The challenge of proximity: the (un)attractiveness of near-home tourism destinations

Abstract

Imaginaries of touristic otherness have traditionally been closely related to geographical distance and travel far away from the everyday. But in today's context of sustainable tourism, a moral and behavioral shift may be expected, toward traveling near home. Distance may actually become a disadvantage and proximity a new commodity. This implies a need to disentangle subjective understandings of both distance and proximity in relation to perceived attractiveness of and touristic behavior in places near home. Thus, it is aimed to shed light on how 'proximity tourism' is constructed, endorsed and appreciated (or not). An online survey (N D 913) was administered to residents of the Dutch province of Friesland, exploring their attitudes toward their home province as tourism destination and representations of proximity and distance in relation to preferred vacation destinations. We grouped respondents into four categories, reflecting destination preferences: (1) proximate, (2) distant, (3) intermediate and (4) mixed. These groups were differentiated and characterized using quantitative and qualitative analyses. The 'proximate' and 'distant' preference groups, respectively, were most and least engaged in proximity tourism. However, the perceptions of proximity and distance expressed by the 'intermediate' and 'mixed' preference groups were associated in a nonlinear way with appreciation of the home region as a tourism destination. Additionally, respondents used proximity and distance in various ways as push, pull, keep and repel factors motivating their destination preferences. Interpretations of both proximity and distance were thus important in determining engagement in proximity tourism and, in turn, the potential for proximity tourism development in the region. This implies that such development will require a balanced consideration of the relative, temporally sensitive ways that people negotiate distance and proximity in their perceptions of being at home and away. Our results advance the discussion about imaginaries of travel, distance and proximity, and their impact on regional tourism. 抽象 旅游者对他者感的想象传统上与地理距离和远离日常生活的旅行 密切相关,但是在当今可持续旅游背景下,可能期望人们在道义和

Where everyday mobility meets tourism: an age-friendly perspective on cycling in the Netherlands and the UK

“…Together, the findings provide empirical evidence on the potential convergence of tourism and everyday mobilities, and of fixed distinctions between the tourist and the local (Jeuring & Haartsen, 2017). Using the case of active mobility (bicycling), it is argued that later life well-being may be derived from connected rather than disconnected tourism mobilities.…”

“…Subsequent attempts to de-exoticise tourism led to the exploration of tourist activity performed by people from within the region (Canavan, 2013), by people who visit a city for professional reasons (Den Hoed & Russo, 2017), and to the introduction of "slow tourism" (Fullagar, Markwell, & Wilson, 2012) and "proximity tourism" (D ıaz- Soria & Llurd es-Coit, 2013). A research focus on more proximate alternatives in tourism could enhance our insight in how to reduce carbon footprints, local-tourist divides, and the perceived unattractiveness of the own region (Jeuring & Haartsen, 2017).…”

Children as tour guides

“…Proximity tourism is a mode of tourism that challenges people to reconceptualise the way they understand and experience tourism. Proximity tourism involves people adopting the tourist lens in spaces local to their primary place of residence; embracing a different point of view from the everyday, and approaching experiences with a sense of wonder and curiosity (Diaz-Soria, 2017;Jeuring & Diaz-Soria, 2017;Jeuring & Haartsen, 2017). Our study engaged proximity tourism as an approach to interacting with local nature environments, one that might enable enhanced environmental and financial sustainability in tourism.…”

Adaptation, interaction and urgency: a complex evolutionary economic geography approach to leisure

“…Municipalities which have undergone major amalgamation processes have not been selected as these make tracing institutional change more difficult. Additionally, we decided to not include any of the four island municipalities, as these have a much weaker link with the rest of Fryslân (see also Jeuring & Haartsen, 2016). By including both more urban and rural, coastal and inland, and smaller and larger municipalities, we aim to better represent the province as a whole.…”