management, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth 6845, WA, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 17 October 2010Accepted 17 June 2011

Keywords:Tourism volunteeringVisitor information centreCommunity involvementMotivation

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ64 4 463 5721; fax:E-mail addresses: karen.smith@vuw.ac.nz (K.A.

edu.au (K. Holmes).1 Tel.: þ61 8 9266 7411; fax: þ61 9 9266 7897.

0261-5177/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.06.010

a b s t r a c t

Volunteer involvement in visitor centres has received little attention by tourism researchers despite thecritical role staff play in welcoming tourists to a destination and promoting tourism activities. Thecommunity function of visitor centres e of which volunteering is part e has also been underplayed inprevious research. Using data from a survey and interviews with visitor centre managers in Australia, thispaper investigates the rationales for staffing visitor centres with volunteers and/or paid employees and,related to motivations for volunteering, the factors influencing the attractiveness of visitor centrevolunteer programmes. The dominant rationales for involving volunteers are need, communityinvolvement, visitor experience, and the personal qualities and motivations of volunteers. Visitor centrevolunteering is attractive because of location and local pride, interactions with tourists and social rela-tionships with other volunteers, and the reputation of the visitor centre and its volunteer programme.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Destination service organisations such as visitor centres havemultiple functions (Pearce, 2004), including a social and commu-nity integration role. Staff in these destination service organisationshave the potential to influence the tourist experience and thequality of service provided. Visitor centre workers are often one ofthe first contacts a tourist makes on arriving in a destination andthey set the stage for the visitors’ experience (Perdue, 1995). Whileworkers can be part or full-time paid staff, in many cases volunteersdeliver these services. Volunteering is a discretionary activitywhich is essentially a donation of time, although the spectrum ofactivities that can be seen as volunteering is broad (Cnaan, Handy, &Wadsworth, 1996). Managing volunteer staff brings differentchallenges to managing a paid workforce. Tourism volunteers area growing topic of research, however their role in destinationservice organisations has received little attention. Equally, thedeveloping academic and practitioner literature on visitor centremanagement largely overlooks the role of staffing and volunteers(exceptions include Anderson & Cairncross, 2005; Jago &Deery, 2002).

This article uses data from two Australian studies of destinationservice organisations and volunteers in the states of Victoria and

þ64 4 463 5180.Smith), k.holmes@cbs.curtin.

All rights reserved.

Western Australia. The research takes an organisational perspectivewith data collected through a survey and interviews with visitorcentre managers. This addresses the overwhelming focus on thevolunteers’ perspective evident in previous tourism volunteeringresearch. We consider two management challenges facing visitorcentre managers. First, what are the rationales for staffing visitorcentres with volunteers and/or paid employees? Second, related tomotivations for volunteering, what factors influence the attrac-tiveness of visitor centre volunteering programmes? The paperconcludes that the community function of visitor centres has beenunderplayed in previous research, despite the role of staff e

including volunteers e as a bridge between tourism and the localcommunity.

2. Literature review

2.1. Tourism volunteering

Tourism volunteering is volunteering that takes place ina tourism setting. Volunteers can contribute to tourism as partici-pants in its production as well as consumers of tourism experi-ences. Smith and Holmes (2009) make the distinction betweentourism volunteering in guest and host settings, while recognisingthis dichotomy can be overly simplistic and there are complexdimensions of tourism volunteering (Holmes, Smith, Lockstone-Binney, & Baum, 2010). The phenomenon of volunteer tourismencapsulates volunteering as a guest and involves travel toa destination. Volunteering as a host most frequently involves

K.A. Smith, K. Holmes / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 562e568 563

residents as volunteers within their own community, and takesplace in visitor attractions, at events, and in destination serviceorganisations such as visitor centres.

In the past decade there has been tremendous growth oftourism volunteering research, however this has generally consid-ered different types of tourism volunteering separately with littleintegration of theory or exploration of commonalities. Morerecently, some researchers have advocated a more holistic andinclusive conceptualisation of tourism volunteering to recognisethe diversity of forms, settings and time contributions that tourismvolunteers make (Holmes & Smith, 2009; Holmes et al., 2010; Smith& Holmes, 2009; Uriely, Reichel, & Ron, 2003).

Demand-side perspectives are most evident in tourism volun-teering research, with a focus on the volunteer and their profiles,motivations, behaviours, experiences, attitudes and self-identity(Holmes et al., 2010). Motivational research is the dominanttheme (Guttentag, 2009; Holmes et al., 2010) and researchers agreethat motivations are complex and personal. Tourism studies over-whelmingly use general volunteer motivation survey instruments(such as the Clary et al.’s (1998) Volunteer Function Index) toinvestigate generic motivations for volunteering. These quantita-tive studies often fail to capture the specific motivations forsomeone choosing a particular organisation, programme orvolunteer role. A small number of qualitative studies have begun toconsider why volunteers are attracted to specific tourism organi-sations and programmes; inter-related factors include: location;the nature and variety of the volunteering task; the image andstatus of the organisation; the influence of peers; and financialconsiderations (Broad & Jenkins, 2008; Smith, 2003; Söderman &Snead, 2008).

To counter-balance the dominance of demand-side research,Smith and Holmes (2009) highlight the need for studies thatconsiders the perspectives of others involved in the tourism vol-unteering experience, beyond the volunteer themselves. Thisincludes the organisation (managers and paid staff), communities,and the views of visitors.

