The demographic dividend of VFR travel: Evidence from Australia

Authors’ contact details:

Dr Elisa BackerSenior Lecturer in TourismThe Business SchoolFaculty of BusinessFederation University, AustraliaPO Box 663, Ballarat, Vic., 3350, Australiae.backer@federation.edu.au

Professor Brian KingAssociate Dean (Executive Education & Partnerships)School of Hotel & Tourism ManagementThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityRoom 606, 17 Science Museum RoadTST East, Kowloon, Hong KongTel: +852 3400 2182; Fax: +852 2362 9362brian.king@polyu.edu.hk

Acknowledgement: The authors gratefully acknowledge Tourism Research Australia, particularly Dr Leo Jago, for kindly providing access to the data to enable this research.

The demographic dividend of VFR travel: Evidence from Australia

Abstract

Visiting friends and relatives (VFR) travel is a large and important form of tourism in most developed countries. In Australia, VFR travel accounts for 48% of all tourism. Recent research has provided valuable insights into the length of stay, origins, mode of travel, and expenditures of VFR travellers. However, less attention has been devoted to their demographic attributes. To date, no research has compared the demographic attributes of all VFR travellers with those applicable to Non-VFRs. Based on a sample of 81,579that coversthe period 2010-2012, thepresent research demonstrates that thedemographic profiles of VFRs and Non-VFRs in Australia are markedly different. It was found that a higher proportion of Non-VFRs were working full-time, living in capital cities and earning higher levels of household income. In contrast, a higher proportion of VFRs were working part-time, studying, or undertaking home duties. They were also significantly more likely to be pensioners or unemployed, part of a smaller household and earning a lower household income. They were more likely to be older and living alone. It is notable thatsocioeconomically disadvantaged groups have been acknowledged in the literature as being less engaged in tourism. However the present research provides evidence of their active participation in VFR travel. It is concluded that the provision of VFR travel opportunities may offer those who are not in a position to engage in other forms of tourism with prospective tourism related experiences.

Keywords

VFR travel, Visiting Friends and Relatives, social tourism, demography, Australia

Introduction

VFR travel is a substantial market in most developed countries.It is a familiar term amongst tourism academics and industry practitioners and a large scale phenomenon. Given its dimensions, it is perhaps surprising that few researchers have been active in the field and that research into this field tookoff only comparatively recently. The first scholarly article appeared in the early 1990s (by Jackson (1990)). Research in the field has consistently pointed to the neglect of the topic(Backer, 2010, 2012; Braunlich & Nadkarni, 1995; Hay, 1996, 2008; Jackson, 1990, 2003; King, 1996; McKercher, 1995; Morrison, Hsieh, & O’Leary, 1995; Page & Connell, 2009; A. Seaton & Palmer, 1997; A. Seaton, 1994; Seaton, A.V., & Tagg, 1995; Yaman, 1996). The ‘forgotten’ status of VFR travel is also evidenced by its absence in scholarly books and monographs. Of the thousands of tourism books which offer a ‘big picture’ view many have focused on business dimensions such as marketing, management, economics and research. Others have explored segments such as dark tourism, gastronomy tourism, sports tourism, events tourism and wellness tourism. The segments that have been the focus of analysis have become progressively narrower and now incorporate areas including slowtourism, battlefield tourism, horse tourism, island tourism, tea tourism, cricket tourism, spices tourism, sugar heritage tourism, marine tourism and scuba diving tourism. Despite the proliferation of coverage there has been no VFR related book. Despite constituting a large share of tourism activity, VFR hasreceived less attention by academic researchers than other muchsmaller dimensions of the tourism phenomenon.

Whilst VFR related research has been undertaken since 1990, it remains small relative to the size of the market. A content review of VFR related publications (Griffin, 2012)identified only 46 tourism journal articles that relate specifically to the phenomenon. Many of these contributions have focused on economic, marketing and volume related dimensions(Griffin, 2012). Almost half (45.5%) of the papers made exclusive use of

secondary data. A limitation of relying on this source is thatofficial data only provide information that is based on VFR by purpose of visit or by accommodation. Not all VFR travellers self-classify themselves in the VFR category since they may legitimately view themselves as undertaking leisure-based holidays. Because of such considerations, VFR travel that is based on purpose of visit related data willtend to underestimate the size of the phenomenon. It is evident that not all VFRs stay with friends and/or relatives. Some may opt for commercial accommodation (Backer, 2010; Braunlich & Nadkarni, 1995). The research paper aims to contribute to theVFR travel literature by considering the demographics of VFR travellers relative to non-VFRs and by ascertaining whether VFRscould legitimately be classified as a form of tourism for the socioeconomically disadvantaged. Given the recognitionthat tourism has gained for bringing health and wellbeing related benefits, it seems to be worthwhile to involve those who may not have otherwise participated in leisure tourism. This is thefirst paper to present a demographic profile of VFRs relative to their non-VFR counterparts.

Literature Review

VFR travel constitutes 48% of the tourism market in Australia which is a substantial proportion (Backer, 2012). A notable dimensionof VFR travel is its inclusivity. Whilst many in the population such as lower income earners and seniors do not engage in leisure travel, VFR encompasses participation by a wider group. Non-participants in leisure travel may be missing out the health and wellbeing benefits associated with tourism. Given that humans are “thoroughly social creatures”, the sharing of leisure travel can be a positive experience (Hawkley& Cacioppo, 2010, p.227).Reconnecting with friends and family can be beneficial for the health of seniors because of the social dimension (Seeman, 2000) and it has been found that “holidays play an important role in alleviating the stresses ofmodern life” (Hughes, 1991, p.193). Some countries have implemented social tourism policies to ensure that the socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in society can access

support to enable touristic experiences (Hall & Brown, 2012).Such initiatives are intended to deliver health benefits through tourism. Social tourism may be defined as tourism to encourage “the participation in tourism activities of persons who are economically weak or otherwise disadvantaged”(Minnaert, Maitland, & Miller, 2011). There is no history of social tourism provision in Australia of the type that has beenprevalence in certain European countries.

The mentality of the VFR traveller differsfrom the leisure travel counterpart. Some VFR trips may be viewed as incorporating an ‘exploitive’ dimension – for example where a friend orrelative lives in adestinationthat offers tourism appeal; other trips are obligations and must proceed regardlessof cost, weather conditions, timing, or desire. Events such as weddings, significant birthdays, graduations, christenings, andfunerals are viewed as obligatory for certain participants.Other occasions involve a need to reconnect - for example visiting grandparents or an ailing friend or relative. Based on the principle of social equity it is important that positive VFR travel experiences are provided for those who are unable to participate in or are excluded from leisure tourism.Astudy byMcCabe (2009)noted that the category “recovering from illness or bereavement’ was ranked second amongst respondents who were asked why they most needed a holiday.This finding is indicative of the substantial health and wellbeing benefits that are associated with tourism. The respondents highlighted the importance of having respite from the upset and stress caused by the illness. It would “help people to cope with theirmedical conditions better on their return” (McCabe, 2009, p.675). VFR travel also presents an opportunity for families to form and maintain relationships (McCabe, 2009) and to spend quality time together (Backer & Schänzel, 2013). McCabe (2009)has highlighted how “mental and physical health issues can be adriver of expressed demand for a holiday” (p.677).

The benefits of participating in holiday taking have been well-documented (for example: Dolnicar, Yanamandram, & Cliff, 2012; Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004; Lehto, Lin, Chen, & Choi, 2012;

McCabe, 2009; Minnaert, Maitland, & Miller, 2009; Richards, 1999). In addition to the widely reported economic benefits theadvantages of taking a holiday also extend to health and wellbeing. However, holiday taking may be beyond the means of those on lower household incomes and some lack the confidence to travel (for example single females and seniors). It is notable that the oldest groups in the community “have the lowest overall rates of leisure participation” (Roberts, 2004, p.66).Some non-participation is a result of over-work. Tourism Australia’s recent ‘No Leave, No Life’ advertising campaign presented the benefits that are associated with taking time outand reconnecting. The campaign was aimed primarily at businesses and the website featured a prominent header presenting the following slogan: “there’s nothing like a few days away for encouraging business growth” (Tourism Australia, 2013). Australians had over 128 million days of stockpiled annual leave (Tourism Australia, 2013)and overworked Australians “not only compromise their own physical and mental wellbeing; they create major financial liability issues for companies… and contribute to an underperforming domestic tourism section” (Weaver & Lawton, 2015, p.66). Holidays can strengthen family bonds, foster healing, rekindle relationships, and help people to cope with difficult times in their lives including terminal health problems (Hughes, 1991; McCabe, Joldersma, & Li, 2010; McCabe, 2009). The benefits that flow from taking holidays have been shown to endure well beyond the trip and may assist proponents to cope better on their return.

