top of page

Unveiling Seven Continents Yearbook Journal U7Y

ISSN 3042-4399

Author declarations (funding, conflicts of interest, AI use, data availability, and ethics) are located below the main paper.

Search

Digital Detox Tourism in 2025: Motivations, Experiential Models, Benefits, and Emerging Challenges

  • Feb 27, 2025
  • 20 min read

Updated: Jun 14


Author: Mohammed Khan

Affiliation: OUS Academy Ltd

ORCID iD: 0009-0002-6252-1445

 Received 5 January 2025; Revised 30 January 2025; Accepted 13 February 2025; Available online 27 February 2025; Version of Record 27 February 2025.

Volume 2, December 2025, (10011)

https://doi.org/10.65326/u7y566811



Abstract

Digital detox tourism, where travel is designed around the intentional, temporary and structured reduction of digital connectivity, is typically described by what it takes away. In the article, it is argued that the value of the practice is not found in the absence of devices, and that this misattribution accounts for both the inconsistent evidence in the field and the much discussed paradox of selling non-use. Based on the self-determination theory, and the proximal mechanism of the attention restoration theory, it elaborates a process account in which disconnection restores well-being to the extent that two conditions are fulfilled: the psychological functions devices served are re-mediated using analogue means (functional substitution), and the disconnection is experienced as self-endorsed (rather than imposed) (autonomous internalization). The commodification paradox is resolved, not restated, by this reframing, since the commercial features that make detox scalable—structure, enforcement, and premium positioning—tend to shift motivation toward controlled regulation and thus attenuate the benefit they advertise, except where design is deliberately autonomy-supportive. The argument is distilled into an integrative model and five propositions, several counterintuitive: that well-substituted partial disconnection can outperform total abstinence, that imposed confiscation results in weaker durable benefit than chosen reduction, and that lower-cost, autonomy-respecting formats can match premium retreats. The article describes the mechanisms, boundary conditions and measurement priorities required to test these claims.


Keywords: digital detox tourism; digital-free tourism; self-determination theory; attention restoration; tourist well-being; commodification of disconnection; functional substitution

 

1. Introduction

Constant connectivity has changed the way people work, communicate and travel. Navigation, social presence, consumption and self-representation are now mediated through mobile devices and social platforms, which have eroded the boundary between work and leisure once protected by holidays (Gössling, 2021). The very infrastructures that make travel possible also increase notifications, demands for availability and information load into environments once devoted to rest, and an expanding literature considers the resulting strain—technostress, techno-exhaustion, divided attention—a health-related condition, rather than a matter of taste (Radtke et al., 2022; Liu & Hu, 2021). This concern has developed into a specific practice within tourism: travel in which individuals deliberately reduce or suspend their use of devices for a period of time, and in which the suspension is the organising feature of the trip, and not simply a loss of signal (Li, Pearce, & Low, 2018; Egger, Lei, & Wassler, 2020). More and more, providers are marketing the lack of availability as a product, renaming offline status as a desirable experience and selling the opportunity to be unreachable (Schwarzenegger & Lohmeier, 2021; Cai & McKenna, 2023).

The field has grown fast but unevenly. Empirical studies have elucidated specific aspects – motivations, emotional responses and character outcomes – but a recent bibliometric mapping reveals that these findings have not been synthesized into a cohesive narrative (Hassan & Saleh, 2024). Critical scholarship argues that the notion of commodification of non-use is self-contradictory (Gong, Schroeder, & Plaisance, 2023). The two observations are based on an uncritically shared assumption: that disconnection itself is the active ingredient of digital detox tourism. This article questions that assumption. Disconnection is merely the removal of an affordance, not an experience in itself. Removal itself is as likely to create anxiety as relief (Paris, Berger, Rubin, & Casson, 2015). Here, the argument is developed that the value of the practice is not in absence but in what absence permits and in how it is motivated, and that locating value in absence is, in fact, what produces the inconsistent evidence and the apparent paradox the field has struggled with.