One tourism setting that has received minimal attention isdestination services which have been under researched and rec-ognised in comparison to host volunteering in visitor attractions(particularly museums and other cultural and heritage attractions)and events (particularly sporting mega events) (Smith & Holmes,2009). We use ‘destination services’ to encompass organisationspromoting and facilitating tourism in a destination. In terms ofinvolving volunteers this includes: visitor/tourist informationcentres; meet-and-greet programmes based at transport hubs suchas airports, train stations and ports; accommodation hosting rolessuch as campground hosts; and rescue services such as surf life-saving and mountain rescue teams. This latter group may notperceive themselves to be tourism volunteers, however we includethem as visitors to a destination are a major beneficiary of theirrescue services. In each type of destination service volunteers candirectly influence the tourists’ holiday experience. Meet-and-greeters and campground hosts have largely been ignored (seeSmith & Holmes, 2009), however there has been limited researchon volunteers in emergency rescue services (Hall & Innes, 2008;O’Connell, 2006; Uriely, Schwartz, Cohen, & Reichel, 2002) andvisitor centres e the focus of this paper (Anderson & Cairncross,2005; Jago & Deery, 2002).

2.2. Visitor centres

Pearce (2004, p. 8) defines a visitor centre as “a clearly labelled,publicly accessible, physical space with personnel providing pre-dominantly free of charge information to facilitate travellers’experiences”. Research on visitor centres has emerged from the

United States e where the focus is on highway welcome centres eand, more recently, Australia’s visitor information centres. Thethemes of this research have been summarised (for example byHobbin, 1999; Hwang & Li, 2008; Perdue, 1995) as: profiling visi-tors/users; examining differences between visitor centre users andnon-users; reasons for stopping and on-site behaviours; and esti-mating the effect of visitor centres on off-site behaviour (forexample, length of stay) and expenditure. Pennington-Gray andVogt (2003) added ‘alternative locations and appearance’ as anemerging theme, and more recent research has considered infor-mation dissemination and quality, including the role of informationcommunications technology (for example, Deery et al., 2007;Mistilis & D’Ambra, 2008; Shi, 2006). Research has focused on thedemand side e the visitors’ perspective e rather than the supplyside, with less attention having been afforded to the voices of thosefunding, planning, and operating centres (see, for example,Ballantyne & Hughes, 2004; Deery et al., 2007; Fallon & Kriwoken,2003; Jago & Deery, 2002), or the communities that host them (forexample, Fallon & Kriwoken, 2003).

Visitor centres can be privately run, or are often a joint initiativebetween tourism businesses, conservation organisations, andnational, state, regional and local government (Fallon & Kriwoken,2002). They can be linked to tourist boards or destinationmarketing organisations (DMOs), and may be part of a nationalvisitor information network or accreditation scheme (such asAccredited Visitor Information Centres in Australia and the i-SITEnetwork in New Zealand). In the United States welcome centres aretypically state-run and located on highways at or near bordercrossings. Australian visitor centres differ (Deery, Jago, Daugherty,Carson, & Adams, 2006; Deery et al., 2007) and although mostvisitor centres receive at least some public sector financing, there isno single model of operation and funding.

Visitor centres offer a diversity of services and facilities ina variety of types of location. Pearce’s ‘four plus’ model of visitorcentre functioning identifies multiple and overlapping functions:“promotion of the area, orientation to and enhancement of thearea’s attractions, control and filtering of visitor flows and substi-tution for on-site visits” (Pearce, 2004, p. 9). To these he addscommunity integration to recognise non-visitor services compo-nents. These are additional ‘plus’ functions that “do not servevisitors but instead represent the goals of visitor centres in suchdirections as providing a community centre, displaying the prideand political achievements of the area and serving as the admin-istrative and research home for local tourism management” (p. 9).This function may include involving local people throughvolunteering.

Pearce’s model postulates that the importance of the functionswill differ according to location. Themodel was further extended byBallantyne, Hughes, and Ritchie (2009) who propose a hierarchicalmodel based on primary function. They suggest all centres havea foundation or base function of promotion, but some have otherroles depending on their location and facilities, with filtering/control and substitution at the top of the hierarchy. However,Ballantyne et al.’s model makes no reference to Pearce’s ‘plus’function, perhaps as a consequence of their data collection withvisitors who may not recognise, or value, this community-orientated function.

Ballantyne et al. (2009) do acknowledge that visitor centres inremote and regional areas can provide a “contribution to the socialfabric of the community by serving as community meeting facili-ties” (p. 782). Fallon and Kriwoken’s (2003) Tasmanian case studyillustrates the importance of community involvement and consul-tation in the design, development and operation of a visitor centre.They stress the necessity of considering the needs and motivationsof local communities, and to encourage and inspire them because

K.A. Smith, K. Holmes / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 562e568564

“ultimately these groups provide referral, and cultural and socialintegrity [for the centre]” (p. 301). Visitor centre staffing modelsprovide one way for linking into the local community.

2.3. Visitor centre staffing, including volunteers

Pearce’s aforementioned definition of visitor centres requires ‘ahuman presence’ and interactions with staff and verbal dissemi-nation of information remain desirable to visitors (Ballantyne,Hughes, Deery, & Bond, 2007; Ballantyne et al., 2009; Fallon &Kriwoken, 2003; Tierney, 1993), despite technological develop-ments (Connell & Reynolds, 1999; Deery et al., 2007; Mistilis &D’Ambra, 2008). The importance of a human touch and personalservice means staff have a crucial customer service role and thepotential to influence visitor activities, increase expenditure, andencourage repeat visitation (Deery et al., 2006). Visitor studiesreport high levels of satisfaction with visitor centre staff, particu-larly their friendliness and knowledge (for example, Ballantyneet al., 2009; Deery et al., 2006; Fallon & Kriwoken, 2003; Hobbin,1999; Pitegoff & Smith, 2003). Visitors want personal recommen-dations (Ballantyne et al., 2007) and visitor centre staff represent anopportunity to interact with the local community. Fallon andKriwoken (2003, p. 305) point to the “need for good, authenticand memorable stories and friendly staff encounters” as an area forfurther research.

Many studies refer to ‘staff’ in a generic way, however differentstaffing models are evident in visitor centres: paid staff, volunteers,or a combination of the two. Staffing visitor centres has its chal-lenges, as described by Ballantyne and Hughes (2004, p. 5):

“the visitor information industry is [also] very fragmented e

many staff work on a casual or part-time basis; some are retiredor have little, if any, work experience; skills and tourismknowledge varies widely; there is a high turn-over rate; and fewstaff have professional qualifications or access to training”.

Visitor centres have been characterised by large numbers ofvolunteer staff (Deery et al., 2007). The North American-dominatedDestination Marketing Association International (2007) found that20 percent of staff in DMO-operated visitor centres were volun-teers. Australian studies have put the figures much higher: inQueensland Ballantyne and Hughes (2004) quote 69 percent andBallantyne et al. (2007) 92 percent of staff as voluntary, and Deeryet al.’s (2007) study of 33 Australian visitor information centresfound volunteers in all but four, and three centres having nopaid staff.

Fallon and Kriwoken (2003) suggest if economic viability isa concern for visitor centres, volunteers can supplement paid staff.However, the decision to involve paid staff and/or volunteers inhost settings has rarely been studied. An exception is Jago andDeery (2002) who calculated the costs of recruiting, training andrewarding paid employees and volunteers at two Australian visitorcentres where both types of staff were involved. They foundvolunteers are a cost-effective means of providing a quality visitorinformation service, even when the cost of employing a volunteermanager and other supervisory staff are taken into account.

Staffing decisionsmay be influenced by service quality as well asfinancial concerns. In New Zealand, Lee (2006) found visitorinformation centre i-SITE branding led to a preference for paidrather than volunteer staff due to concerns over product knowledgeand service quality, although not all centre managers were happywith the situation. In discussing the information exchange processDeery et al. (2007) point to large numbers of volunteer staff as botha strength and a weakness. Volunteers often have extensive localknowledge and enable high levels of human interaction; however,they can also be resistant to change, fearful of technology, work

irregular or infrequent shifts and so require constant retraining andstrong internal communication processes. Ballantyne and Hughes(2004) also found variation between paid and volunteer visitorcentre staff in relation to roles, skills and attitudes towards trainingfor e-learning.

Jago and Deery (2002) established that visitors were highlysatisfied by the level of service they received at a regional visitorcentre regardless of whether they had been assisted by a volunteeror a paid member of staff. Interviews and focus groups withvolunteers and paid staff found they have “quite different viewsabout what constituted quality service, with volunteers empha-sising ‘passion’ and paid staff emphasising ‘professional’” (p. 235).While there were high levels of cooperation between volunteersand paid staff in the provision of information to visitors, sellingmerchandising distinguished paid staff from volunteers with thelatter believing that their role was not a commercial one.

Little motivational research has been undertaken with visitorcentre volunteers. An exception is Anderson and Cairncross’s(2005) study of a visitor centre in New South Wales which foundvolunteers were primarily motivated by the ‘understanding’ func-tion of the Volunteer Function Inventory (VFI). The VFI is an widelyaccepted method for assessing volunteer motivation (Clary et al.,1998) and the ‘understanding’ function includes creating oppor-tunities to permit new learning experiences, and the chance to useskills or knowledge that would otherwise go unpractised. InAnderson and Cairncross’ case study, the visitor centre manageralso perceived a strong social motivation for the volunteers,although the volunteers themselves rated this as less important.

To further explore the organisational perspective on staffing andvolunteer involvement in visitor centres, this paper investigatestwo questions:

1. What are the rationales for staffing visitor centres withvolunteers and/or paid employees; and

2. What factors influence the attractiveness of visitor centrevolunteer programmes?

3. Methods

In order to answer the research questions a mixed methodsapproach following a triangulation design model (Cresswell &Plano Clark, 2006) was used, with data collected from visitorcentre managers across two states in Australia: Victoria andWestern Australia. These two states encompass a variety of tourismexperiences and are different economically and socially with con-trasting accessibility issues, with Western Australia representingsome of the most remote tourist attractions and visitor centres inAustralia. Triangulation design is the most commonly used form ofmixed methods research and triangulation can be achievedthrough multiple sources of data, multiple investigators andmultiple methods for data collection (Denzin, 1978). This studyused multiple forms of triangulation. First, breadth of data wassought by surveying tourist information and visitor centres acrossWestern Australia via email or telephone (study A). There are 98official visitor centres in Western Australia, including public,commercial and not-for-profit centres. All visitor centres werecontacted to participate in the study and 82 responded, givinga response rate of 84%. These visitor centres were asked about theirstaffing arrangements, level of volunteer involvement and rationalefor involving volunteers.