VFR travel is particularly important for seniors and for the socioeconomically disadvantaged, since non-participation in tourism can lead to social exclusion (Minnaert, 2012). Being unable to participate in tourism experiences prevents disadvantaged groups from benefiting from the associated healthand wellbeing opportunities. To overcome these barriers Governments in several (mainly European) countries have established programs to assist the disadvantaged take holidays (or engage in social tourism). The underlying rationale is thatleisure travel is “an important aspect of personal and

collective wellbeing, and also a basic human right” (Weaver & Lawton, 2015, p.65). One example is the European Union’s Calypso program which is targeted at lower-income families and seniors and seeks to combined improvements inparticipant wellbeing with economic development though scheduling the programs in off-peak periods, thereby boosting and stabilising local economies. Social tourism has also been associated with increases in social capital (Minnaert, 2012).

Seaton (1992) reported that groups from higher socioeconomic levels (ABC1 groups – non-manual labour) were more likely to take holidays than their lower socioeconomic counterparts (DE groups). The author concluded that about “20-30% of the population have little share in the apparent tourism explosion,particularly DEs who include high numbers of the aged and unemployed” (Seaton, 1992, p.110). Evidence from the developed countries has shown that travel is important in such settings because an inability to undertake leisure travel is “an inability to participate in a commonly accepted lifestyle”(Hall & Brown, 2012, p.111).

Researchers have documented a relationship between loneliness and health (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010). Loneliness is generallyassociated with perceived, rather than actual social isolation.Those whose perceived loneliness was reduced through the courseof a controlled study that provided increased socialisation, had a reduced number of trips to health practitioners and improved wellbeingand mortality (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010). Connecting or reconnecting with friends/relatives who are geographically apart can diminish or abolish feelings of socialisolation (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010). Health benefits have been identified when seniors reconnect with friends and/or family (Seeman, 2000). Howeverevidence has also suggested that“current health promotion efforts should include careful consideration of both potentially positive as well as negative social influences on health behaviours and outcomes” (Seeman, 2000, p. 368). VFR travel may offer a suitable form of tourism for the socioeconomically disadvantaged and who are less

inclined to engage in leisure tourism. To determine whether this is the case, it is important to compare the demographics of VFRs and Non-VFRs. The research aimed to examine the demographic elements associated with VFR versus non-VFR travel in Australia.

Some previous research has explored the demographic attributes of VFRs, but none have analysed the relevant data for all VFRsand all non-VFRs. There are three VFR types, namely those who stay with friends/relatives and also state a VFR purpose ofvisit (‘Pure’ VFRs; PVFRs); those who state a VFR purpose of visit but stay in commercial accommodation (‘Commercial’ VFRs; CVFRs); and those who stay with friends/relatives but do not state that VFR is their main purpose of visit (‘Exploitive’ VFRs; EVFRs) (Backer, 2009, 2012). Studies relying on only oneor two of those VFR types and comparing it against all other data are only using some of the applicable VFR data and may be comparing VFRs with a mixture of VFRs and Non-VFRs.One study that considered VFR demographics (Moscardo, Pearce, Morrison, Green, & O’Leary, 2000) used official Queensland Government data which were collected through accommodation providers. VFRswere disaggregated on the basis of respondents who stayed in commercial accommodation and who nominated VFR as their purposeof visit (ie the study considered only CVFRs). Descriptive data revealed that more respondents aged 60 and over were VFRs;but no tests of significance were undertaken. The study noted that VFRs were more likely to be couples or part of a family group.

A UK based study arrived at very different results and reportedthat VFR is dominated by the young with 59% of VFRs being under34 (Beioley, 1997). Beioley (1997) also found that social grades were similar across categories AB (upper middle class and middle class) and C1 (lower middle class) for VFRs and non-VFRs based on applying VFR by purpose of visit as a basis for analysis (ie considered PVFRs and CVFRs). The main differences were for C2 (skilled working class) and DE (working class; those at lowest level of subsistence) where there was a lower

proportion of VFRs in the C2 segment and more VFRs in the DE segment. However, no tests of significance were undertaken in the study and the sample size is unknown. A study based on official US tourism data also identified demographic differences between VFRs and Non-VFRs(Hu & Morrison, 2002). Females were significantly more likely to be VFRs than Non-VFRs, VFRs were significantly more likely to have lower household incomes, and VFRs comprised smaller travel parties(Hu & Morrison, 2002). Differences were also revealed for age,with those aged 60 and above significantly overrepresented amongst VFRs. The education levels of VFRs were also lower (Hu & Morrison, 2002). The study analysed VFR by purpose of visit (ie considered PVFRs and CVFRs).

