Cross-Border Differences and Unfamiliarity: Shopping Mobility in the Dutch-German Rhine-Waal Euroregion

Spierings, Bas; Velde, B.M.R. van der

doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.716236

Cited by 71 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results confirm the conceptual usefulness of the keep and repel factors (Spierings & van der Velde, 2012), in addition to the conventional push and pull factors, for understanding the motivations underlying tourism mobility. Indeed, the different roles of proximity and distance in the four motivation types confirm the importance of relative comparisons in destination choices.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…For example in cross-border shopping trips people engage with both the familiar and the unfamiliar in close geographical proximity (Spierings & van der Velde, 2012;Szytniewski & Spierings, 2014). The (often only imaginary) state borders enhance experiences of unfamiliarity through experiences, information and self-in a complex dynamic across time and space.…”

Section: Pull Factormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…a tourism destination). Additionally, keep and repel factors (Spierings & van der Velde, 2012) are motives for immobility, respectively, pertaining to the perceived attractiveness of 'here' and the perceived unattractiveness of 'there' (Figure 1). Various push, pull, keep and repel factors not only affect the comparisons people make between home and a tourism destination, they also underlie comparisons between destinations.…”

Section: Distance Proximity and Travel Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Motivational forces for (im)mobility (based on Spierings & van der Velde, 2012). such motivational factors affect whether people see places in the proximity of their home as potentially attractive to spend a vacation, either for themselves or for others.…”

Section: Pull Factormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on the stepwise procedure outlined by Boeije (2009), our analysis of these responses involved several rounds of reading, rereading and coding, to arrive at the abstract level of categories. The coding rounds focused first primarily on identifying references to four motivational drivers of mobility (or immobility) (Spierings & van der Velde, 2012): push and pull factors to travel outside Friesland (instead of choosing a vacation within the province) and keep and repel factors for staying close to home (i.e. prefer a vacation in Friesland or prefer to stay at home).…”

Section: Sample and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The challenge of proximity: the (un)attractiveness of near-home tourism destinations

Jeuring

Haartsen

2016

Tourism Geographies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imaginaries of touristic otherness have traditionally been closely related to geographical distance and travel far away from the everyday. But in today's context of sustainable tourism, a moral and behavioral shift may be expected, toward traveling near home. Distance may actually become a disadvantage and proximity a new commodity. This implies a need to disentangle subjective understandings of both distance and proximity in relation to perceived attractiveness of and touristic behavior in places near home. Thus, it is aimed to shed light on how 'proximity tourism' is constructed, endorsed and appreciated (or not). An online survey (N D 913) was administered to residents of the Dutch province of Friesland, exploring their attitudes toward their home province as tourism destination and representations of proximity and distance in relation to preferred vacation destinations. We grouped respondents into four categories, reflecting destination preferences: (1) proximate, (2) distant, (3) intermediate and (4) mixed. These groups were differentiated and characterized using quantitative and qualitative analyses. The 'proximate' and 'distant' preference groups, respectively, were most and least engaged in proximity tourism. However, the perceptions of proximity and distance expressed by the 'intermediate' and 'mixed' preference groups were associated in a nonlinear way with appreciation of the home region as a tourism destination. Additionally, respondents used proximity and distance in various ways as push, pull, keep and repel factors motivating their destination preferences. Interpretations of both proximity and distance were thus important in determining engagement in proximity tourism and, in turn, the potential for proximity tourism development in the region. This implies that such development will require a balanced consideration of the relative, temporally sensitive ways that people negotiate distance and proximity in their perceptions of being at home and away. Our results advance the discussion about imaginaries of travel, distance and proximity, and their impact on regional tourism. 抽象旅游者对他者感的想象传统上与地理距离和远离日常生活的旅行密切相关,但是在当今可持续旅游背景下,可能期望人们在道义和

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Pull Factormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Distance Proximity and Travel Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pull Factormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sample and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations