Decisions about the holiday destinations were largely made jointly by the parents, with little consultation with the children but following the overall purpose of family holidaying as discussed later:
“The kids just go where we go.” (Kea mother, pre-family interview)
“No part [in decision], just mum and dad. Do not mind, have never been there.” (Pukeko boy1, 13, pre-individual interview)
Most children were content with their lack of destination choice but it became a problem for one girl and negatively influenced their family dynamics:
“I only go because I have to. If I had the choice I stayed here.” (Fantail girl, 10, final family interview)
However, the following responses revealed that children’s involvement in decision making increased with regards to specific attractions visited at or en route to the destination like theme parks which supports Decrop (2006).
“It was kind of decided we are going there. Me and <brother> were told that we are going to Rainbow’s End and stuff and we also wanted to go to Splash Planet and so that came in later.” (Hoiho boy1, 11, pre-individual interview)
“We asked <the son> if you wanted to go to Splash Planet and you said yes.” (Takahe father, pre-family interview)
Two families had been following traditions and holidayed at the same destination for a number of years (Keruru and Fantail). The other eight families holidayed at
various destinations around the North Island (Table 3.3) with reasons for choosing a location being proximity to relatives, difference of location, ease of access compared with the South Island, and family budget, as reflected by this respondent:
“A discussion and we thought we try something different…We are limited in Wellington, you can only go North without it to cost megabucks by going on the ferry. So it is only Hawke’s Bay or Taranaki if you do not want to travel too far.” (Kea mother, pre-individual interview)
Other responses echoed the sentiment of choosing a destination for its difference:
“We always like to go somewhere different. We haven’t actually been to Gisborne as a family.” (Pukeko mother, pre-family interview)
The main positive reason for some families was because of family ties:
“Because relatives are there, the defining thing is that. That is why we go to that particular destination because otherwise we could go anywhere.”
(Weka mother, pre-family interview)
With regards to domestic holiday destinations, it became apparent that parents mainly made decisions themselves based on family traditions, where relatives live, where they have not been before, and practicalities such as ease of access combined with finances, as discussed next. The sub-themes of traditions (see section 5.5), social connectedness/VFR (see section 5.4) and change of routine (see section 5.3) were reflected in the destination choice, which was interspersed with entertainment aspects and preferences of the children (see section 5.3.2).
Thus, destination choice provided a context for discussing the main themes in the next two chapters in that mutually favourable decisions allow for balanced family time and own time. However, a perceived lack of choice could lead to constraints within the internal family dynamics, a theme revisited in section 5.6.
4.4.2 FINANCES
The cost of a holiday was not perceived as a deterrent. In fact, all of the families had annual domestic summer holidays and some had also been on overseas holidays. The finding is a reflection of sampling families with above average household incomes (Tables 3.2 and 3.3). Domestic holidays were perceived as cheaper and better value for money than overseas holidays, especially if travelling in the North Island.
“There is another thing: the cost of going to New Plymouth for 10 days was about half the price of going to Australia for the same amount of time. You could say, hey, we can do two of those holidays.” (Kea father, final individual interview)
Travel to the South Island was considered to be more expensive (see previous section). Thus, finances were related to destination choice but were not a matter of whether or not to go on holiday. Generally the available finances for holiday travel were connected to proper planning rather than income levels:
“It is a matter of planning. It is not expensive to do. You can do it in an expensive way but you can see New Zealand really cheaply as a family. And I like my kids to know that.” (Kea father, post-individual interview)
“And you have money because you plan for it.” (Goldfinch father, post-family interview)
It also became evident that for some, finances had a male gender role:
“What I like to do with these guys [family], just follow them around and hand over the cheque book. Pay for things is a very important role of mine.”
(Weka father, pre-family interview)
The financial cost of a holiday is considered in the tourism literature as a crucial factor in holiday taking (see Schänzel et al., 2005) but had few implications amongst these more affluent families within a domestic context. Finances can have an influence on the type of holiday, thus, indirectly constraining family relationships by way of destination choice.
4.4.3 WEATHER
The weather, good and bad, was mentioned variously throughout the interviews.
The expectation before the holiday was generally for good weather especially because the spring weather was particularly changeable that year:
“To be sunny, nice weather, not like here.” (Pukeko boy1, 13, pre-individual interview)
While very hot weather was mentioned as a negative experience, it was usually rain and cold which characterised bad weather. It was generally agreed that even bad weather could be alleviated through good planning and facilities available at the destination:
“You can’t help the weather but you can, coming back to having some ideas and some preparation. We took games. We played card games and a couple
of board games. Also being in a city there is a lot more to do.” (Kea father, post- individual interview)
“Even when it was raining I was swimming and didn’t feel the rain.”
(Kakariki girl, 8, post-individual interview)
It also depended on the right attitude, as exemplified by this respondent:
“Even when it is raining and the worst conditions there is an expression: a bad day on holiday is better than a good day at the office.” (Fantail father, final family interview)
Some even favoured rainy weather at times because of the alternative activities it created:
“It is just nice and cosy inside the boat (when it is raining) and it is not that nice and cosy when it is sunny. It is like having the whole family down below reading books and play card games or board games.” (Fantail girl, 10, post- individual interview)
“I don’t even mind if it rains. It is quite often a good excuse to stay in the tent and just read for the day. As long as it is not for a week, one day is fine.” (Pukeko father, pre-individual interview)
The extent and duration of bad weather, however, meant that eventually it could constrain the family dynamics and leave a lasting negative memory of the holiday.
Bad weather was commonly mentioned about things not liked on holiday and also dreaded in anticipation:
“I could imagine if it rains for four days in a row and everything gets wet than tempers will start to fray a bit.” (Hoiho father, pre- family interview)
“It was cold and we were waiting for the summer holiday to start. I vaguely remember you [son] getting grumpy at some stage.” (Pukeko mother, final family interview)
Considering the emphasis that was given to good weather (warm and sunny) on summer holidays it was somewhat surprising how little was remembered more than half a year after the holiday in the final interview phase. Unless the weather was particularly bad and maybe aggravated through other factors (for example, noisy neighbours, as discussed in section 4.4.6), for most participants negative weather experiences played a small role in their overall recollection and only improved over time. The temporal dimension and its influence on memories about weather and other examples will be discussed in section 6.7.