Mejora de la información a los agricultores sobre el

As illustrated in Section 4.3, the chosen travel style and resulting visitor typology of interviewees provides not only a foundation for data analysis but is also one of the main determining factors when it comes to the contexts of social interactions with other visitors. Travel behaviour, in combination with individual attitudes towards the social aspect of travelling can thus be seen as the most influential factor. Group constellation impacts the preferred accommodation and transport choices – for financial reasons, the vast majority of single travellers prefer cheaper options such as shared accommodation and public transport, while interviewees travelling with company often found that a rental car or campervan was a similarly affordable option. However, in some cases these decisions were also made based on the opportunities they provide for social interactions.

“I would say if budget wasn’t a concern I think that we’d still travel as backpackers. Even maybe more so, like, last night the hostel was more expensive, so we did go with the cheaper option, a motel. But we were kind of, like, it would be so nice to be in a hostel, with company and other people.”

Female backpacker (USA)

The importance assigned to social interactions with other visitors and the individual sociability of interviewees also contributed to a distinction between young and mature free independent travellers, as their attitudes towards the social aspect of their travels was often quite different. Individual attitudes also determine whether or not visitors are interested in participating in organized activities, which have been shown to encourage visitor-visitor interactions to a stronger extent than independently undertaken activities. Figure 5.5 illustrates the interdependencies between these influential factors, which together provide the foundation of the social interactions experienced by interviewees.

These factors impact both the occurrence and the process of social interactions.

Group constellation as a factor impacting social interactions has already been identified in Section 5.2. While young and mature FITs spent the majority of their travels with company, backpackers were usually single long-term travellers who frequently reported social interactions lasting for several days. This often encourages

164

social interactions based upon a desire for long-term company. However, it can also discourage the occurrence depending on the travel stage. The frequency of social interactions was often reported to decrease the closer visitors came to departure.

“Yeah, maybe when you know you travel with them for a couple of days you invest in that, but when you just travel with them for a couple of hours then not. It’s the same with the other travellers I think, because there was less interaction than at other times, when you compare it to the beginning of the trip.”

Female backpacker (Netherlands)

The majority of these interactions could only occur due to the length of stay, group constellation and overall flexible travel patterns of backpackers. This enabled them to engage in this specific type of social interaction. Both young and mature FITs however were more constrained through their company, shorter travel duration and the less flexible itinerary resulting from this. Free independent travellers therefore had less time at their disposal and, sometimes consciously, decided to invest more time and energy in their holiday experience and travel partner as opposed to spending more time with other travellers.

“I mean, this week’s been tough, we’ve tried to cover a lot of territory in seven days and you’ve gotta be very very selective about what you do, where you go. You only have a certain amount of time, but also only a certain amount of energy, so you gotta direct that energy to where you think you’re going to get the most benefit from. And in our case, that’s just not people.”

Male mature FIT (Australia)

This not only led to FITs not reporting any long-term social interactions, but shorter interactions overall. The presence of a travel companion sometimes also required a compromise between two different interaction-related needs and prematurely terminated social interactions enjoyed by part of the group, or simply led to a decreased desire to interact with other visitors.

165

“It depends on what type of couple you are, when I see ok, I’m meeting some girls and he’s someone who doesn’t connect easily to girls, at least he thinks he doesn’t, he’s automatically out, and then I don’t want to spend too much time with it because I know he’s waiting and he’s bored.”

Female young FIT (Germany)

“Yes, sometimes in the hostel, but since I’m travelling with my girlfriend, we’re a couple, we mostly stay in during the night usually, so we don’t talk to others as much.”

Male young FIT (Canada, exploratory)

“Well, when you’re with a friend, you don’t really need, we didn’t really speak with other people. (…) You just live your life and do your thing, and…

But now I’m alone so I have more time for myself and it’s nice to be able to talk to people and meet people from other countries.”

Female backpacker (France, exploratory)

The travel style of interviewees therefore had a direct impact upon both the initial occurrence of and desire for interactions and the subsequent process. If the travel group constellation includes more than one person, this also frequently discourages not only the occurrence of social interactions with other visitors in general but also limits the possibility of social interactions proceeding for longer. However, this is also to some extent dependent upon individual personality types – selected interviewees also reported that their travel companion functioned as a multiplier effect and they assumed that they interacted with more visitors than they would have when travelling alone.

“When I was travelling with my friend, we met people faster, because we were both there and were both talking to people, on the other hand the encounters were more superficial because you just didn’t spend so much time with them but more with the friend.”

