VFR Travel: A Sustainable Visitor Segment?

Abstract

Tourism’s impact on the physical environment has been discussed for almost 50 years. Tourism components, such as transport, accommodation, and consumption of activities, consume energy. However, little is known about whether particular visitor segments consume less energy, as the general focus tends to be on tourism in its entirety. Yet, some forms of tourism generate more carbon emissions than other types. Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR) travel presents characteristics that could make it a suitable segment for destinations to consider targeting. This conceptual research article considers VFR travel through a sustainable tourism lens. This research aimed to examine the profiles and characteristics of VFR travel to understand whether and to what extent VFR travel may be a segment that has a comparatively lower impact on the environment. As a conceptual research article, it offers a theoretical foundation for empirical studies through introducing new ideas and creating a conceptual framework.

1. Introduction

This conceptual research article discusses Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR) travel through a sustainability lens. Whilst the scholarly pursuit of VFR travel and sustainable development both arose at similar times, the relationship between these two fields has not yet been examined. VFR travel has been studied for over three decades, with the first scholarly paper appearing in 1990 [1]. Sustainable tourism as a specific field of research also emerged more than three decades ago.

The term sustainable development arose in 1987 [2], although the impact that tourism has on the physical environment was raised earlier, in 1978, by Eric Cohen, whose conceptual article argued that mass tourism presented a risk to the environment [3]. Major workshops, conferences, and symposia have been held on the relationship between tourism and the environment since the 1960s [4]. However, it was the matters raised in the report Our Common Future [5] that led to scholarly interest in the field [2].

Just before the turn of the century, Butler provided a review on sustainable tourism based on a presentation he had given [2]. As he explained, a great amount of work had been undertaken at that time (which is now more than 25 years ago) and had resulted in the specialised journal in the field: Journal of Sustainable Tourism [2]. Ambiguity existed at that time, with disagreement on how to define sustainable tourism, resulting in a lack of clarity about what form of tourism might reasonably be sustainable [2]. In the report Our Common Future [5], the authors considered sustainable development to involve meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (paragraph 27, note: report has no page numbers).

Early research into sustainable tourism stressed that tourism can have negative impacts on the physical environment that can be irreversible [4]. Early research also focused on developing strategies to manage the environment and planning, which have now shown a declining trend, suggesting those areas have reached a maturity level [6]. Over the decades, an enormous volume of research has been undertaken with many reviews, studies, theses, conference papers, books, and dedicated journals to the field. A recent analysis of sustainable tourism research identified 3289 research articles published from 1978 to 2022 [6]. The annual growth rate of sustainable tourism publications was found to be 19.9% across a 25-year period from 1997 to 2021 [7].

A recent study analysed the sustainable tourism research trends from a macro, mesa, and micro level [6]. That study presented a list of potential future research questions with nine at the macro-level, eight at the mesa-level, and 13 at the micro-level [6]. The list outlines questions ranging from approaches, technology, planning, impacts, perspectives, regulations, marketing, leadership, and one question at the macro-level was whether leisure travellers may have different attitudes to sustainable tourism compared to business travellers [6]. The last-mentioned point is worthy of focusing on since understanding what forms of tourism might be most aligned with sustainability is important. It is unclear why the selected groups are leisure travellers compared with business travellers. This point will be revisited shortly.

Most people would likely agree that finding avenues to protect the local environment and ensure natural attractions and wildlife remain intact is a crucial component of sustainable tourism. An aspect raised in the Our Common Future report was the need to increase the promotion of wildlife-based tourism [5]. Sustainable tourism is also closely linked to climate change. As such, it is also important that tourism responds to climate change, which is viewed as crucial to sustainable tourism [8]. The tourism literature is clear that anthropogenic climate change is occurring [9]. Accordingly, a discussion about tourism sustainability should incorporate matters related to climate change with respect to the impacts on tourism and/or tourism’s impact on climate change. As populations grow, pressure increases on natural resources and the environment. These trends are not sustainable, and efforts are needed to investigate ways in which some transformations can be made.

