Question

Please, give me short five comments on at least 5 sentences or paragraphs, what you think, how much you agree or disagree, why the author is right, and so on. Any 5 comments in the text. Thanks you

Special interest tourism

INTRODUCTION

Historically Special Interest Tourism (SIT), both as a product/sector in its own right and as a distinct entity within the overall tourism spectrum, has been largely ignored as an important area of study within the tourism field in general. Therefore, the contention that it is both possible, and relevant, to distinguish between "special" and "general" interest forms of tourism activity may be seen as lying at the heart of this work. In this work SIT is conceived as tourism undertaken for a distinct and specific reason; thereby indicating that the special interest tourist has a specific, interest-based motivation for his/her travel to another destination. This contrasts with what may be described as General Interest Tourism (GIT), where the general destination and its characteristics provides a major, part of the components of the tourism product and the overall motivation for tourism travel. The implication of this distinction, for both the provision and marketing of the tourism product, is seen to be that appropriate special and eral interest tourism products should be developed to meet the specific needs of these different types of tourists. -uəs Similarly, it is also contended that the marketing process for these two types of tourism should embody a different focus in each case. Whereas the primary marketing focus for GIT is invariably the characteristics of the destination country/area/resort, this is not necessarily seen as the most appropriate focus for the SIT marketing process. More specifically, if this type of distinction is found to be valid, it would suggest that SIT requires alternative marketing strategies, promotional messages, and distribution channel decisions to those commonly adopted for GIT. In view of these propositions and the additional background of recent changes in the pattern of both tourist trips and travel motivations, which indicate that SIT will constitute a potential growth segment within the overall tourism market in the 1990s and beyond (Martin and Mason 1987; De Knop 1990; Mintel 1990) it is suggested that this exploratory research could hold significant value for both developing SIT destination countries and established SIT source countries. In addition, there may also be value in this work for tour operators who, especially the 'mass market' companies, find they are facing a tourism market which is increasingly undifferentiated, subject to intense price competition, populated by more experienced and so- phisticated customers, has a relatively volatile pattern of demand, and is be- ginning to show signs of fragmenting into clearer niches, (Cleverdon 1983).

The competition for market share generated by this environment, both from the point of view of individual operators and destination countries who are heavily reliant upon tourism revenues, increases the importance of developing a parallel SIT markef. Indeed, as will be argued later in this paper, there is also perhaps a more fundamental dynamic indicating the future im- portance of these issues to tourism companies and destination countries within the broader context of the ongoing tourism development process in general.

In essence the research contained in this paper is exploratory and descriptive in nature and seeks to provide answers to a number of pertinent questions regarding Special Interest Tourism. Amongst these perhaps the most significant are: (1) What are the characteristics of Special Interest Tourists ? (2) What are the holiday choices and patterns of Special Interest Tourists ? (3) What factors help to shape such behaviour ? (4) Which activities/interests are preferred by Special Interest Tourists ?

THE CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

In reviewing the literature associated with the research issues it became evident at an early stage that most of the work undertaken in relation to tourism per se does not specifically concern itself with the development of the type of SIT typologies desired in this research. For example, there have been a number of studies conducted into the identification of 'Leisure Types,'4, which have focused on the nature of the leisure product/experience in terms of 'Activity Typologies'. This approach is characterised in the early work under- taken by deGrazia (1994); and a range of studies conducted by authors such as Tatham and Dornoff (1971), Hendee, Gale and Catton (1971), Romsa (1973), McCool (1979), and Kelly (1983), through the 1970s and early 1980s.

Typically, these studies have proposed a range of classificatory dimensions, often of a bi-polar nature, including those of: • Active - Passive • Participant - Spectator Solitary Social • Indoor - Outdoor • Appreciative Symbolic • Extractive - Symbolic Passive Free Play • Sociable - Learning Many of these typologies relate to activities which are primarily home- based and/or are conducted within an individual's normal and ongoing set of lifestyle activities (Murphy 1985). Therefore they cannot be directly transferred from one context to another for the purposes of this SIT study (Mannell and Iso-Ahola 1987). However, the insights derived from this work were found to be useful both in generating initial ideas and for determining a starting point to initiate the process of identifying the type of theoretical framework and dimensions appropriate to this study. In particular the move by Iso Ahola (1982, 1983, 1984) to develop a theoretical framework capable of explaining both leisure and tourism motivation was found to be seful in this respect. This view contends that the motivation for both leisure participation and tourism travel can be categorised into two broad types: escape from routine, and intrinsic experience rewards. In view of these concerns, attention was then turned to a review of the tourism literature associated with the study. Again it became evident that much of the work in this field related to a different context than that identified for this study. As GIT has a primary concern with the importance of destinations it is not surprising that much of the literature commenting upon 'types' of tourism and/or tourists also strongly relates such typologies to destination types. This is particularly the case where studies have focused on the issue of differentiation in the tourism destination product and/or the associated 'pull' factors influencing tourist motivation. Murphy (1985) refers to these approaches as 'Interactional'; as they emphasise the nature of interaction between tourists and destination areas. Similarly, though the work based upon the 'push' side of tourism motivation, which Murphy (1985) refers to as 'Cognitive-Normative'; is concerned to identify the motivational factors associated with distinct types/groups/ segments of tourists this is also inextricably linked with the notion of tourism destinations, (Plog 1974; Gray 1979). Therefore, although Dann (1977) pro- posed that there are two basic sets of factors influencing the decision to travel; push and pull; the common reference point for the two sides of this equation is destination choice.

Answer 1

First paragraph first part - I agree with this sentence because, At the core of this work can be found to be the argument that it is possible to differentiate between the "individual" and "normal" modes of tourism. SIT is formulated in this work as a tourism for a distinct and unique purpose, which suggests that the peculiar interest of the visitor is driven by personal interests in the destination. This compares with what may be described as GIT, where a major part of the components of tourism and the ultimate inspiration for tourism are provided by its destinations and its characteristics.

First paragraph last part - Yes, I do agree with the author. Because, In particular, if these differences are true, it would imply that SIT needs alternate communication approaches, advertising communications and decision-making on the sales channel to the popular GIT structures. In view of these proposals and the additional context of recent changes in both tourism and travel trends which indicate that SIT is a potentially growth sector within the overall tourism market in the 1990s and beyond, it is suggested that such research may be of considerable benefit to both developing SIT destinations and creating a SIT destination country.

Second paragraph - And also, Competition for market share created by this setting is growing the value of establishing a parallel SIT trader, from the point of view of individual traders and destination countries that are heavily dependent on tourism revenues. Indeed, as the paper would contend later, the potential porting of these matters to tourist companies and destination countries within the larger context of the global turistic growth cycle in general can also be suggested by a more fundamental framework.

Last paragraph - I agree with this also because, Knowing Certain forms of behaviors refer specifically to household tasks and/or take part in the regular and continuing daily activities of a single adult. Therefore, for the purposes of this SIT analysis, they can not be moved explicitly from one background to another.

Last paragraph last part - The theory is that both recreation and tourism incentive can be divided into two broad types: daily escape and intrinsic interaction incentives. Despite these issues, the tourism literature related to the research was then reviewed. Again, much of the work in this field was noticeable in a sense other than the one described in the analysis. Because GIT has a primary concern about the value of destinations it is no wonder that much of the literature on 'forms' of tourism and/or visitors link these styles to destination forms strongly.