Does Destination, Relationship Type, or Migration Status of the Host Impact VFR Travel?

Abstract

Visiting friends and relatives (VFR) travel hosts play a key role in influencing the trip characteristics of their VFR travel parties and the decisions and activities within those travel parties. However, how those trips are shaped in terms of travel decisions and activities is not well understood. This is the first quantitative study examining the hosting of VFRs by examining how migration, relationship type (VF versus VR), and destination type impact the characteristics and activities of VFR travel parties. The objective was to examine the extent of influence of different characteristics of VFR hosts on individual VFR travel decisions and activities. Estimation models were developed and tested through regression analysis to examine the impact that the characteristics of hosts have on decisions and activities within VFR travel. Such findings have provided a systematic framework for examining the multifaceted role of VFR hosts. The generalisability of the estimation models developed and tested in this study can be replicated and adapted in future studies.

1. Introduction

VFR travel is a major component of tourism around the world [1]. VFR travel ‘is also likely to be the oldest form of travel’ [2] (p. 74) as connecting with friends and family is a strong need for many people. Whilst VFR travel would date back well before it was first recorded, the first documented VFR traveller was Celia Fiennes, who organised travel schedules around visiting friends and relatives [3,4]. Celia Fiennes kept journals of her travels, where she journeyed over the period from about 1685 to 1712 in part for curiosity but also in part to visit her relatives [5].

VFR travel has shown itself to be resilient in economic downturns and crises [6] and is also the primary driver behind domestic travel in a large number of countries [7]. Despite these attributes, VFR travel is amongst the most under-researched and neglected areas of tourism research [8]. Research in the area is surprisingly relatively new, commencing only three decades ago in 1990 [9]. Most research within the VFR travel literature has focused on the demand side through understanding the volume, economic value, and marketing implications of VFR travellers [10]. However, research on the supply side is limited, particularly on the influential role of the hosts that set VFR travel apart from other forms of travel.

The personal relationship between VFR travellers and their hosts is central to VFR travel and its impact on tourism [1]. Research has demonstrated the influence of VFR travel hosts in the travel process of decision making and the search for travel information [11], revealing that VFR travellers are inclined to rely heavily on advice from their hosts rather than promotional materials [12]. Since hosts tend to recommend and visit the same places and activities that they are familiar with [12], tourism operators and destination marketing organisations (DMOs) could influence VFR travellers by promoting local attractions and activities to local hosts. DMOs are especially well placed to grow VFR travel given that VFR travel has been identified as a first-mover market in a post-pandemic period [13].

Through the role of hosting, local residents often incur incremental expenses and activities that otherwise might not happen [14]. As such, residents can be engaged as destination ambassadors [15], where DMOs might encourage residents, who, in their capacity as ambassadors, could promote local attractions and upcoming events to potential visitors. However, the extent and nature of the multifaceted role of VFR hosts vary according to the local residents’ familiarity and perception regarding local travel activities, attractions, and the experience of hosting VFR travellers [12]. Therefore, understanding the different attributes of local hosts is essential to understanding the extent and nature of VFR hosts’ role in influencing VFR travellers’ travel decisions and activities [16].

It is also entirely possible that VFR travel becomes a more significant form of travel in a post-COVID environment. The COVID years altered conditions phenomenally, and people were unable to see friends and family, which, for some, reinforced the importance of social connections [9]. People have become increasingly cautious of risk and safety, and VFR travel can also offer a more secure form of travel, particularly if travelling shorter distances and using a private vehicle [9]. It is also noteworthy that people can be willing to support a destination where there has been positive communication through social media and a positive public perception of that destination [17]. For VFR travel, the host becomes a central part of the perceived attractiveness of the destination. Thus, the role of VFR hosts in empowering and encouraging social connections may be highly persuasive.

Understanding that VFR travel has not been heavily researched and that, in particular, VFR hosting has not received a lot of research attention, this research aimed to understand more about the VFR host–VFR travel relationship. In addition, research has tended to be quantitative to examine the ‘how much’ rather than the ‘how’ aspect [18]. That is, this research aimed to understand whether and to what extent the aspects of migration, relationship type, and destination influenced VFR travel. This research was focused on three research questions within the scope of one country, Australia: First, to examine the role of immigrant and non-immigrant VFR hosts to assess whether and to what extent the influence of hosts on VFR travel differs. Second, whether and to what extent destinations (i.e., metropolitan versus regional cities) can impact VFR travel hosting. Third, to compare and contrast the hosting of VFs and VRs to assess whether and to what extent the characteristics, behaviours, and use of local industries differ. Thus, this research focuses on three attributes of VFR hosts: migration, relationship, and destination.

2. Literature Review

Most literature on host–guest interactions has developed from the economic and social perspective, where hosts and guests are strangers and have no form of familial relationships or friendships [19]. The traditional host–guest interactions, as indicated by the broad host–guest literature in tourism, are not representing the interactions that take place between hosts and guests within VFR travel. Few VFR studies have examined the role of VFR hosts.

The VFR host was first studied by McKercher [14], and since then, only a small number of studies have examined the propensity of hosting and hosting activities. The first study on VFR hosts [14] examined the residents of a regional town in Australia and reported that residents hosted friends and relatives six times a year on average. Backer [20] confirmed that residents in two regional destinations in Australia were being visited by VFR travel parties multiple times a year. Moreover, Backer [20] found that VFR travellers were capable of attracting a substantial number of first-time visitors, demonstrating that residents hosted three first-time visitors on average each year.

