Systematic review analyzes working holiday maker motivations and implications for tourism policy, revealing evolving trends.
Purpose This study conducts the first systematic review of Working Holiday Maker (WHM) research to analyse the evolving nature of WHM schemes and participants. It aims to identify existing theoretical and methodological foundations, to reveal gaps in current knowledge and develop future scenarios for WHM programmes in the context of changing tourism, work and migration patterns. Design/methodology/approach A 2x2 matrix was developed to generate a distinct picture of WHM participants’ motivations and self-perceptions, with axes derived from the review findings. Four corresponding future scenarios were then constructed to explore potential policy and tourism implications. Findings The analysis revealed a lack of consensus regarding fundamental theoretical frameworks and the social classification of WHMs, highlighting a dominant binary perspective of WHMs as either tourists or temporary migrant workers. The 2x2 matrix demonstrates the inadequacy of traditional tourist–worker dichotomies by revealing four distinct WHM types characterised by motivational fluidity and varying self-perceptions. Practical implications The study provides a consolidated overview of WHM research and introduces a scenario planning framework with four policy pathways, informing evidence-based policy development for WHM schemes. Social implications The research contributes to understanding how contemporary mobility patterns challenge traditional assumptions about gap-year experiences, cultural exchange outcomes and temporary-to-permanent migration transitions by revealing motivational fluidity among WHM participants and demonstrating how institutional frameworks actively shape cross-cultural work–travel combinations. Originality/value This represents the first systematic review of WHM research combined with scenario planning methodology, contributing a novel theoretical framework that challenges existing binary conceptualisations and introduces the first comprehensive synthesis of fragmented interdisciplinary literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Regan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: