Visiting friends and relatives tourism and implications for community capital

Abstract

Visiting friends and relatives (VFR) tourism accounts for a substantial amount of worldwide travel, yet has received comparatively little attention regarding its impacts on sustainability. This paper provides an initial discussion that situates VFR tourism within a discussion on sustainable tourism development. The community capitals framework is used as a basis for the discussion. A review of academic literature on VFR and sustainable tourism provides the foundations for this paper.Due to the personal relationships inherent in VFR there are significant consequences regarding the social impacts of VFR tourism. Additionally, the economic implications of VFR tourism include a more stable demand, greater dispersal of spending, and engagement of residents as consumers.The ability of communities to absorb VFR tourism relative to other forms of tourism has positive indications for the cultural and environmental aspects of community development. As debates within the more recent literature consider the opportunities and possibilities for mass tourism to become more sustainable, this paper suggests that VFR could reasonably be considered a sustainable form of tourism and offers destinations a viable strategy for sustainable tourism development.

Towards a new definition for “visiting friends and relatives”

“…The most recent offer of a VFR definition comes from Griffin () in his discussion of VFR and community capital development. In an attempt to demonstrate the broad and varied ways that relationships between residents and visitors can manifest, he considered “the term ‘VFR’ to broadly refer to all tourism experiences that involve a prior personal relationship between a visitor and resident no matter the stated trip purpose, accommodation used, or activities engaged in” (p. 235).…”

“…In an attempt to demonstrate the broad and varied ways that relationships between residents and visitors can manifest, he considered “the term ‘VFR’ to broadly refer to all tourism experiences that involve a prior personal relationship between a visitor and resident no matter the stated trip purpose, accommodation used, or activities engaged in” (p. 235). Although Griffin () did not propose this explanation as a new definition, he did offer a broader and new perspective of the VFR phenomenon. For example, using Griffin's () description, it is possible to say that Couchsurfing is not VFR, but any multipurpose or multidestination travel could be a VFR trip if there is a “tourism experience” and any involvement of a “prior personal relationship” with a resident.…”

“…Although Griffin () did not propose this explanation as a new definition, he did offer a broader and new perspective of the VFR phenomenon. For example, using Griffin's () description, it is possible to say that Couchsurfing is not VFR, but any multipurpose or multidestination travel could be a VFR trip if there is a “tourism experience” and any involvement of a “prior personal relationship” with a resident. However, there is still room to further specify these three key elements; after all, it is unclear what could exactly be considered a tourism experience, involvement and a previous personal relationship.…”

“…Likewise, instead of referring to a resident, it is more accurate to introduce the term “host,” as this implies receiving, guiding, or helping the visitor at the destination, relating to influencing more clearly. A substantial body of research in VFR has noted that the host plays a crucial part in the VFR experience having a very strong influence in the trip and the visitors' behaviour (Backer , ; Griffin ; Humbracht ; Lehto et al ; McKercher ; Meis et al ; Young et al, ). As a result, it is imperative to include the host in a new definition of VFR travel, and consequently, the first part of the differentiator for a new definition of VFR should be the “influence of a host” in the trip.…”

“…This form of travel is commonly referred to as visiting friends and relatives (VFR) and is receiving growing interest in tourism academe and practice (Backer & King, 2015;Griffin, 2013c;Moscardo G., Pearce P., Morrison A., Green D., & O'Leary J. T., 2000), as well as broader and more critical discussions on human movement (Cohen & Cohen, 2012). The implications of VFR travel are therefore apparent across a range of disciplines and stakeholders as personal connections between disparate people affect ongoing migration flows, trade patterns (Dwyer L., Seetaram N., Forsyth P., & King B., 2014), place image and communication, cultural and economic development (Griffin, 2013b), immigrant integration (Griffin, 2016;Humbracht, 2015), and further business and pleasure tourism (Seetaram, 2012).…”