Unlike other forms of travel, visiting the host is often the travel motive in the case of VFR travel. Research has demonstrated how the residents who act as VFR hosts can attract friends and relatives. According to a recent content analysis study of VFR travel, the word ‘host’ rarely appeared as a keyword in all published VFR outputs [9]. However, ‘role of hosts’ and ‘host’s experience’ were both identified as emerging topics of interest from 2015 to 2021 [9].

It is also important to note that the role of the host can vary depending on what type of VFR traveller is visiting. Backer [2] identified that there are three different types of VFR travellers:

(1)

Pure VFRs (PVFRS): stay with the friend/relative and also state that VFR is their main purpose of visit.

(2)

Commercial VFRs (CVFRs): state that VFR is their main purpose of visit but stay in commercial accommodation.

(3)

Exploitative VFRs (EVFRs): stay with friends/relatives but their main purpose of visit is not VFR.

These types are important to keep in mind because many studies rely on VFR data based on the purpose of visit only, which will profile a particular type of VFR traveller and will not be representative of the three types as identified above. That is, EVFRs will not be captured in data based on the purpose of visit. Similarly, studies relying on the type of accommodation for profiling VFR will omit the CVFRs. Axiomatically, the roles of hosts will be different between the three types. That is, hosting CVFRs will require less effort since they are not staying with that friend/relative.

The attracting power of hosts has been observed in different groups of residents. Bischoff and Koenig-Lewis [21] examined university students as hosts in their place of study in the UK and found that 93% of the students had received at least one visit by their friends and family. Liu and Ryan [22] examined the hosting propensity of international VFR travel parties by international Chinese students in New Zealand among four selected universities and identified that 80% of the international Chinese students were visited by their friends and relatives. In addition, McLeod and Busser [23] examined the attraction of non-resident hosts for VFRs by studying second homeowners in Costa Rica, and found that 85% of the respondents had hosted friends and/or families in their second home at least three times a year. Overall, the research demonstrates that local residents are highly involved in hosting through VFR travel attracting both first-time and repeat VFR travellers multiple times a year to their residing destination.

VFR hosts can also influence VFR travellers’ travel decisions and activities. As previously noted VFR travellers tend to rely more on the information provided by their host friends and relatives over other external sources of information regarding travel decisions and activities [12,24]. As a result, the influence of VFR hosts’ recommendations can influence the activities undertaken and attractions visited by VFR travellers following the recommendations of their hosts. Therefore, VFR hosts’ recommendations and local knowledge are critical to the decision making and resulting activities of VFR travellers.

However, research has demonstrated differences in the propensity and nature of providing recommendations to VFRs among resident hosts. In a key study, Young et al. [12] segmented resident hosts into four distinct groups based on the number of VFR travel parties hosted and the level of recommendations they provided to their VFRs through word of mouth. Those who hosted the most VFR travel parties and were also highly involved in recommending travel activities to VFRs were termed ‘ambassadors’. The ‘talkers’ were highly involved in recommending travel to VFRs but received relatively lower travel parties than the ambassadors. The group that attracted large numbers of VFR travel parties but was less involved in word-of-mouth referrals with their VFRs were ‘magnets’. The group that scored lowest in both numbers of travel parties hosted and involvement in word of mouth referral was the ‘passive’ or ‘inactive’ group. Ambassadors and talkers were therefore recommended as the groups that should be targeted for marketing purposes, as they are likely to be more involved with their VFRs.

VFR hosts are inclined to endorse the places and activities that they are more familiar with and perceive positively [25]. However, not all residents have the same level of awareness about their local attractions and activities and perceive the appeal of local destinations differently [14,25]. For this reason, DMOs should engage in promoting local attractions and activities within the destination so that locals are well aware of the attributes and events in the destination and can recommend to their VFRs accordingly [14,25]. In addition, research has limitedly demonstrated that residents tend to rely on the information provided by DMOs and local tourism operators in newspapers, television, and radio for finding out about local events, hospitality, and touristic options [26].

VFR hosts participate actively and widely in different travel activities and visit local attractions with their VFR travellers, which they do not tend to do otherwise [14,16,22,25]. However, VFR hosts’ involvement in different activities can vary because often permanent residents are assumed to be well aware of their local attractions but that awareness may vary in their level of endorsing local attractions and joining VFRs in tourist activities [12]. New residents who are less familiar with their new destinations are therefore more inclined to participate widely in local touristic activities with their VFRs [27,28]. Similarly, temporary residents, such as international university students, also showed a high tendency to participate in wide-ranging activities when they were being visited by their friends and relatives from abroad [22]. Therefore, through VFR, travel destinations can receive additional travel flow from the residents serving as VFR hosts.

VFR hosts also have to incur additional expenses as a direct result of hosting VFR travellers. These additional expenses generate a hidden economic multiplier effect of VFR travel through VFR hosts, and can only be identified by studying VFR hosts [20]. For example, McKercher [14] reported that VFR hosts incurred direct, incremental expenses for hosting VFRs, which constituted 25% of the total trip expenses. Similarly, Backer [20] estimated that when VFR hosts’ expenditure was accounted for, the total trip cost of VFR travel increased by 22%. This substantial additional expense incurred by VFR hosts is related to the wider spending on grocery, recreational shopping, dining out, beverages, visiting paid attractions, and fuel [20]. Moreover, groceries, dining out, and entertainment are the areas where VFR hosts reported spending the most [20].

