MS Thesis
Marketing and International Business
Shades of Pink
Reykjavík a gay-friendly destination
Julio César León Verdugo
Dr. Friðrik Rafn Larsen
Business Administration
June, 2015
2
Shades of Pink
Reykjavík a gay-friendly destination
Julio César León Verdugo
Thesis for the degree of
Master of Science in Marketing and International Business
Supervisor: Friðrik Rafn Larsen
School of Business
School of Social Sciences, University of Iceland
June 2015
3
Shades of Pink
Reykjavík a gay-friendly destination
This is a 30 credits thesis to obtain a MS degree at the school of
Business, School of Social Sciences of the University of Iceland.
© 2015 Julio César León Verdugo
This thesis can only be copied with the author´s permission
Printed by: Háskolaprent
Reykjavík, 2015
4
Acknowledgements
This is a 30 credit thesis to obtain a Master of Science degree in the program of
Marketing and International business from the school of business at the University
of Iceland. I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Friðrik Rafn Larsen for the
guidance during this journey, as well as all my mentors during my master studies.
To my Icelandic family who has always been there for me and have always believed
in me Stfán Andrésson and Þórunn Andrésdóttir; and my two brothers and sister. I
would also like to thank to my Mexican family who has always supported me on the
decision to move to Iceland and to all my friends in Iceland who have made me feel
like home.
Julio César León Verdugo
5
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to learn from gay men’s previous travel experiences
and what destination they have experienced as more gay-friendly. This research
first reviews the concept of destination image, and what influences in creating the
image of a destination, to later apply this concept to understand what factors play a
role in the image creation of a gay destination.
The push and pull factors theory is also analyzed to explore the elements
that influence gay men to visit a new destination. This research specially focused on
finding out how gay welcoming and gay-friendly is the most northern capital of
Europe, Reykjavík.
For the purpose of this research gay men were interviewed about their travel
experiences, the interviews were formulated to explore four themes, which are
destination image, gay push and pull factors, Reykjavík as a destination and
Reykjavík as a gay-friendly destination. In-depth interviews were used to gain a
richer data. All individuals who took part in this study had visited Reykjavík.
Through the interviews, Reykjavík seemed to be in gay men’s mind as a
really welcoming LGBT destination, and Reykjavík seemed to be a desirable
destination for gay men although it wasn’t necessary in their top five or next place to
visit, but it was rather external factors that made them visit. LGBT events were one
of the main reasons why they decided to visit Reykjavík.
As most of LGBT studies this research only focused on one of the individual
groups of the LGBT community, gay men, which mean lesbians, bisexuals and
transgender are excluded from this study.
This study analyses gay men’s travel experience and emphasis in their visit
to Reykjavík to find out how gay-friendly Reykjavík is.
6
Útdráttur
Markmið þessarar rannsóknar er að skoða ferðaupplifun samkynhneigðra
karlmanna og hvaða áfangastaði þeir upplifa sem besta staðinn fyrir hinsegin fólk að
ferðast á.
Í þessari rannsókn er fyrst farið í skilgreiningu á ímynd áfangastaða fyrir
ferðamenn og hvaða þættir hafa áhrif á slíka ímyndarsköpun. Þessi skilgreining er
gerð til þess að komast að hvaða sameginlegir þættir skipta máli í ímyndarsköpun
áfangastaða fyrir samkynhneigða ferðamenn.
Greining á “Push and pull factors” kenninguni er gerð til þess að komast að hvaða
þættir hafa áhrif á val samkynhneigðra karlmanna er þeir velja nýja áfangastaði til
að heimsækja. Rannsókn þessi beinist að nyrstu höfuðborg Evrópu, Reykjavik, þar
sem komist er að því hversu vinaleg og opin borgin er gagnvart samkynhneigðum
ferðamönnum.
Megindleg rannsóknaraðferð var notuð, þar sem viðtöl voru tekin við
samkynhneigða karlmenn og þeir spurðir út í upplifun sína af ferðalögum. Viðtalinu
var skipt í 4 þætti eða þemu sem voru: ímynd áfangastaða, samkynhneigðir “push
and pull” þættir, Reykjavík sem áfangastaður og Reykjavík sem hinsegin vænn
áfangastaður. Allir viðmælendur höfðu heimsótt Ísland undanfarin 4 ár.
Viðmælendum fannst öllum að Reykjavík væri mjög hinsegin vænn
áfangastaður og væri mjög eftirsóknarverður áfangastaður fyrir samkynhneigða
karlmenn, þó að upphaflega hafi Reykjavík ekki verið efst á óskalistanum. Það voru
utanaðkomandi þættir sem gerðu það að verkum viðmælendur heimsóttu borgina og
þar voru það LGBT tengdir viðburðir sem voru helsta ástæða þess að viðmælendur
höfðu heimsótt Reykjavík.
Í þessari rannsókn er aðeins tekinn fyrir einn markhópur innan LGBT
samfélagsins þ.e. samkynhneigðir karlmenn, sem þýðir að samkynhneigðar konur,
tvíkynhneigðir og transfólk voru ekki teknir inn sem markhópur.
Þessi rannsókn greinir ferðaupplifun samkynhneigðra karlmanna, með
áherslu á upplifun þeirra á heimsókn til Reykjavíkur, til þess að reyna að komast að
því hversu hinsegin væn Reykjavík í raun og veru er.
7
Content
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 4
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Útdráttur ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Content .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 9
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 10
2. Destination Image ................................................................................................................. 13
2.1 The road to acceptance and recognition ............................................................................. 14
2.2 The gay community and gay spaces ..................................................................................... 15
2.3 Gay destinations ............................................................................................................................ 17
2.4 Development of the Gay and Lesbian Tourism – Pink Tourism ................................ 19
3. Gay Travel Motivations (Push and Pull factors) ....................................................... 22
3.1 Gay push factors ............................................................................................................................ 24
3.1.1 Social censure, abuse and discrimination ................................................................................ 24
3.1.2 Relate to others and be anonymous ........................................................................................... 25
3.1.3 Identity (be self) ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Gay pull factors ............................................................................................................................... 26
3.2.1 Toleration (Gay Friendliness) ......................................................................................................... 26
3.2.2 Gay Events and Gay heritage ........................................................................................................ 27
3.2.2.1 Gay Games ........................................................................................................................................................ 27
3.2.2.2 Gay Prides .......................................................................................................................................................... 28
3.2.2.3 Circuit Parties .................................................................................................................................................... 29
3.2.2.4 Gay Heritage ...................................................................................................................................................... 29
3.3 Gay-friendly and anti-gay-friendly destinations ............................................................... 31
3.3.1 Popular gay destinations................................................................................................................... 31
3.3.2 Suppliers reinforcing a gay-friendly destination .................................................................... 33
4. Reykjavík as a destination ............................................................................................................ 36
5. Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 38
5.1 The goal of the research ............................................................................................................. 38
5.2 The research method ................................................................................................................... 39
5.3 Qualitative Data and Qualitative interviews ........................................................................ 41
5.4 Interview themes ............................................................................................................................ 43
5.5 Selecting the interview persons .............................................................................................. 44
5.6 Data Collection and interview session ................................................................................. 45
5.6.1 Analysis of the interviews ................................................................................................................. 46
6. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 47
6.1 Travel Motivations and building a destination image .................................................... 48
6.2 Gay Destinations (Push and Pull factors) ........................................................................... 50
6.2.1 Push Factors ........................................................................................................................................... 51
6.2.2 Pull factors................................................................................................................................................ 52
6.3 Reykjavík ........................................................................................................................................... 54
6.3.1 Reykjavík a gay-friendly destination............................................................................................ 58
8
7. Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 64
7.1 Limitation, contributions and further research ................................................................. 66
8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 68
Bibliography and works cited ............................................................................................... 69
Appendix – In-depth interviews ........................................................................................... 76
9
Tables
Table 1 Background question from gay men taking part in this research ..................... 47
Table 2 Characteristics that influence destination choice ..................................................... 48
Table 3 Characteristics that will influence gays not to visit a destination ...................... 50
Table 4 Gay-friendly destinations ..................................................................................................... 53
Table 5 Gay-friendly destinations ..................................................................................................... 57
Table 6 How gay-friendly is Reykjavík? ......................................................................................... 61
Figures
Figure 1 Factors Influencing gay tourism (Hughes, 2002). ...................................... 23
Figure 2 Words used to describe Reykjavík. ........................................................... 56
10
1. Introduction
In today’s world the LGBT Community (Lesbian, Gay, bisexual and Transgender)
has become recognized as a community but not everywhere. More and more places
do not persecute homosexuality anymore, although some places still do. On the
other hand, some countries and cities around the world have legalized same sex
marriage and transgender individuals have been recognized as a third sex. This
means that with a more open society, the LGBT community has been accepted in
more places around the globe, these individuals as their heterosexual counterparts
also want to travel and go on holidays. Gay men want to travel to relaxing places or
take adventure holidays, the question is do they have the same demands as
heterosexuals or are their demands and needs different?
“Pink Tourism” is the term that is used to refer to this strong and powerful
market and more and more scholars have become interested in the subject. What
are their needs, wants and desires; and what kind of experiences are gay men
looking for when they are in their holidays?
This research is to explore gay men demands during their holidays a niche in
the so called “Pink Market”. This paper provides information to tourism businesses
about the needs and demands of the “Pink Tourism”, and the big potential that
Reykjavík has to target the LGBT community and how gay-friendly Reykjavík is as a
capital. Services providers will gain a better understanding of this market and
Reykjavík become aware of the potential that it has to become a welcoming pink
city.
This study focused on four different themes, the first theme focuses on the
destination image concept, those characteristics that influence and build a
destination image, the second theme explores push and pull factors that influence
the destination choice, and the third theme reviews the individuals’ decision making
to visit Reykjavík and their experience in Reykjavík, and last but not least the fourth
theme focuses on discovering Reykjavík’s friendliness toward gay men. These two
last themes will be combined in one to build up a conclusion on Reykjavík’s gay
friendliness as a new gay destination.
11
The research questions are:
- What makes a destination Gay-friendly?
- What are the push and pull factors that influence gay men to choose a
destination?
- How gay-friendly is Reykjavík?
The hypothesis of this study is that Reykjavík has a really open minded society that
doesn’t discriminate against LGBT people, and that LGBT members blend really
easily into the heterosexual world. Reykjavík is not like other gay destinations such
as London, Berlin, Barcelona and more. It does not possess a gay district with
restaurants, bars, hotels and shops focused on the LGBT community, but rather the
LGBT members are well integrated into society and can frequent the same
restaurants, shops and hotels as heterosexuals and not be discriminated against
because of their sexual orientation. Gay and Lesbians couples should not feel
threatened and should feel safe when walking around Reykjavík holding hands,
having a drink at a bar, dinner at a restaurant or even kissing in public because they
won’t get discriminated because of their sexual orientation.
This study starts by introducing the concept of destination image and the
elements that play are role to build such image, then the following subchapter
focused on the development of the gay and lesbian tourism image and the historical
movements of this community to be recognize as such and eventually the
development of gay spaces and gay destinations.
Chapter number three studies the gay travel motivations (push and pull
factors) such as the development of an identity, escapism of the daily routine, how
gay men had to lie and hide their true feelings and their sexual orientation, looking
for anonymous sex and finding underground gay places to meet with other gay men;
this chapter also will describe the enumerable events that today are organized
specially for the LGBT community as well as some gay heritage. Chapter three also
focuses on the gay friendliness of destinations and describes some of the most
common and popular gay destinations around the world.
12
Reykjavik city is not known necessarily as a gay destination, although it has
been described by number of magazines and traveling books as a gay-friendly
destination, so chapter four will stated what magazines and traveling books had
written about Reykjavík as a destination.
The methodology for this study will be explained in chapter number five, the
goal of the research will be stated, the research method will extensively explained,
as well as data collection and the process. And finally, chapter number six will
present the results from the interviews and the questions of this study will be
answered and supported, followed by the discussion and conclusion chapters.
13
2. Destination Image
The term “destination image” emerged in the early 1970s with the work of Hunt´s
(1975) where his work examined the role of the destination image in tourism
development. Since his study, the destination image has become a really important
subject of study in tourism research (Hosany, Ekinci & Uysal, 2006;).
The concept of destination image is described by Lawson and Baud Bovy
(1977) as the objective knowledge, prejudices, imagination and emotional thought of
an individual or individuals about a particular place. While other scholars describe
destination image as all the ideas, beliefs and impressions that people associate
with a destination (Ferreira, 2011).
The images of tourist destinations, such as sites and attractions, are found
on the internet, in television, in films, travel guide books, brochures, advertising and
newspapers (Helgason & Sigurðarson, 2012). The purpose of tourist images is to
communicate information and send messages about the tourist attractions, and
those images are used in marketing, branding and the promotion of a tourist
destination (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991; Pike, 2008).
While Valls (1992) described brand image as the consumer point of view of a
destination as a set of consumer point of view, Bigné, Sánchez and Sánchez (2001)
described destination image as the subjective interpretation of reality by the tourists.
Therefore, the idea that tourists have of a destination is strongly subjective because
it is based on the perception each tourist has of all of the destinations he has been
to or have heard of (San Mártin, Rodriguez, 2008; Ferreira, 2011).
For such reasons Tourism Marketing accepts that the development of a
destination is mostly based on the consumer rationality and emotionality (Lin,
Duarte, Kerstetter and Hou, 2007). In other words a tourist destination’s image is
described by attributes of its resources and attractions which motivate tourists to
visit that destination (Ferreira, 2011). Although destination images are always
influenced by functional characteristics, such as climate, infrastructure, prices,
transportations and more, psychological characteristics play an important role on
the destination image with such things as the level of friendliness, safety levels and
quality of services (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991). Examples of unique features and
14
events (functional characteristics) are China and the Great Wall and while in the
psychological uniqueness of a destination can include the romantic atmosphere of
Paris (Helgason & Sigurðarson, 2012). According to Tasci and Gartner (2007) pre-
visit, during visit and post-visit are the three different phases of the destination
image process.
