Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.3 Host–Guest Relationship in VFR Tourism
2.3.2 Concepts of hosts and guests in VFR tourism
particular social situations and interpersonal relationships. In other words, it adds a finer-grained account of hosting and guesting that helps explain the dynamism and highlights nuances in the roles. For example, there is heterogeneity amongst a local population regarding familiarity with the locality. Whether recent migrants or not, some local people will have explored their local environment, both spatially and cognitively (e.g., relative to knowledge of local history), to a greater degree than other locals and, consequently, would understand and perform hosting obligations differently and have quite different understandings of what hosting might involve in particular contexts.
Overall, there is a lack of a theoretical foundation in modeling the host–guest relationship in tourism (Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012). The use of ‘host’ and ‘guest’ in the general tourism literature is different from that in the VFR tourism context. In the latter context, ‘hosting’, for example, is between people with prior connection and is not mediated through the institutions of a service industry. Accordingly, the host–
guest relationship in VFR tourism is more interpersonal than transactional. Moreover, given the connection between VFR tourism and migration, the dynamism of the host–
guest relationship in a mobile world discussed in this section may also be applied. The next section addresses the VFR host–guest relationship in more detail, by discussing what is known about the perceptions of VFR guests and VFR hosts, as well as their connections in the VFR tourism space.
three types of VFR guests: AFRs (those visiting friends and relatives as primary purpose and accommodated solely by friends and relatives, ‘A’ stands for accommodation); NAFRs (those visiting friends and relative as primary purpose and accommodated by commercial sector) and OAFRs (those travelling for primary purposes other than visiting friends and relatives, and accommodated by friends and relatives). Backer (2012) proposed a comparable typology that includes PVFRs (Pure VFRs, similar to AFR), CVFRs (Commercial accommodation VFRs, similar to NAFR) and EVFRs (Exploiting VFRs, similar to OAFRs).
With purpose of trip and type of accommodation being the fundamental elements in conceptualising VFR travellers, it appears that visitors who happen to visit their friends and relatives as a side-activity of their trip are considered non-VFRs.
However, these people, for a certain time during their trips, are clearly visiting friends and relatives and, therefore, not acknowledging them as VFR visitors–at least in a social psychological sense during these episodes–may be too hasty. This issue raises a question regarding the way VFR tourism has been defined and categorised.
In addition to ‘VFR guest’ and ‘VFR traveller’, the term ‘VFR tourist’ has also been used in the literature. According to Zátori et al. (2019), VFR travellers can be considered as VFR tourists if they have a tourist motivation and/or tourist experiences develop during their trips. Given the potential influence of the visited friends/relatives (i.e., the hosts) on VFR guests in terms of providing accommodation and local information (Munoz et al., 2017; Kashiwagi et al., 2020), it is perhaps plausible to assume that being a VFR guest may involve receiving some sort of hospitality (or support) provided by the hosts. Accordingly, expectations around hospitality provision by the hosts can be considered as a potential factor that differentiates VFR guests from VFR travellers and VFR tourists. Nevertheless, while these terms are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, they are nonetheless discrete concepts that describe, or at least refer to, different groups of participants in the VFR phenomenon. The concept of VFR guests, therefore, should be studied discretely rather than assuming its reliance on, and synonymity with, the notion of VFR travellers.
Although the current study mainly uses the term ‘VFR tourism’, one of its focuses is also on the host–guest relationship in VFR tourism. Therefore, both terms ‘VFR
of international PhD students, the term ‘VFR tourist’ is more relevant. However, the term ‘VFR guest’ is more appropriate when investigating the VFR host–guest relationship. The limited understanding of the concept of VFR guests is one of the reasons that make it hard to distinguish the relevant terms. Accordingly, studying this concept should add to the understanding of not only the distinction between the terms, but also of different social roles played in the VFR phenomenon.
2.3.2.2 VFR hosts
A VFR host can be defined as someone who has had friends and relatives visit from outside the host’s region and who has stayed at least one night in the host’s destination (Yousuf & Backer, 2017). In other words, VFR hosts are normally those being visited by friends and relatives, and who provide various hospitality services to their guests such as accommodation, food and acting as travel guides.
According to Shani and Uriely (2012), hosting involves providing not only accommodation but sometimes also food, local knowledge, information on tourist activities and even being the guests’ tour guides. A study based in Australia by McKercher (1996) was one of the first that looked at the hosting behaviour of local residents. Residents as VFR hosts played an important role in attracting VFR visits, providing accommodation for visitors, and influencing length of trips and the type of activities undertaken (by both the residents and their visitors) during VFR trips (McKercher, 1996). His study, however, did not examine how the hosting behaviour of residents might be different depending on the types of visitors received (e.g., domestic or international), or investigate factors that might influence their hosting behaviour.
VFR hosts are often distinguished by their hosting behaviour. Young et al. (2007) divided VFR hosts into four groups based on the number of guests received and the level of activeness in attracting visits including ‘neutrals’ (low number of guests and low level of activeness); ‘talkers’ (low number of guests and high level of activeness);
‘magnets’ (high number of guests and low level of activeness); and ‘ambassadors’
(high number of guests and high level of activeness). Taking a different approach based on the host’s attitude towards guests and type of activities, Shani and Uriely (2012) proposed four behavioural styles of hosting friends and relatives: ‘Maintaining the normal course of daily life’; ‘becoming a tourist in one’s own backyard’;
‘focusing on in-home hospitality’ and ‘serving as a local tourist guide’. These typologies emphasise the role of VFR hosts in promoting VFR tourism, as well as their potential influence on the VFR tourism behaviour of their guests.
Choi and Xu (2018) identified several factors that might affect the VFR hosting experience of migrants, such as the interplay of destination-specific attributes, the migrants’ and their guests’ characteristics and personal preferences, and situational constraints. However, their study did not consider the role of the prior relationship between the migrants and their guests, which distinguishes the host–guest relationship in VFR tourism from other forms of tourism. Viewing VFR hosting as a practice of social identity and self-respect, Janta and Christou (2019) recognised the importance of gender, culture and caring practices in hosting experience. The fact that hosting behaviour can be influenced by a wide range of factors contributes to the multifaceted nature of hosting practices in VFR tourism.
The mentioned typologies indicate different approaches to conceptualising VFR hosts and VFR guests, as well as reconfirming the need to look at host and guest roles from both spatial and behavioural perspectives. The variety of typologies also highlights the complexity in understanding these roles. The concepts of VFR hosts and VFR guests, as well as factors constituting these roles, have therefore been difficult to constrain within single, succinct definitions. As a result, an integrated understanding of hosting and guesting experiences in VFR tourism has not been achieved. There is a need for more studies that provide greater insight into the ‘host’ and ‘guest’ roles in VFR tourism, so that the experience resulting from the VFR host–guest relationship can be better captured. The next section discusses the host–guest relationship in VFR tourism.