Thus, the intimate relationship (either friends or relatives) between VFR hosts and travellers makes the role of VFR hosts more influential than non-VFR hosts. VFR hosts can attract their friends and relatives to visit their destination and influence their decisions and activities by providing recommendations. Moreover, VFR travellers can contribute to the local economy through additional expenses and by participating in local touristic activities through hosting. Therefore, VFR hosts have unique control or influence over the decision-making authority of guests. It follows that DMOs should promote local attractions and activities to residents to enrich VFR travel. Existing VFR travel research has demonstrated that the interaction between hosts and guests is the core component of VFR travel’s economic and social impact. Moreover, the literature reveals three key subcomponents of VFR travel—migration, the type of relationship (i.e., VF or VR), and destination attractiveness—as influencers on the interaction between VFR hosts and guests. Each of these three areas, which form the three central research questions for this study, will now be discussed in more detail.

2.1. Migration

Migration is closely linked with VFR travel as it is considered a key determinant of the flow of VFR travel worldwide [29]. Immigrants display ‘a sense of belonging to or identifying with a way of life that has been left behind’ [30]. However, the intensity and practices of those relationships vary in different cultures and also change over time [31,32,33]. As personal relationships (friends and relatives) bind VFR hosts and travellers, the role that VFR hosts may have can vary based on the country of birth and year of immigration [32,33]. Therefore, investigating the role of immigrant communities as VFR hosts would further aid scholarly understanding of VFR travel.

Research on immigrant hosts is still in the primary stage and requires further research [10]. It has been argued that tourism research has neglected to examine areas such as sociality and the importance of face-to-face connections with kin [34]. In addition, the activities undertaken by hosts and visiting relatives (VRs) may differ from that of hosts of visiting friends (VFs) [35]. It is also important to recognise that residents who host VFR travellers can differ because expatriates should be considered to be a different type of resident [36]. It has been reported that immigrants are most likely to be highly active hosts who entertain large groups of both friends and relatives [15]. Therefore, the type of relationship between VFR hosts and travellers could be an important factor that may influence the role of the host in VFR travel.

Previous research has demonstrated that the attractiveness of destinations influences the length of stay of VFR travellers [25]. However, knowledge of the possible effect of destination attractiveness is limited and requires further examination in different settings (such as regional versus metropolitan cities). Moreover, as the experience of VFR travel differs between different groups of residents, such as new residents, temporary residents, and international students [12,17,37], the experience of hosting VFR travellers may differ between immigrants and non-immigrants [28,38,39]. The experience of hosting may also be influenced by the destination attractiveness and by hosting friends versus relatives, which is still unknown. Therefore, an in-depth understanding of the experience of hosting VFRs from the hosts’ perspective and its association with migration, the nature of the relationship (friends and relatives), and destination attractiveness could generate valuable insights for academics and practitioners.

The connection between migration and tourism has been widely associated with VFR travel in the tourism literature [29]. Immigrant communities have a strong emotional and social attachment to their descendent homeland and maintain ties with their friends and relatives there [37,40,41]. Immigrants use their time and money for return visits to their country of origin and, in turn, have friends and relatives visit them from their home country [42,43,44]. VFR travel is, therefore, most likely to be impacted by migration-induced tourism.

As previously noted, VFR travel’s significant connection with migration was first highlighted in 1990 by Jackson [45], indicating that the substantial size of VFR travel in Australia is closely related to the proportion of different immigrant groups (i.e., those born overseas) and the duration of residence (i.e., how long they have been living in Australia). Subsequently, several researchers have studied the contribution of immigrant communities to inbound and outbound tourism in Australia and demonstrated a greater impact of VFR travel over non-VFR travel [29]. The immigrant population’s significant contribution to the tourism flows through VFR travel has also been corroborated in other destinations, such as Portugal [46] and Ghana [47]. The influence of migration on VFR travel has also been documented through specific migrant communities; for example, Bolognani [48] considered the Pakistani community in the UK, Kang and Page [49] researched the Korean communities in New Zealand, and Capistrano [50] examined the Filipino immigrants in New Zealand. These studies have reported significant VFR travel flows through the immigrant communities in their respective destinations.

It is noteworthy that local, immigrant residents not only motivate their friends and relatives to visit but also influence them to visit attractions and participate in activities, which frequently reflect the culture, values, and lifestyles of the immigrant hosts [31,51]. Research has also demonstrated different travel patterns of immigrants and non-immigrants related to different cultural orientations [37,41]. Key societal factors, such as family structure, the degree of kinship, and moral obligation, all vary based on an individual’s cultural orientation [52]. For example, Asian societies display a more collective societal approach, whereas Western countries are more individualistic [37,41,50]. As the hosting pattern of VFR travel is largely influenced by the host’s travel pattern, the hosting behaviour of immigrant residents may differ from that of non-immigrant residents.

As the intensity and practice of maintaining relationships with immigrants change over time, so does the nature of travel [31,32,33]. During the assimilation process to a new culture, new immigrants experience culture-specific or socioeconomic constraints to participating in travel [33,43,53]. However, immigrants with more than 10 years of migration show greater similarity with local-born residents regarding their travel behaviours and activities [33,53]. Despite the significant connection with migration, the role of immigrant hosts versus non-immigrant hosts in influencing VFR travel is yet to be researched widely in VFR travel [54].

