Film Tourism Planning and Development—Questioning the Role of Stakeholders and Sustainability

Abstract

This paper presents desk-based research into the phenomenon of film tourism. Current literature and case studies are reviewed to establish existing understandings and discussions of the concept, including its various definitions, its potential for marketing purposes and analyses into tourist motivation. Using stakeholder theory, the various stakeholders in the film tourism planning process are discussed and interrelationships are analysed. This paper addresses the existing gap in film tourism planning research and identifies further lack of knowledge which leads to questioning the viability of film tourism for sustainable tourism planning and development.

Introduction

Film tourism and its related phenomena did not receive much attention until the early 1990s but have now sparked a wide range of interest across tourism academia. Early discussion on this topic can be dated back to Boorstin (1961) but more detailed investigations came from Butts (1992), Tooke and Baker (1996) and subsequently from Beeton (2001, 2004, 2005) as well as Busby and Klug (2001). While there has been evidence of its popularity, particularly among PhD students, most research still focuses on understanding the phenomenon, the motivation and experience of film tourists or films as tools for destination marketing. Furthermore, much of the research methodology in these works adopts a case-study approach, resulting in anecdotal evidence of the impacts and success of film tourism destinations. This paper is desk-based research that seeks to investigate the challenges surrounding film tourism by reviewing existing literature and identifying some gaps in theoretical knowledge and practical application. Beeton has discussed film tourism in the context of community planning (2005); however, this paper further aims to take a more critical approach by questioning the hype surrounding film tourism and criticising its viability with regard to tourism planning and its sustainability with regard to tourism development. Firstly, conceptual problems regarding the definition of film tourism are highlighted. Secondly, procedural problems in relation to tourism planning are investigated through the use of stakeholder theory in order to showcase the key roles and conflicts. This will then lead to lastly questioning the sustainability of film tourism, before reaching a conclusion that highlights the key limitations of film tourism as a concept and its viability when applied to sustainable tourism planning and development.

Film Tourism

Film tourism and its related tourism concepts that include the effects of TV, films, movies and media culture has become more popular, and discussions surrounding this topic include research into economic impacts (Tooke and Baker, 1996), marketing and product placement (Hudson and Ritchie, 2006a, 2006b), motivation of tourists (Busby and Klug, 2001), indexing and dragging (Rojek, 1997), tourist experiences (Carl et al., 2007), destination image (Schofield, 1996; Winter, 2002; Kim and Richardson, 2003; Beeton, 2004; Larsen and George, 2006), nostalgia and identity (Sargent, 1998; Bandyopadhyay, 2008), hyper-reality and the layering of meanings of a landscape as a result of media (Torchin, 2002; Couldry, 1998), simulation and signs (Tzanelli, 2004), authenticity (Jones and Smith, 2005; Tzanelli, 2006). Just as varied as the topics that have formed part of the research, case studies have differed in form and scope. Lord of the Rings (LOTR) has catapulted the area of film tourism into popularity, both in academia (Tzanelli, 2004; Beeton, 2005; Jones and Smith, 2005; Carl et al., 2007) and in media. Further case studies that have been subject to academic discussion include The Beach in Thailand (Forsyth, 2002;Tzanelli, 2006; Law et al., 2007), Notting Hill in London (Busby and Klug, 2001), Ned Kelly in Australia (Beeton, 2004; Frost, 2006), Ballykissangel in Northern Ireland (Barton, 2000; Bolan, Crosson and O'Connor, 2007), Tomb Raider in Cambodia (Winter, 2002), Captain Corelli's Mandolin (Hudson and Ritchie, 2006b), Balamory in Scotland (Connell, 2005a, 2005b; Connell and Meyer, 2009), and Heartbeat in Goathland (Mordue, 2009), to name a few.

Despite the recency of film tourism entering the academic debate, various definitions and understandings have already been offered. Contextualising film tourism, media-related tourism is a form of tourism that “involves visits to places celebrated for associations with books, authors, television programmes and films.” (Busby and Klug, 2001, p. 316) Within this category limited research has also started into the role that celebrities play in destination perceptions (Lee, Scott and Kim, 2008). More specifically, film-induced tourism “takes a broad brush, applying the term to visitation to sites where movies and TV programmes have been filmed, as well as to tours to production studios, including film-related theme parks… (any) tourist activity associated with the film industry, be it on-site in the field, or at (or near) the production studio” (Beeton, 2005, p. 11), which includes a wide range of various tourist activities that are associated with films. Movie-induced tourism in turn “comprises tourist visits to a destination or attraction as a result of the destination being featured on television, video or the cinema screen”. (Evans, 1997, in Busby and Klug, 2001, p. 317). Connell and Mayer criticise these definitions as they downplay the importance of TV programmes in stimulating tourism and therefore propose the generic term screen tourism to describe tourism that is “generated by TV programmes, video, DVD as well as film, that is, small and big screen productions (but not TV programmes designed primarily to promote tourist destinations, such as holiday shows)” (2008, p. 194) Most focus of the research so far takes film tourism as the potential it has to generate tourism after the release of a film (hence the suffix of “induced” in many definitions), but film tourism could also be widened to incorporate tourist activities during the filming through the attraction of film crews. This adds to the definitions as this can be labelled film business tourism.

Furthermore, Ritchie (1984) and Riley and Van Doren (1992) have referred to major films as “hallmark events” or special tourism for the potential impacts that they can have on a destination. Comparing films to events as part of destination promotion, albeit not necessarily controlled, has also been subject to discussion (Riley and Van Doren, 1992). Films are not produced with the purpose of inducing tourism visitation; however, it is widely acknowledged that films, particularly feature films which enjoy a mass audience, lead to an enhancement of location and destination awareness and therefore appeal to potential tourists (Riley and Van Doren, 1992). This is supported by Evans (2004) who refers to series of major films as franchises which give destinations a longer and sustained opportunity to appear on screen and related media.

Film Tourist Motivations

Further discussions of the concept include tourist motivations or the appeal of film locations to potential tourists. While there is a range of tourist motivations in general, more specific concepts for the film tourist have only started to emerge. Motivation in tourism is important as it acts as a trigger that sets off travel and associated events (i.e. activities, behaviour, consumption). According to Dann (1977), there are two basic factors in a decision to travel. Pull factors can be described as destination-specific attributes or outer motivations—the attractiveness of a destination or a particular attraction is “pulling” the tourist towards it. Push factors can be described as person-specific motivations or inner motivation and influence the individual tourist to make a decision to travel. These two factors work together and should not be regarded in isolation. However, push factors are seen as the dominant factors as they can also have directive potential by directing tourists towards certain destinations. The push and pull framework has been extended by Crompton (1979) who included nine specific motives: escape from a perceived mundane environment, exploration and evaluation of self, relaxation, prestige, regression (to adolescent or child-like behaviour), enhancement of kinship relations, social interaction, novelty and education. Riley and Van Doren (1992) support the usefulness of push and pull factors in film tourist motivation and have examined film tourism as a form of promotion. The film's role can be tracked as an information source (or pull factor) and consequently influence the tourist motivation (as a push factor) and the decision to travel to a destination. (Macionis, 2004)

While Beeton (2005) suggests that film tourists visit locations to view the scenery, enjoy an activity, relive an experience (as encountered on film), or to obtain an element of celebrity status through being associated with the location, Busby and Klug (2001) provide an extensive list of different forms and characteristics of movie-induced tourism:

• a film location can be an attraction in its own right (before or as a result of being depicted on film);

• movie tourism can be part of a main holiday;

• movie tourism can occur as the main purpose out of special interest;

• movie tourism packages can be created by the private sector, only elements of the film (icon, actors, natural scenery, historical background, storyline, symbolic content, human relationships) are the focal point of tourist interest; and/or finally

• travel programmes.

In their study they have identified that films can influence travel behaviour; however, the measurement and scale of influence is more difficult to determine. Among the studies that have investigated the motivation of film tourists, films are considered to be “pull” factors in “push” locations (Dann, 1977; Riley and Van Doren, 1992; Macionis, 2004).

Macionis (2004) applied push and pull factors to film tourists (see Figure 1) and identified place (location, scenery, landscape), personality (cast, character) and performance (plot, theme, genre) as the pull factors while internal motivators (ego enhancement, status/prestige, fantasy/escape) present the push factors. In Macionis's model the motivation of film tourists is expanded into a continuum to highlight the differing prevalence of motivators, ranging from the serendipitous film tourist (who happens to be in a destination portrayed in a film) and the general film tourist (who is not drawn to a film location but participates in film tourism activities while at the destination) to the specific film tourist (who actively seeks out places they have seen in film).

Figure 1. Film tourist motivations.

The first possible pull factor of Place is immediately identifiable and attractive to a viewer. The physical place of the moving image pulls the tourist to the destination. Film tourists attach meaning to places, and through film such place meaning can be created, altered and reinforced as highlighted in various studies (Riley and Van Doren, 1992; Tooke and Baker, 1996; Couldry, 1998; Beeton, 2001; Kim and Richardson, 2003; Croy and Walker, 2003). Secondly, Performance acts as a pull factor as people make strong connections with the performance aspects of film, can relate to the situation of the characters in the show and are determined to put themselves in the physical place that has formed the backdrop to the performance (Riley and Van Doren, 1992; Beeton, 2001; Busby and Klug. 2001; Croy and Walker, 2003). Finally, Personality reflects the pulling power of Hollywood, the star system and celebrities. Film tourist motivation can be far more complex if we take “cult of celebrity” and Maltby et al.'s notion of “Celebrity Worship Syndrome” into account, which hasn't been researched in much detail to date (in Beeton, 2005). Film stars and actors are powerful ingredients of mass media and “feelings towards a celebrity are expected to transfer to any endorsed brand through their power status and the recurring association” (Till and Shimp, 1998, in Macionis, 2004, p. 92; see also Pearce, Morrison and Moscardo, 2003). In addition to the three factors above, authenticity has been recognised as a motivator for tourists. Applied to film tourism, authenticity raises unusual questions as film tourism allows tourists to live out their fantasies of their favourite movie or actors in fictional or mythical places (Macionis, 2004) and film locations are examples of hyper-real places and simulacra in which reality and artifice are mixed and “cognitive and imaginative dimensions overlap” (Couldry, 1998, p. 97)

Outlining the variations of film tourism already results in a dilemma—what is the focus of film tourism? Given the differing motivations and some of the issues surrounding measurement, it is difficult to determine what exactly attracts the tourist. The impact on media in general and films in particular on tourism behaviour has only been researched through case studies and therefore constitutes a rather piecemeal approach; nevertheless, the inducement effect is widely acknowledged. However, as the discussion above exemplifies, research into the specific film tourist is still limited and leaves gaps for research. Furthermore, how is film tourism defined? Definitions have been provided, however, so far much of the investigation into this phenomenon (and related forms) still takes much of a tourism focus. Alternative research areas highlight what tourism academia is widely neglecting so far, such as human geography (see Kennedy and Lukinbeal, 1997 for a review of geographic research on film). In addition, while much of the investigation takes the pull factor of films/movies central to its meaning, the differentiation between films and movies has not been addressed. Whereas it could simply be an Anglo-American linguistic difference, a closer investigation could highlight semantic differences between film (as an expression of art) and movie (concerned with primarily commercial entertainment). Following this argumentation, the commercial nature of tourism and most of the film industry as well as the most recent tourism-encouraging examples, movie-induced tourism might be a more useful term to describe the phenomenon. However, for the purpose of this paper, the term film tourism is chosen, primarily for the reason that the majority of case studies investigated in the analysis here are major films from the small and big screen. Furthermore, the discussion not only includes aspects of tourism induced by film release, but also impacts on planning implications during the filming, thus incorporating film business tourism.