To build this case, the article examines one theoretical engine. Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) provides the motivational architecture, with autonomous versus controlled regulation and satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as the path to durable well-being. Attention restoration theory (Kaplan, 1995) provides the proximal cognitive mechanism through which relief from directed-attention demands is recovered. From this pairing the article develops two mechanisms, functional substitution and autonomous internalization, that jointly specify when disconnection restores and when it simply deprives. The contribution is fourfold. First, it moves the field from mapping to mechanism. Second, it resolves rather than restates the commodification paradox by identifying the pathway through which commercialization attenuates benefit. Third, it imports a committed, well-validated theoretical apparatus into a domain that has tended to borrow constructs piecemeal. Fourth, it yields an integrative model and five testable, partly counterintuitive propositions. But the article groups them around mechanisms, rather than dealing with each one individually; to do this, it answers four questions: why travellers disconnect, how disconnection is structured, what benefits are defensible and where the practice is fragile.


2. The Conditions That Generate Demand

The desire to disconnect makes sense when you consider how saturated our lives are with technology. The organization of daily life through screens, the repeated interruptions of the ability to focus on something for a period of time, the accumulation of notifications and the expectations of availability have been linked to restlessness and fatigue that travelers bring with them into their holidays (Ayeh, 2018; Dickinson, Hibbert, & Filimonau, 2016). Attention restoration theory (Kaplan, 1995) precisely characterizes this state: effortful, directed attention is a finite resource, depletion of which leads to irritability and diminished performance, and recovery necessitates environments that engage involuntary, effortless attention instead. Detox motivation research suggests that it is precisely this depletion that fuels the desire to disconnect, with techno-exhaustion and social-networking fatigue predicting intentions to take digital-free trips, so that detox travel becomes an interruption of a cycle rather than a simple preference for quiet (Liu & Hu, 2021; Jiang & Balaji, 2022; Egger et al., 2020).

Another condition is the affective grip of connectivity. The fear of missing out (FOMO)—the apprehension that rewarding experiences are happening elsewhere—has been demonstrated to arise from deficits in basic psychological need satisfaction and to motivate compulsive checking (Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013). Its theoretically proposed counterpart, the joy of missing out, characterizes a positively valenced relief at being absent from online flows (Eitan & Gazit, 2024). This pairing is relevant to the current argument as it shows how the same act of being offline can be seen as loss or as gain depending on the person’s motivational state, an early signal that the value of disconnection is conditional and not intrinsic.

A third condition is cultural: the integration of disconnection into the broader project of well-being. As tourist well-being has become a major concern for both industry and academia, disconnection has been contrasted with mindfulness, exposure to nature and recovery as a dimension of restoration and not as an end in itself (DSouza & Shetty, 2024; Stankov, Filimonau, & Vujičić, 2020). This places the practice within a digital well-being discourse whose governing aim is balanced rather than maximal technology use, and which assigns tourism providers new responsibilities for shaping that balance (Stankov & Gretzel, 2021). The three conditions—attention depletion, the FoMO–JoMO tension, and the wellness frame—establish demand as real and rooted in contemporary life, but they do not establish that supplying disconnection will satisfy it. That gap is the work of the theory developed next.

 

3. Conceptualizing Digital Detox Tourism

Digital detox tourism can be defined as intentional, temporary and structured digital disconnection in a travel context, where the restriction of technology is embedded in the meaning and design of the experience. This is different from the mere absence of signal in a faraway place: the tourist is invited, and sometimes obligated, to get away from habitual digital routines, and that getting away is the organizing principle of the trip (Li et al., 2018; Egger et al., 2020). The practice intersects with wellness, experiential, slow and transformative tourism without being reducible to any of them, sharing their concern for lived quality, reflection and personal change (Cai, McKenna, & Waizenegger, 2020; Floros, Cai, McKenna, & Ajeeb, 2021).

