Chapter 4 Research Participants’ Characteristics and VFR Tourism Behaviour
4.4 VFR Tourism Behaviour of International PhD Students
4.4.6 Types of Accommodation
Factors that can influence the tendency of choosing to stay with friends/relatives at their place were also explored through the focus groups. The respondents were asked what might motivate or demotivate them to stay with their friends and relatives. The outcomes are summarised in Table 4.14. The ‘frequency’ displayed in Table 4.14 represents the number of focus groups in which discussion of the motivating/
demotivating factors occurred.
Table 4.14 Influencing factors on decision to stay with friends and relatives
Motivation Demotivation
Motivating factors Frequency Demotivating factors Frequency
Saving money 5 Less freedom 3
Bonding with friends and relatives/
Reconnecting
4 Long stays and potential tension
2
Comfort 4 Travel companions
(travelling with family/kids)
2
Good hospitality 3 Long distance between
their place to key attractions or central areas
1
Security 2
There were several factors that motivated the participants to stay at their friends’ (or relatives’) places. First, by staying with friends or relatives, they were likely to save money, which otherwise would be spent on accommodation costs.
I guess the most important thing is that I get to spend time with them. If I stay somewhere else, then I might not see them as much. Another really important thing is the cost, free place to stay whereas compared to hotel or even a backpacker place, you still get to save quite a bit of money. The
only thing probably discourage me from staying is if their place is far. I have some friends in Auckland and Wellington who live quite far from the city so if I go to an event or something, if I go out at night, I may prefer to stay somewhere closer to the city. (Amy)
Cost saving was the most frequently reported motivating factor (mentioned by five out of six focus groups). Amy’s comment also suggests that the location of the friend’s place was an important element, especially when VF trips were combined with other leisure purposes. This is consistent with findings by Griffin and Nunkoo (2016), that VFR visitors are more likely to stay with friends and relatives in urban centres, and in paid accommodation in destinations that are less central.
In addition to saving money, staying with friends or relatives meant that the students would have more social interaction and, consequently, have more time for bonding and refreshing their relationships. This was mentioned in four (out of six) focus groups, and is often noted as the main purpose of VFR tourism.
The bonding part. You need your family and you want to stay with them.
(Gary)
Third, the desire for comfort and safety motivated the participants to stay with their friends and relatives, as mentioned by Paul and Lee below.
The comfort level is different because we are used to being with them so it feels like home. In a commercial place, it is different. You expect different things in a friend’s house. (Paul)
I care about the security. If I stay with my friends, I feel safe. (Lee)
Feeling of comfort when staying with friends and relatives is often associated with the pre-existing relationship of VFR participants. Paul suggested that it was one of the characteristics that distinguished the experience of staying at friends’ (or relatives’) place from commercial accommodations. In addition to comfort was the feeling of safety and security, as mentioned in Lee’s statement. If students felt safe when staying with their friends, they were likely to also feel secure. However, such a view of feeling safe and comfortable when staying with friends and relatives was not the case for some participants in the current study. For instance, Miranda stated:
Actually, when I travel to visit my friends, I never stay at their place. I tried but it is not really comfortable for me so I just stay in another place but still visit them.
It appeared that, for the focus group participants, the closeness of the relationship was directly related to the comfort they felt when staying at their friends’ or relatives’
places. Yu’s comment, below, illustrates this connection:
The relationship, I mean, how close you are to them. If we are close, I feel more comfortable to stay with them, and do not mind too much to disturb them. But if I don’t know them well, I’ll just ask if they are available to meet and some advice on accommodation around the area. (Yu)
The closeness of the relationship and the decision to stay with friends/relatives are interrelated. By staying together, participants have an opportunity to spend more time together, getting to know each other better and as a result, become closer.
I also want to improve the relationship with my friends and relatives. For example, when I visit a friend in Wellington. We were not that close but after I came and visited them in Wellington, stayed at their place, we got close. (Alex)
Staying with friends and relatives, therefore, not only enhanced existing relationships but also helped new relationships that were yet to be close become stronger. This finding reinforces a claim of Janta et al. (2015), that visits may strengthen close friendships or, conversely, lead to realisations that these are now more akin to casual friendships. Once the relationship between the students and their friends/relatives were enriched, based on the observation derived from Yu’s comment, the students would be more likely to stay with their friends and relatives during future visits.