Second, depth and richness of data were achieved throughinterviewing visitor centre managers. Study A had identifiedsignificant variation in the involvement of volunteers based on thegeographical location of the visitor centre. In study B, seven visitorcentres were purposefully selected in Victoria to give maximum

K.A. Smith, K. Holmes / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 562e568 565

variation (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and included metropolitan,regional centres, and country locations. At each centre, themanagers, who were all paid, were questioned on recruitment,selection and retention practices, and, the focus of this paper, therationale for involving volunteers and their perceptions of whyvolunteers are attracted to volunteer at their centre.

The data from study A were analysed using simple descriptivestatistics and by cross-case comparison. The study B interviewswere audio recorded and transcribed and analysed using acceptedmethods for qualitative data analysis, specifically reading and re-reading the transcripts, looking for themes, which had been iden-tified by the research objectives, with other themes emerging fromthe data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Two researchers separatelycoded the data, identifying themes that were then compared toincrease the confirmability of the results.

While the two studies reported here were undertaken indifferent states and with different study populations, they bothsought to understand the involvement and management ofvolunteers in tourism organisations. Both studies involved smallsamples of visitor centres in one state, but the qualitative approachof study B enables in-depth investigation of the themes beingexplored and selected quotes from the interviews are used toillustrate these points in the findings and discussion. In presentingquotes, the type of location of the visitor centre is given to helpclassify the respondents. These two studies provide a managerialperspective to contrast with the dominance of volunteer perspec-tives in the extant literature.

4. Findings and discussion

4.1. Rationales for staffing visitor centres with volunteers and/orpaid staff

This section examines the reasons why visitor centres involvevolunteers. It begins with an overview of the visitor centres in thesample, comparing size, location, staffing models and governance.Of the 82 responding visitor centres in Western Australia (study A),7 centres were run entirely by volunteers, 42 centres had only paidstaff, and 33 involved both paid staff and volunteers in operationalroles (Table 1). The data revealed two types of visitor centres whichappear to rely on paid staff: the bigger centres in the main touristareas, and some smaller centres in remote locations.

Reasons for employing paid staff included discussion of thebenefits of paid over voluntary workers, for example:

“We don’t have volunteers, we think it is not fair to have somepeople paid and others not. Also volunteers don’t last very longand take a lot of time to train. We prefer to give premiumcustomer service and pay our customer service officers andsupervisor.” (Regional centre)

33 of the visitor centres in Western Australia had both paid staffand volunteers, and often each had only one full-time paid staffmember, supplemented by volunteers, typically one volunteer pershift. Volunteer recruitment was a clear problem in more rural andremote locations, due to ageing populations, young people not

Table 1Staffing models for visitors centres in Western Australia.

Staffing model Responses

Only volunteers 7Both paid staff and volunteers 33Only paid staff 42Non responses 16n 98

volunteering, and the cost of living for visitors and temporaryresidents. Small resident populations made it being “very difficultto get paid staff let alone volunteers” (Country). It is worth noting,however, that seven visitor centres in study A were entirely run byvolunteers.

Continuing the organisational perspective, the seven visitorcentres in the Victorian sample (study B) shared a number ofcharacteristics. All were council-run, either through the DMO ora council department (such as tourism and economic development)and all employed a paid manager. Operating within a councilstructure meant that therewas support from other council staff anddepartments (such as a council volunteer co-ordinator or thehuman resources department) and all visitor centres had formalpolicies and procedures regarding volunteer management. Thesepolicies could be centrally developed within the council, or devel-oped by the visitor centre manager in conjunctionwith council staffor other departments involving volunteers (for example, the eventsteam). The centres all involved volunteers in operational customerservice roles in direct contact with visitors. All volunteers made anongoing commitment to their organisation and had minimum shiftrequirements (from once a week to once a month). Volunteers mayalso do extra shifts or roles when required, such as during majorevents.

There were also differences between the seven centres in termsof location, size and staffing. Three centres were in metropolitanMelbourne (two in satellite towns); two were in regional centres;and two in country locations. While all centres operated yearround, the largest were the city centre (300 volunteers) andregional centre sites (60e80 volunteers) that had the largestnumbers of volunteers and also employed more paid staff. Incontrast, the rural (country) and metropolitan satellite centreswere smaller in terms of their volunteer numbers (30e40 volun-teers). While three of these visitor centres employed two or threepaid staff in addition to the centre manager, at the other ruralcentre the manager was the only paid employee. The centremanagers all had a range of responsibilities. These managers aregeneral managers rather than volunteer management specialists.One respondent described his role as “interpretive, experience andinformation development. It encompasses the volunteers, theoperation of the information centre, the operation and displays inthe interpretive area” (Regional centre). He estimated that fiftypercent of his time was spent on volunteer management.

These interviews from study B enabled a more in-depthdiscussion of why visitor centres involve volunteers. The sevencentre managers identified four main reasons: need (related to thecouncil funding model); community involvement; visitor experi-ence; and the personal qualities and motivations of volunteers.