Lee, Morrison, and Lheto(2005) also undertook a study which relied on VFR by purpose of visit (ie PVFRs and CVFRs). The authors used official data tracking travel from France to NorthAmerica. Based on a sample size of 1,013 the study revealed that VFRs had lower household incomes, had a higher average age, comprised smaller travel parties, were more likely to be female, and were less likely to be married. Non-VFRs were also significantly more likely to have university qualifications. A summary of the demographic attributes that have been identifiedin the various studies is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic attributes of VFR travellers in various studiesStudy Country

data collected

Single/couple

Age group

Travelparty size

Socialclass / income

Education

Gender VFRs analysed

Moscardoet al (2000)

Australia

couples

Older - - - - CVFRs

Beioley (1997)

UK - Younger

- DE - - PVFRs CVFRs

Hu & Morrison(2002)

USA - Older - Lower income

Lower education

More females

PVFRs CVFRs

Lee et al (2005)

France single Older smaller

Lower income

Lower education

More females

PVFRs CVFRs

As outlined in Table 1, there are some differences between the findings of the studies that have considered demography, although some traits associated with lower socioeconomic statusseem to be prevalent. The research has aimed to examine the demographicsof VFRsand non-VFRs in Australia. It is particularlyaimed at comparing VFRs and non-VFRs in terms of the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Method

An analysis of Tourism Research Australia’s (TRA) National Visitors Survey (NVS) was undertaken using data for the period 2010-2012. TRA annually interviews around 120,000 Australian residents aged 15 and over. Respondents are interviewed via telephone through a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system, which randomly dials digits. The survey instrument has over 70 questions in it. The raw data were provided to the authors in this studyby TRA. The data were recoded and reformatted according to the VFR definitional model(Backer, 2012). This allowed for the aggregation of all VFRs (ie travellers who stated a VFR purpose of visit and / or travellers who stayed at the home of friends / relatives). A filter was run on the data to exclude multiple stops and confine the coverage to single stops. This resulted in a sample size of 81,579.

Results

A series of tests were undertaken to compare the demographic aspects of VFRs and Non-VFRs. Tests were undertaken for gender,marital status, number of persons in the household, employment status, household income, age group, lifecycle, country of birth, and location of residence. As outlined in Table 2, a gender analysis revealed that a higher proportion of males wereNon-VFRs compared with VFRs. Conversely there were more femaleVFRs than Non-VFRs. These differences were significant at the 95% confidence levels.

Table 2: Domestic VFRs and Non-VFRs in Australia 2010-2012 based onGender

VFR (n) Non-VFR (n)Male 41.2% (14,977) 58.8% (21,377) *Female 54.2% (24,074) * 45.8% (20,341)* Significant at the 95% confidence level

Table 3presents an analysis of marital status. Singleswere significantly more likely to be VFRs than Non-VFRs. By contrast, respondents who identified as being part of a couple were significantly more likely to be Non-VFRs than VFRs. Therewas no significant difference (at the 95% confidence level) between VFRs and Non-VFRs for those who refused to answer the question.

Table 3: Domestic VFRs and Non-VFRs in Australia 2010-2012 based onMarital Status

VFR (n) Non-VFR (n)Single (never married, divorced, separated, widowed and not part of a couple)

59.1% (15,169) *

40.9% (10,496)

Part of a couple (married, defacto, living together)

43.3% (23,824) 56.7% (31,141) *

Refused 41.7% (58) 58.3% (81)* Significant at the 95% confidence level

The number of people in the household ranged from one up to 17.Miniscule numbers were obtained for households with more than eight members and these have consequently been excluded from consideration. As outlined in Table 4, larger households were more likely to be Non-VFRs than VFRs. These differences were significant at the 95% confidence level for households with between three and seven people. Small household of either one or two people were significantly more likely to be VFRs than Non-VFRs.

Table 4: Domestic VFRs and Non-VFRs in Australia 2010-2012 based onnumber of people in the household

VFR (n) Non-VFR (n)1 64.7% (8,597) * 35.5% (4,683)2 49.8% (15,535) * 50.2% (15,640)3 45.6% (5,737) 54.4% (6,843) *4 38.4% (5,709) 61.6% (3,942) *5 38.4% (2,456) 61.6% (3,942) *6 40.7% (715) 59.3% (1,042) *7 41.5% (198) 58.5% (279) *8 40.4% (59) 59.6% (87)* Significant at the 95% confidence level

As outlined in Table 5, VFR and Non-VFR travellersexhibited different employment patterns. Non-VFRs were significantly morelikely to be working full time than VFRs. People who were unemployed and seeking work, working part-time, retired, doing home duties, studying, or other were significantly more likely to be VFRs than Non-VFRs. No significant differences were evident (at the 95% confidence level) between the two groups interms of refusing to answer the question.