Travel and tourism contribute to producing carbon dioxide emissions, which is of concern due to climate change. Travel and tourism are drivers of aviation, commercial lodging, and the consumption of experiences such as boat rides. Whilst aspects that examine the “mainstream tourist” are important, it is also valuable to consider the merits of particular travel segments. It seems important to determine whether emphasis should be placed on particular segments or if certain segments should have a reduced emphasis in destination marketing campaigns. Some visitor segments may have characteristics that are more favourable for any destination aiming to be a sustainable tourism destination. This links to the point made earlier about leisure travellers compared with business travellers.

However, in light of the tourism behaviour linked to climate change, it is surprising that research has not explored whether VFR travel may be a segment worthy of inclusion in marketing campaigns developed for destinations aiming to be sustainable tourism destinations. This article considers this aspect, whereby an examination of the core components of VFR travel is undertaken by presenting the profiles and characteristics of VFR travellers through a sustainable tourism lens. This conceptual research article offers significance as, to date, the merits of VFR travel through a sustainable tourism destination lens have not been considered, with the relationship between the two areas only mentioned in a small number of studies [10,11,12]. It is currently recognised that tourist behaviour, as influenced by the type of tourism attractions visited and the type of accommodation selected, can be a “potential approach to climate change mitigation in tourism” [13] (p. 29). This article presents a discussion on the profiles and characteristics of VFR travel relevant to the external environment and presents a conceptual framework that can be used for empirical research. The framework is introduced alongside a discussion of how it can be used to examine whether and to what extent VFR travel may provide a comparatively lower carbon footprint.

2. Literature Review

This literature review is divided into three sections to develop the key concepts of this article. Climate change is first discussed (Section 2.1) in relation to how tourism contributes to it. The second section (Section 2.2) is focused on quality of life. The third section (Section 2.3) discusses VFR travel profiles and characteristics.

2.1. Climate Change and Tourism

Tourism is associated with climate change in two ways. Firstly, it is a victim of climate change due to rises in sea level, risks associated with an increase in natural disasters, and temperature variations. Secondly, tourism is a contributor to climate change as components such as transport, accommodation, and consumption of activities can collectively contribute to carbon emissions. Tourism generates around 8% of global carbon emissions, and those emissions are currently predicted to increase by about 3% each year [14]

Different countries are associated with different levels of carbon emissions. For example, Australia is regarded as having a carbon footprint that is excessive for its population and its economy [15]. Most significantly, Australia’s carbon dioxide footprint was around 4.5% of the world’s fossil fuel emissions in 2022, although only 1% was emitted within the country [16]. Almost 80% of Australia’s carbon dioxide footprint in 2022 was due to its exportation of carbon [16]. Per capita, Australia produces the world’s highest levels of carbon dioxide, double that of China and nine times more than India [16].

Whilst the carbon emissions related to tourism are not especially quantified [14], it is axiomatic that some forms of tourism will create more carbon emissions than other forms. Cruise ships are commonly considered to be high contributors of carbon emissions [17], and the most efficient and largest cruise ships produce around 250 g of carbon dioxide for each of their passengers per kilometre (around 1.6 miles) travelled, which is around 421.43 kg per passenger each day [17]. By way of comparison, a passenger on a plane produces between 10 and 130 g of carbon dioxide for each kilometre travelled and accordingly, a cruise ship passenger will emit around the same volume of carbon dioxide as a person who travels by plane and also stays in a hotel [17].

Some behavioural differences are noteworthy. For example, when staying in commercial accommodation such as serviced apartments, motels, or hotels, towels and sheets may be laundered far more often than when people are at home. In the European Union, daily laundering of the cotton serviettes that hotel guests are provided with for breakfast buffets results in carbon emissions that are comparable to a car being driven around the world 36 times [18]. Washing sheets and towels will use water, possibly at a hotter temperature, as well as power. A recent survey indicated that around 20% of the 2200 UK adults surveyed wash their towels only once each month, whilst around 25% reported washing their towels each weekend [19]. In Australia, 37% of survey respondents stated that they wash their sheets every two weeks, and 14% stated that they launder their sheets once a month, whilst 41% reported washing their sheets weekly [20]. In the USA, the average time between washing sheets is 24 days [21]. Sheets and towels will be washed more frequently at commercial accommodation outlets—often daily. These are only examples; however, they do provide a window of viewing into the differences between being a tourist (where towels and sheets may be laundered daily) and being at home in aspects that contribute to carbon emissions.