Its analytical distinction is in its object. Other experiential forms bring something – immersion, learning, indulgence – but digital detox tourism is based on a conscious subtraction. That is what makes it attractive and that is also what is difficult about it, and that is where the current accounts fall short. The smartphone is not simply a distraction to be eliminated; it is a dense bundle of affordances that perform real psychological functions: wayfinding and information (competence), contact with absent others (relatedness), reassurance, and stimulation. The removal of the device therefore does not simply restore a previous state of calm, it constitutes a functional void. Whether that void is restorative or simply anxious depends on what fills it, so framing digital detox tourism as value-through-absence is incomplete. More accurate description is value-through-re-mediation. Disconnection is the precondition for substituting analogue means to satisfy the needs the device had absorbed. The shift in description, theorized below, shifts the design problem from “how to take out technology” to “how to replace its functions,” and is the hinge on which the article’s contribution turns.

 

4. A Self-Determination Account of Disconnection’s Value

According to self-determination theory, well-being is sustained when three basic psychological needs are met: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The persistence of the positive effects of any behavior depends on whether the behavior is self-regulated rather than externally imposed (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Through this lens, digital detox tourism is not one intervention, but a family of interventions that vary on two theoretically consequential dimensions: the extent to which they re-mediate the needs served by devices; and their position, on the continuum from controlled to autonomous motivation, of the traveler. These two dimensions are the mechanisms that structure the rest of the article.


4.1 The proximal mechanism: attention restoration and need satisfaction

The immediate benefit that travelers report—feeling calmer, clearer, and more present—is best understood as the joint product of attention restoration and the satisfaction of need. The cognitive resource described by Kaplan (1995) can recover when relief from the directed-attention demands of a notification-saturated environment is possible, and the activities that fill the freed time can satisfy competence and relatedness directly (Cai et al., 2020; Hassan, Salem, & Saleh, 2022) if they are well chosen. Recent tourism evidence integrating both theories finds that attention restoration alone brings only short-lived gains, whereas more deeply gratifying, need-satisfying experience yields effects that last (Fan, Wong, Zhang, Lin, & Wu, 2024). This is the proximal engine of the model: disconnection clears attentional space, but it is the quality of need satisfaction in that space that determines whether anything durable follows.


4.2 Functional substitution

If a device is a bundle of need-serving affordances, then taking it away without replacement leaves the underlying needs unmet, and the predictable result is the restlessness and anxiety documented in accounts of induced disconnection (Paris et al., 2015; Przybylski et al., 2013). The design response is called functional substitution: the provision of analogue means that serve the same functions the device did – maps and local knowledge for wayfinding, co-present interaction for relatedness, absorbing mastery activities for competence and stimulation (Dickinson et al., 2016; Li, Pearce, & Oktadiana, 2020). According to this view, it is not the absence of the phone that does the restorative work, but the sufficiency of its substitutes. The next proposition is not trivial: partial disconnection with rich substitution should beat total disconnection with needs unmet, although the latter would seem to be more thorough. It’s substitution, not subtraction, that is the operative variable.


4.3 Autonomous internalization

The second mechanism is one of motivation, not activity. Self-determination theory distinguishes between autonomously regulated behavior, which feels self-endorsed and consistent with one’s values, and behavior that is controlled by external contingencies. It is this autonomous regulation that predicts durable well-being and maintenance after the controlling structure is withdrawn (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Applied here, the durability of detox benefits should depend less on the depth of disconnection than on whether the traveler internalizes it as his or her own choice. The shift from FoMO to JoMO can be understood as the affective signature of this internalization: the anxiety of being offline is substituted by relief, after the disconnection is experienced as a choice rather than an imposition (Eitan & Gazit, 2024; Przybylski et al., 2013). So two experiences that are equal in the degree of disconnection may be very different in outcome depending on how the disconnection is motivated and framed.