Table 5: Domestic VFRs and Non-VFRs in Australia 2010-2012 based onemployment statusVFR (n) Non-VFR (n)

Working full time 39.2% (14,632) 60.8% (22,666) *Retired or on a pension 61.3% (11,816) * 38.7% (7,454)Working part time 50.2% (7,405) * 49.8% (7,339)Mainly doing home duties 55.2% (1,918) * 44.8% (1,555)Studying 53.2% (1,997) * 46.8% (1,758)Unemployed and looking for work

61.8% (778) * 38.2% (480)

Other 53.7% (396) * 46.3% (341)Refused 46.6% (109) 53.4% (125)* Significant at the 95% confidence level

Respondent annual household incomes are outlined in Table 6,revealing significant differences between VFR and Non-VFR travellers. A change in the income brackets in the questionnaire during the period resulted in spreading out of

the responses over different brackets through the three-year period. As responses were provided over a range, rather than inspecific amounts, the responses could not be merged. The samplesizes were however large enough to enable testing for statistical significance between the groups. It was found thatthose earning household incomes of below $70,000 were significantly more likely to be VFRs than Non-VFRs. Those on higher household incomes were significantly more likely to be Non-VFRs.

Table 6: Domestic VFRs and Non-VFRs in Australia 2010-2012 based on annual household income

VFR (n) Non-VFR (n)$1 - $4,199 67.3% (35) * 32.7% (17)$4,200 - $8,299 68.9% (31) * 31.1% (14)$8,300 - $15,599 71.2% (486) * 28.8% (197)$15,600 - $25,999 66.9% (1,188) * 33.1% (589)$26,000 - $36,399 58.1% (1,038) * 41.9% (749)$36,400 - $51,999 55% (1,372) * 45% (1,123)$52,000 - $77,999 48.4% (2,029) 51.6% (2,163)$78,000 - $103,999 43.9% (1,933) 56.1% (2,471) *$103,000 - $129,999 40.1% (1,150) 59.9% (1,718) *$130,000 - $149,999 34.5% (576) 65.5% (1,095) *$150,000 + 33% (1,360) 67% (2,760) *$1 - $9,999 66.8% (171) * 33.2% (85)$10,000 - $24,999 71.3% (2,876) * 28.7% (1,160)$25,000 - $39,999 62.7% (2,894) * 37.3% (1,721)$40,000 - $54,999 57.1% (2,352) * 42.9% (1,769)$55,000 - $69,999 53.6% (2,360) * 46.4% (2,043)$70,000 - $84,999 48.2% (2,116) 51.8% (2,273)$85,000 - $99,999 46.6% (1,898) 53.4% (2,196) *$100,000 - $114,999 43.5% (1,560) 56.5% (2,029) *$115,000 - $129,999 40.6% (1,116) 59.4% (1,630) *$130,000 - $149,999 38.1% (1,115) 61.9% (1,813) * $150,000 - $174,999 38% (1,077) 62% (1,756) *$175,000 - $199,999 34.2% (610) 65.8% (1,176) *$200,000 + 30.8% (1,321) 69.2% (2,974) *Don’t know 55.8% (3,556) * 44.2% (2,817)Refused 45.4% (2,831) 54.6% (3,400) ** Significant at the 95% confidence level

Table 7 outlines the respondent age groupings. It was found that respondents aged between 15-29 and aged 60 and above were significantly more likely to be VFRs than Non-VFRs. Respondents aged between 30 and 54 were significantly more likely to be Non-VFRs than VFRs. There was no significant difference between VFRs and Non-VFRs for respondents aged between 55 and 59.

Table 7: Domestic VFRs and Non-VFRs in Australia 2010-2012 based on age groups

VFR (n) Non-VFR (n)15-19 years 50.3% (1,659) * 49.7% (1,640)20-24 years 54.9% (1,635) * 45.1% (1,345)25-29 years 51.1% (1,805) * 48.9% (1,726)30-34 years 46.7% (2,338) 53.3% (2,670) *35-39 years 40.5% (2,790) 59.5% (4,103) *40-44 years 38% (3,205) 62% (5,240) *45-49 years 38.7% (3,045) 61.3% (4,833) * 50-54 years 44.4% (4,095) 55.6% (5,119) *55-59 years 48.9% (4,532) 51.1% (4,733)60-64 years 52.8% (4,617) * 47.2% (4,120)65-69 years 57.3% (3,907) * 42.7% (2,911)70-74 years 60.1% (2,605) * 39.9% (1,727)75-79 years 62.1% (1,493) * 37.9% (912)80 + years 67.5% (1,325) * 32.5% (639)* Significant at the 95% confidence level

The researchers then examined the respondent lifecycle groupings. As outlined in Table 8, there were significant differences between VFRs and Non-VFRs across the different stages. In general, couples were significantly more likely to be VFRs .Young couples without children and parents with children living at home were significantly more likely to be Non-VFRs. Similarly, older married people who were working were also significantly more likely to be Non-VFRs. Young singles living alone or in shared accommodation, midlife singles, older workers and non-working singles, as well as those who are older, non-working and married were all significantly more likely to be VFRs than Non-VFRs.