2.2. Relationship Type

In the case of VFR travel, the intimacy within the relationship between VFR hosts and guests acts as a travel motivation for VFRs and residents hosting VFRs [13,25,42,55,56]. However, VFR travel represents two different types of intimacy (as either friends or relatives) between hosts and guests that may influence the interactions differently because the extent of familial bonds and friendship bonds is not the same [57,58]. The family is recognised as a moral social institution where the members are tied with obligations to each other, whereas friendship lacks the institutional and moral ties of family and is a voluntary relationship. Familial ties are expected to be more sustainable than the voluntary relationship with friends, especially when the requirement for maintaining the relationship through regular face-to-face encounters requires significant extra effort and cost [59]. Therefore, a distinction needs to be made between VF and VR travel to understand the actual influence of the relationship on VFR travellers’ decisions and activities [35].

Few VFR studies have examined the motivational effect on decisions and activities based on the nature of the VFR relationship (i.e., VFs or VRs) between VFR hosts and travellers. Seaton and Tagg [60] conducted the first empirical study of VFs versus VRs, which demonstrated the significance of disaggregating VFR travel by VFs and VRs. Their study examined international visitors in Northern Ireland and revealed VFs and VRs as two distinct categories demonstrating differences in profile and trip characteristics. VFs were younger than the VRs and more likely to be a smaller travel party composed mostly of singles and couples and first-time and short-break visitors. Moreover, VFs were more inclined toward sightseeing and entertainment. By contrast, VR travel parties were slightly older and more likely to have larger travel parties, including family, repeat visitors, and long stayers. Because of the family-related purpose of the visit, VRs spent more money on buying gifts and shopping than on entertainment. Hay’s research (1996) also found that UK domestic VRs sought entertainment. Gafter and Tchetchik [59] also found the primary role in the decisions and activities of VRs.

In contrast to those previous studies, a study by Backer et al. [35] examined the differences between VFs and VRs among both international and domestic travellers in Australia. Backer et al. [35] found that VRs outnumbered VFs in terms of volume, length of stay, and inclusion of children in the travel group—for both domestic and international travellers in Australia. However, the domestic and international VRs were younger than the VFs, which is opposite to previous findings. Moreover, Backer et al. [35] revealed several distinctions that had not been previously examined, such as the information source used. International VFs demonstrated a more diverse use of information sources, including both traditional (such as travel agents, print advertisements, and the Internet) and social information sources (such as friends and relatives), for planning their trip, whereas domestic VFRs showed more reliance on friend and relative hosts as both VFs and VRs showed reliance narrowly on friends and relatives and the Internet. The findings of that study reveal that VFR travellers can indeed be reached through a range of mainstream tourism marketing sources, including the traditional visual and print medium.

Specific research on the experience of VFR hosts indicates that VFR hosts experience a sense of obligation while hosting relatives (VRs), such as providing shelter, protection, and care out of familial duty or belief system [39]. Hosting motivation and subsequent activities while hosting friends versus relatives, however, have not been studied. This could further our understanding of the role of the host in VFR travel. As such, research that provides an in-depth understanding of the differences of hosting between VF and VR travellers would be a valuable addition to scholarship and practice.

2.3. Destination

Destination attractiveness influences the choice of destination and subsequent travel activities of visitors. Destination attributes, distance to travel, and cost of the visit are pointed out as the three key elements of destination attractiveness within the tourism literature [61,62,63,64,65]. The attributes of destinations are categorised between ‘core’ and ‘augmented’ [62,66]. Core attributes refer to the unique natural, cultural, and historical characteristics or resources attached to the destination, while ‘augmented attributes’ denote the functional characteristics, including the supportive service and facilities, infrastructure, and transport network available in a destination. Destination attributes are the sum of all perceived natural and built capabilities that a destination offers for serving and satisfying visitors [66].

The distance or geographical proximity between the origin and the visiting destination along with the cost involved in visiting also influences the perception of destination attractiveness. These operate as deterrent factors because with an increase in travel distance and cost, the demand for visiting a particular destination declines exponentially [67,68].

The relative importance of the factors (destination attributes, distance, and cost) in perceived destination attractiveness varies between individuals, as this is largely influenced by the travel motivation of visitors. Motivations refer to the internal forces that lead an individual to visit (such as the purpose of visit or the personal interest of the visitors) [68]. Destination attractiveness varies for different travel groups and based on their different purposes of visit (such as VFRs, tranquillity and discovering new places and culture) [67,68]. For this reason, the choice of destination and subsequent activities is the outcome of the interaction between destination attributes and the personal motivations of individual visitors [65].

There are few studies in the extant VFR travel literature that specifically examined the influence of destination attractiveness on VFR travel. VFR travellers appeared more willing to visit longer distances involving more effort and cost in comparison with other travellers (pleasure, nature or tranquillity, culture) because of family and friendship bonds [67,68]. Moreover, research shows that destination attributes influence perceptions [14,25,55], which in turn influence travel behaviour [25].

For example, in Backer’s [25] study, she revealed that VFR travellers were inclined to stay longer and use commercial accommodation if they went to the popular Sunshine Coast destination (in Queensland, Australia) compared with visiting a regional destination in Victoria (Albury–Wodonga), resulting in higher spending in the Queensland destination. A recent study in Israel similarly identified that the attractiveness of a destination affected the length of stay, resulting in higher spending on the destination [59].

Only two studies have examined the influence of destination attractiveness on VFR hosts [14,25], which revealed differences in terms of utilising local tourist attractions by residents when recommending VFRs. Given the reliance of VFRs on the recommendations of their hosts, it highlights the importance of ensuring that residents are aware of local attractions and events to promote to their VFRs. With so few studies, it is not possible to generalise the destination effect in VFR hosting, and this aspect needs further research. In particular, the relative attraction of metro destinations versus regional is not well understood. Given the relative advantage of accessibility of services and facilities in metropolitan areas over regional areas, it is an important distinction for examining the influence of destination attractiveness to VFR hosts on VFR travel.

3. Method

The method employed for this study was quantitative research, with measurable primary data collected through an online survey in 2017. As the data were collected before the COVID years, it can be viewed as more of a ‘standard’ assessment compared with if the data were collected during COVID years. A national resident survey among the residents of Australia was conducted in the language of English only, which is the main language in Australia. In Australia, almost 73% of Australians only speak the one language of English, and an estimated 4% of Australians do not speak English [69]. The survey included both open-ended and close-ended questions and was based upon the instrument developed by Backer [26].

The online survey was circulated by using a commercial data firm’s national database of residents. The use of a commercial data firm’s database reduced the risk of a low response rate and ensured an appropriate sample size, which was particularly important given that this research was seeking to reach diverse groups of participants (both socially and geographically). A URL of the survey was created and then sent to the enlisted contacts within the commercial company’s national database. Heterogeneous purposive sampling was adopted for sending the survey invitation link by selecting participants from the database based on their country of birth (Australia or overseas). The survey continued to be sent out until sufficient numbers were received for conducting the necessary statistical analysis.

A primary dataset of 515 responses was collected through the online survey. Data screening was undertaken within the primary dataset, ensuring the accuracy and validity of the dataset [70]. As this study focused on examining the role of VFR hosts (i.e., residents who have hosted friends and relatives), the non-VFR hosts (n = 133) did not qualify to answer any further questions in the survey. Therefore, the final sample size of the study based on the number of VFR hosts (i.e., who have hosted VFRs in the immediate past 12 months) was n = 331, which offered sufficient capacity for conducting necessary statistical analysis.

Table 1. Distribution of hosting VFRs among local residents.

Visitors	Immigrant Hosts%	Non-Immigrant Hosts%
Hosting VFs:
Metropolitan	53	60
Regional	25	21
Hosting VRs:
Metropolitan	54	59
Regional	27	32
Total	100 (n = 159)	100 (n = 172)

below shows the distribution of the 331 samples among the four categories of resident VFR hosts examined in the study (i.e., immigrants and non-immigrants; regional and metropolitan; VFs and VRs). Overall, the proportion of immigrants and non-immigrant hosts was fairly represented in different states and territories.

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine how much variation in trip characteristics within VFR travel can be explained by variation in different characteristics of hosts. In this study, the four characteristics of hosts (as presented in

Table 2. Independent variables.

Variable	Item Category
Country of birth (COB)	Born in Australia and born in overseas
Length of time in Australia	1–10 years; 10+ years; born in Australia
Destination	Metropolitan; regional
Relationship	Visiting friends (VFs); visiting relatives (VRs)

) were the independent variables included in the regression model.

The main purpose of visit and the family and dwelling size of VFR hosts were also included in the regression model as control variables. The addition of control variables in the regression model decreases standard errors and increases the robustness of analysis [71]. The categorical variables in the regression model were respecified into dummy variables following the convention of using a categorical variable as an independent estimator in the regression analysis [72]. A dummy variable takes values of ‘0’ and ‘1’, indicating the absence and presence of a particular condition or effect of a categorical variable, which may be expected to influence the outcome [73].

Table 3. Dummy variables used to examine the influence of VFR hosts.

Dummy Variable	Description of the Variable and Its Value Rules
Country of birth	The dummy variable of country of birth denotes a value of 1 if the local residents were born in Australia; otherwise, it takes a value of 0.
Immigration status	The dummy variable of country of birth denotes a value of 1 if the local residents had been in Australia for 1–10 years; otherwise, it takes a value of 0.
Destination	The dummy variable of destination represents a value of 1 if the local residents were living in metropolitan areas; otherwise, it takes a value of 0.
Relationship status	The dummy variable of relationship status denotes a value of 1 if the local residents were being visited by friends; otherwise, it takes a value of 0.
Main purpose of visit	The dummy variable of main purpose of visit denotes a value of 1 if travel parties had a non-VFR purpose of visit; otherwise, it takes a value of 0.

presents and describes the dummy variables used in the regression analysis.

Estimation models were developed and tested in this study through regression analysis to examine the impact of hosts on decisions and activities within VFR travel: group size, duration of stay, number of repeat visits, total expenses, number of VFR travel parties staying with hosts, and number of VFR travel parties staying in commercial accommodation.

4. Results

Ordinary least squares multiple regression analysis was run for each model to test for association. This section presents the findings of those regression analyses. To begin with, the multiple regression model 1 statistically significantly predicted the group size of travel parties. Three variables—destination (β = −0.127), main purpose of visit (β = −0.097), and number of family members (β = 0.091)—made a statistically significant condition explaining group size, p < 0.05.

Table 4. Regression analysis summary of the host’s variables predicting the group size of travel parties.

Variables	B	SEB	β
Country of birth = born in Australia	−0.003	0.018	−0.008
Immigration status = 1–10 years	0.006	0.025	0.013
Destination = metropolitan	−0.051	0.081	−0.127 *
Relationship status = VF	0.014	0.016	0.037
Main purpose = non-VFR	−0.037	0.017	−0.097 *
Number of beds	0.014	0.009	0.069
Number of family members	0.012	0.006	0.091 *

* Statistically significant difference: p < 0.05.

below presents a summary of the regression analysis of the host’s characteristics on a group size of VFR travel parties.

As can be seen from the beta weights in Table 4, destination = metropolitan versus regional (β = −0.127, p = 0.00) and main purpose = non-VFR vs. VFR (β = −0.097, p = 0.03) had significant negative regression weights, indicating that participants in metropolitan areas or non-VFR purpose generally had smaller travel parties, after controlling for the other variables in the model (a suppressor effect). Smaller travel parties tend to be associated with a lower travel party spend. As such, this highlights an important aspect for regional destinations in that they can capitalise on larger travel parties.

Multiple regression model 2 statistically significantly predicted the duration of stay of travel parties. Two variables, destination (β = −0.088) and relationship status (β = 0.306), made a statistically significant condition explaining the duration of stay, p < 0.05. A summary of the regression analysis of estimating the duration of stay is shown in

Table 5. Regression analysis summary of the host’s variables predicting the duration of stay of travel parties.

Variables	B	SEB	β
COB = born in Australia	0.017	0.031	0.033
Immigration status = 10 plus	0.036	0.032	0.068
Destination = metropolitan	−0.048	0.023	−0.088 *
Relationship status = VF	0.153	0.021	0.306 *
Main purpose = non-VFR	0.023	0.022	0.045
Number of beds	−0.005	0.012	−0.019
Number of family members	0.014	0.008	0.076

* Statistically significant difference: p < 0.05.

.

As can be seen from the beta weights, destination = metropolitan vs. regional (β = −0.088, p = 0.04) had a significant negative regression weight, indicating that participants in metropolitan areas generally had a lower duration of stay from their VFRs, after controlling for the other variables in the model (a suppressor effect). On the other hand, the relationship status = VF vs. VR measure had a significant positive weight (β = 0.306, p = 0.00), indicating that after accounting for other variables in the model, participants had a longer duration of stay from their VFs. The other five independent variables (i.e., immigration status, born in Australia, main purpose, number of beds, and family members) did not contribute statistically significantly to regression model 2.

In terms of repeat vision, the regression model statistically significantly predicted the number of repeat visits of travel parties. Four variables—COB (β = 0.176), immigration status (β = 0.115), relationship status (β = −0.539), and main purpose of visit (β = −0.144)—made a statistically significant condition explaining the number of repeat visits, p < 0.05. Regression coefficients and standard errors of the analysis of model 3 are presented in

Table 6. Regression analysis summary of the host’s variables predicting the number of repeat visits of travel parties.

Variables	B	SEB	β
COB = born in Australia	1.406	0.418	0.176 *
Immigration status = 10 plus	0.982	0.437	0.115 *
Destination = metropolitan	−0.086	0.313	−0.010
Relationship status = VF	−4.311	0.282	−0.539 *
Main purpose = non-VFR	−1.193	0.294	−0.144 *
Number of beds	0.238	0.164	0.054
Number of family members	−0.040	0.111	−0.014

* Statistically significant difference: p < 0.05.

below. As can be seen from the beta weights in Table 6, COB = Australia vs. overseas (β = 0.176, p = 0.00) and immigration status = 1–10 years vs. 10+ years (β = 0.115, p = 0.03) had significant positive regression weights, indicating that participants born overseas or have immigrated for 10+ years had a higher number of repeat visits from their VFRs, after controlling for the other variables in the model, whereas the relationship status = VF vs. VR (β = −0.539, p = 0.00) and main purpose of visit = non-VFR vs. VFR (β = −0.144, p = 0.00) measures had significant negative weights (β = 0.09, p = 0.05), indicating that after accounting for other variables in the model, there was a lower level of visits from VFs and a lower number of repeat visits from those who had non-VFR purpose of visit (a suppressor effect). The other three independent variables (i.e., destination, number of beds, and family members) did not contribute statistically significantly to regression model 3.

Testing for expenses, the regression model statistically significantly predicted the total expenses of hosting VFRs. Four variables—COB (β = −0.191), immigration status (β = −0.182), destination (β = −0.121), and main purpose of visit (β = −0.179)—made a statistically significant condition explaining the variance in total added expenses, p < 0.05. Regression coefficients and standard errors of model 4 are presented in

Table 7. Regression analysis summary of the host’s variables predicting the total expenses of hosting travel parties.

Variables	B	SEB	β
COB = born in Australia	−0.282	0.093	−0.191 *
Immigration status = 10 plus	−0.287	0.097	−0.182 *
Destination = metropolitan	0.196	0.070	0.121 *
Relationship status = VF	0.050	0.063	0.034
Main purpose = non-VFR	−0.274	0.065	−0.179 *
Number of beds	−0.007	0.037	−0.009
Number of family members	0.033	0.025	0.061

* Statistically significant difference: p < 0.05.

. The beta weights in Table 7 show that participants who were born in Australia or have immigrated for 10+ years or had VFRs with non-VFR purposes had lower added expenses of hosting after controlling for the other variables in the model (a suppressor effect), whereas the destination (β = 0.121, p = 0.00) measure had a significant positive weight, indicating that participants in the metropolitan areas had higher total added expenses for hosting VFRs. The other three independent variables (i.e., relationship status, number of beds, and family members) did not contribute statistically significantly to regression model 4.

The next regression model statistically significantly predicted the number of VFRs staying with hosts. Two variables—relationship status (β = −0.187) and the number of beds (β = 0.133),—made a statistically significant condition explaining the number of VFRs staying with hosts, p < 0.05. A summary of the regression coefficients and standard errors of model 5 is presented in

Table 8. Regression analysis summary of the host’s variables predicting the number of VFRs staying with hosts.