As literature states, destination image is the idea or perception that visitors
have of the place that they want to visit, as a result of this the construction of a gay
destination image is a much longer process. The LGBT community had to go
through a long and hard process of acceptance and with it the emerging of gay
spaces which benefited and helped to develop gay destination image.
The next subchapters will explained the historical process of LGBT
community, the emerging of gay spaces and how destination had gain their gay-
friendly image. The last subchapter highlights the importance of this market.
2.1 The road to acceptance and recognition
Individuals attracted to the same sex or both male and female have always existed
but it was not until recently that they began to be spoken of as a community, the
LGBT community (Schiller & Weiss, 1988; Cloke, Crang & Goodwin, 2005). In the
past people who spoke of sexual attraction to same sex were considered an
abomination, to have sexual attraction for the same sex was a taboo. Today there is
a bigger tolerance and acceptance of the LGBT community although in many
countries around the world there is still a lot of discrimination and sexual preference
for same sex is punishable by law. This was and is one of the main reasons why
gays started searching for underground places to meet with other gays, places
where they felt safe and could coexist with other people of the same sexual
preference (Markwell & Waitt, 2006; Hughes, 2006). However, before this was
possible a huge progress had to be made and this process is still ongoing.
One of the initial movements to recognize gays and lesbians, was a hot
summer night in 1969, when a group of gays and lesbians decided to stop being
victims and start fighting for their rights in the Greenwich Village neighborhood in
New York City. Although some have censored the violence of these events, the fact
is that the final result of the "Stonewall" revolts was a very positive sign for the
15
recognition of the gay and lesbian community that even now, in the 21st century still
exists in the world as such (Schiller & Weiss, 1988; León 2010).
Gays and lesbians are not tolerated everywhere, but this has been changing
slowly and there is a steady social openness towards the acceptance of this
community, today there are laws that do not allow to discriminate because of sexual
preferences, and many cities and countries allow same sex partner registrations
and some have even legalized same sex marriage (GayCenter, 2014).
Over time society has evolved and ideologies have changed from modern to
post-modern times, and there has been a development toward the end of the
century and big transformations took place in the second half of the 20
th
century
leaving behind some traditional morals and ideologies. Some examples of these
movements are: the women´s movement, the black civil rights movement and the
gay movements and with such movements’ questions of identity arise, who am I and
how do I differ from other people, to what group do I belong, and this has become
prominent (Cloke, Crang & Goodwin, 2005; Santrock 2008).
2.2 The gay community and gay spaces
Gay men haven’t had a geographical homeland, which means they have been
unable to find their roots and that is why gay men are always in constant search of
home (Binnie & Valentine 1999; Howe, 2001). Gay men identified themselves as
homosexuals when going on holidays, “same sex tourism is like a pilgrimage, a
quest for an individual and collective identity” (Howe, 2001;Markwell & Waitt, 2006).
Gay men are in constant search for gay spaces, where they have the
opportunity to express their gayness, networking and being with people like
themselves, which can help them enhance their self-respect (Markwell & Waitt,
2006; Pritchard et al., 1998b, 2000; Howe, 2001; Hughes, 1997, 2002b, 2003). Gay
men are often more relaxed and natural when they meet and are around other
homosexuals because they do not have to repress their identity and are allowed to
show affection in public (Cox 2002 & Hughes 2002a). However, not all gay men are
in need of frequent gay spaces. The importance of this on individuals may variety
and some homosexuals may feel more identified with their nation and do not need
to search for an imaginary homeland (Cox 2002 & Hughes 2002a, 2006).
16
Furthermore, not all gay men feel oppressed in their daily life, and for such
reasons they do not have the necessity of searching for a homeland, “gay
homeland”. This means that these individuals do not need acceptance and
recognition. Also it is really important to know that not all gay men are in search for
gay spaces (Hughes, 2002b, 2003).
In today´s world not all countries have the same level of tolerance and it is
only possible to be gay in certain places while it is not allowed in others, the desire
for recreation has pushed gay men to explore and visit the nearest gay bars or
social spaces where they can be themselves, specially gay men that come from
small places in search for big gay spaces known as “homelands” or “gay capitals”.
These are often places where gay identities thrive, cities where the gay movement
took place, or where sites and monuments in favor of the LGBT community can be
found and opposition to the heteronormativity (Pritchard, et al., 2000; Markwell &
Waitt, 2006; Hughes, 2006; Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzunkan 2012).
Gay space can be defined as the physical manifesto of the gay community. It
is often a concentration of bars and clubs as well as cafes, restaurants, shops,
resident and public spaces where gay men can be themselves and permits gay
identity. These spaces are targeted for and used by the gay community and is used
as their leisure spaces (Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzunkan, 2012). Although gay leisure
spaces are often accused of being dominated by “the good homosexual”, who is
often described as the wealthy, young and beautiful gay man, excluding the flaming
queer unwanted. (Markwell & Waitt, 2006: 255-256; Puar, 2002: 939; Howe, 2001;
Hughes, 2003).
Often bars, clubs and restaurants where gay men are welcome are known as
the “gay scene” that is the term used among this community, simply referring to the
places where gays meet up and does not necessary refer to an entire area or city.
That is why researchers have named “gay spaces”. Also the term gay capitals has
been used and is often described as spaces that provide the opportunities to relate
to other member of the LGBT community (other gay men), where they can escape
from the disapproval and discrimination from restaurants, bars, clubs and shops
17
(Jenkins, Morgan, Pritchard & Sedgely, 1998; Markwell & Waitt, 2006; Hughes,
2006).
Gay spaces are a set of events and establishments where the tourist can
socialize with other gay people, permitting gay men to be themselves and feel
comfortable and secure. These gay spaces provide the opportunity to be out and
openly gay, as well as a sense of security and safety, and fulfill with tolerance; these
are some of the characteristics assured by gay spaces. Nevertheless, gay spaces
are not exclusive to the LGBT community and straight people can also be found.
(Jenkins, Morgan, Pritchard & Sedgely, 1998; Aitchison, MacLeod & Shaw, 2000;
Visser, 2003; Hughes, 2006; Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzunkan, 2012).
Although it is really important when gay spaces are being developed that
such spaces take into consideration and account the inhabitants of these location
because tourism is built on human relations specially when providing services to the
gay community (Hughes, 2006).
The LGBT community has built gay neighborhoods already and now they are
demanding spaces to spend their free time, for such reasons the tourism industry
sees this community as a potential niche in tourism and it has already started
targeting, because gay men are demanding places to go on holiday and to spend
their leisure time (Hughes, 2003).
The LGBT community is already established in many cities and countries
around the globe and they are hungry to travel and spend their money now known
as “pink money” (Hughes, 2003; León 2010; Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzunkan, 2012; Köllen
& Lazar, 2012). Although it is important that for any new destination which wants to
become gay-friendly needs to go through the road of acceptance and recognition of
the LGBT community (Hughes, 2006).
2.3 Gay destinations
Destinations’ choice is the process whereby travellers analyze places and
search for the best attributes in them and choose the destinations that possess the
most desirable characteristics (Cooper, Fletcher, Fyall, Gilbert & Wanhill, 2005;
Hughes, 2006). In the world there are innumerable potential destinations, but some
18
of them are excluded because of the level of risk and therefore discarded (León,
2010).
Gay men plan their holiday for the same reason as heterosexuals, to get
away from their everyday environment and daily routine, and the desire to explore
new horizons and have new experiences (Pritchard et al., 2000). Although gay men
have other reasons as well, which are to get away from their everyday life pressure
and from hetero-normative daily life (Hughes, 2003; Pritchard et al., 2000; Clift &
Forrest, 1999; Lazar & Köllen; 2012).
The travel motivations of gay men are often related to the sexuality and the
desire of escaping the heterosexual world, to find a place that gives a feeling of
belonging and finding a place to be ‘oneself’, and is therefore not shared with
heterosexual tourists (Pritchard et al., 2000; Hughes, 2005a, 2005b; Ballegaard &
Chor 2009;). The point of many authors (Pritchard et al., 1998b, 2000; Howe, 2001;
Hughes, 1997, 2002b) is that by getting away from the heterosexual society while
on vacation, gays and lesbians get an opportunity of feeling safe and accepted and
avoid discrimination.
Travellers like to feel safe, that is why when they search for a place to visit
and spend their holidays, travellers tend to analyze places that they desire to visit
although some level of safety is needed, specially the gay tourists because they do
not want to spend their holiday in a place where they are not welcome, that is why a
gay-friendly image is needed for a destination to be chosen by gay men, which
makes a destination with anti-gay image less desirable for this market (Aitchison,
MacLeod & Shaw, 2000; Hughes, 2006; León 2010).
When promoting gay tourism, this may create conflicts for locals, particular
conservative groups and also suppliers, such as accommodations, restaurants,
shops or airlines because of intolerance for gays and lesbians. Some places and
suppliers may develop an anti-gay image while others promote a gay-friendly image
(Hughes, 2006; Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzunkan, 2012).
The transition from old into a modern and to a post-modern society has
helped a lot to evolve and recognize the gay community as such. Specially in North-
American and Western European societies a broader tolerance for people who are
19
attracted to others of the same sex has been reached. (Clapham & Waaldijk, 1993;
Clift & Forrest, 1999; Cloke, Crang & Goodwin, 2005; Markwell & Waitt, 2006;
Hughes, 2006). However today, there are still many countries in Africa, Eastern
Europe and the Arab world, where any kind of gay performances are still strictly
prohibited and it is even punishable with death in some of them (Pritchard, et al.,
2000; ILGA, 2009). Making gay tourists seek for a safe place to go on holidays and
gay-friendly destinations is a priority (Pritchard, et al., 2000).
2.4 Development of the Gay and Lesbian Tourism – Pink Tourism
This chapter will highlight the importance of one of the niches in tourism, the gay
and lesbian tourism also known as “Pink Tourism” (Holcomb & Luongo, 1996;
Aitchison, MacLeod & Shaw, 2000; Kotler, Bowen & Makens, 2006; Hughes, 2006;
Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzunkan, 2012; Köllen & Lazar, 2012).
Pink tourism as a study subject is limited in literature since most of the
studies only focused on one of the members of the LGBT community, the gay men.
Although lesbians are often mentioned in the literature it is not rare that bisexuals
and transgender are often excluded as part of the subject (Euromonitor
International, 2010). Companies around the world have realized that the gay
community has a strong monetary power and for such reasons there are on-going
projects and campaigns to target this market, which is constantly growing. In Europe
gays are about 6% of the total population and they conform 10% of the total tourism
(Euromonitor International, 2010; Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzunkan; 2012).
Nowadays, it seems that gay men and lesbian women travel more and spend
more money on holidays than straight individuals and it is considered an expanding
and lucrative niche market (Holcomb & Luongo, 1996; Clift & Forrest 1999;
Aitchison, MacLeod & Shaw, 2000; Kotler, Bowen & Makens, 2006; Hughes, 2006;
Euromonitor International, 2010; Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzunkan, 2012; Köllen & Lazar,
2012). This has caused the Gay and Lesbian community to be recognized as one of
the most profitable niches in the tourism industry and often referred to the money
spent by this niche as “pink money”, this term highlighting the money spent by the
gay and lesbian community, and today lots of industries are targeting this market,
20
specially the hospitality and tourism industry (Aitchison, MacLeod & Shaw, 2000;
Holloway & Taylor, 2006; Hughes, 2006; Euromonitor International, 2010).
To further add to this fact, there are also many events around the world such
as parties, sport events, prides and circuit parties to target this market. One of the
main reasons for welcoming them is merely because of their assumed purchasing
power as well as this market is known for paying higher prices for quality (Ersoy,
Ozer & Tuzunkan, 2012; Köllen & Laza, 2012). It was estimated that in North
America the money spent by pink tourists is around $65 billions a year, and the
success of gay tourism in Canada, UK and South Africa has made the tourism
recognize the pink market as a growing market (Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzunkan, 2012).
Gay tourism is seen as a strong, powerful and very profitable market
segment, (Pritchard, Morgan, Sedgely, & Jenkins, 1998a; Russell, 2001). In the past
years the pink tourism has been described as the closest thing to a recession-proof
market and rapidly growing (Holcomb & Luongo, 1996; Pitts, 1997; Markwell &
Waitt, 2006). Gays seemed to have a more disposable income and a greater
propensity to travel, it is a fact that gay men travel more often than the heterosexual
man (Köllen & Lazar, 2012).
Another reason for the pink market being desired is because gay consumers
are strongly known for being brand loyal, which means that once they had a
favorable and pleasant experience, it is really likely that they will purchase this
service again, marketers often agree that gays and lesbians conformed an
interesting and powerful consumer group (Pritchard & Morgan, 1996; Pritchard et al.
1998a, 1998b; Luongo & Holcomb, 1996; Guaracino, 2007; Boyd, 2008; Stuber,
2002; Hughes, 2006; Luongo & Roth, 2002; Pritchard et al., 1998a, 1998b;
Rushbrook, 2002; Ivy, 2001; Hall & Ryan, 2001; León 2010).
In 2009, TUI, one of the European leading travel and tourism companies
launched a travel brochure to target the pink market “Gay and Travel” and in 2012,
Dertour launched the “Gay Travel” cataloged a German travel agency. Also small
companies around Europe are focusing on the pink market, that is why there are
already some certifications that help this market to recognize companies that are
gay welcoming and gay-friendly, the best known is the rainbow flag, although more
21
professional ones are IGLTA (International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association)
(Köllen& Lazar, 2012), and GETA (Gay European Travel Association) (GETA,
2014).
22
3. Gay Travel Motivations (Push and Pull factors)
Pritchard et al. (2000) came up with the idea of dividing the push factors into two
sets of motivational factors and explained that homosexuals’ extrinsic motivation is
shared with that of heterosexuals and is often related to escaping, to run away from
everyday life and work.