All but one centre manager identified ‘need’ as the main ora major reason for involving volunteers, with one manager froma regional centre in Victoria stating that the visitor centre could notoperate without the volunteers. Need was linked to workload ofvisitor enquiries and the necessity of having volunteers to supple-ment small numbers of paid staff. This was often a financiallydriven decision to save the council money. Managers noted thatvisitor centres do not bring a direct revenue stream to the council(apart from small amounts through retail sales, guided tours, orroom rental), so the wider economic benefits of generating andsupporting tourism in the local area often went unrecognised ata council funding level. Managers made comparisons with thealternative staffing model of all paid staff rather than volunteers,with one manager suggesting this could be a more cost-effectiveoption:

“I think for all the time I spend on this [volunteer management],all the council needs to do is pay one person one day aweek, and

K.A. Smith, K. Holmes / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 562e568566

we could almost do without them [the volunteers]. And I justwonder if the work involved in volunteers is justified in thesavings.” (Country)

All managers also discussed more positive rationales forinvolving volunteers, which were related to community involve-ment, ownership and support. Volunteering enabled communityparticipation, which helped to foster a sense of communityownership of the visitor centre along with the visitor centre sup-porting local business, community groups and associations. Forexample, one manager commented:

“Having that community link. We need the knowledge that thelocals have, and it also creates a good feeling within thecommunity that they’re supportive. They’re probably the mainreasons why you actually need to go down the track of havingvolunteers in a visitor centre, rather than just running it with[paid] staff.” (Metropolitan satellite)

In the rural centres in particular, the visitor centre had anothercommunity role, with one manager describing the visitor centre asthe “social hub in the town”.

Community involvement was also illuminated in the benefitsthat involving volunteers brings for the visitor experience.Managers reflected that tourists enjoy interacting with localpeople, and volunteers are ambassadors for their town and can bekey to making visitors feel welcome; for example:

“We’re selling an experience here and the visitors love to hearthat from somebodywho has lived here for 20 years, or has livedhere for a 100 or 70 years or so. And that’s really where thevisitor gets the experience fromwhere they’re getting that localknowledge, they’re getting the little stories.” (Regional centre)

The passion and enthusiasm for the local area, and their vol-unteering, were elements of a rationale related to the personalqualities of volunteers. As part of this, managers largely recognisedthe benefits of volunteering to the volunteer and the organisation’sability to meet the motivations of volunteers. Volunteering has tobe a two-way process, with both the visitor centre and the volun-teers benefitting.

In rationalising the involvement of volunteers, managerscommonly made comparisons with paid staff, either as an alter-native to volunteers or as co-workers. One manager commentedpositively on the attitude and enthusiasm of volunteers comparedto their full-time paid staff members:

“When you’re doing, in a way, such a repetitive task, havingsomeone on four-hour shifts once a week, which is ourminimum requirement, certainly ensures that those volunteersare always very fresh so they’re not getting burnt out.” (Regionalcentre)

Paid staff and volunteers can also undertake different roles, or atleast have different levels of responsibility within the same visitorcentre. For example, only paid staff may handle money and retailsales, or be given responsibility for cashing up or banking. At onelarge centre however, the manager saw little distinction betweenpaid and volunteer tasks but noted that the paid staff’s role is:

“to mentor and train volunteers, deal with difficult customers,and have more responsibility than volunteers. [Paid] Informa-tion Officers don’t have same rostering arrangements, and maywork on different days. Paid staff are more flexible thanvolunteers.” (Metropolitan)

At the visitor centres in Victoria, volunteers were a necessitybecause of financial constraints. However, they also offered some-thing distinct from paid staff by providing a link to the community,

enhancing the visitor experience and through their own variedskills, which they brought to their role.

We now compare our data with extant research on tourismvolunteering. The role of volunteers in tourism destination serviceprovision has been hitherto overlooked within tourism studies,creating a significant gap in the literature. As such we must discussthe findings from these visitor centres in relation to other settingsfor tourism volunteering. While the economic rationale forinvolving volunteers is evident across tourism, for example volun-teer tourism (Gray & Campbell, 2007) and events (Strigas & Jackson,2003), the most notable parallels for visitor centre volunteers are tohost volunteers in visitor attractions, particularly museums andcultural attractions. Previous research with attraction managers(Smith, 2003) also identified the importance of ‘need’ althoughthose respondents preferred to emphasise the more positive ratio-nales, namely community involvement and personal qualities (forexample, enthusiasm), rationales also evident in the current study.In our study, visitor centre managers were far more willing toemphasise the financial reasons for involving volunteers. Perhapsthis is reflects a different economic climate fromearlier researchor itcould be due to the different purposes of visitor centres and touristsattractions. Visitor centres are primarily designed to promote anarea and provide a service to visitors and visitor centre managerswere also more explicit about the contribution of volunteers to thevisitor experience, although this was acknowledged in Smith’sattractions study. Involving volunteers exemplifies Pearce’s ‘plus’community integration function of visitor centres. Local communitymembers as volunteers provide the local flavour with the authenticand memorable stories advocated by Ballantyne et al. (2009) andFallon and Kriwoken (2003).

The visitor centre managers in both Victoria and WesternAustralia made comparisons between paid and voluntary staffingmodels. As with Jago and Deery’s (2002) case study, centres in ourresearch were similarly influenced by both cost and service qualityfactors. Including data from centres not involving volunteers (studyA), something rarely done in volunteering research, demonstratesthat the staffing decisions are also influenced by external circum-stances. For example, small populations and labour market condi-tions mean visitor centres in remote locations are not in a positionto make the choice set out in Jago and Deery between paid staff andvolunteers. A key question is what attracts individuals to volunteerin visitor centres; the next section explores this from a managerialperspective.