Variables	B	SEB	β
COB = born in Australia	−0.033	0.030	−0.070
Immigration status = 10 plus	−0.034	0.031	−0.068
Destination = metropolitan	0.012	0.022	0.022
Relationship status = VF	−0.088	0.020	−0.187 *
Main purpose = non-VFR	−0.016	0.021	−0.034
Number of beds	0.035	0.012	0.133 *
Number of family members	−0.002	0.008	−0.010

* Statistically significant difference: p < 0.05.

. As demonstrated in the beta weights in Table 8, relationship status = VF vs. VR (β = −0.187, p = 0.00) had a significant negative regression weight, indicating that participants had lower numbers of VFs staying with them when visiting, after controlling for the other variables in the model (a suppressor effect), whereas the number of beds measured had a significant positive weight (β = 0.133, p = 0.00), indicating that after accounting for other variables in the model, participants with more beds had higher numbers of VFRs staying with them when they visit. The other five independent variables (i.e., immigration status, born in Australia, destination, main purpose, and family members) did not contribute statistically significantly to regression model 5. In other words, those hosts who had more beds available in their homes were more likely to have VFRs stay with them. Axiomatically, VFRs are more likely to utilise commercial accommodation if there are insufficient beds available for them to stay in at the host’s house.

The regression model statistically significantly predicted the number of VFRs staying in commercial accommodation. Two variables—number of beds (β = −0.099) and number of family members (β = 0.141)—made statistically significant conditions explaining the number of VFRs staying in commercial accommodation, p < 0.05. Regression coefficients and standard errors of model 6 are summarised in

Table 9. Regression analysis summary for the host’s variables predicting the number of VFRs staying in commercial accommodation.

Variables	B	SEB	β
COB = born in Australia	−0.009	0.031	0.019
Immigration status = 10 plus	−0.010	0.032	−0.020
Destination = metropolitan	−0.020	0.023	−0.038
Relationship status = VF	0.028	0.021	0.057
Main purpose = non-VFR	0.031	0.022	0.061
Number of beds	−0.026	0.012	−0.099 *
Number of family members	0.025	0.008	0.141 *

* Statistically significant difference: p < 0.05.

. Table 9 shows that the number of beds of participant VFR hosts (β = −0.099, p = 0.03) had a significant negative regression weight, indicating that participants with more beds had a lower number of VFRs staying in commercial accommodation when they visited, after controlling for the other variables in the model (a suppressor effect), whereas the number of family members measured had a significant positive weight (β = 0.141, p = 0.00), indicating that after accounting for other variables in the model, participants with more family members had higher numbers of VFRs staying in commercial accommodation. The other five independent variables (i.e., immigration status, born in Australia, destination, relationship status, and main purpose) did not contribute statistically significantly to multiple regression model 6.

The overall differences between hosting friends and relatives were also considered in this study. This research demonstrated that the nature of the relationship between hosts and visitors could influence the duration of stay, the number of repeat visits, and decisions to stay with hosts. This research showed that friends stayed longer than relatives, whereas relatives paid more repeat visits and were more inclined to stay with the hosts rather than in commercial accommodation.

Table 10. Summary of significant differences between hosting friends and relatives.

Hosting Relatives (VRs)	Hosting Friends (VFs)
Trip Characteristics: VFR travel purpose was higher among VRs Attracted more repeat visitors Duration of trips of their VRs was relatively short VRs stayed more with the hosts	Trip Characteristics: Non-VFR purpose of visit was higher among VFs Attracted more first-time visitors Duration of trips of their VFs was relatively longer VFs relatively stayed more in commercial accommodation
Hosting Decisions and Activities: Accompanied more in travel activities and visiting of attractions More diverse in spending	Hosting Decisions and Activities: Accompanied relatively less in travel activities and visiting of attractions Less diverse in spending

below provides a summary of the differences between hosting friends and hosting relatives.

5. Discussion

The findings of the analysis of data collected through the online survey indicated differences among VFR host groups regarding the characteristics and behaviours of their VFRs and the decisions and activities they undertook to host those VFRs based on their country of birth, length of migration, destination types, and relationship with the VFRs.

Regarding the influence of migration, this research demonstrated that non-immigrant VFR hosts were likely to receive more repeat visitation than immigrant hosts. However, this difference between immigrants and non-immigrant hosts regarding repeat visitation was mainly associated with the immigrants’ duration of migration. There was no significant difference between the non-immigrant and immigrant hosts who had been in the country for more than 10 years regarding the number of repeat visits from VFRs. Moreover, immigrant VFR hosts tended to incur more expenses for hosting their VFRs than non-immigrants. This tendency was notably higher among new immigrants who had been in the country for 1–10 years compared with immigrants who had been in Australia for more than 10 years. Another key difference was that immigrant hosts were significantly more likely to participate with their VFRs in the activities they engaged in during their visit, including visiting local attractions. This could be an important finding for regions, especially those with high immigration populations, as having residents participate in touristic activities with their visitors essentially extends the travel party size and provides a solid economic injection. In a post-COVID world, such strategies might be especially welcome in communities.

This research further demonstrated that the nature of the relationship between hosts and visitors could influence the duration of stay, the number of repeat visits, and decisions to stay with hosts. That is, whether a resident was hosting a friend or a relative involved a different hosting experience.