Motivations are descried as individual reasons to do actions and persistence
to do it until achieving the goal. Motivations are the willingness to make an effort to
reach goals to satisfy some personal needs (Mullen & Johnson, 1990). In the
following chapter push and pull factors will be analyzed and emphasis will be put on
the gay male traveller’s motivations.
In tourist literature Dann (1977) adapted the push and pull factor to tourism
and described push factors as internal and what motivates people to want to travel,
while the pull factors are the characteristics that a destination possesses and
appeals to travellers (Khan, 2013). But it was not until Gnoth (1997) proposed the
push and pull factor should be actually applied to study tourism and the process of
tourism motivations (Gnoth, 1997; Ballegard & Cho, 2009).
“Gnoth (1997) further developed on this theory and explains that
needs can manifest internally as well as externally and influence an
individual into action (push). Needs and psychological motives
together with “signs in objects, situation, and events” (pull) create
motivation and act as a desire for travel” (p. 290-291).
Push factor are the motivators and needs that are felt by the individual and awakes
the desire to travel away from everyday environment (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1981;
Crompton & Fakey1991). And pull factors are all those features, attractions and
attributes that a destination possesses and attracts people looking for a different
environment, often these pull factors can be beaches, hiking resorts, spas, events
and more (Crompton & Fakey, 1991). Fakey and Crompton (1991) classified them
into six categories:
23
Social opportunities and attractions
Natural and cultural amenities
Accommodations and transportation
Infrastructure for and friendly people
Physical amenities and creativities
Bars and evening entertainment
Push and pull factors are of some importance to tourism because this can
build and specially focus on segments with particular demands, gay men are
in search for a safer and more friendlier place than home, a place where they
can escape from the heteronormativity and where they are not marginalized
and can be themselves (Crompton & Fakey, 1991; Pritchard, et al., 2000;
Markwell & Waitt, 2006; Hughes, 2006; Lazar & Köllen,2012). Figure 1
analyzes the factors influencing gay tourism.
Figure 1 Factors Influencing gay tourism (Hughes, 2002).
Although Cliff and Forrests (1999) in their study defined three gay tourism
motivations: gay social life and sex, cultural and sights and comfort and relaxation,
which fit in the factors influencing gay tourism according to Hughes in 2002. Except
24
for the cultural and sight which came with time and the greater acceptance of the
LGBT community (Guaracino, 2007). Also Lazar & Köllen in 2012, described
escapism and anonymity, gay identity and looking for sex as a push factor like
Hughes did in 2002, and described gay friendliness and gay events as pull factors.
These facts tell us that gay travellers’ motivational factors do not necessarily
differ from the “mainstream tourists” like wanting to explore new places and people,
sightseeing and relaxation, although there are several specific gay push and pull
factors that influence on destinations’ choice. The following subchapter will analyze
gay push and pull factors.
3.1 Gay push factors
Gay push factors are described by Hughes (2002) as social censure, abuse and
discrimination, desire to relate to others, be self and be anonymous. Gay men are in
search for a place where negative push factors are minimized or almost non-
existing.
3.1.1 Social censure, abuse and discrimination
Heterosexuals and their normative have always pushed the LGBT community in
search for the promised land “home”, a place that gives gay men a sense of
belonging and acceptance, because through the years the LGBT community has
always been marginalized by hetero-normativity and tried to escape from
heterosexism (Pritchard, et al., 2000; Markwell & Waitt, 2006; Hughes, 2006).
Gay men, because of everyday hetero-normative, need to suppress
themselves in everyday life situations so they do not appear as outcasts and
spotted as gays. Holidays and vacations provide the opportunity to gay men to be
themselves and feel free because they are anonymous at the destination; they do
not fear to be recognized as gay. Also escaping from every day stress and tension
of hiding being gay is an important motivation factor of gay tourism (Ersoy, Ozer &
Tuzunkan, 2012; Lazar & Köllen, 2012).
25
3.1.2 Relate to others and be anonymous
Gay men have always lived in a hetero-normative society and they have often
travelled to destinations where they feel safe and are able to validate their gay
identities. Holidays give gay men the chance to construct, confirm and change their
sexual identity by socializing with other gay men and to escape from hetero-
normativity and intolerance to a place where it feels safe and gives a sense of
belonging (Pritchard, et al., 2000;Lazar & Köllen, 2012).
Many gay men are still in hiding and they do not identify themselves as
homosexual in their homes (back in their home city), for such reasons they tend to
travel to meet other gay men, because abroad they are unknown (Pritchard, et al.,
2000).
Gay men travel more than heterosexual men, because when being abroad in
the anonymity they can meet with other gay men. These meetings often end up in
sexual encounters. Sexual relationships may happen between two tourists or a local
and a tourist. Gay men have more sex on holiday than heterosexuals. One of the
reasons is that some gay men are still in hiding back home and when on holiday
they have the opportunity to have anonymous sex and get to know other gay men
(Carolan, 2007; Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzunkan, 2012; Köllen and Lazar 2012). While for
some gay men the main reason to travel is to have sex, for other gay tourists this
remains only a possibility. On this sexual encounter this may involve payment or
free will, free of charge (Monterrubio 2009; Lazar & Köllen 2012).
3.1.3 Identity (be self)
Identity has been really important to the LGBT community, because once this
community was recognized as such the individuals that conformed to this
community had a sense of belonging, and they have been able to identify
themselves as homosexual men and women attracted to same sex in a romantic or
sexual way (Cloke, Crang & Goodwin, 2005). Identity can be described as the way
that individuals feel they belong to a certain group or community and not to another
in this case, not to the heterosexual community but the homosexual community now
known as the LGBT community (Burr, 2003;Cloke, Crang & Goodwin, 2005; Hughes
2006; León 2010).
26
“Identity is a sense of belonging to a group, and involves the most
intimate aspect of our personal lives but are also related to a wider
notion of social inclusion and exclusion” (Cloke, Crang & Goodwin,
2005, 394).
Gay men do not necessarily share same experiences, preferences, interests or life
styles and for such reasons the literature suggests that it is wrong to speak of “gay
identity”, because gay men only share a sexual preference for the same sex and its
only this preference that characterizes the personal identity and since
homosexuality is often stated as not choosing to be homosexual, but individuals
choose to identify themselves as such (Hughes, 2006 & León 2010).
Homosexuality can be described as the outcome of the individual’s sexual
preference and the social environment (Rudd, 1996; Sinfield, 1997; Rushbrook
2002), today with the recognition of the LGBT community, this has helped
individuals to give them a sense of belonging and become part of a group (Markwell
& Waitt, 2006; Hughes, 2006).
3.2 Gay pull factors
Gay pull factors are described by Hughes (2002) as gay men in search for toleration
(gay friendliness), as well as for bars, clubs, shops, spatially concentrated and
limited in numbers.
3.2.1 Toleration (Gay Friendliness)
In hetero-normative societies gay men are almost always a minority, so when these
individuals travel to “gay-friendly” places, they are given the opportunity to enjoy
their holidays in an environment surrendered by other gay tourists. And in some
cases for gay tourists the level of “gayness” is crucial when choosing their holidays
(Clift & Forrest; 1998).
Gay Friendliness is a term used to described places where homosexuality is
accepted and where gays can socialize and be open about their sexuality. This
suggests that gay tourist travel and to go on holidays to gay resorts and gay hotels,
27
since in most destinations there is a predominance of straight tourism and such
destinations do not help to escape from the hetero-normative environments
(Pritchard, et al., 2000; Ballegaard & Chor 2009; Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzuncan, 2012;
Lazar & Köllen, 2012). The fact is that there are many countries around the world
where homosexuality is still not accepted as in western societies, and gay tourists
might have to face discrimination and prejudice. Even in some countries there is the
risk of being assaulted or punished by law (Hughes, 2002; Ersoy, Ozer & Tuzuncan,
2012; Lazar & Köllen, 2012). This may be a strong factor when gay men are
choosing a destination or not choosing it (Lazar & Köllen, 2012).
Cliff and Forrests (1999) also described cultural and historical sites as other
pull factors and gay events by Lazar and Köllen, 2012.
3.2.2 Gay Events and Gay heritage
Gay games, parades and festivals are pull factors that influence gay men to visit a
destination. In the United States (US) there are a big number of gay and lesbian
sports teams and leagues that hold sporting events annually (León, 2010). Also
nearly every larger US city and Western European cities annually host a Gay Pride
Parade with surrounding events and festivals (León 2010; Lazar & Köllen, 2012).
And many cities or places have become iconic because of historical events as a
symbol of gay liberations and recognitions of the LGBT community (Marwell & Waitt,
2006; Hughes, 2006; León, 2010).
3.2.2.1 Gay Games
Today, Gay Games is the largest LGBT sporting event in the world. Gay Games
have been held every 4 years; the first Gay Games were hosted in San Francisco in
1982. The purpose of the games was to promote self-respect of lesbian and gay
men, to promote equality and avoid discrimination because of athletes’ sexual
preferences (Gay Cologn, 2014). In the 1994 Gay Games in New York about 40
countries attended the sporting event. Sydney and Chicago were the two following
cities to host the games in 2002 and 2006 respectively (Holcomb & Luongo, 1996;
Marwell & Waitt, 2006; Hughes, 2006; Gay Cologne, 2010). The Gay Games in
2010 were hosted in Cologne and according to the Gay Games organization 9.500
28
participants attended and took part in 31 different sporting disciplines like swimming,
diving, soccer, ice hockey, bridge, tennis, sport shooting, waterpolo and more
(GayGames, 2014). And just the past summer Gay Games were hosted in
Cleveland, United States and about 10,000 athletes attended. (GayGames, 2014 &
gg9cle, 2014).
Other big sporting events are Outgames which are celebrated every 3 or 4
years but not in an Olympic year, in intervening years the European International
Games take place, last Outgames were hosted in Budapest in 2013, the next
Outgames will be in Miami Beach, Florida, in the US in 2017 (Glisa, 2014).
When attending gay events, gays can be part of a community, they can
socialize among people who do not judge based on sexualities, and this represents
a getaway from the heterosexual normativity of daily life. Gays get the opportunity to
celebrate their sexuality in public and their “true identity” especially gays who are
still in the closet (Markwell & Waitt; 2006; Ballegaard & Chor 2009; Köllen & 2012).
All these gay sporting events create a sense of community and bring together
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) athletes from all over the world to
celebrate equality and diversity, and they are not only a sporting event but a cultural
and human rights event, and these events are open to all, regardless of sexual
orientation (GayGames, 2014; Glisa, 2014; Lazan & Köllen 2012).
3.2.2.2 Gay Prides
Another important element of gay tourism and a really strong pull factor are gay and
lesbian parades. Gay prides started as, and still are, movements in manifesto from
the LGBT community to be recognized as such and human rights, for people to be
proud of their sexual orientation and gender identity, that diversity is a gift and that
sexual orientation and gender identity are inherent and cannot be intentionally
altered. The pride word is a word used as an antonym of shame. For example in
London Gay Pride marches the number of participants increased from 700 to
250,000 from 1972 – 1997 (Pritchard, et al., 2000; Marwell & Waitt, 2006; Hughes,
2006; León, 2010).
These gay parades and festivals take place all over the world even in those
cities or countries where homosexuals are not accepted. While in other cities and
29
countries where gays have gained rights and are not discriminated against such
festivals have become more of a festive and carnivalesque event. Gay pride
festivals usually start with a party the night before the parade and a party after the
parade to close the festival. Every year in Europe beside the city prides, a Europride
is held, an international event dedicated to this community, hosted by a different
European cities each year. The Europride includes numerous sporting and artistic
events staged through the host city (Marwell & Waitt, 2006; Hughes, 2006; León,
2010).
3.2.2.3 Circuit Parties
Circuit parties, which are other important, pull factors when gay men choose their
holidays; circuit parties are very common in the US and in many other destinations
in Europe today. In the US there are about 100 and they are often described as
“weekend long, erotically-charged, drug-filled and gay dance held in resorts across
the country” (Hughes, 2006).
Circuit parties are a series of events of discos, pool parties, club nights,
dinners, concerts and entertainments for several days. One of the most popular and
famous in the US is the White Party Men. Circuit parties can be held as well during
ski weeks, where gay men have the opportunity to sky with other gays, these events
also include evening parties and other activities (Hughes, 2006; León, 2010).
3.2.2.4 Gay Heritage
Gay Heritage has been another important pull factor for gays when choosing a
destination, especially the older generations. Stonewall in Greenwich Village (New
York) is a place of pilgrimage for some, because there were a series of
spontaneous, violent demonstrations by members of the gay community against the
police, and this is considered one of the most important events of gay liberations
(Hughes, 2006).
Other heritage sites are considered the “homo-monument” in Amsterdam as
a symbol of “gay liberations”. The AIDS memorial in Company´s Garden, Cape
Town, has a particular poignancy in a country where a large percentage of the
population is HIV-positive (Marwell & Waitt, 2006; Hughes, 2006).
30
“A gay and lesbian heritage trail has been developed in Manchester (UK),
with places of significance marked by rainbow tiles set in the pavement.
The trail takes in the memorial to Alan Turin, a pioneer of computer
development who committed suicide in 1954 following a prosecution for
homosexual activity. It also includes the Beacon of Hope, the UK’s only
HIV/AIDS memorial. Oscar Wilde has a particular significance for many
gays and lesbians, if only because of his famed trial and subsequent
imprisonment for gross indecency in 1895” (Hughes, 2006).
Marriage has been another reason for gay men to travel to new destinations; a new
market has opened since marriage between same sex couples is gradually
becoming legal. Same-sex marriage is legal now in many countries such as
Denmark (became the first country same-sex union in the form of “registered
partnerships” in 1989), Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Norway, and Canada. The
legalization of same sex marriage through Canada has encouraged gay men
couples to travel there for the purpose of marriage and it has helped creating a
more gay-friendly image of the whole country. Since 2000 half of the marriage
licenses issued in Canada have been for couples outside the Canadian population,
bringing with it a traveller for the purpose of getting married (Marwell & Waitt, 2006;
Hughes, 2006; León 2010).