Film Tourism Impacts

Before discussing the implications of planning and sustainable development with regard to film tourism, the current literature is briefly reviewed regarding the impacts of film tourism. Research into this area has not only been carried out by academics, but by the UK Film Council as well (Olsberg/SPI, 2007; Oxford Economics, 2007). As mentioned above, most research in this area takes a case study approach; therefore the study of film tourism impacts is still “somewhat piecemeal” (Connell and Meyer, 2009, p. 205) and “it is difficult to extrapolate the results from anecdotal examples to calculate the overall impact” (Oxford Economics, 2007) and to synthesise general ideas that can form the basis for film tourism planning, management and development. Most impacts attributed to film tourism (both negative and positive) reflect the impacts generally attributed to tourism: increase in tourist numbers and subsequent rise in revenues and employment (Tooke and Baker, 1996; Beeton, 2005); modification of tourism infrastructure; diversification of tourism product (Schofield, 1996); host-community interaction (Beeton, 2005), cultural exchange and conflict; commodification and loss of authenticity; multi-use for natural and cultural environment; and many more. However, penalising film tourism with a label of only bad impacts such as mass tourism is limited in its analysis as, depending on the destination, different motivations prevail. Cambodia, for example, recognised that the presence of a major film production could be another landmark in the rejuvenation of Cambodia's image at an international level, and might serve as another factor in the departure from the prevailing themes of Pol Pot, genocide and civil war of recent decades, besides other economic benefits that would come with the new tourists. (Winter, 2002).

While there is limited statistical data, it is suggested that with regard to international inbound tourism, “films depicting the UK are responsible for attracting about 1 in 10 overseas tourists, spending around £1.8 billion a year. This is estimated to be worth around £900 million to UK GDP.” (Oxford Economics, 2007; EM-Media, 2007). Further positive impacts involve the creation of film-themed tours (which reflects the benefit of entrepreneurship encouragement generally attributed to tourism) and the diversification of the customer base (Beeton, 2005).

While a film can be a very powerful marketing tool and contribute to destination awareness, image creation and enhancement through showcasing the features and attributes of the destination on screen, the natural and cultural environment can experience pressure from both the film industry and from the resulting increase of tourism activity within the destination. Case studies have highlighted impacts during filming, such as modification of the environment by the film crew (Forsyth, 2002) and negative reactions from the local community because of disruptions in daily routines (Bolan, Crossan and O'Connor, 2007). The relationship between film crew and community could have knock-on effects on how the community then deals with the increase of tourism after the release of the film.

Referring back to the different types of film tourism that have been discussed in academic research so far, impacts can differ in scale and level. The more successful a film is, the more likely it is to attract tourism activity at the destination. Furthermore, the tourism impact can be short-term but of immense volume—this is best exemplified by Riley, Baker and Van Doren when comparing films to events (1998). While the release on big screen is the hallmark event, subsequent releases on DVD and later TV can reinstate or reinforce the interest in destinations. However, as the differentiation between movie-induced and television-induced tourism highlights, TV series can have a more long-term, levelled impact on tourism (Torchin, 2002).

Film Tourism Planning

For the past decades, planning has been informed by various economic, social and political ideologies, and planning approaches in the past have evolved from an economic approach, to physical/spatial planning approach, to a community approach. The current dominant planning paradigm is integrated sustainable tourism planning central to which is a concern for the long-term future of resources (Hall, 2008). This approach is holistic in its nature as it takes all impacts into account, sees tourism as one element within the overall economy of the destination and as an element of the overall destination development plan. Long-term planning, public–private partnerships, continuous monitoring, and cooperation among all stakeholders affected by tourism within the destination are the key features of sustainable tourism planning. Working closely with a wide range of stakeholders means that all planning and operational management in the sector is governed by the needs of host and visitor communities within the destination. In connection with film-induced tourism, planning has received only limited attention, as the subjects of studies so far focus more on marketing, image, and tourist experience. Beeton (2005) investigated film-induced tourism in the context of community planning, stressing the importance of the inclusion and participation of local communities when it comes to tourism planning and therefore echoing scholars in the field. Using case studies from Kangaroo Island, Australia, and Iowa, USA, she identifies the key problems of film-induced tourism planning—that even if community participation is encouraged and attempted “tourists will often come to see a famous site regardless of the immediate community's wishes” (Beeton, 2005, p. 149). However, in light of sustainable tourism planning the key role that all stakeholders play with regard to film tourism planning is to be discussed in the following sections by assessing film tourism in the context of stakeholder theory and sustainable tourism planning and development.

Stakeholder Theory

Stakeholder theory, as pioneered by Freeman and developed within the tourism arena by Sautter and Leissen (1999) and Ryan (2001), focuses on the relationship and management of stakeholders within a destination. Any person or group with an interest in the procedural and/or a substantive aspect of the organisation's activity is referred to as a stakeholder. (Donaldson and Preston, 1995, p. 67) Stakeholders fall into different categories, depending on their level of interest and their potential to influence the decision-making process of an organisation (here: destination management organisation). To implement stakeholder management, tourism planners are required to have a full appreciation of all the persons or groups who have interests in the planning, process and delivery as well as outcomes of the tourism service (Sautter and Leisen, 1999). Ideally, consideration should be given to each stakeholder (group), irrespective of the level of interest and/or power held. Thus, there are three key aspects to the management of stakeholders involved: Firstly, stakeholders and their respective perceived stakes need to be identified, processes necessary to manage the organisation's relationships with its stakeholders need to be established, and transactions or bargains among the organisation and its stakeholders need to be managed (Freeman, 1984). Sautter and Leisen (1999) provide a simplistic example for identifying stakeholders of tourism planning, which in the case of film tourism would translate into Figure 2.

Figure 2. Film tourism stakeholders

As seen in Figure 2, the key stakeholders that have to be taken into account are the destination management organisation (DMOs), the local community, tourists, tourism businesses and the film industry. However, the different stakeholders are not homogenous entities and there are significant overlaps between them (e.g. local community residents own local businesses or are involved in the management of the destination). Each stakeholder's role and interest in film tourism planning varies, and thus the level of involvement and participation in the planning process differs. For the purpose of the following discussion, not all key stakeholders are investigated in depth. The focus here lies in four of the key stakeholders—DMOs, film industry, tourists and community. DMOs play a central role in sustainable film tourism development as among their key roles is the management of relationships between stakeholders and the marketing and promotion of a destination. With regard to the role of marketing, the consumers (i.e. tourists) play a significant role and the discussion that follows focuses on motivations and their expectations. As the community is the one stakeholder most subject to any impacts of tourism activity, their inclusion in the discussion here is essential. Tourism businesses are implicitly taken into account as they can form part of both DMOs and the community.

Film Industry

The film industry has a stake in the development of a film tourism destination as with the decision of filming at a particular location, they eventually trigger the interest in this destination and thereby the potential of this location to be transformed into a destination. However, “producers think firstly about the right location for the production; they are not in the business either of making a location look good for its own sake, or of pandering to the wishes of local tourism officers” (Evans, 2004, p. 6) The first problem arises at the first stage of the planning process (definition of goals and objectives, identification of the tourism system including resources, organisations and markets, generation and evaluation of alternatives, selection and implementation of tourism and finally monitoring and evaluation). According to effective stakeholder management, the film industry would have to be involved in every part, including the first step of defining the goals and objectives. This is less likely, as the film industry has a different agenda: creating the film they want, not the tourism image that marketing or the community wants (Beeton, 2005). To date, there is only limited evidence that the film industry has been actively included in the tourism planning process. The film industry has been less enthusiastic about collaboration; however, the benefits of partnerships have been recognised in this industry as well, albeit with a more instrumental approach which suggests that the benefits of film locations becoming tourism destinations are taken as negotiating points when it comes to favourable conditions for filming. Evidence from the UK, USA and other countries indicate some form of collaboration between the film and tourism industries on a larger scale through government funded schemes that are targeted at promoting the destination for future film locations (see for example CanagaRetna, 2007; Olsberg/SPI, 2007).

Destination Management Organisation

DMOs have a high interest and high power in influencing the development of a film tourism destination as it represents a new opportunity—be that for an existing, emerging or new destination—and this interest has been highly investigated in most literature outlined above. The importance and potential success of films as part of product placement in the marketing process has been briefly discussed above.