The water and power use involved in washing just 1 kg of towels is around 13 litres of water, around 0.2 kWh of heat energy and about 0.12 kWh of electrical energy [22]. To put that 1 kg in perspective, an upper-range bath towel that is thicker, softer, and has better absorbency (as might be expected in a hotel room) would weigh almost 1 kg, as it is close to around 900 g [23]. Water is a key resource around the world, and tourism represents a high level of water usage compared to locals. For example, in Sri Lanka, tourists use on average more than eight times more water per person each day compared to locals; in China, seven times more than locals; in Indonesia, five times more than locals [24]. Water usage in hotels is not just the usage by its patrons, but also features such as keeping the grounds green and infrastructure such as swimming pools. Each occupied hotel room can consume 1500 litres of water based on all the on-site operations, services, and outsourced laundry services [24]. Similarly, hotel rooms—some of which do not have opening windows—rely on air conditioning units for air circulation. Cooling units may be left on even when out for the day. This is another aspect that contributes to carbon emissions, which can differ from the usage of people when in their home (or the home of others).

2.2. Quality of Life

Quality of life has increasingly been associated as a field of study linked with various disciplines, including tourism [25]. The relationship between quality of life and tourism has attracted research over the past three decades [26]. It is important for destinations to aim to improve the quality of life for both travellers and residents [27].

Quality of life is a commonly used term, which is often misunderstood to mean ‘well-being’ [28]. Whilst being a related concept, it is not the same thing. In a broad sense, quality of life can be understood to mean an individual’s happiness or satisfaction with their life and their environment—the tangible and intangible components that represent a person’s overall level of wellbeing [29]. Quality of life is an important aspect for residents that can be negatively impacted by tourism. Large cities with land pressures can often condense experiences into small land areas, which aids tourism as they can immerse themselves in a range of experiences in short amounts of time, resulting in over-tourism in city centres [30]. The creation of experiences for tourists and infrastructure can be undertaken by local governments, which collect revenue from residents through rates, duties, and charges such as pet registration.

Thus, it seems important for an assessment on whether certain types of travellers are best suited to a destination. For example, research undertaken in 2019 revealed that some tourists are particularly disliked in certain countries. The research undertaken by YouGov revealed that when “a large number of tourists…come on the cheap”, they do not “engender warm and friendly thoughts” [31]. The research revealed that, in Spain and Germany, British tourists were not favoured, and that “Chinese tourists are vastly unpopular in the countries where they make up a large proportion of foreign visitors” [31]. Of note, the ‘unpopular tourists’ research [31] was undertaken more than five years ago, and, with different events in countries such as the USA and Russia at present, the results of such a study may be vastly different if undertaken today. However, the key point the research underscores is that some travellers can cause negative impacts in a destination just because of where they come from. However, VFR travellers are undeniably linked to the destination through being a friend or family member of a local resident. This may result in a higher level of acceptance from local residents.

2.3. VFR Travel

As quality of life is a key component of sustainable tourism, it is important to assess in what ways VFR travel can impact quality of life for local residents. Local residents are instrumental in attracting VFR travellers who may visit multiple times during the year [32]. Because locals attract VFRs and often benefit from those visits, there is more acceptance towards this segment of visitors who are less likely to be seen as ‘invaders’. Whilst some experiences can be negative and stressful for people hosting friends and relatives, overall, VFR travel has been found to improve quality of life for VFR hosts [25]. Further, VFR travel has been found to add to quality of life even for those not hosting friends and relatives through improving the community by way of infrastructure and other improvements to the destination [33].

VFR travel is a unique aspect of tourism in that it centrally involves local residents. Because of this, VFR travel enables local residents to shape the community and tourism markets and be “active agents” (p. 241) [12]. Some tourism destinations can suffer from residents feeling negative about tourism. Understanding that some cities encounter issues involving residents perceiving tourism negatively, some cities create urban spaces that both residents and visitors can enjoy, so that residents can benefit [34]. Local residents are an important component of a destination because their attitudes and behaviours can impact how attractive tourists regard a destination [35].

