Identifying Central Parks Effect on Movie Tourism - Research Proposal Example

Identifying Central Parks Effect on Movie Tourism Supervisor Introduction Movie tourism is a relatively uncommon form of tourism, it is considered to be part of cultural tourism (Gjorgievski et al., 2012). It is defined as the phenomena where tourists visit destinations because they appeared on television, movies or cinema. It is among the fast growing sectors of the tourism industry because of the developments in the entertainment industry and the popular culture craze (Beeton, 2006). The movie tourism industry is an example of special interest niche tourism, which is different from mass tourism (Rugojeva, 2014). The evolution of movie tourism was accidental. Most of the movies that were produced had no intention of marketing tourism initially. It is their screening that changed the influx of tourism numbers to the locations of shooting (Gjorgievski et al., 2012). The research on this field is relatively new (Rugojeva, 2014), and it is in the late nineties that the phenomenon earned its name ‘movie-induced tourism’. It can also be referred to as movie tourism, film tourism, cinematic tourism or film-induced tourism. Despite the fact that New York City boasts of among the most popular sites for film and television shooting, The Central Park (Appleseed, 2009; CPC,2011), there appears to be minimal studies on the role of movie industry to tourism and residents of Central Park. This paper attempts to outline the role of movie industry in the city by studying the park. Objectives of the study 1. To establish how movie tourism serves as a tourist attraction in New York 2. To find out which movies/TV shows filmed in Central Park are most famous, and identify tourist’s current knowledge of them 3. To determine to what extent movie tourism attracts visitors at Central Park 4. To understand the importance of Central Park for movie tourism in the city. Literature review Movie tourism in practice Movie tourism has taken shape in various forms either accidentally or deliberately. In the wake of 2001 terrorist bombings in the New York, the local tourist organizations used media personalities, sportsmen and even former city mayor Rudolf Giuliani to reinforce tourism in the city. The interventions are classified as movie tourism because film was extensively used in the promotions. Kansas City Department of tourism budgets US$ 1.2 million to market the city as a film destination, Australia Tourism Board partnered with Disney in the animated movie, ‘Finding Nemo’ to market Australia as a tourist destination (Berić et al., 2013). These represent deliberate attempts to promote film tourism. A total of 54.3 million visitors visited New York in 2014, with 11.4 million being international tourists (Rugojeva, 2014 p.6). Among the most common places tourist visit in New York are Statue of Liberty, Central Park, Empire State Building and Brooklyn Bridge. All these locations have been featured extensively in movies and television. There exist a number of arranged film tours in New York City because many movies are acted in the city (Rugojeva, 2014). These companies arrange movie tourism in New York by organizing trips to discover origin of hip-hop, and celebrities’ houses e.g. Louis Armstrong. Organized film tours are the major way of advertising movie tourism in New York. Other ways of promoting movie tourism in the contemporary world are movie maps common in Britain (Hudson and Richie, 2006; Berić et al., 2013; Lam, 2009) and dedicated websites e.g., in New Zealand (Tzanelli,2007) The American soap opera ‘Sex and the City’ has made tourists who visit New York want to see the numerous bars and restaurants that were featured in the film. Similarly, the series ‘Gossip Girl’ has also attracted visitors to New York City. In other cases, a movie or series can be shot at a different location, but based on a specific city. For instance the popular comedy series “Friends’ and ‘How I met Your Mother’ were both shot in Los Angeles, but based on New York City (Rugojeva, 2014). Central Park has been the venue for shooting of various films from 1908, such as ‘Romeo and Juliet’, ‘Wallstreet’, ‘Men in Black’, ‘Kramer Vs Kramer’, ‘Marathon Man’, ‘I am Legend’, ‘Spiderman 3’ and over a two hundred more. Additionally, it is the venue for the annual televised New York Marathon (Appleseed, 2009). However, there is dearth of knowledge to the extent the movies attract tourists, and what movies are popular in attracting tourists. This is in contrast with other destinations which are known for particular films such as New Zealand for ‘Lord of the Rings’ (Kraaijenzank, 2009), Turkey for ‘Troy’ (Hudson and Richie, 2006), and Great Britain for ‘Harry Potter’. Importance of movie tourism The obvious economic benefit from the movie tourism industry is the enduring receipts from the tourists. A conspicuous advantage of movie tourism over other types of tourism is that it is often all season and all-weather. This alleviates the problem of seasonality that is ubiquitous to other types of tourism. Riley et al., (1998) describe the economic effects of movie tourism are long-term by demonstrating a 50% increase in tourist numbers five years after releasing 12 films in USA. Macionis (2004) explains movie tourism is concerned with personality and conventional tourism is concerned with authenticity hence the seasonality of convectional tourism as authenticity is usually more pronounced at certain times, while Wang (1999) notices authenticity factor as reducing in all types of tourism. In New York, companies that promote movie tourism tours are making good profits. For instance, On Location Tours, a movie tourist company in New York that started in 1999 with 50 movie tourists each weekend, now boasts of 100,000 movie tourists annually, and reported over US$ 3 million in 2008 revenue (Rugojeva, 2014). Hudson and Richie (2006) quantified the economic significance of movies and showed movies such as ‘Braveheart’ ‘Troy’ and ‘Harry Potter’ as having a direct impact on the tourism of their shooting location. Apart from economic growth, film tourism also promotes cultural image of a destination. For instance, it would be difficult to distinguish between castles without a storyline, but once a castle is featured in a movie, it acquires a story line. New York City is pictured as cosmopolitan, a place to hide, a place to show off and a place to try something new in TV series such as ‘Sex and the City’ and ‘Gossip Girl’. Richards and Wilson (2007) cite creative tourism as emerging to replace cultural tourism. Movie tourism can be classified as a creative strategy in promoting tourism. Hudson and Richie (2006), however, warn that movie tourism can also have negative effects to the socioeconomics of an area. Major drawbacks are lack of privacy, unauthentic culture stereotypes and destruction to the natural environment. Central Park has been the site for various successful Hollywood blockbusters. In 2007, Appleseed (2009, pp.10) report that 618 jobs were created in Central Park from film industry and US$ 136.5 million generated in economic activity throughout the city. Central Park records an average of 4000 location days each year by shooting series, movies and commercials. The impacts of these movies to tourist numbers are however poorly documented, and this is one of the research gaps that this study attempted to fill. The perception of the residents to movie tourists is also critical in analysing the importance of Central Park as a movie tourism destination. Tourist types In the broad sense, tourists can be domestic or international. Kontogeorgopoulos (1998) describes international tourists as the tourists visiting other countries, whereas domestic are residents in the destination they visit. Macionis (2004) identifies three types of movie tourists to include serendipitous, general and specific. Serendipitous tourists just happen to be at a film destination, general tourists participate in film activities while in a location, while specific tourist actively seek out places that they see in a movie. Cohen (2004), on the other hand, describes tourist types by five modes of the recreational mode, diversionary mode, experiential mode, experimental mode and existential mode. Recreation tourists are not concerned about authenticity as they are only interested in entertainment. Like recreation tourist, diversionary tourist is not concerned with authenticity as he/she simply wants to divert attention from his/her routine schedule. Experiential tourists seek meaning outside their culture and want to experience the life of other cultures, without necessarily engaging. Experimental tourists engage themselves in another culture’s way of life. Existential mode tourists look at committing themselves fully to another way of life. While recreation and diversionary tourism lack depth, the other three types of tourism have individual depth. Recreation and diversionary tourism are usually criticized, but are less common compared to the former. Serendipitous tourists can, therefore, be described as being in the recreation mode, while general tourists can be described in the diversionary mode. Experiential, experimental and existential mode tourists can be equated to specific tourists (Kraaijenzank, 2009). In many cases movie tourists are experiential and seek authentic experiences without strict criteria. Bolan et al., (2011) also identifies the three tourist types and propose they represent distinct markets. According to CPC (2011, pp.6), Central Park received 38 million visits from 9 million different people between May 2008 and June 2009 with about 80% of the tourists being domestic. The most visited landscapes include 59th Street Pond, Wollman Rink and Great Lawn. Identifying the tourist type is important in evaluating tourists’ knowledge about film and sites, establishing importance of movie tourism and understanding the importance of a destination for movie tourism. Theories on movies in marketing destinations Tourism literature recognizes that destination image influences destination choice. The images influence the choice of a tourist in that the more favourable images are more likely to be chosen as the destination. The connection between film and travelling is that they both, as leisure activities, provide an escape route to a person (Gjorgievski et al., 2012). That is, they both offer temporary relief from the real world by creating a fantasy of what life should be like (Jewell and McKinnon, 2008). Understanding the theories that make movies powerful marketing tools enhance the understanding of how movies tourism serves as attractions in New York. Rewtrakunphaiboon (2009) argues that films increase destination demands in a number of ways. First, the viewers can be induced to travel because of the sceneries. The viewers can also be enticed by the storyline and finally, the actors in the movie can cause this induction. These factors influence the audiences’ feelings and emotions to make them want to visit destinations. Berić et al., (2013), on the other hand, base their argument on the position that movie tourism is not a subset of tourism, but rather the future, as it would be the primary determinant of future attractions as people are becoming more reliant on technology and social media. Rewtrakunphaiboon (2009) states understanding the variables that make a destination viable to tourists is of paramount importance in promoting movie tourism. The variables of importance include travel stimuli, confidence in travel intermediary, previous travel experience, perceived risk and destination knowledge (Moutinho, 1987). The recognition of non-touristic-directed stimuli, for instance movies, is not included as important variables in tourist decision making models. The emergence of studies such as Riley et al. (1998), who showed tourist numbers increase after a movie shooting at ten locations in USA, has made the influence of movies in marketing a consideration in marketing and determining variables. Macionis (2004) explains the variables affecting tourism using the theory of ‘push and pull’ factors. Pull factors attract a tourist to a particular destination, while push factors are the predisposition to travel. In case of movie tourism, he explains pull factors to be performance, place and personality, while push factors are motivation and fantasy. Gartner (1994) acknowledges push and pull factors in image formation. He mentions that the tourist is responsible for creating push factors, while the destination, through advertising, creates the pull factors. In his theory of destination image model formation, he describes the components of destination image formation as cognitive, affective and conative. The interrelationship between the components determines the product predisposition. Cognitive images are based on facts but more often than not, film tourists make use of perceptions in determining destinations. Affective images are what are already known by tourist while conative refers to behaviour. Destination images can be primary (obtained by tourist him/herself) or secondary (presented by an external source). Films promote secondary images. Kraaijenzank (2009) acknowledges the consistency of Gartner’s theory of image formation by stating that it is among the most cited theory in movie-induced tourism literature. Gartner (1994) classifies movies and television as autonomous image change agents with high credibility and penetration, and indirect costs. The power of autonomous image change is underpinned by the fact that destination promoters have minimal influence in changing a portrayed image. Beerli and Martín (2004) developed a model that is usable in analyzing and explaining the factors influencing destination image. The model is consistent with Gartner (1994) and identifies all the factors that can influence destination image. These factors were incorporated into nine dimensions, they include; natural resources, general infrastructure, tourism infrastructure, tourist leisure, art, political/economic factors, social environment, natural environment and atmosphere. Beerli and Martín (2004) also acknowledge the difference in image perception between first time visitors and repeat visitors. Kim and Richardson (2003) reiterate motion pictures as important in the popular culture. They showed certain motion pictures as having inducing effects to some destinations by influencing the viewers’ perception on the destination image. Methods of measuring the actual impacts of movies to destinations are not consistent. Bolan et al. (2011) suggested the use of qualitative research including blogs, as there is minimal understanding of the industry. Even if a film location is attracting tourists, Kraaijenzank (2009) warns, brands do not last forever and there is need for frequent ‘updates’. For instance, ‘Lord of the Rings’ craze was huge from 2002-2007, but currently, New Zealand is marketing itself by using new movies such as ‘Hobbit’. Methodology Study design Central Park is a national landmark located in Manhattan, New York City, USA. It stretches from 110 Street to 59th street and from 8th avenue to 6th avenue covering an area of 3.41 km2. Its perimeter is of about 9.6 kilometres and has over 50 entrances. It has a history of around 160 years, and run by Central Park Conservancy. The study aimed at outlining the role of the movie industry in New York City by studying Central Park. A descriptive research design was adopted in which interviews; interview coding and observation checklists were used to collect qualitative data. Qualitative methods were chosen ahead of quantitative methods because of the difficulties in measuring perceptions, which is the major variable in the study. Since the field of film-induced tourism is not well studied, qualitative research provide a better avenue for contextual understanding of the subject through exploratory research. The interviewed people had different characteristics, e.g. some were busier than others, and qualitative method provided the researcher the opportunity to be flexible according to the interviewee characteristics. Finally, qualitative methods presented better opportunity to interpret data and trends in the movie tourism of Central Park. Data collection and analysis The study made use of both primary and secondary data. Primary data was collected from interviews and checklists. Secondary data included the estimated number of tourists visiting Central Park, New York for three years which were collected from Central Park Conservancy offices. The data on movies that were set in central park were also collected from the offices. The research applied systematic sampling. All the tourists and residents in and around Central Park on the particular day presented the sampling frame, and every 10th visitor at an exit was interviewed. The tourists to be interviewed must have been inside Central Park on the particular day. The inclusion criteria were any tourists whether international, domestic, serendipitous, general or specific, and were willing to participate in the study. Since the tourists are on recreation, each interview was short with the longest allocated time being 10 minutes. The tourists were asked questions in the themes of; if they came to Central Park because of the movies that were screened there, the movies or television series they know that were shot in central park, and the top three sites that they must see while at Central Park. Interviews to residents of central park were also done to analyse the importance of movie tourism to business people and residents. Residents were selected from areas around central park. An observation checklist was used in collecting data from a 10th tourist who was unable to be interviewed for some reason. The observation checklist recorded observable characteristics identical to those recorded on interview subject. The data from the interviews and checklists were then coded in the SPSS computer program. Coding was done to summarize and collate the data by placing them in categories. Coding also assisted in generating quantitative data from the qualitative methods. Pilot surveys were undertaken to check on the reliability and validity of the methods. The researcher and research assistants undertook the interviews in two months at The Central Park. Limitation of the study Since the tourists were on recreation, and would like to visit as many sites as possible, it was challenging to get respondents for the interview. The limitation was addressed by making the interview as short as possible, and asking the respondents for five minutes of their time. Assisting in taking photos and agreeing to guide the tourist also helped to get respondents. Additionally observation checklists were used to assess tourist behaviour in case they were unable to participate. Central Park has over fifty entrances; there are no entrance fees and people move freely on bikes or horses. These make data collection challenging. Systematic sampling was used to mitigate the implications of these challenges in the research. Bibliography Appleseed, 2009. Valuing Central Park’s Contributions to New York City’s Economy. 80 Broad Street · 13th Floor · New York, NY Beerli, N. and Martín, R., 2004. Factors Influencing Destination Image. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 657-681 Beeton, S., 2006. Understanding film-induced tourism. Tourism Analysis, Vol. 11, pp. 181–188 Berić, D., Kovačević, M., Simat, K., Božić, S., Stamenković, I., Pivac, T., ... and Perović, Đ., 2013. Film Tourism: a contemporary resource for promoting Serbia. Turizam, 17(1), 18-28.  [Online] Available at:< http://www.dgt.uns.ac.rs/turizam/arhiva/vol_1701_2.pdf > [Accessed 23 February 2015]. Bolan, P., Boy, S., and Bell, J., 2011. “Weve seen it in the movies, lets see if its true” Authenticity and displacement in film-induced tourism. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(2), pp. 102-116. Cohen, E., 2004. Contemporary Tourism: Diversity and Change. Elsevier CPC, 2011. Report on the public use of Central Park. Central Park Conservancy. Pdf. [Online] Available at: [accessed 25 February 2015]. Gartner, W. C., 1994. Image Formation Process. Journal of Travel & Vacation Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 191-216. Gjorgievski, M., and Trpkova, M. S., 2012. Movie induced tourism: a new tourism phenomenon. UTMS Journal of Economics, 3(1), 97-104.  [Online] Available at: [Accessed 23 February 2015]. Hudson, S. and Ritchie, J. R. B., 2006. Promoting destination via film tourism: An empirical identification of supporting marketing initiatives. Journal of Travel Research, 44, pp. 387-396. Jewell, B., and McKinnon, S., 2008. Movie Tourism—A New Form of Cultural Landscape? Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 24(2-3), pp. 153-162. Kim, M. and Richardson, T., 2003. Motion Pictures Impacts on Destination Images. Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 216-237. Kontogeorgopoulos, N. 1998. Accommodation employment patterns and opportunities. Annals of tourism Research, 25(2), pp. 314-339. Kraaijenzank, M., 2009. Movie-Induced Tourism: An analytical report on how the Lord of the Rings trilogy has affected tourism in New Zealand. Aalborg University. Masters Thesis. Lam, C. C. S., 2009. Attributes and impacts of film tourism development: perceptions of visitors and local residents. (Doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University). Macionis, N., 2004. Understanding the Film-Induced Tourist. In Proceedings of the International Tourism and Media Conference, Tourism Research Unit, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 24-26 November 2004, ed. W. Frost, W. C. Croy and S. Beeton, pp. 86–97. Melbourne: Tourism Research Unit,Monash University. Moutinho, L., 1987. Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of Marketing, 21(10), pp. 1-44. Rewtrakunphaiboon, W., 2009. Film-induced Tourism: Inventing a vacation to a location. BU Academic 8(1), pp. 33-42. Richards, G., and Wilson, J. (Eds.) 2007. Tourism, creativity and development. Routledge. Riley, R., Baker, D. and Doren, C. S. V., 1998. Movie induced tourism. Annals of tourism research, 25(4), pp. 919-935. Rugojeva, M. 2014. Customer Experiences of Film Location Tourists in New York City. Saimaa University Tzanelli R., 2007. The Cinematic Tourist, Explorations in globalization, culture and resistance. Routledge Wang, N., 1999. Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of tourism research, 26(2), pp. 349-370. Read More