4.4 The autonomy paradox of commodified disconnection

These mechanisms reveal a tension that the current critique of commodification points to, but does not specify. Gong et al. (2023) argue, persuasively, that packaging non-use as a product is paradoxical. The self-determination account both identifies the paradox and makes it conditional, not fatal. The commercial features that make disconnection scalable and saleable—fixed structure, enforced surrender of devices, surveillance of compliance, and premium positioning—are, in self-determination terms, classic instances of controlling regulation, and controlling regulation crowds out the autonomous internalization on which durable benefit depends.  This is a suggestion sharper than irony: the more aggressively an offer commodifies disconnection, the more it threatens to undercut the very mechanism that would make it work. But the same theory shows how to get out of the paradox. External structure does not have to be controlling. When provided in an autonomy-supportive way, with rationale, choice, and acknowledgment of the traveler’s perspective, it can scaffold internalization rather than crowd it out, much like a skilled coach’s structure supports rather than suppresses athletes’ motivation. The question then becomes, in practice and theory, not whether disconnection is commodified, but whether it is commodified in controlling or autonomy-supportive terms.


5. Approach and Scope

This is a conceptual paper. The approach is an integrative review for theory building: the objective is to synthesize a fragmented and partly contradictory literature into a coherent mechanism-based framework and a set of testable propositions, rather than to estimate effect sizes or present primary data. The evidence is methodologically diverse – qualitative interview studies, critical discourse analyses, reviews of interventions, and conceptual essays – and not amenable to statistical pooling, and so the integrative form is appropriate.

The literature was identified by structured searches of Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar combining the terms digital detox tourism, digital-free tourism, technology-free tourism, digital disconnection with travel, holiday and well-being. The focus was on peer-reviewed journal articles, but key theoretical works have been retained where they underpin the framework. The three criteria for selection were: relevance to voluntary, temporary disconnection in a leisure-travel context; contribution to at least one of the four guiding questions; traceability to a citable, indexed source. Work that focused only on general internet addiction, only on involuntary disconnection, or on disconnection in non-travel contexts was considered background rather than core evidence. Analysis was abductive: themes were identified within the four questions, compared for convergence and disagreement, then read against self-determination and attention restoration theory to surface the mechanisms the empirical literature implies but has not formalized. The propositions state those mechanisms as relationships open to test. The scope is bounded with two boundary conditions. The account is one of selective, time-limited disconnection, rather than imposed deprivation. The account is interpretative in terms of outcome claims, advanced as conditional rather than settled, because the practical enthusiasm surrounding the practice exceeds what current evidence can substantiate (Hassan & Saleh, 2024; Radtke et al., 2022).


6. The Experiential Models Reinterpreted

There are 3 models that reoccur in literature and in the market. The framework does not treat them as a descriptive typology, but rather reads each as a location in the two-dimensional space defined by substitution quality and autonomy support, which allows the models to be compared on their likely outcomes rather than merely catalogued.


6.1 Device-confiscation retreats

The most intensive model involves collecting or restricting devices on arrival, and substituting screen time for a structured schedule of offline activity (Schwarzenegger & Lohmeier, 2021). In the present terms, it scores high on enforced structure and, often, on substitution, but its reliance on surrender and surveillance places it toward the controlling pole. The framework proposes a typical profile: strong immediate compliance and a clear psychological break, but weaker internalization and thus weaker persistence when the traveler is back, and a real risk of anxiety for those with external obligations (Paris et al., 2015). In other words, confiscation may be the model that looks most effective but persists least.


6.2 Analogue-centered experiences

A less restrictive model builds the experience around analogue engagement—crafts, hiking, journaling, cooking, local interaction—discouraging rather than banning screens (Dickinson et al., 2016; Floros et al., 2021). This model is likely to score high on both substitution and autonomy support. It fills the functional void with need-satisfying activity, while leaving the traveler the choice to disengage. The framework predicts less dramatic immediate breaks but stronger internalization and persistence and a natural fit with community-based and sustainable tourism in virtue of its embedding of place-based low-technology practice.


