VFR travel interactions through the lens of the host

Backer, Elisa; Erol, Günay; Düşmezkalender, Ebru

doi:10.1177/1356766720927753

Cited by 14 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, the study highlighted the differences in VFR experiences between immigrant hosts and non-immigrant hosts (Tran et al, 2018;Yousuf and Backer, 2017), which exerted particularly strong ties to countries of origin, as suggested by other researchers (Capistrano and Weaver, 2017). Backer et al (2020) stressed the insufficient The roles and experiences of Japanese international students in Australia as VFR hosts and the behaviours of the VFR travellers were explored…”

Section: Hostsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Such geographical and cultural proximity and the resultant influence are relevant to market and product development (Bianca et al , 2019; Huang et al , 2019), as well as to social construction of values and, consequently, hosting behaviour (Janta and Christou, 2019). The unique role of international students of varied duration of stay, countries of origin and sociocultural background should be further explored, especially in the Asian context (Backer et al , 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…International students in this study refer to those inbound students who hold student visa and non-permanent resident identity in Hong Kong, who might either come from mainland China and other countries. Based on the position of diverse sociocultural and behavioural patterns driving VFR hosts (Backer et al , 2020; Lockyer and Ryan, 2007; Mok and Defranco, 2000; Xu et al , 2008; Moscardo et al , 2000), the areas of qualitative analytical comparison between mainland Chinese and non-Chinese students are threefold as follows: overall host experience; host–guest relations; and post-hosting changes, with a set of interview questions (Bischoff and Koenig-Lewis, 2007; Brown, 2009; Dutt et al , 2016) (Table 2). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, the study highlighted the differences in VFR experiences between immigrant hosts and non-immigrant hosts (Tran et al , 2018; Yousuf and Backer, 2017), which exerted particularly strong ties to countries of origin, as suggested by other researchers (Capistrano and Weaver, 2017). Backer et al (2020) stressed the insufficient VFR host research and understanding with a limited geographical focus and scope of studies although host perspective largely defines VFR travel. These researchers called for a comparative analysis of hosts from different origins for both theoretical, management and marketing implications.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The connection between VFR experience based and sociocultural dimensions of international students and mainland Chinese students

Chan

Pikkemaat

Agapito

et al. 2021

IJCTHR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to present the host experience of student hosts in Hong Kong, a popular educational destination for international students from mainland China and other countries. This study examines the interconnection between the experience-based and sociocultural dimensions of visiting friends and relatives (VFR) travel, considering the overall host experience, the host–guest relationship and post-hosting changes in perception of both the VFR experience and destination. Design/methodology/approach This research adopts a qualitative approach to compare the experience-based and sociocultural dimensions of VFR travel considering international university students as VFR hosts in Hong Kong, taking a student sample from both mainland Chinese and overseas students. Based on a voluntary sampling approach, the research team had face-to-face interviews with the students that agreed to participate. The interviews were conducted voluntarily and anonymously and included those students who had hosted any friends or relatives in the past 12 months. A total of 26 interviews were successfully completed, including 10 mainland Chinese and 16 non-mainland Chinese students. Findings The results confirm that the VFR host experience is generally shaped by an integration of internal characteristics (sociocultural characteristics of both hosts and visitors) and external environment (urban infrastructure and tourism resources). The two groups distinctively express their host experience that shows some areas of cultural barriers and geographical proximity. Research limitations/implications The limitations of this research mainly lie on its relatively small sample size because of constraints in accessing the contact information of international students across universities. These shortcomings should be improved by adopting a research design that uses other sampling approaches, such as snowball sampling, to include a wider scope of students from different local universities, or convenience sampling, to interview and compare responses of international students from various educational destinations. Alternative data sources may be considered, for example, through user-generated contents from online and social media platforms that contain sharing of students as hosts. Practical implications The geographical and cultural proximities influence VFR tourism development and social construction of values and the consequent hosting behaviour. The unique role of international students should be further explored, especially in the Asian context. The outcome of VFR travel must be evaluated and studied more from cultural and personal dimensions than economic gain, which should be relevant to host perspective such as improved quality of life, social ties and place attachment and psychological benefits. The changing risk perception caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may be examined through some forms of travel intention. Social implications Firstly, the destination marketing organisations of the educational destination should address the difficulty faced by student hosts in terms of external attributes such as local culture, urban infrastructure, tourism resources and information accessibility. Secondly, to target the hosts, some specific VFR-related products and services may be developed for international students through local tertiary institutions such that the role of hosts as ambassadors can be facilitated and enhanced. Thirdly, the functional role of international students can be distinctive based on their unique network, activities and knowledge constructed upon learning during the period of education. Originality/value The studentification of many educational destination cities, the dynamism of the role of international students as VFR hosts and their cultural differences between places of origin have provided an opportunity for deepening the understanding of VFR tourism.