All events mentioned above are mostly focused on gay men, usually of a
younger age, the reason for this may be that there has been a smoother transition
to the development of the gay identity than it has been for older gay generations.
Older gay men have struggled through life because back then society was not as
open to gays and there wasn’t an established LGBT community and there were not
such things as gay and lesbian rights (Deutsch & Hughes, 2009).
Younger gay generations (forty and younger) seem to be living their social
life in a gayer milieu than were older men and this follows through into holidays.
This generation has grown up in a more open society where gay spaces have been
developed and they have had the opportunity to meet other gay men, while older
generations (fifty and older) had to struggle to get rights and not be discriminated
31
against because of their sexual preferences, and literature suggests that they are in
search of a more relaxed and comfortable place to spend their holiday and not
necessarily with a big gay scene (Deutsch & Hughes, 2009). Although, both young
and old gay generations want to ensure access to a gay space and to gay-friendly
destinations on holiday and to avoid discrimination and homophobia (Marwell &
Waitt, 2006; Hughes, 2006; Deutsch & Hughes, 2009).
3.3 Gay-friendly and anti-gay-friendly destinations
Gay men have often been verbally insulted and discriminated against when
travelling, this often because of intolerance and misjudgement toward homosexuals
(León, 2010). For such reasons the necessity of searching for a secure space to
interact with other homosexuals (Binnie & Valentine 1999; Howe, 2001; Cox 2002 &
Hughes 2002a, 2006).
Gay men like to feel unthreatened when travelling, they want security and
feel comfortable; so when choosing a destination to spend holidays it is more likely
that they will choose destinations known for being gay-friendly and where gay are
not discriminated against. Deserting destinations known for an anti-gay image and
being unfriendly to the LGBT community, such places become less desirable to gay
travellers (Aitchison, MacLeod & Shaw, 2000; Hughes, 2006; Lazar & Köllen, 2012).
Destinations can gain an anti-gay image because of cultural norms and
religious beliefs becoming less desirable for the gay tourism market. These
destinations are intolerant towards homosexuals and strict laws punish any act of
homosexuality (Markwell & Waitt, 2006; Hughes, 2006). For example the murder of
an American resident in Prague was believed to be the outcome of a gay encounter
with a gay prostitute. This and an earlier murder of a New Zealander, promoted
many questions on whether the Czech Republic is safe for gay tourists who visit the
country every year (Hughes, 2006).
3.3.1 Popular gay destinations
Gay-friendly destinations have developed because of a welcoming attitude towards
homosexuals, gay scenes, but also because of specific events hosted by the cities
32
such as sport games, gay prides, festivals to target the LGBT community or for
having locations considered gay heritage; all these influence a destination to
become gay-friendly and increase popularity among the gays (León 2010). Here
below a few of the most popular gay destinations will be listed:
Amsterdam the largest city in the Netherlands has always been a city with a
really open minded society and a city of high preference for gay and lesbian
community, the city has a large number of venues for this community. The
city for a long time has had a liberal attitude towards sex. Bars, restaurants,
hotels, saunas and dance as well as sex clubs are all over the city.
Amsterdam has always been known as one of the cities best known for its
liberty and often its association with liberal attitudes and toward sex (and
heterosexual and heterosexual and homosexual prostitution) and drug use. A
really popular destination among straights, and one of the top destinations
within the gay and lesbian community (Hughes, 2006).
Ibiza is one of the Spanish Balearic Islands (which includes Mallorca) in the
western Mediterranean Sea. It became really popular because of its
alternative culture artist, gay life, hippies and more open-minded people. It is
a popular destination among the younger tourists because of the nightlife.
Ibiza town and around town, places such as Figueretas is the main area for
gay hotels, restaurants, bars and clubs (Hughes, 2006).
United States has always been characterized for been a country with most
locations as destinations for the gay market. San Francisco, for example, as
a destination offers many attractions, such as the Golden Gate bridge, the
prison of Alcatraz and its cable-cars. Through the years San Francisco
started to be populated by gays and lesbians in the 70´s and has been
nominated has the “gay capital” of the USA by some magazines. Other
destinations in the US are Palm Springs and Los Angeles in California and
Key West and Fort Lauderdale in Florida where famous circuit parties are
held and gay spring breaks (Hughes, 2006).
33
Manchester in the UK has been targeting gays and lesbians and has
focused on the existing gay space of the “gay Village” located in the city-
center. This charming city/town is known for its gay space of bars and clubs,
saunas, bookshops, cafes and restaurants, which has a concentration and
coherence not apparent in any other UK city. This area was featured in a
national UK television series Queer as Folk in 1999 (Hughes, 2006).
Other world wide gay destinations include: Barcelona, Paris, Sydney, New
Zealand, Cape Town, New York, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Canada, Thailand, Mexico,
Hawaii, Key West and Brazil. In Germany for example the German National Tourism
Board published an annual gay-friendly brochure with information in detail about gay
life in Germany, shops, restaurant, clubs, bars, events and accommodations.
Germany ranks at the top as the ideal gay destination in Europe followed by
Stockholm and is known as the gay capital of the north, the Stockholm pride has
lasted for five years and attracts about 20,000 visitors annually (Ersoy, Ozer &
Tuzunkan, 2012).
Gay men who are keen to broaden their horizons travel to places like Mykonos
and Sitges (Barcelona). New destinations are also Eastern European cities like
Prague and Budapest. In South America for example Buenos Aires, Argentina
increased its gay tourism market about 80% in 2011, the same-sex partnership
made the capital gay-friendlier and put the capital on the gay map (Ersoy, Ozer &
Tuzunkan, 2012).
3.3.2 Suppliers reinforcing a gay-friendly destination
As has been mentioned above, actions can promote or disturb gay-friendly images
of destinations, but not only events create a favorable or negative image, suppliers
play a crucial role in defining how gay-friendly is a destination. Airlines for example
play a crucial role in the process of travelling. British Airways gained an anti-gay
image when a South African passenger was asked to stop kissing his boyfriend on a
flight to London. Later, the passenger ended up in court (Hughes, 2006).
American Airlines in 1993 was targeted by anti-gay propaganda when a
passenger with HIV was removed from a flight after he refused to cover his lesions
34
and stow his intravenous bag. A crew of the same airline requested to change
blankets and pillows because gay passengers were seated there. These two
incidents created a really anti-gay campaign for the airline, and the airline decided
to take action. It adopted a very positive gay and lesbian policy and, ironically, the
airline has been attacked because of this. But today, American Airlines is the first
major US airline who has targeted the gay market and has contributed funds to
several equal rights organization and sponsored gay and lesbian events, with its
slogan The “Rainbow TeAAm” (Hughes,2006; American Airlines, 2014).
When gay tourists are searching for accommodation this can be particularly
challenging and difficult, gay tourists search for places where they can experience
freedom, for such reason some hotels have taken this fact into consideration by
adopting “gay-friendly” or “gay-exclusive” tags. On the other hand other cities such
as London, Brighton and Manchester in the UK, which are cities in a tolerant country
towards homosexuals some same sex couples have felt unwelcome in certain
hotels where they have been offered twin beds or refusal to check in rather than a
double bed (Clift & Forrest, 1999; Hughes, 2006; León 2010).
When incidents like the one mentioned above occured this can damage the
image of the destination even though such destinations have always been known
for being gay-friendly. For example cities in the United States, the United Kingdom
and Western Europe have had to manage encounters like the one mentioned above
to keep a gay-friendly image (Clift & Forrest, 1999; Hughes, 2006).
Facts mentioned above are what makes destinations desirable or not for the
gay tourism market, and depending on what kind of actions gay tourists experience
this will reinforce or weaken the gay welcoming image. All these will affect the pink
tourism on destination choice because this market is searching for high tolerance. A
place where they can bond with other gay people and not be discriminated against
because of their sexual preferences and where there is no need to hide, like any
other tourists they want to feel welcome. Suppliers play a really important role when
it comes to gay tourism; that is why a positive attitude toward gays is a determining
factor to visit a certain destination (Markwell & Waitt, 2006; Hughes, 2006; León
2010).
35
Florida, for example, has worked hard to reinforce their gay-friendly image,
since 1991 the theme park Walt Disney World Orlando has hosted a gay and
lesbian day creating a really positive image toward the gay community. In 1991 it
had estimately about 3000 visitors, in 1995 there were about 32,000 and in 2004
around 135,000 and in 2010 was estimated that 150,000 LGBT members, families
and supporters visited (About; 2015). Although this event has been really
successful, the park has had to deal with many boycotts that have been attempted,
effectuated by different associations in the US, which featured the American Family
Association (AFA), USA Southern Baptist Convention because of different issues as
“anti-Christian” and “anti-family” (Hughes, 2006; León 2010). Despite the boycotts
this event has been growing and growing and becoming more popular and it has
grown from a one day celebration to a weekend-long festivity (Holcomb & Luongo,
1996; Hughes, 2006; León 2010). This as an example of a destination that wants to
reinforce its positive image toward the LGBT community which are not only gay and
lesbian couples but today are also families, this has been successful both for the
state and the park in promoting a gay-friendly image (León, 2010).
36
4. Reykjavík as a destination
Reykjavík is described by Lonely Planet as the world´s most northerly capital and
combines colourful buildings, creative people, eye-popping design, wild nightlife and
a capricious soul to a devastating effect. Reykjavík is really cosmopolitan, even
though it is much smaller than any other capital in Europe. It’s merely a town by
international standards but the city is full of life, great museums, captive art, rich
culinary cuisine and funky cafés and bars (Lonely Planet, 2015).
Reykjavík was described by the Dailyxtratravel as an enlightened and friendly
atmosphere in the capital of Iceland, where people can be quite open about their
sexual orientation and where the legal status of gay people is considered to be one
of the best, with individuals’ rights protected in the country’s constitution
(Dailyxtratravel, 2013).
The official visit Reykjavík website states:
“Reykjavík is very proud of its LGBT community and has become quite
the beacon of rainbow coloured light in the past few years. Apart from
being the first country in the world to elect an openly gay head of
state, all LGBT people in Iceland enjoy the same rights as everyone
else regardless of their sexual orientation, including the right to marry.
Reykjavík is also home to the award winning travel service Pink
Iceland - a company devoted to the travel needs of LGBT guests - and
has a great number of gay-friendly hotels, bars and nightclubs” (Visit
Reykjavík, 2014).
Reykjavík is a small capital but as vibrant as other mega cities. The gay scenes
may never be as big as Manchester or Brighton but certainly as fun and vibrant as
in those cities (Leon,2010; Dailyxtratravel, 2013). Reykjavík today´s gay bar is Kiki,
which is the queerest bar in town. Upstairs DJ´s play until early morning for a fun
crowd. Below, Bravo Bar is a cozy chill-out bar, with Dj´s as well, local draft beers
and light fare including pizza and paninis (Dailyxtratravel, 2013).
37
The Queer community center is open in winter during the evening where the
LGBT community can get to know, they have gay movies nights, game nights and
cozy conversations (Dailyxtratravel, 2013; Samtökin 78, 2014).
But this is not all. Reykjavík gay scene also offers many events all year around,
including the Pink Party held at least twice a year in October/November and again in
January/February during an annual festival sponsored by the city of Reykjavík
Rainbow Reykjavík, the LGBT winter festival (Dailyxtratravel, 2013; Pink Iceland,
2014; Rainbow Reykjavík, 2014). According to Visit Reykjavík, Gay Pride weekend
is one of the biggest events in the capital of Iceland.
“Reykjavík city is extremely proud of its fabulous Gay Pride
festivities, which have been putting a spectacular sparkle in the month
of August ever since it’s first outing in the year 1999. A huge, merry
and colorful Gay flotilla parades through the center of town followed by
a grand outdoor concert attended by over one hundred thousand
people – lesbians and gay men, bisexuals and transgender people,
friends, relatives, fellow citizens and numerous foreign visitors – all
showing solidarity with the gay cause on the second weekend of
August every year!” (Visit Reykjavík, 2014).
38
5. Methodology
Methodology is about finding the best possible method to collect information and
knowledge and this research; how people see and construct or imagine their world
(Deniz & Lincoln, 2005; Silverman, 2005; Bryman 2012). Researchers are part of
knowledge construction, which is collected from the interaction with the subject
(Silverman, 2001; 2004; Bryman, 2012).
Given the challenge involved in researching a relatively new subject “pink
tourism” and the limited information on the subject this study will adopt an
exploratory, qualitative approach. The purpose of this chapter is to help the reader
understand the methodology applied in the master thesis.
Not all researches or studies can be quantified easily, for such reason this
study chose a qualitative research where a more exploratory method is used of
questioning and gaining the participants’ experience in the subject (Silverman,
2001; 2004).
The Qualitative research method was selected for this study because this
method allows to merge into the individuals’ experience, this kind of research allows
participants to share information and experiences in their own words and in their
own way, allowing the participants to think back and relive experiences(Bryman,
2012).
For the purpose of this study, qualitative research gives the opportunity to
explore gay men’s previous experiences during their holidays or vacations and to
gain rich information from their previous experiences and their visit to Reykjavík. It
will also help to find out what were the push and pull factors for going on holiday
and the gay friendliness of the destinations they have visited.
5.1 The goal of the research
The goal of this research is to gain a better understanding of the concept Pink
Tourism and what creates a gay-friendly destination image. This study will analyze
deeply the push and pull factors that influence the destination choice process of the
39
gay men, and to find out Reykjavík’s gay friendliness and the potential to become a
gay destination. The research questions are:
- What makes a destination Gay-friendly?
- What are the push and pull factors that influence gay men to choose a
destination?
- How gay-friendly is Reykjavík?
