Chapter 4 Research Participants’ Characteristics and VFR Tourism Behaviour
4.5 VFR Tourism in Non-traditional Places
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.
meet each other, i.e., VFR in a third place. In the online survey, one of the VF patterns examined was associated with VFR in a third place, namely Pattern 4 (Section 4.4.2). That is, students and their friends travel to a third place (either domestic or international) to meet each other that is neither of their places of residence. Compared to other VF patterns, VF in a third place (Pattern 4) was not as common (Table 4.9). Being an emerging form–or perhaps simply an under-recognised form–VFR tourism in a third place has also not been widely studied. This form of VFR tourism was explored further through focus group discussions.
The concept of VFR tourism in a third place is still new to many people. As a form of VFR, it includes the following elements: travelling, visiting friends/relatives, and a location. The location where the VFR experience takes place is what distinguishes VFR tourism in a third place from other conventional forms of VFR. It is named ‘a third place’ because it is not in the place of residency of either the visiting party or the visited party. The interaction between the guests and the hosts (the ‘visiting’ element) happens in a place that is not where they reside.
Many focus group participants had not engaged in this pattern of VFR travel, but they did show a high level of interest.
The researcher: Have you engaged in this form of VFR before?
Jay: No, I haven’t but it sounds like a great idea. I haven’t even thought of it before! Because you would be looking forward to both the place where you are going to, and the people whom you are going to meet, so what is not to like about it.
This response suggests that this form of VFR tourism is still developing and is yet to become common among the international PhD students participating in this study.
From focus group discussions, it was found that VFR tourism in a third place could be domestic, international or a combination of both. For example, Amy shared her experience:
A couple of years ago, I met my dad and my sister in Hawaii so that is kinda like half-way for us. And then after that, I did go back to Canada with them to visit the rest of the family. And I have a friend from Canada who came over for a geology field course, she was in the North Island, we decided to meet down near Queenstown to go and do the Routeburn track.
In Amy’s example, the first trip when she and her father travelled and met each other in Hawaii was international. With the second trip, it was an international trip for her
friend but a domestic trip for her, so that both of them could meet each other in Queenstown.
There are several advantages and disadvantages of VFR tourism in a third place that were addressed in the focus groups. One of the biggest advantages is that both parties get to meet each other while visiting a new place. In some cases, by meeting half-way, VFR in a third place also helped at least one of the parties to save time and travel cost.
Saving money, and another one is to save time that you each have to spend. It is like splitting the cost of a flight. Or it is just a place that you both want to visit so it is more of a holiday together as well. (Amy)
To some, VFR tourism in a third place was the only option for them to visit their friends and relatives. For instance, Mary, who was Iranian, shared her perspective:
I also want to mention another factor, people’s ability. My parents are elderly. It is a long way from Iran to New Zealand so we may decide to meet in a third place so that they don’t need to travel long distance. It can also be a matter of obligation. Sometimes people can’t be in another country due to political reasons, because they are refugees or because they have other legal problem. So, meeting in a third place can be a good option for people under pressure and people with legal problems.
Mary’s opinion raised a discussion on the relationship between politics and VFR tourism. Political conditions create boundaries for some people to take part in VFR tourism; these barriers are usually about visa requirements, eligible destinations and length of stay. In cases of political difficulty, VFR tourism in a third place can be a solution for people to be able to visit each other and maintain their kinship.
Besides the benefits addressed above, there were also some disadvantages to VFR tourism in a third place mentioned. First, all parties might feel uncertain going to a place with which they were not familiar. This meant more effort was required in planning the trip.
You know, when my friends and family travel to visit me in my place, I know that I am the host and they are my guests. So, I will try to prepare everything for them and hope that they would have a good time. It is not just the matter of visiting, you want the best for your family and friends.
But in the third country, you have no control of the situation, both parties are guests, no one is the host. So, I think it is an emotional side, you are not sure whether you would have a good experience, and I want to be a good host but I can’t in another country where I am not familiar with.
(Mary)
Hibbert, Dickinson, and Curtin (2013) argued that having the security and familiarity of a friend or relative to help navigate can give courage to potential visitors in selecting a region to visit. Such reassurance might not be available with VFR in a third place, especially when all participants are new to the meeting destination.