Female backpacker (Germany)

166 5.6.2 Environmental and personal context

Previous sections have repeatedly outlined that the travel style, which in turn determines the visitor type, showed a strong connection to the environmental settings within which they interact. Travel related factors such as transport and accommodation choice as well as activity preferences all determine the environmental contexts in which interviewees were able to interact with other visitors. Different visitor types therefore find themselves in different environmental settings, which in turn influence the availability and characteristics of potential interaction participants as well as the process of interactions. A graphic representation (Figure 5.6) is provided to summarize this information and emphasize the interrelationships with other, non-environmental factors, showing how the environmental and therefore personal context contributes towards the occurrence of social interactions as well as certain interaction characteristics.

The characteristics of different interaction settings determine opportunities for potential social interactions as well as the possible antecedents that cause them.

While accommodation and independent tourist activity settings allow the people within to move around, change location and be involved in other activities, this is less applicable to both organized activities and when on transport. In these cases, the environment is either physically restricted or determined by the group location, and the individuals available for social interactions are therefore limited. Confined shared spaces however lead to proximity, which has been reported to frequently be a main factor in interaction participant selection.

“Sometimes the kitchens are so small that there’s only one table, I’ve experienced that before too, you then sit together and cook together, yes.”

Male backpacker (Germany, exploratory) about interactions in youth hostels

“Or you just sit next to each other, and the guide, the bus driver, when someone new came, they made them introduce them to us, and so you get to know people very fast.”

Male backpacker (Canada, exploratory) about interactions on backpacker buses

167

“You meet a lot of people if you do, like, organized trips, so with the bus when they pick you up at your hostel and then you go together instead of doing your own trip.”

Female young FIT (Germany, exploratory) about interactions during organized activities

Certain settings provide an atmosphere that not only encourages but also sometimes demands social interactions, and the level of control that interaction participants have in terms of entering, continuing or terminating interactions with other visitors varies with it. The following Figure 5.6 (divided into two parts) provides a summary of the contextual factors influencing social interactions. The characteristics of specific environmental and therefore personal contexts contribute to certain interaction characteristics by impacting a number of factors. These begin with original antecedents and interaction target selection, and extend to duration, conversation topics, and their termination, followed by providing the reasons behind these impacts.

168

 High level of control – interactions easy to continue, easy to terminate

 Medium level of control – interactions hard to continue, easy to terminate

Accommodation settings - Shared Transport settings – Waiting for transport Transport settings – On transport

Encourages longer and personal interactions:

 Shared and environmentally restricted settings lead to higher proximity

 Longer timeframe spent at location plus fewer tasks/activities encourage long and personal interactions

 Available interaction participants are likely to travel in a similar way, contributing to commonalities and therefore longer/personal interactions

Encourages short and neutral interactions:

 Public and non-restricted settings in combination with time restriction lead to short interactions

 Time restriction limits the ability to proceed to personal conversation topics

Encourages longer and personal interactions:

 Shared and restricted setting in combination with fixed seating arrangements leads to proximity

 Longer timeframe spent at location plus less tasks/activities encourage long and personal interactions

 Potential negative impact of limited control over participant choice and early termination is balanced out by personal conversation topics

Environmental and personal contextInteraction characteristicsImpact on interaction occurrence and process

Figure 5.6 Contextual factors influencing social interactions – Part 1

169

 Fixed and longer timeframe spent at location

 Often additional tasks/activities plus guide

 Morning/Afternoon focus

 Variety of antecedents

 Least likely to change to intrinsic motivations

 Less selective in participant selection

 Short interactions

 Least personal conversation topics

 Both forced and voluntary termination

 Medium level of control – interactions hard to continue, easy to terminate

 Low level of control – interactions hard to continue, hard to terminate

Independently undertaken tourist

activities Organized tourist activities

Encourages short and neutral interactions:

 Public and non-restricted settings in combination with time restriction and other tasks lead to short interactions

 Time restriction and current activity involvement limit desire/possibility to proceed to personal conversation topic

Encourages long and personal interactions:

 Shared and restricted setting in combination with fixed group constellation leads to proximity and conformity

 Longer timeframe leads to long interactions

 Potential negative impact of limited control over participant selection and early termination is balanced out by shared experience and personal interactions Environmental and personal contextInteraction characteristicsImpact on interaction occurrence and process

Figure 5.6 Contextual factors influencing social interactions – Part 2

170