This study will only study one of the groups that form part of the LGBT community,
gay men, all individuals taking part in this study are gay men who had visited
Reykjavík. This study aims to explore what makes a destination gay-friendly from
the destination image concept, which states that a destination image is created from
the tourist’s previous experiences or what he has heard or read about it, as well as
suppliers and residents (San Mártin & Rodriguez, 2008; Ferreira, 2011; Llodrá-
Riera, Martínez-Ruizm Jiménez-Zarco & Izquierdo-Yusta; 2015).
The interest in the topic for this research comes from the researcher’s
personal experiences. The researcher is currently working in tourism and he has
helped to organize gay and lesbian events in Reykjavík and abroad, as well as
having himself taken part in gay and lesbian events in many different cities in
Europe as well as in North America. For such reasons this study aims to gain a
knowledge in what characteristics shape a destination to be gay-friendly. This study
also wants to analyze what are the factors (push and pull) that play a role to build a
gay destination image. And if Reykjavík possesses those characteristics and can
become a new gay destination.
5.2 The research method
Qualitative research is used to understand and study the social world from
the individuals’ perspective. The talk about qualitative research as the method
where things can be studied in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of,
or intending to interpret the way that people see things or the reason for doing
things (Deniz & Licoln, 2005). As for this study, the purpose is to gain experiences
from gay men’s decision making process when visiting a new destination.
40
Qualitative researches want to understand how people interpret their
experiences, how they construct their world, and the meaning that they give to their
experiences (Creswell, 1994; Merriam, 2009). This study wants to understand what
influences gay men on choosing a destination, what the process is like and what
motivates them to select a new city or country.
How they think, the process that is engaged, the reason for taking that
decision are examples of questions that qualitative approaches want to understand
(O’Leary, 2004).
Some of the advantages of this research method are that data is collected in
words and pictures, though interviews and observations (O’Leary, 2004). Qualitative
research focuses on describing the meaning and interpretation of life events
(Merriam, 2009).
“When the goal is to understand the ‘insider’s’ perspective, a
quantitative design is just not the way to go. You can’t write effective
questions for a survey without a better understanding of the worldview
of those you want to study” (Priest, 1996, p.106)
Nowadays, the qualitative approach has become really popular in leisure and
tourism studies because of its exploratory methods and interpretations (Veal,2006).
That is why this method was chosen, gay men want to travel and they travel more
often than their straight counterparts and according to Euromonitor International
(2010) gay men have a higher spending power and are more brand loyal.
“Qualitative research is concerned with individuals’ own accounts of
their attitudes, motivations and behavior. Although qualitative research
is about people as the central unit account, it is not about particular
individuals per se; reports focus rather on the rather patterns, or
clusters, of attitudes and related behavior that emerge from the
interviews” (McIntyre, 2005, 127- 128).
41
Although, it has often been said that qualitative research is often hard to
measure and its reliability has even been questioned, an epistemological position in
qualitative research will be the stress on the understanding of the social world
through an examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants. And an
ontological position described as constructionist, which implies that social properties
are the outcome of the interaction between individuals, rather than phenomena out
there and separate from those involved in its construction (Bryman, 2012).
Qualitative, exploratory approaches are concerned with investigating the
meanings, which reside in social practice (Deniz & Licoln, 2005). And about
understanding the social construction of reality; the close relationship between the
researcher and the subject that is studied; and the environment that shapes the
research (Flick, 2002; Denzin & Licoln, 2005).
However, in our modern world, researchers are faced with new social
perspectives and studying casual relationships to develop knowledge (Silverman,
2001;2005; Flick, 2002; Bryman 2012), the LGBT community is being recognized as
such in more and more places around the world and they want to travel and explore
the world, so what better way than doing it by using a more open and exploratory
method like the qualitative one.
Although it is often that this method criticized for being non-scientific, of little
value, impressionistic and sometimes to be too subjective (Bryman, 2012). By this is
meant that qualitative findings rely too much on the researcher and giving
significance and analyzing what is important and what is not. As well as a close
personal relationship that the researcher developed with the people studied
(Bryman, 2012). But at the same time, people recognize that there is no way of
doing research that is “better” than others as the way of doing the research depends
a lot on the project or subject to study and it depends on the researcher’s individual
preferences (Silverman, 2001;2005; Flick, 2002; Bryman 2012).
5.3 Qualitative Data and Qualitative interviews
Data collection in any research is really important and it represents the key point of
any research project (Bryman, 2012). Data is nothing more than ordinary bits and
42
pieces of information lying around the environment ready to be collected (Merriam,
2009).
Data can be concrete and measurable; like the number of tourists visiting a
destination. Although when studying the reason or the cause of a phenomenon, like
in this case what makes a destination gay-friendly?; then that data is not only data
but qualitative data, this kind of data is collected not by counting but often by direct
quotations from people’s experiences, opinions, feelings and knowledge, most of
the time obtained through interviews to get the detailed description of their decision
(Marriam, 2009; Kumar 2011).
“Interviewing is rather like a marriage: everybody knows what it is, and
awfully lot of people do it, and yet behind each closed front door there is a
world of secrets” (Oaklay, 1981, p. 30).
So when gay men are travelling and they decide to explore a new destination, which
factors play a role on their decision making?
Interviews are often used when the behavior cannot be observed, such as
past events (Merriam,2009). In-depth interviews (also called semi-structured or
informal) were conducted, Informal interviews are that the interviewer stimulates the
informant to talk about themes of the study and he or she just listens (Mann, 1985;
Esterberg, 2004; Veal 2006; Merriam 2009).
These in-depth interviews help to collect a large amount of information from a
relatively small number of people (Esterberg, 2004; Veal, 2006), for this study the
gay men taking part in this study. Even though the information delivers defile in
sequence from the prepared themes, it does not really matter because what is
important here is the topic and the amount of information collected from their
experiences (Mann, 1985; Esterberg 2014).
That is why Kvale (2007) described the interviewer as a traveller in a journey
away from home where he observes from the outside, talks to and encourages
people to tell the story of the world they live in. The traveller will often get a new
perspective of the world he lives in (Brinkman & Kvale 2009). The interviewer will
43
travel into the gay men’s previous travelling experiences to understand what
motivated them to travel to those destinations they have visited.
Some of the advantages of interviewing are that this kind of method is more
appropriate for complex and sensitive situations (Kumar, 2011), in this case the
sexual orientation of the interviewees. Since the interviewer is gay himself this is
used as an advantage as well since interviewees will feel more comfortable and
willing to share more than if the researcher was straight.
Although in-depth interviews do not only have advantages it also has
disadvantages such as this kind of method can be time consuming and expensive,
the quality of the data collected will depend a lot on the quality of the interaction, the
researcher may introduce his or her bias; but on the opposite side they are really
good to collect in-depth information (Estererg, 2004; Kumar, 2011).
When getting into the people world during the interview, recording the
interview is really good because it is possible to listen again and revive moments
and relevant information during the interview analyses (Mann, 1985; McIntyre, 2005;
Veal, 2006), for the purpose of this study interviews will be recorded and
transcribed. It is ideal that during the interview the conversation floats like two
people talking about a subject they both have an interest in so people can forget the
recording machine (Esterberg, 2004).
The qualitative research will help this study to collect data on gay men’s
destination choices, and to explore deeply the push and pull factors that influence
these individuals to choose a new city or country to spend their holidays. As well as
the information in their visit to Reykjavík and their perspective on Reykjavík gay
friendliness as a destination.
5.4 Interview themes
As mentioned above the in-depth interviews were selected as a method because
this will allow the researcher to immerse into the interviewee’s world, as it was just
mentioned the interviewer is gay himself and this will allow to establish a better
connection with the interviewees and dig deeper into their inner thoughts, needs
and wants when choosing a new destination.
44
The interview questions were developed and organized in four themes:
1. Destination Image
2. Push and Pull factors
3. Reykjavík as a destination
4. Reykjavík a gay-friendly destination
In the first theme, Destination mage, the researcher wants to gain knowledge about
what influences the decision making on going on holiday or vacations, as well as
what characteristics will attract and encourage them to travel, as the literature
suggests the destination image is built from previous travelling experiences or the
perception held by the potential tourist about a destination and will heavily influence
the destination choice, this theme will also explore characteristics that are less
desirable for gay men when travelling to a place.
The second theme studies gay push and pull factors of a destination choice.
Through the interviews the researcher will dig into what gay men are looking to
experience in their holidays and if there are any factors that may motivate them to
choosing one place rather than another. These push and pull factors can be gay-
friendliness of a place, tolerance, gay identity, gay historical sights and events
oriented to target the LGBT community like gay games, gay prides and circuit
parties.
The third theme aims to explore their experience in Reykjavík as a destination,
their perception of the city, and their experience and what characteristics stand out
from Reykjavík and how they would describe the city of Reykjavík.
The fourth theme aims to explore the interviewees´ impression of Reykjavík as a
gay-friendly destination. For the purpose of this study theme three, Reykjavík as a
destination, and four Reykjavík as a gay destination, they will be combined into one
to analyze the interviews and write the conclusion of this thesis.
5.5 Selecting the interview persons
For the purpose of this study the selection of individuals was limited to gay males
which are one of the groups that compound the LGBT community (Lesbian, Gay,
45
Bisexual and Transgender). All individuals used for the purpose of this study are
men that had visited Reykjavík.
The researcher had taken part in the organization of several gay events held
in Reykjavík like IGLA2012 (International Gay and Lesbian Aquatics) a sporting
event that is hosted once a year in different cities among Europe and North
America. Also in two annual LGBT events hosted in Reykjavík, Reykjavík Gay Pride
and Rainbow Reykjavík. For such reasons the easy access to gay men who
attended a gay event in Reykjavík. A few other individuals were selected from the
researcher individual’s personal contacts. The reason of choosing these two
characteristics in the sample was so the researcher will have the opportunity to
explore and gain a richer data collection from the gay men and their experience in
Reykjavík.
5.6 Data Collection and interview session
All the interviews were conducted via skype or face time, which are programs to do
video conferences and in this case the interviews were all face to face interviews
(video) and only the voice was recorded, to record the interview an external
recording machine was used.
Since the researcher knew in person all the participants, before starting the
interviews a small chat of how are you and what have you been up to started the
interviews. These small conversations were in purpose to set up a more comfortable
atmosphere during the interview. Then the researcher will inform the participants
that the interview was to be recorded and transcribed.
The interviews lasted an average of 20 minutes per interview and 26
interviews were conducted for this study. All individuals that took part in this
research are gay men who had visited Reykjavík for different reasons. The
nationalities of the individuals were really broad but most individuals lived in North
America or Europe. Their age range is from 23 to 52 years old. A table will be
presented with the participants’ background in the results chapter.
46
5.6.1 Analysis of the interviews
In order to analyze the interviews, the researcher will transcribe the interviews
because this will allow to deeply analyze the interviews and use quotations from
individuals taking part in this study. Transcribing the interviews will allow the
researcher to relive the moment of the interview and analyze in more detail, when
listening only there is the possibility that you miss an interesting comment or point of
view from the interviewee (Bryman, 2012). It is also really hard to take notes while
listening to the interview. Transcribing it will allow the researcher to analyze deeper
the interviewee’s point of view and take notes at the same time. This will later help
the researcher in writing the conclusion of the study. The goal of the interview
research is that the interview answers will help to build knowledge and in the
process help the researcher to elaborate conclusions (Kumar, 2011). But, in order to
not get wrong information it is necessary to pay special attention to the research
design (Lewis, Thornill & Saunders, 2009).
47
6. Results
This chapter will present results from the interviews formulated for the purposed of
this research. Each subchapter presents interviewees’ destination image (beliefs
and impressions of destinations), what push and pull factors trigger them to choose
a new place to visit and their perception of Reykjavík as a destination and its gay
friendliness.
The following table presents the background of the gay men who took part in
this research:
Table 1 Background question from gay men taking part in this research
Name
Place of birth
Living in
Age
Education
Aaron
UK
London
26
Bachelors
Auston
Texas,USA
Madrid
32
Masters
Bruno
Brazil
London
33
Masters
Christoffer
Cologne,
Germany
Stuttgart
25
Bachelors
Clay
Texas, USA
Chicago
30
Masters
Daniel
Sweden
Stockholm
36
Masters
Danny H
Wales, UK
London
20
Bachelors
David
Phoenix, USA
Madrid
28
Bachelors
Dimitris
Greece
Stockholm
33
Masters
Don Yu
Philippines
London
35
Doctors
Eric
Holland
Amsterdam
40
Technical S.
Eric H.
Canada
Montreal
24
Bachelors
Iker
Spain
Paris
34
Bachelors
James
Seattle, USA
Seattle
37
Bachelors
Kent
Taiwan
New York
52
Masters
Maerj
Holland
Amsterdam
25
Bachelors
Mike
Costa Rica
London
34
Bachelors
Mogens
Denmark
Copenhagen
41
Masters
Moran
Israel
Tel Aviv
25
Bachelors
Neil
Belfast, Ireland
Sydney
30
Masters
48
Pablo
Spain
Madrid
26
Masters
Pascal
Brighton, UK
Brighton
42
Masters
Paul
West England
London
49
Masters
Robert
Canada
Montreal
29
Bachelors
Roman
Germany
Stockholm
39
Masters
Spencer
Texas, USA
Seattle
50
Masters
6.1 Travel Motivations and building a destination image
The decision of visiting a new destination or re-visiting a destination is influenced by
many different factors; Better weather was the characteristic that gay men who took
part in this study looked for the most when doing research in order to visit a new
destination. Weather needs to be much better than the one they experience at
home and it often involves hot weather followed by a nice beach to relax. The table
below presents some of the other characteristics that gay men research when
choosing a new place to visit.