This research showed that friends stayed significantly longer than relatives and were also more likely to stay in commercial accommodation rather than staying in the host’s home. By contrast, relatives visited more regularly with a higher number of repeat visits and were more inclined to stay with the hosts they had travelled to stay with. Relatives stayed significantly shorter periods compared with friends, but had a more diverse spending pattern in the region they were staying in, and also were more likely to be accompanied by their hosts when they participated in local attractions and activities. Accordingly, hosts were more likely to be involved in being a tourist in their backyard when hosting relatives rather than friends.

Such findings add value to the limited research that has been undertaken to compare and contrast VFs and VRs. These authors also note that it is difficult to compare these results with those of other studies as tests of significance may not have been run in some prior studies, and also, usually, studies on VFR are based on those who state that VFR is their main purpose of visit. This is only one of the three types of VFRs [2], which makes comparisons difficult.

The authors note that a test of significance was undertaken by Backer [26], whose VFR study was based on all three VFR types, and she reported that VRs stayed 8.9 nights versus 7.2 nights for VFs, but this difference was not significant. A study undertaken in 2017 [35] using Australian data around the nation reported that staying more than 4 nights was highly predictive of VFRs being VRs, but the authors reported as a limitation that their study only included those travellers who stated that VFR was their main purpose of visit. Thus, it is difficult to compare the results from this study with those from other studies other than to say that these results add to the limited studies undertaken comparing VFs and VRs. In particular, very few studies have undertaken research based on all the three types of VFRs rather than only some VFR types. Only using some of the three VFR types then means that the VFR results are being compared with a non-VFR group that in fact comprises some VFRs as well. Clearly, such previous results are unreliable, and accordingly, this study offers considerable significance to knowledge and practice.

In terms of the influence of destination types, this research demonstrated that destination type, with respect to metropolitan versus regional, could influence the VFR trip. Little research has been undertaken to explore the impact of destination on VFR travel. A seminal study undertaken by Backer [25] revealed that destinations that were considered to be more popular as a tourism destination also resulted in a longer length of stay. This research found that VFRs stayed longer if the destination was regional compared with metropolitan but did not drill into that further by comparing popular tourism destinations with less popular destinations. This study found that the average length of stay in metropolitan destinations in Australia was five nights, compared with six nights for regional destinations. Travel parties to regional destinations were also relatively larger in size. This might be because the cost of living tends to be lower in regions, and so houses and bedroom numbers may be greater in regions that lend itself more to accommodating larger visitor parties. Whilst this research found that VFR hosts in the metropolitan areas had smaller travel parties and shorter visits from their VFRs, compared with the hosts in the regional areas, the hosts in the metropolitan areas spent more money on hosting their VFRs than the hosts in the regional areas. This may be because the cost of living tends to be higher in cities, and as such, hosting activities, such as going out for dinner in cities, are likely to cost more.

6. Conclusions

Overall, this research has revealed a distinctiveness in hosting VFRs that has not been researched before. Notably, this research has recognised different types of VFR hosts and their differences in the influence of the trip characteristics, decisions, and activities undertaken by VFR travellers.

This research has practical implications for both DMOs and tourism operators. Previous research has indicated that VFR hosts should be targeted for influencing VFR travellers [15,24,74]. This research has confirmed those findings but has further confirmed research by Griffin [38] that found that immigrant hosts are a potential source for attracting a new source of tourists into local destinations through hosting VFR travellers. Of note, this research has indicated that immigrant hosts are likely to attract international visitors irrespective of destination type (such as regional and metropolitan).

This research is especially important in present times, as destinations are seeking ways to recover from lockdowns and border closures from the COVID-19 pandemic [9]. As identified by Zentveld et al. [9], VFR travel presents as a first-mover market in a recovery period. Understanding how residents can play a role in VFR travel is important, and understanding how those hosts impact the destination economy is also important. This is particularly relevant for DMOs and tourism operators in destinations that are not regarded as popular tourism destinations. As this research revealed, regional destinations benefited significantly from VFR travel, where trip durations were longer than in metropolitan areas and VFRs were also more likely to use commercial accommodation in those regional destinations. This represents an important injection in funds, especially in regions that may have faced particular difficulties in COVID years, such as staff shortages and business closures.

VFR travel is therefore potentially critically important to destinations in which new visitor flows are challenging as immigrant hosts can result in attracting a flow of international visitors who are unlikely to visit that destination otherwise. This is particularly the case for regional locations. Thus, there are multiple and ongoing benefits for communities in attracting a multicultural residential base. As such, DMOs and tourism operators may find benefits in undertaking proactive marketing campaigns directed at motivating immigrant residents to engage actively as VFR hosts and identifying places to visit and upcoming events to assist in directing VFR activity.

This research also indicates an important direction for future VFR studies that quantitatively examine immigrant communities. As the travel behaviours of immigrants vary at different points in time of their migration, future research should include the duration of stay of immigrants in their new countries in the analysis together with other demographic characteristics for a more complete understanding. Such research would enhance our understanding of the variability of travel behaviours by immigrants that occurs over time. This research also provides a systematic framework for examining the multifaceted role of VFR hosts. The generalisability of the estimation models developed and tested in this study can be replicated and adapted in future studies. In addition, given that VFR has been identified as a first-mover market in post-COVID years, the importance of VFR travel may grow. Understanding aspects such as the influence of migration, VF versus VR relationship type, and the impact of destination type seems important. Regional communities have suffered significantly from the COVID years with businesses closing and skill shortages. This research has highlighted the particular strengths of regional communities, which may be of significant economic value to struggling regional communities.