Table 8: Domestic VFRs and Non-VFRs in Australia 2010-2012 based on lifecycle group

VFR (n) Non-VFR (n)Young single living at home 49.5%

(2,184)50.5% (2,227)

Young single living alone or in shared accommodation

69% (437) * 31% (196)

Midlife single 52.1% (2,015) *

47.9% (1,851)

Young/midlife couple, no children 43.1% (2,440)

56.9% (3,222) *

Parent with youngest child aged 5 or less 42.8% (4,315)

57.2% (5,771) *

Parent with youngest child aged 6-14 35.8% (4,067)

64.2% (7,287) *

Parent with youngest child aged 15+ still living at home

40.1% (2,421)

59.9% (3,616) *

Older working single 56.2% (3,150) *

43.8% (2,455)

Older non-working single 72.4% (5,496) *

27.6% (2,095)

Older working married person 43.7% (5,643)

56.3% (7,284) *

Older non-working married person 54.8% (6,828) *

45.2% (5,637)

* Significant at the 95% confidence level

Table 9outlines the respondent countries of birth. Those who were Australian born were significantly more likely to be VFRs than Non-VFRs. For ten other countries as well as ‘other’ countries, respondents were significantly more likely to be Non-VFRs than VFRs. For all other selections, there was no significant difference between VFRs and Non-VFRs.

Table 9: Country of birth for domestic VFRs and Non-VFRs in Australia2010-2012

VFR (n) Non-VFR (n)Australia 50.4% (21,091) * 49.6% (20,754)United Kingdom 45.6% (2,039) 54.4% (2,436) *Other country 41.3% (670) 58.7% (951) *New Zealand 41.6% (520) 58.4% (731) *South Africa 35.1% (170) 64.9% (315) *Germany 51.5% (168) 48.5% (158)India 36.7% (113) 63.3% (195) *Netherlands 52.5% (124) 47.5% (112)Italy 43.2% (95) 56.8% (125)USA 38.6% (83) 61.4% (132) * Canada 40.4% (69) 59.6% (102) *Ireland 32.6% (45) 67.4% (93) *Malaysia 37.3% (53) 62.7% (89) *Philippines 34% (35) 66% (68) *

China 36.4% (32) 63.6% (56) *Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia

46.4% (39) 53.6% (45)

Poland 43% (34) 57% (45)Malta 54.7% (41) 45.3% (34)Hong Kong 40.4% (23) 59.6% (34)Greece 48.5% (33) 51.5% (35)Russia, USSR, Baltic States 46.8% (22) 53.2% (25)Vietnam 37.1% (13) 62.9% (22)Lebanon 48.5% (16) 51.5% (17)Refused 46.4% (45) 53.6% (52)* Significant at the 95% confidence level

As outlined in Table 10, the origin of VFR travellers differs significantly from Non-VFR travellers. Respondents who lived incapital cities, as well as the Northern Territory and Tasmania,were significantly more likely to be Non-VFRs. Conversely, respondents who lived outside of the capital cities were significantly more likely to be VFRs.

Table 10: Origin of domestic VFRs and Non-VFRs in Australia 2010-2012VFR (n) Non-VFR (n)

Sydney 47% (6,041) 53% (6,810) *Other New South Wales 54.7% (6,852) * 45.3% (5,666)Melbourne 42.7% (4,503) 57.3% (6,037) *Other Victoria 55.1% (3,460) * 44.9% (2,823)Brisbane 43.7% (1,633) 56.3% (2,103) *Other Queensland 52.6% (2,752) * 47.4% (2,482)Adelaide 40.4% (2,108) 59.6% (3,104) *Other South Australia 54.6% (2,737) * 45.4% (2,272)Perth 40.3% (1,875) 59.7% (2,775) *Other Western Australia 56.6% (3,176) * 43.4% (2,431)Tasmania 44.2% (2,611) 55.8% (3,295) *Northern Territory 34.6% (641) 65.4% (1,213) *Australian Capital Territory 48.4% (662) 51.6% (707)* Significant at the 95% confidence levelDiscussion

A comparison of the demographic attributesof VFRs and Non-VFRs in Australia highlights some notable differences. From the perspective of social tourism, it is evident that many of the

socioeconomically disadvantaged participate in VFR travel. Those on lower household incomes, or at different stages in thelifecycle such as single, senior or outside full-time employment are significantly more likely to be VFR travellers than Non-VFR travellers.