4.2. The attraction of visitor centre volunteering

Our second research question queries the factors which influ-ence the attractiveness of visitor centre volunteering. Volunteeringin visitor centres is clearly attractive. The visitor centre managers inVictoria (study B) did not experience recruitment problems,although there were shortages on particular days (especiallyweekends). Managers were asked why they felt the visitor centrewas an attractive place to volunteer. Managers gave multiplefactors, including: location and local pride; interactions withtourists and socially with other volunteers; and the reputation ofthe visitor centre and its volunteer programme.

Location was important for several reasons. This could be thevisitor centre’s physical location in relation to key tourist attrac-tions or the town centre, or even the building itself. One visitorcentre manager commented on how the actual building contrib-uted to the attractiveness of volunteering, offering a friendly,welcoming place to volunteer particularly when compared toa much larger visitor centre in a neighbouring town: “.the size ofit, the smallness of it is an advantage. [.] here, the minute the dooropens someone will say, ‘Hello, how are you?’”.

K.A. Smith, K. Holmes / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 562e568 567

For local residents, volunteering at the visitor centre is a way ofdemonstrating pride in their town and acknowledging the impor-tance of tourism to the community; for example:

“99% of the people in the town would acknowledge the impor-tance that the tourism has to the town, and they want it to bea success. So for that reason I think they [the volunteers] like tocome here [.] and they are proud of the town too.” (Country)

One manager noted, while discussing applicants to volunteer ata newly opening visitor centre:

“I think the initial attraction is location. That it is a new visitorinformation centre. That [this town] has changed so much in thelast couple of years. That applications [for volunteering] haveindicated a passion. That they want to actually tell people howgreat this place is. Stop bagging us, you know, that’s sort of theattitude that I’m getting out of the applicants.” (Metropolitansatellite)

The volunteer role itself is an attraction with one managerdescribing it as enjoyable volunteering. Volunteers complete shortshifts at the visitor centre, which can be fun and this helps createa positive atmosphere for the visitors. Indeed, the social interactionwith other volunteers and tourists was a key attraction. Severalmanagers called their volunteers ‘people persons’. Managers didnote that the customer service role in visitor centres was muchmore pleasant than other customer service positions within thecouncil dealing with complaints or problems:

“99.9 per cent of the customers and visitors that we deal with,they’re on holiday, they’re in a good mood, they don’t havea gripe.” (Regional centre)

Managers reported that the opportunity for volunteers tointeract with tourists, and international visitors in particular, wasalso an attractive feature, especially as many volunteers werethemselves well-travelled and volunteering sometimes enabledthem to use their language skills.

Socialising with other volunteers made the visitor centre anattractive place tovolunteer.Managers facilitated this bydevelopinga team spirit at the centre and by organising off-site social events,such as Christmas parties and bowling or cinema evenings. Thesecould be linked to familiarisation visits (famils) that provide theopportunity for both social interaction and training, and familswereseen as an attractive perk of volunteering. With many volunteersbeing retired, the social attraction factor could be particularlymeaningful, especially for volunteers living on their own for whomthe visitor centre offers social support and friendship.

Managers all felt that their visitor centre has a good reputation,and that their volunteer programme is known for treating thevolunteers well. While most volunteers were from the localcommunity, one rural centre drew volunteers from a wider catch-ment, including neighbouring towns with their own volunteer-involving visitor centres, which the manager attributed to “ourreputation”. Other centres emphasised the recognition afforded tovolunteers, for example, long-service awards, public support andacknowledgement from the council, councillors andmayor, and theopportunity to take on extra responsibilities and leadership roles.

Few studies within the extant literature on tourismvolunteeringhave distinguished between motivations to volunteer and theattraction of a specific program or site. While some studies onvolunteer tourists have examined the reasons for choosinga particular project (for example, Broad & Jenkins, 2008), studies inhost settings typically focus only on motivation. Previous hostvolunteering research has identified the importance of socialinteractions with other volunteers and visitors (see Holmes &Smith, 2009), however this visitor centre data has also revealed

how managers recognise that this makes their organisationattractive to volunteers. Ballantyne et al. (2009) acknowledge thatin remote and regional areas visitor centres can act as communitymeeting facilities and our research has found that this role isevident in all types of locations, including urban centres. Managersin our study also stress that the reputation of the volunteer pro-gramme is a factor in attracting volunteers, which fits withEdwards’ (2005) study of museum volunteers who were motivatedto volunteer in an organisation they consider to be ‘prestigious’.Understanding what attracts volunteers to a specific programme iscrucial in recruiting suitable volunteers and this study has identi-fied the key characteristics of an attractive volunteer programme.

5. Conclusions

This research reiterates the importance of knowledgeable staffas the face of the visitor centre and destination. Staff, includingvolunteers, have a prominent promotional role, according toBallantyne et al. (2009) the baseline function of visitor centres.Future research on visitor centre function and user behaviour andsatisfaction would benefit from better understanding and integra-tion of supply-side perspectives, including staffing models.

