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

Abstract

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.

Identity and destination branding among residents: How does brand self‐congruity influence brand attitude and ambassadorial behavior?

“…However, obtaining such positive action from residents is often difficult, because of the large amount of time, creativity, emotion, and effort that may be needed to maintain and develop a destination brand (Bogoviyeva, ). The goal of DMOs can thus be to firstly gain a positive resident attitude toward a destination brand (Eshuis & Edwards, ; Zenker & Petersen, ), before ultimately transforming the residents into destination brand ambassadors (Braun et al, ; Chen & Dwyer, ; Choo et al, ; Jeuring & Haartsen, ; Kavaratzis, ).…”

“…Intrinsically, the relationship of residents with a destination brand is thus not regulated by contracts but by brand communication (Sheehan & Ritchie, ). Therefore, destination managers must not only assess the brand perceptions for tourists but also of other stakeholders (Campelo, Aitken, Thyne, & Gnoth, ; Jeuring & Haartsen, ; Sartori, Mottironi, & Antonioli Corigliano, ). The largest and most fruitful one among these stakeholders is commonly believed to be the residents of a destination (Kavaratzis, ), due to their potential brand engagement (e.g., Kalandides, ; Merrilees, Miller, Herington, & Smith, ; Pike & Scott, ), participation (e.g., Propst & Jeong, ), enhancement (e.g., Dinnie & Fola, ; Freire, ), rejuvenation (Wagner, Peters, & Schuckert, ), and a range of other positive brand‐related behavior (e.g., Chen & Dwyer, ; Choo & Park, ; Konečnik Ruzzier & Petek, ).…”

Proximity tourism and cultural amenities: Evidence from a regional museum card

“…Using evidence from Spain, the work investigates the profile and motivation of rural-cultural excursionists—adult, educated individuals willing to disconnect from urban life and discover new scenic places rich in natural and cultural amenities. More interestingly, using a survey conducted in the Province of Friesland, in the Netherlands, Jeuring and Haartsen (2017) explore residents’ attitudes toward proximity tourism and preferences for their home province as a tourism destination. Their findings suggest a polarization of respondents between two opposite profiles exhibiting different sociodemographic characteristics and motivations.…”

“…Yet, due to their relatively lower tourism potential (McKercher and Ho, 2006), the sustainability of these cultural institutions cannot rely only on incoming tourist flows but often depends on the ability to attract visitors living in surrounding areas (Nuccio and Pedrini, 2014). As a result, museum attendance in these peripheral areas is mainly linked to day trips (Downward and Lumsdon, 2000; Wynen, 2013a, 2013b) and forms the so-called proximity tourism (Canavan, 2013; Díaz Soria and Llurdés Coit, 2013; Jeuring and Haartsen, 2017). Yet what type of cultural offer in regional settings is able to attract residents from metropolitan areas or what profiles and motivation make those individuals engage in such proximate tourist practices remain two open issues.…”

Does regional affiliation influence employees' perception of tourism policy in cultural tourism?

“…Tourism policy is a strong tool for governments who try to develop the tourism sector in the country. It is a very important tool for tourism development on local (Camisón, Forés, 2015;Castillo-Manzano, 2010;Thomas, Thomas, 2006), regional (Hai-ling et al, 2011;Jeuring, Haartsen, 2016;Matias et al, 2009), national (Adamczyk, 2005;Horng, Tsai, 2010;Ranjan Debata et al, 2013), and supranational or international level (Edgell et al, 2008;Estol, Font, 2016). Contemporary good knowns supranational tourism policy is the European Union tourism policy (Andriotis, 2004;Hall et al, 2006;Moufakkir, Burns, 2012).…”