Chapter 4 Research Participants’ Characteristics and VFR Tourism Behaviour
4.3 Involvement in VFR Tourism of International PhD Students
4.3.2 Reasons for no involvement in VFR tourism
Of the online survey respondents, those who had not had any VFR tourism experience were asked to state their reasons for not having engaged in VFR tourism. For those who provided their reasons, the results are summarised in Table 4.7. Key themes identified include lack of resources (e.g., cost, time), short length of stay to date, having no friends/relatives, and excluded by definition.
Table 4.7 Reasons for not having engaged in VFR tourism
Reasons Count of responses Percentage
Lack of resources (cost/time)
32 25.6%
Short length of stay 12 9.6%
No friends/relatives 19 15.2%
Excluded by definition 26 20.8
No reason provided 36 28.8%
Total 125 100%
Some respondents mentioned more than one of the reasons noted in Table 4.7. The results show that lack of resources (time and money) was the most common reason for them not having engaged in VFR tourism at the time of being surveyed (25.6%,
n=32). Many respondents stated that they had not had any VFR experiences because they did not have money or time to travel. It was also expensive for their friends and relatives to travel to visit them.
“Both money and time are associated with the problem” (R131)
“I do not have support for my PhD. I have to work full-time and there is no holiday” (R89)
“Too expensive to visit friends and relatives back home. Same as for them coming here to visit me.” (R58)
As Gardiner et al. (2013) observed, international students are highly budget-conscious when travelling. Together with the workload of PhD study, lack of time and money for social activities might be a common issue for international PhD students.
In addition, it was stated in the online survey that a VFR trip should be over 15km one-way from the traveller's residential home with at least one night's stay. This criterion was adopted from the definition of a VFR trip by Boyne et al. (2002). Their definition was developed for domestic VFR tourism, on the basis of the geographic boundary between cities in the UK (except London) and the average travel distance of VFR visitors from the historical data. In this study, such peripheral clarification is helpful for potential respondents to answer relevant questions and for the comparability of findings with some previous work (through use of standardised definitions). However, it also means that some relevant data might get omitted, especially when considering adaptation processes and hosting and guesting responsibilities. There might be a number of VFR experiences that did not meet these definitional criteria and consequently, would not be considered in the respondents’
responses. As a result, potential insights drawn from these experiences would not get captured. In other words, having a territorial boundary means potential omission of relevant information. Therefore, to avoid this limitation, future research may consider using other definitions of VFR tourism that are neither geographically nor time bounded.
The respondents might have had some trips to visit friends and relatives after their arrival in New Zealand but if those trips did not meet the requirements, they would not have been considered VFR trips (this reason was named ‘excluded by definition’).
Several respondents pointed out that they had undertaken a few trips to visit friends nearby but did not stay overnight. Such circumstances often occurred when the
respondents travelled to visit their friends and relatives who lived in the same residential area.
“All my friends in New Zealand live in my city or in areas around it, and no need to stay overnight when visiting them.” (R112)
A total of 363 respondents (86.6%) stated that they had friends, or relatives, or both, in New Zealand (Table 4.1). However, only 73.2% of them (n=307) had engaged in VFR tourism (Table 4.6). This means that 13.4% of the respondents (n=56) had connections in New Zealand (either friends or relatives, or both) but did not participate in VFR tourism. It could be that their friends/relatives lived nearby (and, therefore, trips to visit them did not meet the criteria), or that they, in fact, did not engage in VFR tourism for other reasons, some of which are addressed in this section.
Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that, although those short trips to visit friends/relatives do not technically meet the criteria to be called VFR trips, they still have an impact on the broader social acclimatisation of the respondents. Such trips are part of the overall networking and socialising process.
Another common reason for not engaging in VFR tourism was having no friends/relatives in New Zealand (15.2%, n=19). This reason is probably more relevant to those who had recently arrived or had been in the country for only a short time, and had not had many opportunities to form friendships. It might also be that if they had not been in the country very long, their family and friends back home would not yet have come over for a visit as sufficient time would not have passed to make it seem worthwhile.
Descriptive analyses of length of stay and stages of doctoral study were conducted with the group of respondents that had not had any VFR experiences since their arrival. It was found that 55.4% (n=62) of them had only been in New Zealand for one year or less, and 43.8% (n=49) of them were in the first stage of their PhD study.
This suggests that shorter length of stay might be associated with limited VFR tourism experience. Having been in New Zealand for a shorter time means having less time to establish local relationships and networks that form the foundation for VFR travel. Moreover, depending on the previous study abroad experience of the students, some might spend the initial period focused on settling into the destination. As a result, they would have had less time and inclination for travelling or hosting.
In many cases, such as for respondents R309 and R60 (quoted below), it was a combination of the reasons listed in Table 4.7 that appeared to have dissuaded the respondents from being involved in VFR tourism.
“I have no friends/relatives farther than 15km away in NZ and my family and friends outside of NZ are mostly in the US. We have not been here long enough to expect foreign visitors given the amount of money and planning involved in such a trip. We have several local friends whom we spend time with.” (R309)
“I have only been here shortly, so no one has come to visit yet (nor have I gone to visit them). But there are definitely plans for friends and family to visit me in the future.” (R60)
The respondents’ comments reconfirmed the potential connection between shorter length of stay in the country and the limited participation in VFR tourism. Their comments emphasised the distance between New Zealand and their home country, and the cost and effort required to plan VFR trips. Respondent R60 indicated the intention of having friend and family visits in the future, which implies VFR tourism potential as the students stay for a longer time in the host country. Further discussion on the factors that can inhibit students’ participation in VFR tourism is presented in the following section.