Table 2 Characteristics that influence destination choice
Characteristics that influence destination choice
- Weather
- Beach
- Culture
- Food
- Variety of Activities
- Sightseeing
- Night Life
- Museums
- Monuments
- People
- Historical sites
- History
- Heritage
Among the participants for this project there was a pattern, where many of the
participants described two types of holidays, one which was described as a relaxing
beach holiday where factors such as warm weather, nearby beach, easy and calm
atmosphere were characteristics considered when choosing this kind of holiday.
On the other hand there was a city break kind of a holiday described by the
interviewees where top characteristics were history, food, culture, and nature were
49
stronger characteristics and had more weight on the decision making of visiting a
new destination.
Some of the interviewees said:
“ . . . for me sometimes its just a beach holiday and sometimes it’s a city
break…where I want to see different architecture and different historic place,
there a lot of nature to do . . . ”
Bruno, London
“ . . . a holidays over sea is time for relaxing . . .”
Paul, London
“. . . relaxing holiday then probably somewhere by the beach, but if it is like a
weekend sort of break then it will somewhere nice city with restaurants . . .
probably also sights to see . . . and I also like adventures . . .”
Neil, Sydney
“ . . . Sometimes you want to go to the beach and that would be like a
relaxing vacation, but sometimes you want to go visiting a particular city, but
sometimes I want to go visiting a particular city and so I would be culture of
the city, what kind of gay community you have in that city and you know
museums, restaurants, the safety and all those things.”
James, Seattle
It seems that when choosing a destination gay men ask themselves first if they want
to relax by the beach or go and explore a new city.
Individuals who took part in this study were also asked if there were any kind
of characteristics that will influence them not to visit a destination. The top three
characteristics that were mentioned were, the level of security, Violation of human
rights and Laws against LGBT community. This means that gay men who took part
in this study always look for a place where they can feel comfortable and safe. In
50
the figure below there are other characteristics that were mentioned during the
interviews, which reduces the desire of visiting places with such characteristic.
Table 3 Characteristics that will influence gays not to visit a destination
Characteristics that will influence gays not to visit a destination
- Security
- Similar places like home
- Expensive
- Hard to access them
- Too warm
- Crime rate
- Length, if its far away
- Violation of human rights
- Laws against LGBT community
- The humidity of a place
- Forbids homosexuals
- Similar cultures
- War zone
- Homophobic governments
- Unwelcoming destinations
- Political instability
Gay men are not so different from heterosexuals; they are looking forward to go on
their holiday and enjoy their free time, they want to escape from daily life and
everyday routing, same as heterosexuals, gay men want to explore new cities, go to
adventurous destinations, exploring, walking, hiking, see nature, do some
sightseeing and more. One of the interviewees said:
“. . . I am looking for new experiences, so looking to do new things, tasting
new food, meeting new people, looking at new landscape, new and old
architecture, shopping, new supermarkets, new language…”
Pascal, Brighton
6.2 Gay Destinations (Push and Pull factors)
Gay holidays are often portrayed as topless men by the beach or a pool, they are
often with perfect physics, a lot of parties and drinking. All these characteristics are
always involved in the concept of gay vacations. When asked during the interviews
51
the gay men what is a gay vacation or a gay holiday in your head?; they all
mentioned circuit parties, holidays in Barcelona and Berlin, partying, drugs and sex.
All individuals who took part in this study used three specific words to
describe a gay holiday; those words were nightlife, drink, and sex. And claimed that
rarely they would choose a destination just because of the gay scene. Interestingly
enough all individuals who participated in this study have at least once or more than
once attended a gay event, the most common event was gay prides, they have
either attended abroad or in their home city.
6.2.1 Push Factors
During the interviews many claimed that they do not choose a destination based on
their sexual preference or the gay-friendly status of a destination, they all said that
they would always check the gay scene wherever they go.
“… my personal idea of a gay vacation is basically going somewhere where
there is a sports tournament or perhaps the pride going on… I don’t go for
anything because its gay I would rather go for something because its nice as
a gay person to be there and meet other gay people …”
Mogens, Copenhagen
Mogens from Copenhagen in his interview made it clear that he does not
necessarily go abroad just because of the gay scene, but that it is nice to meet other
gay people when going abroad or visiting a new city.
When asking Pascal, a gay man from UK, if the gay-friendly status of a
destination would influence his destination choice, he immediately answered “No”,
although later he said “I have probably every city where I have been to for business,
I do, I will check out and see what gay life is like, just because of curiosity”. Pascal
also joined a gay swimming team in Brighton and for the past 5 years he has always
engaged with gay sports clubs of cities he has visited.
During the interviews it was clear that when asked about the concept of a gay
vacation or a gay holiday, individuals were surprised and answered with a rather
52
negative image of the concept and a stereotypic concept of a white gay perfect body
male or a dark skinned man by the beach, drinking and partying involved.
However, a few of the men also described the concept of gay holidays as
places to escape from oppression, places to be themselves, feel free and be able to
show affection to their partners in public.
“… gay guys can feel completely comfortable in their own skin and can meet
people from all around the world, make new friends, lovers, do a range of
activities..”
Danny, London
“ … is most important to LGBT travellers that the place has to be friendly and
welcoming so for e.g. if you are going with your boyfriend or your husband or
same sex partner you don’t ever feel awkward. You want to feel welcome in
the hotel or guest house that is #1, you want to feel safe and welcome
regardless if you are going hiking in Iceland or going to a beach in Spain, it’s
always about safety and a feeling of acceptance …”
Auston, Madrid
6.2.2 Pull factors
Through the interviews the most commonly mentioned LGBT events were:
LGBT sport events, circuit parties, ski gay weekends, as well as cities or regions
known for being really open minded and really gay-friendly, such as Sitges, Berlin,
Barcelona, San Francisco, Stockholm, Amsterdam and London.
Destinations around the globe have gained a reputation of being gay-friendly
and welcoming to all the LGBT groups, some destinations more than others, When
interviewing the gay men the destinations mentioned the most were Berlin and
Barcelona and Reykjavík as well was mentioned a couple of times. Below is a list of
the most gay-friendly destinations mentioned during the interviews.
53
Table 4 Gay-friendly destinations
Gay-friendly Destinations
Berlin
Barcelona
London
Tel Aviv
Stockholm
Madrid
Copenhagen
Reykjavík
New York
San Francisco
Sitges
Mikonos
Manchester
Paris
Amsterdam
Reykjavík
As was mentioned in the literature some cities around the globe have targeted the
LGBT community more than others and some successful cities were just listed
above which means those destinations have marked themselves as gay-friendly
and are in top of gay men’s minds.
According to the gay men interviewed, events which target the LGBT
community are a sign of gay friendliness of a destination, so events such as gay
prides, gay ski weekends, LGBT sport events, circuit parties and more will definitely
attract the LGBT market and will encourage them to visit such destinations.
Although it does not only have to be that a destination is hosting an event, also
locals and suppliers need to be ready to welcome the LGBT community as well
because they play an important role in the building of a destination image. On the
other hand there are also cities or even entire countries that are known for being
anti-gay and unfriendly.
Russia was the only country that every single interviewee mentioned during
the interview, and commented about their anti-gay laws, to what many gay men
added that they wouldn’t visit that country until the LGBT community is recognized
as such and violence against its members stop. Also many gay men, during the
interviews, stated that they wouldn’t visit even though they have a desire to visit
Russia because they do not want to support an economy that mistreats and
punishes homosexuality.
Interestingly enough some gay men said that they woud still visit one day and
even more remote places as long as there was something interesting to see and do
54
even though they disagree on the political enforcement and anti-gay image and anti-
gay laws in Russia.
Moscow and Saint Petersburg were mentioned as enough reasons for some
gay men to visit Russia despite the conflicts and attacks against the LGBT groups.
Some of them are even willing to compromise, act somehow more straight, meaning
acting less flaming or dressing more serious rather than scandalous, and even one
individual with partner was willing to behave like they were only friends rather than
partners.
“… If I go to a country with my boyfriend where it is illegal to be gay and its
dangerous then we will have to be in the closet … as a visitor I will book like
a double bed, like two separate beds . . . I am really adventurous, I will still go
to places that are not really gay-friendly if there is something that I am
interested in…even to Russia …”
David, Madrid
During the interviews it was also asked if products/services, such as hotels and
airlines were to mark themselves as gay-friendly if that would have any impact in the
purchasing process, rather few said yes and that they would gladly purchase from
gay-friendly brands, although most of the interviewees said that it wouldn’t matter
but when they were asked if a company or a brand had an anti-gay image, then all
said that they wouldn’t purchase products from them.
“I don’t mind going to a country that is generally not that gay-friendly, but of
course spending my money with the business that I know was not gay-
friendly, no I wouldn’t probably do that”
Mogens, Copenhagen
6.3 Reykjavík
During this study all individuals who took part in this study were tourists who had
visited Reykjavík: 13 of the individuals who took part in this study visited Reykjavík
55
during a LGBT event that took place in Reykjavík, while the other 13 visited
because there were other factors that influenced them to choose to visit Reykjavík,
Iceland.
While interviewing the gay men and asking how come they decided to visit
Reykjavík they said:
“ . . . a friend suggested … and because of the scenarios, northern lights, and
it’s a cool place open minded and friendly . . .”
Aaron, London
“ . . . cheap flights . . . Reykjavík felt like it was interesting place. It sounded
like a totally different than Spain or Italy or the normal tourist parts of Europe.
So could be quite interesting.”
Christoffer, Stuttgart
“ . . I always wanted to go . . . very different . . . it is beautiful. . Peaceful
country . . .”
Dohn Yu, London
Reykjavík as a destination, was described as a particular city with a charm and
unlike other cities, and even was often described as a small capital compared to
others, but it did not take any charm from the capital of Iceland, and the small size
of the city was rather a quality, described as easy to get around, accessible,
beautiful, friendly, fun and relaxing city. All interviewees were amazed by the
landscape and how impressive the mountains around Reykjavík were and what
beautiful scenery was around the city.
Maerj from Holland, when asked how he would describe his experience in
Reykjavík? He said “Good, really good actually”, to what he added that even though
the city was tiny it was really easy to get around, he expressed how happy he was
with his visit and really liked the way the people interacted with each other, and how
people were super friendly.
56
Pascal from London and Kent from New York agreee that the light during
their visit was amazing, the clearness of the light, and the visuals were stunning.
“ . . . It was a dream come true . . . “
Kent, New York
The next figure shows the words that were used during the interviews to describe
Reykjavík. Friendly, Colorful, Cold, Natural, Cute and Clean were the top words
most used to describe the northernmost capital in Europe. And always ending with
the sentence, “and a very friendly people”.
Figure 2 Words used to describe Reykjavík.
57
And when asked how they would describe Reykjavík in one sentence these were
their answers:
Table 5 Gay-friendly destinations
Interviewees
Reykjavík in one Sentence
Aaron
Reykjavík is tiny but friendly and alive
Auston
It´s is very open, friendly and
welcoming city that is cute and very
picturesque
Bruno
Reykjavík is very cute with quite few
stuff to see and do and very friendly
people
Christoffer
Bigger than I thought
Clay
It’s a cute city with beautiful
architecture and friendly people
Daniel
Really nice that you must visit
sometime in your life
Danny
Impolite but in a friendly way
David
It’s a beautiful city with friendly people
and it got like a small town vibe but it’s
the capital. So its like balanced that
way.
Dimitris
Out of this world, its is like being in the
moon in Reykjavík
Dohn Yu
It was fun and it was really full
Eric
The smallest capital where it is
happening!
Eric H.
Reykjavík is really friendly
Iker
Capital in the middle of nowhere, but
amazing and different from any capital
in the world
James
Reykjavík was very welcome… I would
like to go back
Kent
Reykjavík would be a dream
destination
Maerj
Like an alien, as home coming
Mike
Absolutely fabulous, amazing, surreal,
different, magical, expensive and cold
Mogens
I think fun and hospitality city
Moran
Great hot dogs, nice quiet place to be
and to go to treks
Neil
Everyone should go to Reykjavík to
see the Northern Lights
Pablo
Reykjavík is the city of living and let
everyone live their life
58
Pascal
Reykjavík is one of the most amazing
places
Paul
A place to be yourselves, or the place
to be by yourselves
Robert
One of the greatest vacations that I
have experienced
Roman
The biggest party village at the end of
the world
Spencer
An amazing city
Reykjavík was often described as a really nice city-town, and really colorful views,
and a really friendly people. It was often mentioned that it wasn’t the biggest capital
they had been to but with a lot of life in it and a lot of things happening.
6.3.1 Reykjavík a gay-friendly destination
During the interviews most of the individuals showed their interest in the country but
for most of them they did not have Reykjavík as their first choice but once someone
suggested they were totally on board, also the Reykjavík LGBT events were an
excellent reason to decide to visit Reykjavík and it’s a really strong pull factor for
such reasons it made their decision even easier. The three gay events mentioned
were:
Gay pride Reykjavík (Annual event during August which started in 1999
according to the Gay Pride website)
Rainbow Reykjavík ( A new winter annual event which takes part at the end
of January)
IGLA sport event (International Gay and Lesbian Aquatics in 2012)
Some of the participants expressed themselves saying:
“Really it was because of IGLA. I had thought of visiting Iceland but when I
found that IGLA was going to be there, I was really excited…!
James, Seattle
59
“ . . . one of the main reasons was that, you guys hosted the gay world
championships in aquatic…”
Daniel, Stockholm
“ . . . I already had Reykjavík on my list of places to go. So it was a big bonus
that the tournament was taking place there and certainly added to so I
thought let’s go ahead and go to Reykjavík, and explore Reykjavík, . . . I have
read a lot about Reykjavík, looked at photos and I really wanted to visit. . . “
Spencer, Seattle
To a big extent gay events taking part in Reykjavík do influence the visit to the
capital of Iceland, especially for the pink market. Through the interviews it was
obvious that even gay men do not search right away for the gay scene when
travelling, they will always look up how gay-friendly a destination is for security and
safety reasons, if there is a gay scene and even if any event is taking place during
their visit.
In terms of security and openness, Reykjavík and people in the capital and
even in the countryside are really open and liberal towards the LGBT community
according to the interviewees.
“… Iceland is a smaller community where people tend to know each other
much more and therefore I guess its you get the impression that its even
more integrated..!
Mogens, Copenhagen
“… if you hold hands in Reykjavík, nobody is going to care, or say
something… you can do it in New York, but it is not the same feeling…”
Dimitris, Stockholm
60
Reykjavík was described as a very safe city, during the interviews the interviewees
were asked how gay-friendly Reykjavík was, to which every single gay man who
was interviewed responded positively,
“Oh very, very gay-friendly. I think you have less to worry about in Reykjavík
than any other city in the world, just because of its already in sort of standard
safety levels and on top of that is gay-friendly”
Eric, Amsterdam
And many of them quoted:
“ Reykjavík on a scale 1 – 10 a 10”
Pablo, Asturias
Reykjavík as gay-friendly was given only nines and tens and one interviewee gave it
an 11, Moran from Tel Aviv. Here below is a chart with some of the most relevant
quotes when asking how gay-friendly Reykjavík was?
How gay-friendly is Reykjavík?
Auston
Very gay-friendly probably from the top
of my head its probably in the top three
or top five gay-friendly cities in the
world
Christoffer
It’s a very gay-friendly, a good
destination, there was such a line at
the gay club everyone wanted to go
there
Eric
Oh very, very gay-friendly. I think you
have less to worry about in Reykjavík
than any other city in the world, just
because of its already in sort of
standard safety levels and on top of
that is gay-friendly.
Eric H
I felt like it was really easy to do
whatever I wanted to do, go where I
wanted to go without homosexuality
being a question or issue
Maerj
Extremely gay-friendly… I come from a
small town in Holland but bigger size of
61
Reykjavík and there is a lot more gay
life going on in Reykjavík, … as I recall
you are even in a gay swimming team.
Neil
I found it very gay-friendly, on the
street there is rainbow flags and stuff
and like the gay bar was quite
prominent on the street and general
scenes.
Spencer
I think really gay-friendly, like here
locally (Seattle)
Table 6 How gay-friendly is Reykjavík?
Both gay men who visited Reykjavík to attend an LGBT event and those who
decided to visit Reykjavík because of other reasons found Reykjavík as a really
welcoming and gay-friendly city, and with a really high level of integration between
the straight community and the LGBT community.
“On a scale one to ten, it’s, I don’t know, nine. It’s very gay-friendly, it’s very,
because when I was there for gay pride, it’s interesting I didn’t feel like
everywhere I went there was a bunch of gay people. You may feel sad just
that it’s gay Pride, so everybody going to able to get gay people. It wasn’t
that way, felt like, everywhere you went you were welcome, gay or straight
and there was a bunch of just welcoming, friendly people and a lot of the
stores, you know, I remember having a lot of rainbow flags in them. It’s not
like necessarily a store that markets itself for the gay community. They just, it
was gay pride and they supported everyone. So it didn’t feel like this is the
gayest city, like in a gay, you know, there is not even a gay neighborhood.
There is just like two gay bars but it doesn’t seem like – it doesn’t feel like you
need one because gays are welcome everywhere, so you can go to any
establishment”.
David, Madrid
Through the interviews Reykjavík was not necessarily described as the biggest gay
city or gay destination, because Reykjavík does not have a big gay scene or big gay
party events all year around, although Reykjavík has two annual events, gay pride
in August and Rainbow Reykjavík at the end of January.
62
Despite this Reykjavík was often quoted as more gay-friendly than other big
known gay destinations like London, New York, Berlin and Copenhagen. To
interviewees Reykjavík has reached a really high level of integration between the
gay community and the straight community, where they both can coexist and
interact without the necessity of gay ghettos or a big gay scene.
“ I was amazed that it was very gay-friendly, more than Stockholm”
Dimitris, Stockholm
“There are maybe areas in Copenhagen where I wouldn’t go hand-in-hand
with my boyfriend on Saturday night or after midnight. I wouldn’t fear that in
Reykjavík you know, but it’s probably more or less the same. I think
Copenhagen is a very safe city, but I think probably Reykjavík is even more
safe, I can imagine.”
Mogens, Copenhagen
“I mean I was only there for a few days, it is a weird place, it is a little, don’t
get me wrong here, it’s a bit asexual…. You know a lot of real mix of people
that don’t, I mean it wasn’t define, I mean you got a couple of bars and … I
think most people go to all the different bars”
Paul, London
“ I though it was actually excellent integration… when I was at the gay bar a
lot of people there were straight. So there is obviously a lot of mixing”
Clay, Chicago
The interviewees described Reykjavík as a destination with a lot of qualities,
Reykjavík as a unique city, particular, beautiful and amazing. All gay men who
participated in this study were positively surprised of how such a small capital and
country is so open minded and positive toward the gay community. Reykjavík was
63
described as a really gay-friendly destination and it was even compared to some of
the main gay destinations in the world but with a particular charm.
“A lot of freedom, respect and peace I would say here in Reykjavík”
Eric, Amsterdam
64
7. Discussion
This study interviewed 26 gay men who had visited Reykjavík, half of the
participants came to the capital of Iceland specifically because an LGBT event was
taking place in the city, while the other half came because of other reasons. To find
out their travel motivations and the image they about Reykjavík as a destination, in-
depth interviews were carried out and recorded to later on transcribe them for the
analysis of them.
The aim of the interviews were to find out the gay men’s travel motivations.
As well as the impression of destinations previously visited and their experience and
their feeling on gay-friendliness of the places visited. Push and pull factors were
closely analyzed to find out which factors play an important role in the decision
making of visiting a new place. And last but not least to find out how their
experience in Reykjavík was and how they saw Reykjavík’s gay friendliness.
Literature suggests that destination image is influenced by information and
content generated by travellers (Llodrá-Riera, Martínez-Ruiz & Jiménez-Zarco,
2015), which is how some destinations have gained their reputation as gay-friendly
cities and even to be known as gay destinations. Such destinations are cause of
previous gay traveller experiences, gay men felt welcome, not threatened and with a
really open-minded society where they did not need to hide their sexual orientation.
Through the interviews the most gay-friendly cities named were London,
Berlin and Barcelona, these three cities had targeted the LGBT community in their
official websites; Reykjavík was also named as a really gay-friendly city and the city
of Reykjavík on a smaller scale also targeted the LGBT community through their
visitreykjavík.is website.
Literature also suggests that some of the push factors are social censure,
discrimination and the want to relate to other homosexuals (Hughes, 2002). Even
though during the interviews being asked if the gay scene was a factor that would
influence their decision making on visiting a new place most of the participants said
no, interestingly enough they all visited a local gay bar or got in contact with some of
the gay local men. It seems that at first they do not travel to validate their gay
65
identity but somehow while travelling gay men always end up exploring the gay
scene of the city being visited.
Gay Games, Gay Prides, Circuit Parties and gay heritage are considered pull
factors and gay holidays are often spoken of (Hughes, 2020). Studies suggest that
gay events trigger gay men to visit new destinations, although interestingly enough
some of the men who were interviewed for this study said that they wouldn’t travel
to a new city just because an LGBT event was taking place, but all gay men who
were interviewed admitted that they had at least once travelled to attend an LGBT
event.
It seems that there is a misconception of the gay holiday and gay events,
during the interview they were asked to describe a gay holiday and they all
described it as partying, drinking, topless man, sex and drugs. All of the participants
shared experiences where they had attended a gay pride, or a sport event, and
even ski gay weekends, which means they had engaged in gay holidays. The
interviews show that gay men had a misconception of gay holidays and that this did
not only include drinking, partying, topless man, drugs and sex.
Gay men want to explore and discover new places and they even seemed
not to care about the gay scene or the gay friendliness of a destination but to some
these factors do play an important role. While there are others where these gay
events do play a really important role in the decision making of visiting a new place.
As the results show many of the participants taking part in this study had
described Reykjavík as a really tolerant city and country as well as gay-friendly,
those characteristics being some of the main pull factors influencing gay men to visit
new places.
Reykjavík as a destination offers two annual LGBT events: Gay Pride in
August and Rainbow Reykjavík at the end of January, these events as push and
pull theory suggests play an important role in the decision making of the gay men,
results show us that many of the guys who were interviewed for this research visited
Reykjavík just because of the LGBT events.
66
Reykjavík was described as a really welcoming city; small party village, easy
to get around and very gay-friendly, even though not all of them were here to attend
a gay event.
Even though Reykjavík city has not necessarily focused on targeting the
LGBT community, there is a small travel agency targeting the gay community: “Pink
Iceland”, and the gay pride in Reykjavík is one of the biggest city events. Reykjavík
in this study was compared to some of the biggest gay destinations of the world like
Barcelona, Berlin, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Tel Aviv and London.
Reykjavík has been described to have a really high level of gay friendliness and
integration between the gay community and straight community and that that
integration is greater than all-time known gay destinations like Copenhagen,
Stockholm and London. Which means Reykjavík’s image as gay-friendly is already
building up from travellers’ experiences.
7.1 Limitation, contributions and further research
This study interviewed only gay men who had visited Reykjavík, lesbians, bisexual
and transgenders had been left out of this study, a question is if those groups of the
LGBT community will feel the same when visiting Reykjavík. Also most of the
participants in this study are gay men who live in North America and Western
Europe, perhaps a study of men in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia
would be interesting.
Also the study has focused only on tourists, perhaps a study on gay men in
Reykjavík will also be interesting to see what is the perception of the local gay men.
The straight community will be another interesting group to research: How do they
feel about the gay pride in Reykjavík and the Rainbow Reykjavík festival?
This study has contributed some knowledge on gay men and their destination
choices, push and pull factors, as well as their perception of gay holidays, gay-
friendly destinations and gay-friendly products and services and how an anti-gay
image of a product or service will prevent gay men to consume.
But interestingly enough is that when it comes to an anti-gay image of a
destination gay men are sometimes willing to compromise and still visit such
destinations, while other gay men wouldn’t even consider visiting countries where
67
homosexuality is a crime and LGBT groups are persecuted, and put a high value on
it and appreciate when destinations are gay-friendly and gay welcoming.
An interesting future research would be a study of the straight community in
Reykjavík and their perception of the gay community and gay events, combined with
the experience of gay local men and gay tourists and their perception of Reykjavík
as gay-friendly, and elaborate a conclusion from these three points of view to reach
a greater conclusion of how well integrated are the straight and the gay community
in Reykjavík and how gay-friendly Reykjavík is.
68
8. Conclusion
This research started by reviewing the concept of destination image and the
development of such an image in a gay destination, first came the road to
acceptance and recognition of the LGBT community and with it the rise of gay
spaces where homosexuals felt welcome and un-threatened and gave them a
sense of belonging.
Even though at first gay motivations are quite similar to heterosexuals there
are other factors that play an important role in gay men´s heads when choosing a
destination. Their travel motivations are often related to their sexuality and the
desire to escape the heterosexual world into a more gay welcoming one. Travellers
want to feel safe, especially gay men, since they have been marginalized and
discriminated against through the years.
Many cities around the world are becoming more and more gay-friendly and
the LGBT community has been recognized, although there are many cities and
even entire countries where same sex relations are prohibited and punished, like in
eastern Europe and the Arab world, while in some countries in western Europe and
cities in North America same sex marriage has been legalized.
Some of gay men’s push factors to visit a new destination are social censure,
discrimination and the desire to relate to other gay men, while some of the pull
factors are more tolerant societies, gay friendliness and the organization of LGBT
events.
Reykjavík as a destination was in gay men’s mind and in their list of most
important to visit, but not necessarily at the top. IGLA2012, Gay Pride and Rainbow
Reykjavík played a really important role in the men´s decision making to visit
Reykjavík.
Even though Reykjavík does not possess a big gay scene like London,
Copenhagen or Berlin, Reykjavík was described as a really gay-friendly destination,
with a really friendly and open minded society where both the gay community and
the straight community coexist really close to one another.
69
Bibliography and works cited
Aitchison, C., MacLeod N.E. & Shaw S.J. (2000). Leisure and tourism
landscapes: social and cultural geographies. London: Taylor & Francis group.
About Travel, (2015). Gay Travel, Reviewed on May 3
rd
, 2015. Website:
http://gaytravel.about.com/od/previewsofpridefestivals/qt/Disney_Gay_Days.h
tm
American Airlines (2009). Fly with your friends with American Airlines. Reviewed
on March 19
th
, 2014. Website: http://www.aa.com/i18n/urls/rainbow.jsp
Ballegaard, N. & Chor, J. (2009). GAY AND LESBIAN TOURISM Travel
motivations, destination choices and holiday experiences of gay and
lesbians. Unpublished Master thesis. Copenhagen Business school and
University of Southern Denmark.
Binnie, J. & Valentine, G. (1999). Geographies of sexualities – a review of
progress. Progress in Human Geography, 23 175-187.
Boswell, J. (n.d.). Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Brinkmann, S. & Kvale, S., (2009). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative
Research Interviewing. London: SAGE.
Bryman, A., (2012). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Burr, Vivian (2003). Social Constructionism. 2nd edition. London and New York:
Routledge.
Clapham, A. & Waaldijk, K. (1993). Homosexuality a European community issue.
Essays on Lesbian and Gay Rights in European Law and Policy. The
Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Carolan, N., (2007). Irish gay men and tourism: Behaviour and motivations.
Paper presented at the 3
rd
Annual Conference on Tourism and Hospitality.
Dundalk Institute of Technology, Ireland.
Cliff S. & Forrest S. (1998). Reaching out to the gay tourist: opportunities and
threats in an emerging market segment. Tourism Management. 19 273 –
282.
Cliff S. & Forrest S. (1999). Gay men and tourism: destinations and holiday
motivations. Tourism Management. 20 215 – 625.