Some visitors are regarded more positively by local residents if those visitors demonstrate knowledge and understanding of that destination or can act more like a local through either speaking the language or navigating the region independently [35]. Since VFR travel uniquely involves the local residents as hosts of a destination, the segment already connects with locals and understands the region and its ‘language’.

VFR travellers are greatly influenced by the residents at the destination they visit [36], and this can reduce tourist–resident conflict. In these ways, relevant to social elements of sustainability, VFR travel may be a suitable segment for tourism cities to consider including in their destination marketing campaigns.

As was outlined earlier in this article, tourism contributes to carbon emissions. In addition to the emission of greenhouse gases, other negative impacts occur from tourism activity due to energy use [37]. Tourism activity impacts the environment in various ways, such as transport, activities undertaken at the destination, and accommodation. Some forms of tourism are especially noted for their levels of carbon emissions, such as cruise tourism, and, as previously outlined, hotel guests contribute more carbon emissions than local residents. Thus, when considering VFR travel as a suitable segment for destinations, it is relevant to examine VFR travel through aspects that are associated with carbon emissions and energy use.

The tourism activity that consumes the largest amount of energy is transport, with air travel and private vehicles being the main contributors due to the volume of usage [10]. Transport is also an area in which technology is driving energy efficiencies, although continuous growth in tourism also creates more travel. Due to the volume of energy used through transport, this sector is where the greatest opportunities are positioned for reducing energy use by travellers.

With accommodation, the major contributors of energy use by travellers are through hotels, and the lowest are camping grounds [10]. The category ‘private homes’ was measured to be 9.6% of the total energy used by travellers [10], which presents some indication of VFR usage, although the category goes beyond staying in the home of a friend/relative, including private rental, convents, army camps, and maraes. Energy use in commercial accommodation is partly associated with efficiencies such as technology and age of buildings (e.g., older buildings can use more energy to heat or cool). However, energy use is also linked to attitudes by tourists who may leave cooling, heating, and lights on when not in the room, as well as generate energy use through frequent laundering of guest towels and sheets. By contrast, homes of friends/relatives are likely to result in more energy-efficient attitudes.

A study undertaken in New Zealand to measure energy usage by different types of travellers revealed that backpackers and VFRs have the lowest daily energy usage due to travel distances, travel modes, and accommodation options (e.g., generally staying at backpacker hostels or private homes) [11]. In addition, VFRs also have comparatively low energy usage for their entire trip [11]. By contrast, camping tourists have a low daily energy use but consume the most energy on a total trip basis because they travel long distances and stay for a long time [11].

Whilst VFR travellers have a low daily energy use, they spend money in local economies, which fulfils the economic aspect of sustainability. VFRs offer economic importance to the destinations they visit in a number of ways. Firstly, the segment “can function as a moderator to compensate for seasonal variations typically found in tourism destinations and businesses” (p. 202) [38]. VFR travel can also peak in months that are typically associated with low tourism periods [39] and be less susceptible to economic downturns [40]. VFRs have also been found to spend money more broadly through the local economies where they stay [41]. In addition, VFR hosts can also incur additional costs as a result of hosting VFRs, and when factored into total VFR expenditure, the injection into a local economy can be greater than that of non-VFR travellers [42].

Local residents are the key aspect regarding VFR travel that sets it apart from any other form of visitation to a destination. The role of the local residents as hosts to VFR travellers is a critical aspect [43]. A VFR host can be defined as a local resident who has a friend or relative visit and stay at least one night at their destination [44]. The overnight stay and the fact that they stay at the destination, but not necessarily in their home, is a crucial element in understanding VFR travel hosts.

Whilst VFR travellers do often stay at the homes of a friend or relative they have journeyed to visit, they do also stay in commercial accommodation. As presented earlier in this paper, the carbon footprint of staying in commercial accommodation represents emissions created by visitation, which is higher than the carbon footprint of staying at home. Understanding that VFR travellers do sometimes stay in commercial accommodation, but can also stay in the homes of friends and family, is important in assessing the relative carbon footprint of VFR travellers versus non-VFR travellers. There has not been a vast volume of research undertaken to examine VFR travellers at commercial accommodation, with only 4% of VFR travel papers examining commercial accommodation for VFR travellers [1]. Although few studies have examined accommodation, some notable research has taken place.

A seminal study undertaken in 1995 revealed that more than 20% of VFR travellers were hotel users [45]. Despite the key findings about hotel use by VFR travellers, few tourism academics pursued this area of research. It was not until the turn of the century that further interest was sparked. A study in 2009 revealed similar findings to Braunlich and Nadkarni, revealing that 26% of VFR travellers to one destination in Australia stayed in commercial accommodation, whilst 22% in an entirely different destination in the same country selected commercial accommodation [46].

Three years later, in 2012, a study was undertaken that focused on how VFR travel was underestimated if only measured using official visitor data [47]. Using a combination of primary data and secondary data, the study concluded that measuring VFR travel by accommodation type would underestimate VFR travel by around 20% [47], highlighting that VFRs do stay in commercial accommodation.

A study undertaken by Griffin and Nunkoo in 2016 revealed that 14.5% of nights spent by international visitors to Canada in commercial accommodation were by travellers who had also stayed with a friend or a relative in a different destination on the same trip [48]. Their study highlighted the importance of understanding VFR travel accommodation use beyond one destination to better understand their overall use of commercial accommodation. A VFR traveller may be motivated to travel to see a friend or relative (or multiple friends and relatives) but have overnight stays in various destinations that involve the use of commercial accommodation. The trip may only have been taken due to having a VFR connection at one of the destinations along the trip route.

A national study was undertaken in Australia to examine the proportions of VFR travellers who stay in commercial accommodation across four years, revealing relatively consistent results [49]. The analysis was undertaken after being provided with the raw data from Tourism Research Australia, which undertakes a national visitor survey (NVS) interviewing around 120,000 Australians each year and an international visitor survey (IVS) with around 40,000 visitors departing Australia each year. Backer explains in her study that, due to the different questions in the NVS and IVS, it is not possible to merge those data, and the analysis of the national data was the focus of the study, which aimed to understand the stability of VFR travel [49]. Across the four-year period from 2010 through to 2013, the proportion of domestic VFRs who stayed in commercial accommodation was 14.98% in 2010, 13.94% in 2011, 15.12% in 2012, and 15.77% in 2013 [49]. Whilst these data are now more than a decade old, their consistency may provide a reasonable understanding of the proportions of VFR travellers that stay in commercial accommodation rather than stay with friends or relatives they have travelled to see.

Another characteristic of VFR travellers worthy of understanding in terms of relative carbon footprint is transit routes—distances travelled and means of transport used compared to other forms of travellers. Little is known with respect to this attribute. Cohen and Harris undertook a study in Britain to reveal that VFR travellers preferred to travel by car and that their trip length was shorter than business or holiday travel, but there were more frequent trips by VFRs [50]. Similarly, a study undertaken in Florida revealed that VFR travellers prefer to travel by car [51]. A study undertaken in Australia revealed that VFR travellers came from different generating regions than non-VFR travellers and travelled greater distances [52]. The mode of transport was found to differ between VFRs and non-VFRs in that same study. Whilst more than half of VFRs drove from their home address, non-VFRs were significantly more likely to belong to the self-drive market than VFR travellers [52]. Whilst there are few studies that have examined the mode of transport by VFR travellers relative to other forms of travellers, travel by car appears to be a popular choice. The study undertaken in Australia also revealed that VFRs represented a significantly higher proportion of international visitors, which would align with VFRs being more likely to travel by plane than be self-driving [52]. Migration can be an important aspect of VFR travel [53], which would, in the case of an island country such as Australia, result in a higher proportion of arrivals by plane for VFR travellers.

Overall, when considering the profiles and characteristics of VFR travellers, the segment offers many advantages to tourism destinations. Specifically, VFR travel offers social benefits, economic benefits, and has a comparatively low consumption of energy. Accordingly, the three sustainable tourism elements, social, economic, and environmental, are served well through VFR travel by comparison to other forms of visitation.