6.3 Hybrid connectivity arrangements

A third model is a compromise between disconnection and bounded access – designated windows, emergency provision, or device-light zones – recognizing that total disconnection is not always possible or desirable (Kirillova & Wang, 2016). Within the framework, the hybrid model sacrifices depth of disconnection for autonomy support and inclusivity, allowing for duties to family, work and safety, and thus keeping motivation closer to the autonomous pole (Cai & McKenna, 2023). It alters the goal from abstinence to controlled availability. The framework predicts that it will be superior to confiscation for travelers who cannot independently embrace total surrender, despite being less disconnection.


Table 1. The three experiential models located on the framework’s two dimensions, with predicted outcome profiles.

Dimension

Device-confiscation retreat

Analogue-centered experience

Hybrid connectivity arrangement

Substitution quality

Often high (structured program)

High (need-satisfying activity)

Variable (depends on design)

Autonomy support

Low (surrender, surveillance)

High (disengagement is chosen)

High (access negotiated)

Predicted internalization

Weak; externally regulated

Strong; self-endorsed

Moderate to strong

Immediate break

Strong

Moderate

Partial

Durable benefit (predicted)

Weaker; fades post-trip

Stronger; persists

Stronger for the obligated

Principal risk

Anxiety; exclusion; rebound

Weak break for low self-regulators

Dilution if access dominates

Note.  Entries are ideal types of analysis; specific offerings combine features. Outcome rows are predictions from the self-determination framework (Section 4) and are proposed as hypotheses for empirical test, not as established findings.


7. Benefits Reconsidered as Mechanism Outputs

The benefits that travelers report are better understood not as direct effects of disconnection but as outputs of the two mechanisms working well. Psychological restoration occurs when the vacated attentional space is occupied by a need-satisfying experience rather than left vacant (Kaplan, 1995; Fan et al., 2024). Relational gains, the regained wholeness of co-presence stolen by divided attention, are a direct expression of satisfaction of relatedness, which is why families and groups experience deeper interaction as devices fade away (Dickinson et al., 2016). Competence satisfaction and prolonged involuntary attention rather than absence as such are indicated by increased engagement with place, and the development of character strengths such as self-regulation and appreciation that have been associated with disconnection (Kirillova & Wang, 2016; Li et al., 2020). Even the industry benefit of differentiation is best understood in terms of the mechanisms: the offers that will sustain a market are those that genuinely re-mediate needs, not those that simply withhold a signal, and this logic applies as readily to modest community formats as to premium retreats (Schwarzenegger & Lohmeier, 2021; Gössling, 2021). Recasting the benefits in this way matters because it predicts when they will and will not emerge, which a list of reported benefits cannot.


8. An Integrative Model and Propositions

Figure 1 illustrates the argument. Distal conditions (technostress, directed-attention fatigue, and FoMO) form a motivation to disconnect that already exists on the autonomous–controlled continuum. A tourism intervention then intervenes on that motivation, and its effect on the proximal mechanisms (attention restoration and need satisfaction, marked affectively by the FoMO–JoMO transition) is moderated by two design properties: the quality of functional substitution and the degree of autonomy support. The intensity of commodification acts as a force which tends to drive design towards the controlling pole. The proximal mechanisms, in turn, produce state well-being, which is translated into durable well-being and character only to the extent that the behavior was internalized. The five propositions below set out the key relationships in the model.

Figure 1. A self-determination process model of digital detox tourism. Solid arrows denote causal paths; dashed arrows denote moderation. Proposition labels (P1–P5) mark the relationships specified in the text.