Close cooperation between DMOs and the film industry proposing to use the destination as a location is essential to assure the sustainable planning of tourism development. DMOs have little or no control over how, or for whom, the destination is presented through commercial films. Even if destination planners are involved in the early stages of the film-making process, they would have no influence over the filming, storyline, cinematography, or other aspects of the film and thus would have no influence over the audience or target group. The DMO has a less powerful stance here and will have to adapt their strategy in order to align it to the vision of the film, which would reflect Hall's idea of adaptive planning (2008). This can be problematic if the genre or story of the film is negative. Tourism in general is perceived to be the happy industry, and any image of a destination should be portrayed in the most positive light in order to attract tourists. DMOs have been keen to include the film industry in their decision-making process (through the attraction of film producers), as evidenced in many cases (see CanagaRetna, 2007). VisitScotland provides training for tourism professionals that wish to attract film crews in order to expand on the long-term impacts of what they term “location tourism” (VisitScotland, 2007).

Another aspect here is what Beeton refers to as run-away production (2005), where films are filmed in one location but depict another destination. The most prominent example here is Braveheart which has contributed to an increase of tourism in Scotland, but has primarily been filmed in Ireland. Again, for the purpose of sustainable tourism planning that includes all stakeholders, the collaboration between DMOs and the film industry is further made problematic by the geographical distance, and the measurement of impacts of that type of filming is even more difficult to measure for the basis of tourism planning and development. Nevertheless, VisitBritain has exploited opportunities with regard to Master and Commander—none of the film has been shot in Britain, yet is has been used to promote Britain's naval heritage (Evans, 2004).

Community

Among the existing academic literature on film tourism, the community has already received substantial attention. The central importance of community involvement and the incorporation of community values and visions into tourism planning has long been central to the discussion of sustainable tourism planning (Murphy, 1988).

The impacts of film tourism on the community have been subject to some discussion, primarily by Beeton (2004). While most impacts are rather similar to tourism in general (increase in revenue, modification of community structure, intra-communal conflicts over tourism development, employment opportunities for women, improvement of quality of life, increased pressure on existing infrastructure, conflicts between local community and tourists, demonstration and acculturation effect, cultural exchange, commodification and loss of authenticity, revitalisation of local culture), impacts specific to film tourism are yet to be researched in detail as a review of existing literature suggests little difference between the two. However, where film tourism in particular impacts on the local community is arguably the issue of authenticity and representation. Just as the tourism planners have little influence over what is represented on screen, the local community has to live with the consequences of what image has been portrayed, and to whom the image has been portrayed. Particularly in the case of social dramas or ethical dilemmas featured on film, this can have negative consequences. As the most recent example of Slumdog Millionaire suggests, demand for tours around the slums of Mumbai has already risen. While the slum community now becomes an object of the tourist gaze (and thereby reinforcing the common criticisms of tourism as a vehicle of commodification and objectification), the wider Indian community might also be resistant against this kind of portrayal of part of their community (which incidentally reflects some of the differences in the reception of the film by the international and the Indian communities) (Blakely, 2009).

Film Tourists

Following the discussion on motivation and film tourist typologies above (Busby and Klug, 2001; Macionis, 2004), one difficulty that yet remains is the clear identification of who the film tourists are. Having outlined some marketing implications and the role that films play in promotion and product placement, it is worth considering other marketing aspects such as segmentation. Identifying who the film tourist is involves identifying what exactly it is that appeals to the tourists who travel to a film location. As seen in Figure 3, film tourists can fall into one or several categories/segments, thus the ambiguity of tourist motivation is further extended in that there are several layers of motivation to the individual tourist. This argument does not differ much from Macionis's idea the serendipitous, general and specific tourist, as within the first two categories film plays a minor role in motivation. However, even with regard to the film-specific tourist, it could be argued that it is not the film as such that motivates the travel, but that the film is a trigger or a reinforcement of already existing motivations. This is supported by Burgess and Gold (1985) who point out that “popular media (including film) is important because it mediates social knowledge, reinforces ideological constructions of the status quo and is an active agent of hegemony” (in Kennedy and Lukinbeal, 1997, italics by author).