Despite these benefits, the exploration of sustainability in the VFR travel literature has not yet occurred. Three VFR travel content analysis research papers have been published to date [1,54,55]. Those three papers reveal the publication trends and themes, with sustainability not being identified as a theme. The most recent published VFR content analysis article was in 2022 [1], which identified a shift in VFR topics from the previous content analysis article in 2015 [54]. All article themes were listed in the content analysis [1], even if they appeared only once, and sustainability was not identified on one occasion.

Noting that the most recent content analysis was published in 2022, with publications examined up until 2021, a focus for this research was to explore whether any new recent VFR articles had examined sustainability as a theme. However, searching was not limited by year, and a search without year limitations was undertaken. A search was undertaken through Google Scholar for “VFR travel” and “sustainability”, as well as “VFR tourism” and “sustainability”, which yielded no articles with these terms in the title. A search was also undertaken for “VFR” and “sustainability” in the article title, yielding no results. A search was then undertaken for “visiting friends” and “sustainability”, as well as “visiting relatives” and “sustainability”. One article [56] was identified in each of those two searches, which was the same article in each instance. That article [56] focuses on place attachment, identifying, through interviews with 16 VFRs and hosts in South Korea, that VFR travel strengthens the sense of place attachment for hosts. Thus, the article was focused on the relationship between VFR travel and place attachment rather than examining VFR travel from an environmental footprint perspective.

3. Discussion

As outlined in the previous section, the profiles and characteristics of VFR travel present various aspects that could make it worthy of consideration by Destination Marketing Organisations (DMOs). With tourism industries collectively ranking as the fifth largest polluter, primarily through aviation, cars, and accommodation [13], seeking ways for tourism to be more sustainable is crucial. However, most tourism businesses are small in size, making it more difficult to improve sustainability. Whilst barriers exist on the supply side, identifying demand-side approaches needs identification [13]. It is recognised that human behaviour has been successfully changed in homes through interventions which have reduced energy consumption, but “sustainable behavior drops substantially from the home to the vacation context” [13] (p. 241).

In this sense, VFR travel offers an alternative approach to seeking sustainable tourism options, because many VFR travellers stay in the homes of friends or relatives, where sustainable practices may be more likely to occur. Research into VFR travel is still comparatively new and emerging; however, VFR travel research to date suggests that destinations could benefit from exploring the potential of VFR without it creating sustainability issues in the same way that some forms of tourism may do. VFR travel has been shown to provide quality of life benefits to residents [25,33]—even residents who are not hosting VFR travellers [33]. VFR travellers have been revealed to consume less energy on a per day and per trip basis than most other travellers [10,37]. The research in this area is limited to one country—New Zealand—and it is possible that studies in other locations may arrive at different findings. It seems plausible that VFR travellers staying with friends and relatives would use less energy than visitors who stay in commercial accommodation. Noting that not all VFRs stay with the friends and relatives they travelled to see, but many choose to stay in commercial accommodation [46], an important aspect to examine would be whether certain VFR types use different amounts of energy.

A conceptual model is presented below (Figure 1), which could guide future research in the area. The model is based on the work by Leiper [57] and Backer [47]. Leiper’s whole tourism systems framework notes that tourism is an open system that is influenced by the external environment [57]. Backer’s VFR definitional model identified three types of VFRs—pure VFRs (PVFRs), who stay with friends/relatives and also state a VFR purpose of visit; Commercial VFRs (CVFRs), who state a VFR purpose of visit but stay in commercial accommodation; and Exploitative VFRs (EVFRs), who stay with friends/relatives but do not state a VFR purpose of visit [47]. Combining the VFR definitional model and Leiper’s recognition of tourism as an open system impacted by the environment jointly provides the foundation for the conceptual model in Figure 1. Various aspects of the environment will impact VFR travel. For example, challenging economic conditions might result in a greater propensity to stay with friends/relatives rather than commercial accommodation.