 

Proposition 1 (substitution dominance). Restoration is more based on the quality of functional substitution than on the completeness of disconnection, and thus a partial but well substituted experience can bring more well-being than complete but unsubstituted abstinence (Fan et al., 2024; Li et al., 2020).Paradox of autonomy (Proposition 2). Provider-imposed disconnection results in stronger immediate compliance, but weaker post-trip persistence than autonomously chosen reduction because durable benefit is achieved through internalization, not through the depth of the disconnection (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Paris et al., 2015).Proposition 3 ( attenuation of commodification). The more an offer highlights enforced structure, surveillance, and premium positioning, the more it shifts motivation toward controlled regulation and attenuates the benefit it markets. Autonomy-supportive framing moderates this effect and can preserve benefit even under commercial conditions (Gong et al., 2023; Schwarzenegger & Lohmeier, 2021).Proposition 4 (affective signature). The transition from fear of missing out to joy of missing out mediates the link between intervention and restoration such that experiences scaffolding this transition outperform those just enforcing abstinence (Eitan & Gazit, 2024; Przybylski et al., 2013).Proposition 5 (price-value inversion). More affordable autonomy-respecting community and analogue formats can match or exceed premium confiscation retreats because benefit is driven by internalization and substitution, not expenditure, inverting the market’s price–value assumption with consequences for who can access the benefit (Cai & McKenna, 2023; Gössling, 2021).

 

9. Alternative Explanations and Boundary Conditions

A mechanism account must be contrasted with more parsimonious accounts. The most obvious is a novelty explanation. People feel better because they are doing something new, not because they have unplugged. The framework doesn't dispute novelty effects, but it does specify which novelties should restore—those that satisfy needs—and predicts that novel but need-thwarting activity will not restore, a discriminating prediction a pure novelty account cannot make. Another alternative is selection: those booking detox experiences may be predisposed to benefit. This is partly accommodated by the self-determination account, as such travellers are likely already autonomously motivated, but it also recognizes that selection limits causal inference and makes randomized or quasi-experimental designs essential. A third is expectancy. Having paid for relief, and expecting it, participants may report it regardless of how it was brought about. Here the framework is really vulnerable and the remedy is to measure internalization and need satisfaction directly, rather than relying on global satisfaction reports.

The framework also provides a steelman of the position it criticizes. To conclude that commodification is simply corrosive would be too hasty. Structure can scaffold motivation, and a well-designed commercial program may help travelers who could not disconnect alone to do so, and, with repeated exposure, to internalize the practice. The emphasis of the digital well-being literature on balance over abstinence is consistent with this more generous reading (Stankov & Gretzel, 2021; Stankov et al., 2020). The framework accommodates this by understanding commodification not as uniformly controlling but as a variable whose effect depends on the terms in which the structure is delivered. That conditionality is what makes Proposition 3 a falsifiable claim rather than a blanket verdict. Our account is bounded by two boundary conditions: it is about voluntary, time-limited, leisure-travel disconnection, and its predictions are strongest for travellers whose baseline need-thwarting is real rather than imagined.


10. Contribution and Implications

The contribution can be articulated against the two works that frame the field. Relative to the bibliometric consolidation of Hassan and Saleh (2024), which establishes what the literature contains, this article supplies what that mapping does not: a mechanism that explains why disconnection sometimes restores and sometimes does not, and that ties dispersed findings on motivation, emotion, and character into a single causal structure.  The article responds to the commodification critique of Gong et al. (2023) that identifies a paradox, by offering a resolution. It recognizes autonomous internalization as the mechanism through which commercialization undermines benefit, and describes the autonomy-supportive conditions under which commodified disconnection can nevertheless be effective. More broadly, the article imports self-determination and attention restoration theory into digital detox tourism as a committed apparatus rather than as borrowed vocabulary, and in doing so connects the practice to the digital well-being agenda’s concern with balanced technology use (Stankov & Gretzel, 2021; DSouza & Shetty, 2024).

