友達にこの文章を読んでくれと言われたのですがさっぱりです。
When we look at destination development and marketing, the focus tends to be on the broader elements of imaging and promotion; however, ultimately it is the destination experience that is paramount, not the place. This is directly reliant on the host community’s attitudes towards tourism and tourists, particularly in the smaller, rural based communities popular with many film-makers (Beeton, 2006b). If a community sees direct benefits, such as business opportunities and employment from film-induced tourism, they will be more likely to provide a positive experience for such visitors. However, if they resent the demands and presence of many film tourists, they will create an unwelcoming atmosphere and experience. Such resentment can manifest in them passively retreating or even become overtly aggressive, as articulated by Doxey (1975), and has been witnessed in some film-induced tourism communities.
While film-induced tourism can be significant, most bodies responsible for economic development remain focused on the initial direct financial injection of the filming process, with the ensuing tourism remaining incidental to this process. Croy and Walker (2003) found in a study of local government departments in New Zealand that many destinations have a short-term focus on facilitating film production, with little consideration or understanding of film-induced tourism. Film corporations are often encouraged to come to these places through the offer of tax cuts, reduction in ‘red tape’ and access to normally restricted sites, including galleries, museums, cultural and heritage sites, natural resources and so on. They are also often able to film the ‘backstage’ areas in the communities in which their stories are set. Nevertheless, tourism to the places featured in fictional TV series and movies is growing and has certainly captured the imagination of destination marketers and researchers alike.
Over the past ten years (or more), numerous researchers have documented and expounded the potential of film-induced tourism, particularly for non-urban destinations in primarily western cultures, from Riley and Van Doren (1992), Riley (1994), Busby and Klug (2001), Frost (2004) and Macionis (2004) to Hudson and Ritchie
(2006).
While it may seem that any location is a potential film site, not simply the ‘pretty’ ones (Schofield, 1996), and the stories told in the films themselves can create an attractiveness not previously recognised by tourists, there are limitations on where they are prepared to film. Directors do not have unlimited funds for remote on-location filming, particularly in relation to TV series. Consequently, they need to find places that can provide facilities to:
N access and transport them to the site/s
N accommodate their cast and crew
N provide catering for cast and crew
N view the daily ‘rushes’
N access a local, skilled and semi-skilled workforce
ShapeConsequently, the places that offer these will get the bulk of the filming business, with many of the preferred film sites being close to a major urban centre, especially when they need to return regularly to the site, as in a TV series. Over time, such places will experience a range of filming activity that has the potential to create markets not only for more tourists, but also for different types of tourists with different wants, needs and expectations (Beeton, 2005). However, we need to remember that not all films are successful, with many pilot programs never seeing the light of day and that even those that are do not always result in film-induced tourism.
お礼
ありがとうございます