70
Cliff, S. & Forrest, S. (2000). Tourism and Sexual behavior in gay Men. London
and New York: Printer
Cloke, P., Crang. P. & Goodwin, M., (2005). Introducing Human Geographies
(2
nd
ed.). Oxon: Hodder Arnold.
Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D. & Wanhill S. (2005). Tourism:
Principles and practice. Essex: Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J. W. (1997). Research design: qualitative & quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Crompton, John L. (1979). Motivations for Pleasure Vacations. Annals of Tourism
Research, Oct - Dec: 408 – 424.
Crompton, J. L. & Fakey, P. C., (1991). Image differences between prospective,
first time, and repeat visitor to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel
Research. 29 1.
Cox, Martin (2002). The Long-haul Out of the Closet: The Journey from
Smalltown to Boystown. In Clift, Stephen, Luongo, Michael and Callister,
Carry (eds.). Gay Tourism: Culture, Identity and Sex. 151-173. London &
New York: Continuum.
Dailyxtratravel, (2013). Gay Reykjavík. Reviewed on May 9
th
, 2014. Website:
http://www.dailyxtratravel.com/iceland/greater-reykjavík/reykjavík
Dann, G. M. (1977). Anomie, Ego-Enhancement and Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 4184 – 194.
Denzin, N. K. & Licoln, Y. S., (2005). The Sage Handbook of the qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE publications.
Deutsch, R. & Hughes H. L., (2010). Holidays of older gay men: Age or Sexual
orientation as decisive factors?. Tourism Management. 31 454 – 463.
Echtner, C. M. & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of
Destination Image. Journal of Travel Research, 2 2 – 12.
Ersoy, G. K., Ozer, S. U., & Tuzunkan, D. (2012). GAY MEN AND TOURISM:
Gay Men´s Tourism Perspectives and Expectations. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 41, 394 – 401.
Esterberg, K.G., (2002). Qualitative Methods in Social Research. New York:
McGraw Hill.
71
Euromonitor., (2010). The Pursuit of Pink Money: Gay and Lesbian Spending
Patterns. Euromonitor International: Strategy Briefing
Federation of Gay Games, (2014). Welcome to the Gay Games changing the
world for 20 years. Reviewed on March 22
nd
, 2014:
http://www.gaygames.org/
Ferreira Lopez, S. D., (2011). Destination Image: Origins, Development and
Implications. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultura. 9 305 –
3015.
Flick, Uwe, (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE
Publications.
Games Cologne, (2010). VII Gay Games Cologne 2010. Reviewed on March
22
nd
, 2014. Website: http://www.games-cologne.de/en
Gay Games Cleveland, (2014). VIII Gay Games Cleveland 2014. Reviewed on
March 24
th
, 2014: Website: http://www.gg9cle.com/
GLISA International, (2014). OutGames. Reviewed on March 24
th
, 2014:
http://www.glisa.org/outgames/
Gnoth, Juergen (1997). Tourism Motivation and Expectation Formation. Annals
of Tourism Research. 24 283 – 304.
Guaracino, J (2007). Gay and Lesbian Tourism: The Essential Guide for
Marketing. Oxford & Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Helgason, A. F. & Sigurðarson S., (2012). Branding of Destination. Unpublished. Bs
Thesis, University of Reykjavík.
Holcomb, B. & Luongo, M. (1996). Gay tourism in the United States. Annals of
Tourism Research, 23(3) 711 – 713. Holloway, J.H. & Taylor, N. (2006). The
Business of tourism. Essex: Prentice Hall.
Hosany, D., Ekici, Y. & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destination
personality: an application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of
Business Research 59 638 – 642.
Howe, Alyssa Cymene. (2001). Queer Pilgrimage: The San Francisco Homeland
and Identity Tourism. Cultural Anthropology. 16 35 – 61.
Hughes, Howard L. (1997). Holidays and homosexual identity. Tourism
Management, 18, 3 – 7.
72
Hughes, H. L. (1998). Sexuality, tourism and space: the case of gay visitors to
Amsterdam. In Tyler, Duncan; Guerrier, Yvonne & Robertson, Martin (eds.).
Managing Tourism in Cities: Policy, Process and Practice. 163-178.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
Hughes, H. L. (2002a). Gay Men’s Holidays: Identity and Inhibitors. In Clift,
Stephen; Luongo, Michael & Callister, Carry (eds.). Gay Tourism: Culture,
Identity and Sex. 174-190. New York & London: Continuum.
Hughes, H. L. (2002b). Gay Men’s Holiday Destination Choice: A Case of Risk
and Avoidance. International Tourism Research, 4, 299 – 312.
Hughes, H. (2003). Marketing gay tourism in Manchester: New market for urban
tourism or destruction of ‘gay space? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9, 2,
157 – 163.
Hughes, H. L. (2005a). A Gay Tourism Market: Reality or Illusion, Benefit or
Burden? Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 5, 57 – 74.
Hughes, H. L. (2005b). The Paradox of Gay Men as Tourists: Privileged or
Penalized? Tourism, Culture & Communication, 6, 51 – 62.
Hughes, H. L. (2006). Pink Tourism: Holidays of Gay men and Lesbians.
Oxfordshire and Cambridge: CABI Publishing.
Hughes, Howard L. (2007). Lesbians as Tourists: Poor Relations of a Poor
Relation. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7, 1, 17–26.
Ivy, R. L. (2001). Geographical Variation in Alternative Tourism and Recreation
Establishments. Tourism Geographies, 3, 3: 338–355.
Jenkins, A., Morgan N.J., Pritchard A. & Sedgely D. (1998). Reaching out to the
gay tourists: opportunities and threats in an emerging market segment.
Tourism Management, 19,3, 273 – 282.
Khan, R. M. (2013). Travel motivations of Gay and Lesbian Tourists: A Quality
Inquire. Unpublished. Ms in Hospitality Information. University of Delaware.
Kotler P., Bowen J.T. & Makens J.C. (2006). Marketing for hospitality and tourism.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kumar, R., (2011). Research Methodology. A step-by-step guide for beginners.
London, SAGE Publications.
Kvale, S., (2007). Doing Interviews. London: SAGE
Köllen, T. & Lazar, S. (2012). Gay tourism in Budapest: An exploratory study on
73
gay tourist’s motivational patterns for travelling to Budapest. American
Journal of Tourism Management 1(3), 64 – 68.
León Verdugo, J. C. (2010). Reykjavík as a new gay and lesbian destination.
Unpublished. Bs Thesis, University of Iceland.
Lewis, P., Thornill, A. & Saunders, M., (2009). Research Methods for Business
Students. Pearson Education Limited.
Llodrá-Riera, A., Martínez-Ruiz, M. P. & Juménez-Zarco, A. I., (2015). A
multidimensional analysis of the information sources construct and its
relevance for destination image formation. Tourism Management. 48 319 –
328.
Lonely Planet, (2015). Reykjavík Iceland, Reviewed on May 3
rd
, 2015. Website:
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/iceland/Reykjavík
Mann, P. (1985). Methods of Social Investigation. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Marcus, E. (1992). Making History. The Struggle for gay and lesbian equal right
1945 - 1990. An Oral History. New York: Harper Collins
Publisher.Markbakerevents. (2010).
Markwell, K. & Waitt G. (2006). Gay Tourism: Culture and context. Binghamton:
The Haworth Hospitality Press.
McIntryre, L.J. (2005). Need to Know. Social Science Research Methods. New
York: Mc Grawn Hill.
Magnússon, O. I., (2009). Möguleikar Reykjavík sem ákjósanlegur áfangastaður
fyrir samkynhneigða ferðamenn. Unpublished BS-thesis, Háskólinn á Bifröst,
Bifröst.
Mirriam, S. B., (2009). Qualitative Research. A guide to design and
implementation. United States of America: Jossey-bass.
Monterrubio, J.C., (2009). Identity and Sex: Current Aspects of Gay Tourism.
Tourisms: An international multidisciplinary journal of tourism. 4 155 – 167.
Mullen, B. & Johnson, C. (1990). The Psychology of Consumer Behaviour.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
O ́Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage
Publication.
Pike, S. (2002). Destination Image Analysis – a review of 142 papers from 1973 to
2000. Tourism Management 541 – 549.
74
Pink Iceland, (2014). Your LGBT travel expert in Iceland. Reviewed on May 9
th
,
2014. Website: http://www.pinkiceland.is/
Pitts, B. G., (1997). Sport tourism and niche markets: Identification and analysis
of growing lesbian and gay sport tourism industry. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 5 31- 50.
Pritchard, A. & Morgan N. J., (1996). The gay consumer: A Meaningful Market
Segment? Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing. 6
9 -20.
Pritchard, A., Morgan, N. J., Sedgely, D. & Jenkins, A. (1998a). Gay Tourism
Destination: Identity, sponsorship and Degaying. In Aitchison, Cara & Jordan
Publication, No 63 Brighton: LSA, Leisure Studies Association.
Pritchard, A., Morgan, N. J., Sedgely, D. & Jenkins, A. (1998b). Reaching out to
the gay tourist: opportunities and threats in an emerging market segment.
Tourism Management. 19 273 – 282.
Pritchard, A., Morgan, N.J., Sedgley, D., Khan, E. & Jenkins, A. (2000). Sexuality
and holiday choices: conversations with gay and lesbian tourists. Leisure
Studies. 19 267 – 282.
Puar, J. (2002). A Transnational Feminist Critique of Queer Tourism. Antipode.
34 935 – 946.
Rainbow Reykjavík (2014). Rainbow Reykjavík 2014. Reviewed on May 9
th
,
2014. Website: http://www.rainbowReykjavík.com/
Roth, Thomas & Luongo, Michael (2002). A Place for Us 2001: Tourism Industry
Opportunities in the Gay and Lesbian Market: An Interview with Thomas Roth
of Community Marketing. In Clift, Stephen; Luongo, Michael & Callister, Carry
(eds.). Gay Tourism: Culture, Identity and Sex. London: Continuum.
Rudd, N. A., (1996). Appearance and Self-Presentation Research in Gay
Consumer Cultures: Isuues and Impact. In Wardlow, Daniel E. (ed.). Gays,
Lesbians, and Consumer Behaviour: Theory, Practice, and Research Issues
in Marketing. 109-139. New York & London: The Haworth Press.
Rushbrook, D. (2002). Cities, queer space, and the cosmopolitan tourist. GLQ. A
Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies. 8 83-206.
Russel, L., (2001). Geographical Variation in Alternative Tourism and Recreation
Establishments. Tourism Geographie. 3 338 – 355.
Ryan, Chris & Hall, C. Michael (2001). Sex Tourism: Marginal People and
75
Liminalities. London and New York: Routledge.
Samtökin 78. (2014). Samtökin 78. Reviewed on May 9
th
, 2014. Website:
http://www.samtokin78.is/tjonusta/felagsmidstod
Stuber (2002). Tourism Marketing Aimed at Gay Men and Lesbians: A Business
Perspective. In Clift, Stephen; Luongo, Michael & Callister, Carry (eds.). Gay
Tourism: Culture, Identity and Sex. 88-124. London & New York: Continuum.
Schiller G. & Weiss, A. (1988). Before Stonewall: the making of a gay and
lesbian community. New York: The Naiad Press, Inc.
Sarantakos, S. (1994), Social Research, London: SAGE.
Santrock J. (2008). Adolescence. New York: McGrawHill.
San Mártin, H & Rodrígez, I. A. (2008). Exploring the conitive-affective nature of
destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation.
Tourism Management 29 263 – 277.
Silverman, D., (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk,
Text and Interaction. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE
Publications.
Silverman, D., (2004). Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice.
London, SAGE Publications.
Silverman, David (2005). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook.
London, SAGE Publications.
Sinfield, Alan (1997). Identity and Subculture. In Medhurst, Andy & Munt, Sally R.
(eds.). Lesbian and Gay studies: A Critical Introduction. 201-214. London &
Virginia: Cassell.
Tasci, A. D. A. & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Destination image and its functional
relationship. Journal of Travel Research, 45 413 – 425.
Veal, A.J. (2006). Research Methods for leisure and tourism. A practical guide.
England:Prentice Hall.
Visit Reykjavík, (2014). Gay Reykjavík. Reviewed on May 3
rd
, 2015. Website:
http://www.visitReykjavík.is/travel/gay-Reykjavík
Visser, G. (2003). Gay men, leisure space and South Africa cities; the case of
Cape Town. Geoforum, 34, 123 – 137.
76
Appendix – In-depth interviews
Shades of Pink
Reykjavík a gay-friendly destination
Themes to be explore through these interviews
- Destination image
- Push and pull factors
- Reykjavík as destination
- Reykjavík a gay-friendly destination
Background questions:
Where are you from?
What your age?
What’s your level of education?
What is your current job?
1. What influence your decision when it comes to choosing
your next destinations for holiday/vacations?
2. What characteristics will attract/encourage you to visit a
destination?
3. What characteristics will influence you not to visit a
destination?
4. What things are you looking to do when you are on your
holidays/vacations?
5. How come did you decide to visit Reykjavík?
6. How would you describe your experience in Reykjavík?
77
7. What characteristics would you say stand out from
Reykjavík?
8. In one sentence how would you describe Reykjavík?
9. What is you idea of gay holidays/vacations?
10. The gay friendliness of a destination, how does that
influence on your destination choice?
a. Why?
11. Are there destinations that you wouldn’t visit
because of their anti gay friendliness?
a. Like which ones and why?
12. Which destination would you consider the more gay
friendliness?
a. Why?
13. What kind of gay events have you attend and
where?
a. Why?
14. Does it matter if products/ services are gay-friendly
or not gay-friendly/Supportive?
a. How come?
15. Reykjavík as a destination, how gay-friendly would you
say it is?
78
16. To what other cities or “gay destinations” would you
compare Reykjavík to?
17. If your gay friends were planning to visit Reykjavík, what
would you tell them about Reykjavík?