The design implications follow directly from the mechanisms rather than from intuition.  Providers should treat substitution as the core task, building programs that re-mediate competence, relatedness, and stimulation rather than simply removing devices; they should deliver whatever structure they impose in autonomy-supportive terms, offering rationale and choice so that disconnection is internalized rather than merely enforced; they should prefer graduated and hybrid options where travelers cannot autonomously endorse total surrender; and they should resist the marketing temptation to equate depth of disconnection with value, since the framework predicts that this equation is frequently false.


11. Limitations and Future Research

This article is a conceptual synthesis, and its propositions are interpretive rather than validated, presented as hypotheses, not findings. The integrative design is based on a literature concentrated in a small number of contexts and skewed toward qualitative and motivational studies, and the boundary conditions adopted here exclude adjacent phenomena, such as imposed or workplace disconnection, which may behave differently.

The model produces four priority outcomes. First, measurement needs to catch up with mechanism: studies should directly assess functional substitution quality, basic-need satisfaction, and the autonomous–controlled character of motivation, rather than inferring benefit from global satisfaction, and should track the FoMO–JoMO transition as a mediating marker (Fan et al., 2024; Przybylski et al., 2013). Second, longitudinal and experimental designs are necessary to test whether effects persist beyond the trip, and to disentangle mechanism from novelty, selection, and expectancy (Radtke et al., 2022). Third, the moderation claims—Propositions 1 through 3—require comparative studies that vary substitution and autonomy support across models, rather than comparing models as undifferentiated wholes. Fourth, the price-value inversion of Proposition 5 should be tested across cultural and economic contexts, because attitudes to availability and leisure vary across societies, and the equity stakes are high: if benefit does not require luxury, inclusive design becomes a tractable goal rather than an afterthought (Hassan & Saleh, 2024; Gong et al., 2023; Cai & McKenna, 2023).

 

12. Conclusion

Digital detox tourism is widely explained by what it removes. This article has argued that its value lies instead in what removal permits and in how disconnection is motivated, and it has developed that argument into a self-determination process model in which two mechanisms—functional substitution and autonomous internalization—determine whether disconnection restores or merely deprives. The model moves the field from mapping to mechanism, resolves the commodification paradox by making it conditional on whether structure is controlling or autonomy-supportive, and yields five testable propositions, several of which cut against the market’s assumptions that more disconnection and more expenditure mean more benefit. Treated this way, digital detox tourism has a defensible place in experiential and well-being tourism, but its promise depends on substitution, autonomy, and honest design far more than on the depth of the silence it sells.


References

 


Comments

Declaration on the Use of Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence–assisted tools were utilized solely to support language refinement and editorial improvement. All conceptual development, theoretical framing, analytical interpretation, and final editorial decisions were undertaken independently by the authors. The authors assume full responsibility for the content and integrity of the manuscript.

​

Data Availability Statement
This study is based on a review and conceptual analysis of existing literature. No new datasets were generated or analyzed during the course of this research. Consequently, data sharing is not applicable to this article.

​

Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced, or appeared to influence, the work reported in this paper.

​

Funding Statement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

​​

Ethics Approval
This study did not involve human participants, animal subjects, or identifiable personal data. Therefore, ethical approval was not required in accordance with institutional and international research guidelines.

This article is licensed under  CC BY 4.0

61e24181-42b7-4628-90bc-e271007e454d.jpeg
feb06611-ad56-49a5-970f-5109b1605966.jpeg

Open Access License Statement

© The Author(s). Published by U7Y Journal under CC BY 4.0.

How to Cite and Reference U7Y Journal Articles

To ensure consistency and proper academic recognition, all articles published in the U7Y Journal – The Seven Continents Yearbook of Research should be cited following internationally recognized bibliographic standards. The journal supports multiple citation styles to accommodate diverse academic disciplines and indexing systems.
Here are standard reference formats for citing articles published in the U7Y Journal – The Seven Continents Yearbook of Research (ISSN 3042-4399). Authors, readers, and indexing services may use any of the following styles according to their institutional or publisher requirements.
bottom of page