The model presented in Figure 1 can be used as a foundation for understanding and as a framework for empirical research to examine the energy consumption of VFR travel disaggregated by its three types, and those three VFR types relative to non-VFR travel. That is, whether and to what extent each VFR type consumes less energy than non-VFR travellers. For example, it seems plausible that VFRs who stay in the homes of their friends/relatives will adopt a more environmentally friendly set of behaviours that resemble ‘home’ habits rather than ‘vacation’ habits, but this has not been empirically tested. Further, it is unknown whether VFRs who select commercial accommodation use more energy than VFRs who stay with friends/relatives. It is also unknown whether VFRs staying in commercial accommodation have differing energy usage behaviours compared with non-VFRs who stay in commercial accommodation. These comparisons can explore whether and to what extent there are differences, and, if there are differences, what drives those differing behaviours. For example, VFRs may stay in different forms of accommodation compared to non-VFRs, or spend less time in the accommodation due to spending time outside of the accommodation with friends/relatives. Such information could help inform DMOs as to which segments might be worth considering targeting in order to obtain visitation benefits whilst presenting a more environmentally friendly footprint. The findings could inform and provide justification for the development of marketing campaigns accordingly.

The above framework (Figure 1) takes a destination perspective. Length of stay for VFRs can vary between destinations [58], and the proportion of VFRs who stay in commercial accommodation also varies between destinations [47]. In addition, the energy consumption related to the transit route—a major component of tourism’s energy consumption—will also vary between destinations, which have different source markets. Accordingly, a whole tourism system’s approach would be needed to examine the energy consumed at the destination as well as the travel to reach the destination. How this differs between each of the three VFR types relative to non-VFRs would provide an important foundation to aid in the understanding of sustainability. Destinations needing to examine more sustainable tourism markets may find VFR presents an important economic injection to their community with a smaller carbon footprint. Comparing domestic to international travel with respect to energy consumption would also assist scholarship and DMOs.

4. Conclusions

It is now well recognised that tourism destinations need to be better managed to support the communities better [59]. Sustainability is a concern that plagues many tourism destinations, and tourism destinations need to consider potential solutions [60]. Technology can result in more sustainable options for tourism destinations through efficiencies related to major energy consumption areas, such as transport. However, at the same time, populations grow, and tourism grows, which can result in fewer, if any, gains from technological improvements.

Therefore, it seems important to consider what types of visitors may provide a platform that enables destinations to best strive for sustainability. Whilst there has been a substantial volume of research on sustainable tourism, which has shown a growth trend, there has not been a study of what segments may be more appropriately aligned to achieving sustainable tourism objectives.

Tourism development needs to be sustainable, and tourism needs to be developed regeneratively [59]. Tourism destinations may benefit from DMO managers considering VFR travel as a tourism segment. That is not to suggest that VFR travel is the only visitor segment for destinations. Usually, DMOs will consider targeting various segments. However, generally, VFR travel is not in DMO marketing campaigns [1]. Destinations needing to rely on tourism but also manage sustainable development could benefit from adding VFR travel to their marketing campaigns as one of their core segments. VFR travel not only offers significant benefits to local economies through economic injection, but it is also aligned with local residents and adds to their quality of life. VFRs also improve the quality of life for local communities, regardless of whether those local residents personally receive visits from family or friends [33].

VFR travel may present a segment for tourism destinations to focus on to improve sustainability. VFR travellers are connected to the local residents and, therefore, less likely to create negative interconnections with local residents. The majority of VFR travellers stay with friends or relatives, which would likely present a smaller carbon footprint given the higher carbon footprint of commercial accommodation guests, especially hotels. A study in New Zealand revealed that VFR travellers consume comparatively less energy [37], thereby making this segment an ideal visitor group for delivering better sustainability goals. Empirical research in this area would add to both scholarship and practice. The conceptual model in this article could be beneficial in examining the comparative benefits of VFRs versus non-VFRs and, in particular, in examining whether only some forms of VFR travel present more sustainable options for destinations. Tourism is important to many destinations; however, it is also important for destinations to manage growth responsibly and sustainably. VFR travel could provide a valuable balance in the marketing mix for destinations. It is hoped that the conceptual framework presented in this article and the ideas and concepts raised will assist in encouraging further research into the intersection of VFR travel and sustainability.