Unfamiliarity with the destination can also undermine the feeling of safety and security, which not only influences travel related decisions but also the overall travel experience. Uncertainty in an unfamiliar place can be a disadvantage of VFR tourism in a third place, because the feeling of safety and security is not assured among the participants.
The second disadvantage of VFR in a third place mentioned in the focus groups was related to the number of friends and relatives they could visit.
This might be an option because my husband is busy, for him, from Bangladesh to Singapore, it takes only 4-4.5 hours, and from Christchurch to Singapore, I think it is 7-8 hours. In that way, we can save our time, but I have the feeling that it is not only the time saving matter for me. Because whenever I go back to my country, it is not only my husband, but also my parents, my in-laws, I will be seeing them all.
So, I rather go back home so that I can see everyone. Whereas going to Singapore, I may only see my husband, or whoever can make a trip there but not all of them. (Tania).
VFR in a third place requires all participants to travel and, therefore, only those who can afford to travel (either in physical or financial term) will see each other. For international PhD students, most of whose family members and friends are likely to reside in their hometown or country, VFR in a third place might mean that they would not get to see as many friends and relatives as they would if they travelled back home.
Although this factor is addressed as a disadvantage in this section, it is acknowledged that some students may perceive it differently. To some international PhD students, having to visit many friends and relatives while being back in their home country could be a burden. They might feel obliged to visit them as such visits are probably expected. However, to some, it is an advantage as they may want to see as many family members and friends as possible. Accordingly, it is debatable whether the matter of not being able to see all family and friends is an advantage or a disadvantage.
4.5.2 VFR tourism in transit
Similar to VFR tourism in a third place, ‘VFR in transit’ may have been around for a while yet it is not widely acknowledged and studied. It was noted in the focus groups that sometimes for VFR trips that involved long distances, VFR might also happen in the transit route, such as described in Noel’s example below.
I visited friends along the way to seeing my family, but not necessarily travel to see a friend specifically. So, we [he and his wife] stopped at Seattle. My family is in Boston but on the way, we stopped in Seattle to see some friends. (Noel)
McKercher and Tang (2004) defined transit tourism as a short-stay visit by transit tourists in the transit point while en route to their final destination. Although transiting is often regarded as a necessary inconvenience by tourists (Tang, Weaver,
& Lawton, 2017), to some, stopping and staying along transit routes, sometimes, is a choice. For instance, they may choose to stopover to visit a new region on the way, or to have a rest before taking the next long flight, or to visit a friend who happens to live in the transit region.
International visitors, especially long-haul, are more prone to be multi-destination travellers, as they seek efficiency and variety to increase the value of what are often costly trips in terms of both time and money (Griffin & Nunkoo, 2016). This could be applied to international students who undertake long-haul flights to visit families and friends in their home countries. In addition, with an increasing proportion of the global population living at a distance from the people they care about, the demand for international VFR travel is likely to grow. These suggest that international PhD students (and international students in general) could be a potential market for VFR in transit.
VFR in transit, therefore, has great potential to grow. It is also dependent on a number of factors, not only having friends (and/or relatives) in the transit region but also factors such as the amount of available time all participants have, and visa restrictions. The notion of VFR in transit needs to be conceptualised. It encompasses the elements of travelling, visiting friends/relatives and–depending on the timeframe of the visits–travellers can choose to stay with their friends/relatives in the transit region or not. Tang et al. (2017) suggested that recognition of tourism potentials in transit hubs would change conventional perceptions of transit route region in the
tourism system and encourage less compartmentalised thinking. While acknowledging the potential growth of VFR in transit that was induced by the focus group discussions, the current study does not have sufficient data to explore the subject further.
In general, VFR tourism in a third place raised a mix of advantages and disadvantages from the research participants. To some, it was a convenient option to visit friends and relatives. Also, it put all participants in a vacation context and, hence, was particularly appealing to those who wanted to combine visiting friends and relatives with tourism and leisure. Conversely, some participants might have been discouraged from engaging in VFR tourism in a third place due to perceived unfamiliarity with the destination and the effort required in planning such trips. This section also noted the potential of VFR tourism in the transit regions. With increasing global mobility, these under-studied forms of VFR tourism could be expected to grow. They challenge the current definitions of VFR tourism and call for further research that examines them in more depth, and how they fit in the wider VFR tourism phenomenon.