Consistent with the findings of Hu and Morrison (2002) andof Lee et al.(2005), the study concluded that VFRs have a higher representation of females. This may be associated with it stronger association with safety from the perspective of singlefemale and older travellers. Young single females may feel less secure when travelling in general, but more comfortable travelling to see and/or stay with friends or relatives. Since females on average have a longer life-span than men, the VFR category may include more older women whose spouses have died and who engage in VFR travel to reconnect with children and grandchildren.

Consistent with other studies (Hu & Morrison, 2002; Lee et al.,2005; Moscardo et al., 2000), the present study found that VFRstend to be older. Whilst Moscardo et al (2000) did not discuss social class or income, the other studies outlined in Table 1 did this, and concluded that VFRs tend to have lower household incomes or be in lower social classes (ie D/E). Thepresent investigation concluded that VFRs have lower household incomes and aresignificantly less likely to be working full-time. It isimportant to be aware of the limitations of comparing the current and previous studies because of differences in country of setting, years, and method. It is notable that previous studies have not aggregated the three types of VFR, since this is only possible when primary data are collected or when the researcher has access to the relevant raw data that can then berecoded. For this reason, previous studies have been confined to analysing one or two of the three VFR types. By comparing VFR data with the remaining data, they may incorporate some VFRs in the non-VFR group, thereby impacting on the results.

Conclusions and Opportunities for Further Research

The benefits of holiday taking have been well-documented (for example: Dolnicar, Yanamandram, & Cliff, 2012; Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004; Lehto, Lin, Chen, & Choi, 2012; McCabe, 2009; Minnaert, Maitland, & Miller, 2009; Richards, 1999).The health benefits have also been identified when seniors reconnect with friends and/or family (Seeman, 2000). Whilst the socioeconomically disadvantaged may be less likely to participate in tourism, the present study has shown that many participate in VFR travel.As has been previously identified, VFR experiences may provide health and wellbeing related benefits. Whilst some VFR trips are associated with obligation,many proponents view a VFR experience as synonymous with a vacation. Hu and Morrison (2002) concluded that almost “two-thirds of VFRs considered their trips to be vacations, compared to 42 per cent for the non-VFRs” (p.211). It is evident that a majority of VFR trips may indeed be undertaken “for pleasure and fun” (Hu & Morrison, 2002, p.211) rather thanobligation. VFR travel may provide prospective participants with an opportunity or reason to travel that would not have occurred otherwise. Seniors in general and those living along in particular may be unenthused about travelling for reasons such as loneliness, fear of the unknown, personal safety and a lack of money or motivation. Given the evidence that tourism provides wellbeing and health-related benefits, it seems important to encourage participation. VFR may be particularly helpful by providing a vehicle for participation amongst the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

References

Backer, E. (2009). The VFR Trilogy. In J. Carlsen, M. Hughes, K. Holmes, & R. Jones (Eds.), See Change: Proceedings of the CAUTHE Conference,10-13 Feb, 2009. Fremantle, WA, Australia: Curtin University, WA, Australia.

Backer, E. (2010). Opportunities for Commercial Accommodation in VFR.International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(4), 334–354.

Backer, E. (2012). VFR Travel: It is underestimated. Tourism Management, 33(1), 74–79. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.01.027

Backer, E., & Schänzel, H. (2013). Family Holidays – Vacation or Obli-cation? Tourism Recreation Research, 38(2), 159–173.

Beioley, S. (1997). Four weddings, a funeral and a holiday - the visiting friends and relatives market. Insights, 8, B1–B15.

Braunlich, C., & Nadkarni, N. (1995). The Importance of the VFR Market to the Hotel Industry. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 6(1), 38–47.

Dolnicar, S., Yanamandram, V., & Cliff, K. (2012). The contribution of vacations to quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 59–83.

Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holidaytaking and the sense of well-being. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 103–121.

Griffin, T. (2012). Research Note: A Content Analysis of Articles on Visiting Friends and Relatives Tourism, 1990–2010. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, (June 2013), 1–22. doi:10.1080/19368623.2012.708960

Hall, D., & Brown, F. (2012). The Welfare Society and Tourism: European Perspectives. In S. McCabe, L. Minnaert, & A. Diekmann (Eds.), Social Tourism in Europe: Theory and Practice (pp. 108–121). Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.

Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine : A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218–27. doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8

Hay, B. (1996). An Insight into the European Experience: A Case Studyon Domestic VFR Tourism within the UK. In H. Yaman (Ed.), VFR

Tourism: Issues and Implications. Proceedings from the Conference held at Victoria University of Technology (pp. 52–66).

Hay, B. (2008). An exploration of the differences in the volume and value of visiting friends and visiting relatives tourism in the UK. In S. Richardson, L. Fredline, A. Patiar, & M. Ternel (Eds.),CAUTHE 2008 Where the bloody hell are we?: Proceedings of the CAUTHE conference heldin Gold Coast, Australia, 11-14 February 2008 (pp. 488–497). Gold Coast: Griffith University.

Hu, B., & Morrison, A. M. (2002). Tripography: Can destination use patterns enhance understanding of the VFR market? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(3), 201–220.

Hughes, H. (1991). Holidays and the economically disadvantaged. Tourism Management, 12(3), 193–196.

Jackson, R. (1990). VFR Tourism: Is It Underestimated? The Journal of Tourism Studies, 1(2), 10–17.

Jackson, R. (2003). VFR Tourism: Is it underestimated? The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 17–24.

King, B. (1996). VFR – A Future Research Agenda. In H. Yaman (Ed.), VFR Tourism: Issues and Implications Proceedings from the Conference held at Victoria University Conference, Victoria, Australia. (pp. 85–89).

Lee, G., Morrison, A. M., & Lheto, X. (2005). VFR: Is it really marginal? A financial consideration of French overseas travellers. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(4), 340–356. doi:10.1177/1356766705056630

Lehto, X. Y., Lin, Y.-C., Chen, Y., & Choi, S. (2012). Family Vacation Activities and Family Cohesion. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(8), 835–850. doi:10.1080/10548408.2012.730950

McCabe, S. (2009). Who needs a holiday: Evaluating social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(4), 667–688.

McCabe, S., Joldersma, T., & Li, C. (2010). Understanding the Benefits of Social Tourism: Linking Participation to Subjective Well-being and Quality of Life. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(6), 761–773.

McKercher, B. (1995). An examination of host involvement in VFR travel. In R. Shaw (Ed.), Proceedings from the National Tourism and Hospitality Conference, 14-17 February 1995. Council for Australian University Tourism

and Hospitality Education (pp. 246–255). Canberra, ACT: Bureau of Tourism Research.

Minnaert, L. (2012). Social Tourism for Disadvantaged Families. In H.Schänzel, I. Yeoman, & E. Backer (Eds.), Family Tourism: MultidisciplinaryPerspectives (pp. 93–104). Great Britain: Channel View Publications.

Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2009). Tourism and Social Policy: The value of social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2),316–334.

Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2011). What is social tourism? Current Issues in Tourism, 14(5), 403–415. doi:10.1080/13683500.2011.568051

Morrison, A., Hsieh, S., & O’Leary, J. (1995). Segmenting the visiting friends and relatives market by holiday activity participation. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 6(1), 48–63.

Moscardo, G., Pearce, P., Morrison, a., Green, D., & O’Leary, J. T. (2000). Developing a Typology for Understanding Visiting Friends and Relatives Markets. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 251–259. doi:10.1177/004728750003800307

Page, S., & Connell, J. (2009). Tourism: A modern synthesis (3rd ed.). China: Cengage Learning.

Richards, G. (1999). Vacations and the Quality of Life: Patterns and Structures. Journal of Business Research, 44, 189–198.

Roberts, K. (2004). Leisure Inequalities, Class Divisions and Social Exclusion in Present-day Britain. Cultural Trends, 13(2), 57–71.

Seaton, A. (1994). Are Relatives Friends? Reassessing the VFR category in segmenting tourism markets. In A. Seaton (Ed.), Tourism: The State of the Art (pp. 316–321). Chichester: Wiley.

Seaton, A., & Palmer, C. (1997). Understanding VFR tourism behaviour:the first five years of the United Kingdom tourism survey. Tourism Management, 18(6), 345–355.

Seaton, A. V. (1992). Social stratification in tourism choice and experience since the war. Tourism Management, 13(1), 106–111.

Seaton, A.V., & Tagg, S. (1995). Disaggregating Friends and Relativesin VFR Tourism Research: The Northern Ireland evidence 1991-1993.The Journal of Tourism Studies, 6(1), 6–18.

Seeman, T. (2000). Health Promoting Effects of Friends and Family on Health Impacts in Older Adults. American Journal of Health Promotion, 14,362–370.

Tourism Australia. (2013). No Leave No Life. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from http://www.tourism.australia.com/campaigns/no-leave-no-life.aspx

Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2015). Tourism Management (5th ed.). Milton:Wiley.

Yaman, H. (1996). VFR Tourism: Issues and Implications. In VFR Tourism: Issues and Implications, Proceedings from the conference held at Victoria University of Technology, Victoria University of Technology, Victoria.