show abstract

Section: Hostsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, the study highlighted the differences in VFR experiences between immigrant hosts and non-immigrant hosts (Tran et al , 2018; Yousuf and Backer, 2017), which exerted particularly strong ties to countries of origin, as suggested by other researchers (Capistrano and Weaver, 2017). Backer et al (2020) stressed the insufficient VFR host research and understanding with a limited geographical focus and scope of studies although host perspective largely defines VFR travel. These researchers called for a comparative analysis of hosts from different origins for both theoretical, management and marketing implications.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The connection between VFR experience based and sociocultural dimensions of international students and mainland Chinese students

Chan

Pikkemaat

Agapito

et al. 2021

IJCTHR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To the authors' best knowledge, this study is the first delivering empirical insights on students hosting friends and relatives (SHFR) in Central Europe. Backer et al (2020) highlight that the role of the VFR host centrally defines VFR tourism. In this regard, we understand that the role of students as hosts needs a deeper exploration and empirical insights.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Understanding students as hosts: moving beyond sightseeing

Petry

Pikkemaat

Chan

et al. 2021

IJCTHR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Neither visitors of visiting friends and relatives (VFR) travel nor hosts are homogeneous segments (Griffin & Guttenberg, 2020). For this reason, this study aims to address students as hosts of VFR travel and analyzes differences in the visitor and the host segment. As a result, marketing implications for destination marketing organizations that seek to realize the potential of the student VFR segment arise. Design/methodology/approach This research project adopts a multi-method approach to derive a deeper empirical understanding of visitors’ behaviors and the role of students hosting friends and relatives (SHFR). The quantitative study aims to reveal the relevance and differences between visits to friends (VF) and visits to relatives (VR), whereas the qualitative study elaborates on the findings of the quantitative study and seeks to understand the role and experiences of students as hosts. Findings The findings reveal that VR and VF travelers vary in terms of their expenditure. Hosts’ spending depends on visitors’ budgets; in general, both their direct and indirect (when relatives pay) spending increases when they have visitors. Furthermore, the data identify two distinct hosting styles: functional hosting is concerned with providing outstanding hospitality based on a more traditional, guest-oriented understanding of the role, whereas integrative hosting blurs the lines between hospitality and lifestyle based on a more modern, host-oriented understanding of the role. Research limitations/implications Regarding limitations, this study did not differentiate between students who were simultaneously locals and students who resided in the city only for study purposes. In a similar vein, the cultural background of the students was not considered in the research. Finally, the differences between VF and VR could further be explored in a quantitative follow-up study and in testing for significant differences in SHFR spending behaviors. Further research could examine whether domestic travelers, travelers with cultural proximity and/or short-distance VFR travelers are more likely to visit after COVID-19 as suggested by Backer and Ritchie (2017) in the case of crises and disaster. Practical implications Students as hosts differ from other hosts in VFR travel in their reluctance to embrace conventional tourism products. This study found that place attachment makes hosts of VFR travelers passionate ambassadors and advertisers for the destinations; destination marketing organizations (DMOs) could support this already positive image by providing and supporting students with more detailed information about their cities and the opportunities they offer. Results are of particular relevance because the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing DMOs to develop destination strategies that incorporate social-distancing and avoid crowded places. Social implications When students take their friends out to events and nightclubs, they contribute significantly to experiences that go beyond typical tourism activities such as sightseeing and shopping. By offering special discounts to visitors who come with their hosts, DMOs could help visitors delve more deeply into city life and thereby reduce the likeliness of crowded city centers. Considering the findings relating to the social and emotional qualities of VFR travel, DMO marketing to VFR travelers could benefit from promoting socio-cultural spaces and offerings that value groups’ social ties (e.g. family prices for families with adult children) or alumni status. Originality/value According to the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first which analyzes both, visitors and hosts of VFR travel using a two methods approach. Very recently, Griffin and Guttenberg (2020) miss VFR research focusing on the heterogeneity of the segment, and Backer et al. (2020) claim for more VFR research on the role of hosts carried out outside of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the USA. To the authors’ best knowledge, this study is the first which delivers empirical insights on SHFR in Central Europe.

show abstract