Visitor centre volunteering is attractive for a number of reasons,not least because the activity itself is enjoyable and the visitors withwhom volunteers are interacting are generally people enjoyingthemselves whilst on holiday or a leisure trip. Visitor centre vol-unteering offers benefits which can be gained from many forms ofvolunteering, such as social contact, however the interviews withvisitor centre managers identified there are also specific factorsrelated to visitor centres. Visitor centre volunteering attracts resi-dents who want to showcase their home town or region. Volun-teers act as a bridge between the tourism sector and the localcommunity.

The attraction of location, pride and social interactionwith othervolunteers supports Pearce’s (2004) ‘plus’ community integrationfunction of visitor centres. Future research using Pearce (2004) andBallantyne et al.’s (2009) models needs to explore the communityplus function more critically. Pearce’s original paper stated theimportance of the plus function as a “powerful political force” andthat visitor centres need to be designed “to achieve administrativeand civic goals for the whole community” (2004, p. 11), howeverthis element has been underplayed in subsequent research. Ratherthan an additional ‘plus’ function, community integration roles maybe central to the viability and success of a visitor centre.

How visitor centres act as community resources merits strongerrecognition. This may be their role as a social centre hosting events,as a community e and council e information point, and as a meansof enabling and encouraging opportunities for communityinvolvement in tourism, such as through volunteering. This role isespecially pertinent given the substantial community-funding ofvisitor centres, for example through council rates and taxes. Localhosts are also known to influence the behaviour and expenditure ofvisiting friends and relatives (VFR) (Backer, 2007; Young, Corsun, &Baloglu, 2007) and residents’ use of visitor centres as a source oftourism and community information warrants further research.Understanding the importance of centres’ community functionmeans capturing the views of stakeholders besides visitors, such ascommunity members and leaders (cf. Fallon & Kriwoken, 2003).

Our research reveals four main reasons for visitor centres toinvolve volunteers: need, community involvement, visitor expe-rience, and the personal qualities and motivations of volunteers.In the interviews, need was related to the council funding modelhowever the survey captured a wider range of centres and showsthat need is also related to location. Local labour market condi-tion can result in a choice e or necessity e to employ paid staff

K.A. Smith, K. Holmes / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 562e568568

rather than volunteers. Paid staff can also be perceived as offeringhigher levels of customer service, and further research withvisitors (cf. Jago & Deery, 2002) would advance understanding ofperceived and actual differences in customer service by paid andvolunteer staff undertaking the same or similar roles. Furtherresearch categorising visitor centres by function (cf. Ballantyneet al., 2009) could also consider if specific types of centre arestaffed differently, and the appropriate mix of volunteers andpaid staff for centres with ‘higher’ protection functions. Thedifferent training needs for paid and volunteer staff also hasimplications for centre managers and needs to be recognisedwhen comparing staffing models.

Given the dearth of research on visitor centre volunteering,comparisons have been made to studies of volunteering in othertourism settings and the findings suggest strong parallels betweenhost volunteering in attractions and destination service organisa-tions. All organisations in this study involved volunteers on anongoing basis, as do many visitor attractions,. Future research withepisodic volunteers in destination service organisations, andattractions, is required to explore the significance of different timecontributions further. This could include campground host pro-grammes and those meet-and-greeters who volunteer episodically,for example only when a cruise ship is in port. Our preliminaryresearch with volunteers in a meet-and-greet programme (under-taking a similar information dissemination role to those in visitorcentres) support the similarities to other host volunteering, but alsorevealed some difference (Smith & Holmes, 2010). For example,those volunteers were attracted to the meet-and-greet programmebecause of the interactions with tourists, but also the location of thevolunteering work at key transport hubs (for example, an inter-national airport). A limitation of the current research is the focusonly on the managerial perspective and further research is requiredto understand the volunteers’ perspective on choice or attractive-ness of tourism volunteer programmes.

References

Anderson, E., & Cairncross, G. (2005). Understanding and managing volunteermotivation: two regional tourism cases. Australian Journal on Volunteering,10(2), 7e17.

Backer, E. (2007). VFR travel: an examination of the expenditures of VFR travellersand their hosts. Current Issues in Tourism, 10, 366e377.

Ballantyne, R., & Hughes, K. (2004). E-learning in Queensland visitor informationcentres: Barriers, facilitators and communities of practice. Australian NationalTraining Authority.

Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., Deery, M., & Bond, N. (2007). Meeting visitor needs: Ahandbook for managers and staff of visitor information centres. Gold Coast,Queensland, Australia: CRC for Sustainable Tourism.

Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Ritchie, B. W. (2009). Meeting the needs of tourists: therole and function of Australian visitor information centres. Journal of Travel &Tourism Marketing, 26, 778e794.

Broad, S., & Jenkins, J. (2008). Gibbons in their midst? Conservation volunteers’motivations at the gibbon rehabilitation project, Phuket, Thailand. In K. Lyons, &S. Wearing (Eds.), Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: International casestudy perspectives (pp. 72e85). Wallingford: CABI.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., et al.(1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functionalapproach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516e1530.

Cnaan, R. A., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer:conceptual and empirical considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quar-terly, 25, 364e383.

Connell, J., & Reynolds, P. (1999). The implications of technological developments ontourist information centres. Tourism Management, 20, 501.

Cresswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methodsresearch. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Deery, M., Jago, L., Daugherty, S., Carson, D., & Adams, K. (2006). Investigatingpotential tourism yield from visitor information centers. Gold Coast, Queensland,Australia: CRC for Sustainable Tourism.

Deery, M., Jago, L., Mistilis, N., D’Ambra, J., Richards, F., & Carson, D. (2007). Visitorinformation centers: Best practice in information dissemination. Gold Coast,Queensland, Australia: CRC for Sustainable Tourism.

Denzin, N. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Destination Marketing Association International. (2007). Profile of a destinationmarketing organization. Washington, DC: Destination Marketing AssociationInternational.

Edwards, D. (2005). It’s mostly about me: reasons why volunteers contribute theirtime to museums and art museums. Tourism Review International, 9(1), 21e31.

Fallon, L., & Kriwoken, L. K. (2002). Key elements contributing to effective andsustainable visitor centres: An evaluation of the Strahan Visitor Centre, Tasmania,Australia. Gold Cost, Queensland, Australia: CRC Sustainable Tourism.

Fallon, L. D., & Kriwoken, L. K. (2003). Community involvement in tourism infra-structure: the case of the Strahan Visitor Centre, Tasmania. Tourism Manage-ment, 24(3), 289e308.

Gray, N. J., & Campbell, L. M. (2007). A decommodified experience? Exploringaesthetic, economic and ethical values for volunteer ecotourism in Costa Rica.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15, 463e482.

Guttentag, D. A. (2009). The possible negative impacts of volunteer tourism.International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(6), 537e551.

Hall, J., & Innes, P. (2008). The motivation of volunteers: Australian surf lifesavers.Australian Journal on Volunteering, 13(1), 17e28.

Hobbin, S. (1999). Accreditation of Queensland visitor information centres:a consumer based perspective. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5, 387.

Holmes, K., & Smith, K. A. (2009). Managing volunteers in tourism: Attractions,destinations and events. Oxford: Elsevier.

Holmes, K., Smith, K. A., Lockstone-Binney, L., & Baum, T. G. (2010). Developing thedimensions of tourism volunteering. Leisure Sciences, 32(3), 255e269.

Hwang, Y.-H., & Li, Z. (2008). Travellers’ use of information obtained at touristinformation centres: comparison between information seekers and conve-nience stoppers. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 1e17.

Jago, L., & Deery, M. (2002). The role of human resource practices in achievingquality enhancement and cost reduction: an investigation of volunteer use intourism organisations. International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, 14(5), 229e236.

Lee, B.-Y. (2006). Visitor information centres: A case study of New Zealand. Unpub-lished MPM thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.London: Sage.

Mistilis, N., & D’Ambra, J. (2008). The visitor experience and perception of infor-mation quality at the Sydney Visitor Information Centre. Journal of Travel &Tourism Marketing, 24, 35e46.

O’Connell, S. (2006). How to value an Australian icon: the economic and social valueof surf lifesaving in Australia. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 11(1), 76e79.

Pearce, P. L. (2004). The functions and planning of visitor centres in regionaltourism. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 15(1), 8e17.

Pennington-Gray, L., & Vogt, C. (2003). Examining welcome center visitors’ traveland information behaviors: does location of centers or residency matter?Journal of Travel Research, 41(3), 272.

Perdue, R. R. (1995). Traveler preferences for information center attributes andservices. Journal of Travel Research, 33(4), 2.

Pitegoff, B. E., & Smith, G. (2003). Measuring the return on investment of destina-tion welcome centres: the case of Florida. Tourism Economics, 9(3), 307e323.

Shi, Y. (2006). The accessibility of Queensland visitor information centres’ websites.Tourism Management, 27(5), 829e841.

Smith, K. A. (2003). Literary enthusiasts as visitors and volunteers. InternationalJournal of Tourism Research, 5, 83e95.

Smith, K. A., & Holmes, K. (2009). Researching volunteers in tourism: going beyond.Annals of Leisure Research, 12(3e4), 403e420.

Smith, K., & Holmes, K. (2010). Volunteers and tourism destination services: chal-lenging the limits of tourism volunteering research. In S. Crispin, et al. (Eds.),Proceedings of the 20th annual conference Council for Australian UniversityTourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE). Hobart: University of Tasmania. (17pp.). CD-ROM.

Söderman, N., & Snead, S. L. (2008). Opening the gap: the motivation of gap yeartravellers to volunteer in Latin America. In K. Lyons, & S. Wearing (Eds.), Jour-neys of discovery in volunteer tourism: International case study perspectives (pp.118e129). Wallingford: CABI.

Strigas, A., & Jackson, N. (2003). Motivating volunteers to serve and succeed: Designand results of a pilot study that explores demographics and motivational factorsin sport volunteerism. International Sports Journal, 7, 111e121.

Tierney, P. T. (1993). The influence of state traveler information centers on touristlength of stay and expenditures. Journal of Travel Research, 31, 28.

Uriely, N., Reichel, A., & Ron, A. (2003). Volunteering in tourism: additional thinking.Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 57e62.

Uriely, N., Schwartz, Z., Cohen, E., & Reichel, A. (2002). Rescuing hikers in Israel’sdeserts: community altruism or an extension of adventure tourism? Journal ofLeisure Research, 34(1), 25e36.

Young, C. A., Corsun, D. L., & Baloglu, S. (2007). A taxonomy of hosts visiting friendsand relatives. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 497e516.