Hence, repeat visits with the same friends/relatives may lead to a higher likelihood of staying with them.
The good hospitality received from friends and relatives was another factor that could attract some participants to choose to stay with them. The degree of hospitality shown was often related to the hosts’ culture and religion, as shared by Alex:
In my culture, my religion (Islam), if you are a guest of a house, you are bringing blessings and luck to the host, apart from deepening the relationship. So that is why, the host themselves, they know that and they try to provide the best that they can and that is also applied to me when I am the host.
The nature of the hospitality provided by friends and relatives is likely to be different from the hospitality one would normally experience in commercial accommodation, given the familiarity and the relationship between the hosts and the guests. Such difference might add to the explanation as to why some participants may choose one
option over the other. Alex’ comment suggests a mutual expectation and understanding of the type of hospitality one may receive from the host within her culture and religion. It is similar to the obligatory aspect of reciprocity in hosting addressed by Schänzel and colleagues (Schänzel, Brocx & Sadaraka, 2014). Their study found that some Polynesian hosts in New Zealand reflected on their negative hosting experience (due to the great level of hospitality culturally expected by the guests and its consequent pressure on the hosts) and decided not to stay with their relations, so that they would not put the hosting burden on their relations. This finding implies a potential connection between hosting behaviour and cultures and religions.
Several factors that discouraged the participants from staying with friends and relatives were also discussed in the focus groups. These factors, however, were not mentioned frequently (Table 4.14), which can be linked with the finding indicating that most respondents chose staying with friends/relatives as their choice of accommodation when travelling to visit them (Table 4.13). Amy’s comment presented earlier in this section indicates that locations further away from the city centre could be a demotivating factor to stay with friends and relatives. It was, however, only mentioned in one focus group discussion. More commonly noted was the perception of less freedom when staying with friends and relatives, mentioned by three (out of six) focus groups.
If it is for several days, I’ll stay with my friends but if it is for one month or longer, I will stay in commercial accommodation. More freedom.
(Wendy).
Wendy’s view indicated an expectation of a higher level of freedom when staying in commercial accommodation as opposed to her friend’s place. Level of freedom is also likely to be associated with length of stay. Presumably, if the length of the trip was only a few days, she might have stayed with friends and trade off less freedom potentially with the benefits outlined in Table 4.14. However, if the length of stay was longer than that, such a trade-off would be less desirable. Perhaps, in addition, the participants may have felt that longer stays caused their friends and relatives some discomfort, and, therefore, they did not want to bother them for an extended period of time.
Moreover, respondents seemed less motivated to stay with friends and relatives if it was for a long period. This consideration may have been intensified if they travelled
with family (e.g., children) because this scenario may have caused more inconvenience to the host.
…length of stay, I don’t want to bother them by staying too long. And if I travel with my family then I would have to see how they are with hosting children. Not everyone is used to having a kid in their house. (Tammy)
Travel companions of VFR trips, therefore, could also add to the reason as to why some students might not want to stay with their friends and relatives due to the potential extra inconvenience that they would cause for their friends/relatives.
Another potential issue with longer stays was that, even with close relationships, some participants found that being in the same space with their friends and relatives for a longer time could be intense. Long stays were associated with less freedom and uncomfortable feelings as mentioned by Nancy:
My mom came to Dunedin first, tried to get use to the jetlag… Then we went up to the North Island, and we were travelling and stayed in hotel and trekking all day and…uh… yeah I liked it. It was pretty fun. It got intense at times though because we had different ideas of what we really like to do on vacation. (Nancy)
Nancy’s comment is an example that shows how conflicts may exist in VFR tourism.
As nice as it was to see her mother and being able to travel together, differences in travelling goals could result in uncomfortable intensity for the relationship. In other cases, the tension between participants may have had less to do with different travel goals but more to do with the relationship itself, especially factors such as personality clashes and different living habits. VFR tourism is distinguished by the relationship between participants, either friendship or family connection. Such relationships often come with a complexity that is different from other relationships in traditional tourism such as visitors–visitors, or locals–visitors, who do not have a history of knowing each other, enduring obligations towards each other, or the likelihood of seeing each other again in the future. This finding adds to the nuance of studying VFR tourism.
The host–guest relationship in VFR tourism of international PhD students is examined in detail in the next chapter.