Figure 3. Film tourism and other types of tourism

As media in general can be seen as an extension of our values and beliefs, marketing has to be aimed at the receptors of films (and thereby the potential tourists). Again, academic discussions on film tourism are yet rather simple as they treat films as a homogenous entity which is separate to other alternative factors. However, as the discussion on motivation highlighted, there are several aspects of a film that can induce tourists to visit these and it is the destination marketers’ role to identify the right customer. This argument is also supported by various theories on destination image formation. It could be argued that film tourists fall into various other market segments, overlapping with existing tourist motivation and tourism types (which incidentally overlap in themselves, as do films as they can cover various of these aspects at the same time) (see Figure 3). As Frost discusses in his study on the influence of historic films and its implication on tourism in the case of Ned Kelly in Australia (and comparing it to Braveheart in Scotland) “the interest generated is story-based rather than visually based” (2006, p. 253), thus supporting (implicitly) the argument here that viewers of historic films become heritage tourists due to their pre-existing interest in history. Given that films are firmly rooted within culture, cultural and heritage tourism would arguably be the dominant segment. In this case, planning of the tourism product can be facilitated through related tourism types (existing or related). Similarly, LOTR attracted tourists that have an interest in historical (albeit fictional) events as portrayed by Tolkien first and subsequently by Peter Jackson, the director.

Authenticity is another key feature that has to be taken into account as it is regarded to be a motivator (Macionis, 2004). Authenticity in the context of film tourism is taken into postmodern arenas which include aspects of hyper-reality and simulation (see Torchin, 2003; Tzanelli, 2004). Different layers of authenticity and simulation take place even before the decision of travelling to a film location. Most films are adaptations of literary works, and the first stance of authenticity is judged against how well the film portrays and presents the written story. Once the film-goer becomes a tourist, s/he judges authenticity against how well reality (i.e. landscape and scenery, but also individuals and communities) resembles what he has seen on screen (see indexing and dragging, Rojek, 1997). While it is argued that the postmodern tourist can differentiate easily between what is real and what is fake, there is still the danger of disappointment if expectations are not met. The image of the locality as represented in the film might be very powerful and thus might distort the experience when visiting the destination. As tourists attach meaning to places, authenticity and judgement thereof becomes a subjective experience.

What research to date has not taken into account in relation to tourists are other factors that can influence film tourism behaviour, such as gender, age, race and/or cultural background (e.g. Chan, 2007; Bandyopadhyay, 2008). In the case of Cornwall, for example, the films of Rosamunde Pilcher were particularly successful among German middle aged women (subsequent books by her were set in Scotland, thus films and the following tourism were redirected to that part of the UK). Switzerland has long recognised the value of the Indian film community, and subsequent tourism community, as many Bollywood films have used the Alps as a backdrop for scenery on film (Bandyopadhyay, 2008). To what extent film tourism in connection to Nollywood in Africa has created, is yet to be researched. Finally, one gap that exists within research into film tourists is the exclusion of the non-film tourist—so far research into film-induced tourism only accounts for those that engage in the physical travel to locations. However, valuable insights are yet missing with regard to the virtual experience of landscapes and sceneries on film and whether there is a different causal relationship between watching a film and travelling to a location—as Torchin (2002, p. 249) suggests that “taking back the ‘reality’ to enhance the virtual after the virtual has enhanced the reality” begs for a clarification to what extent travelling to a destination induces the watching of a film.

Mapping Stakeholders

Applying the different stakeholders to the stakeholder map (see Figure 4), the relationships become more visual. Assuming that the tourists have a high interest in film tourism development from the consumer's perspective, they have high power due to their purchasing behaviour and their demand influencing supply of a film tourism product. The community has a high level of interest (but less compared to the tourists as the community is not a homogenous group where each individual is equally affected by the tourism development); however, as to the problems regarding community participation in the tourism planning process, their power is relatively low. Through interest groups and initiatives, communities could influence the planning process to some extent. DMOs have more influence in the planning process as they work closer with the other stakeholders involved; however, their lack of control over the film and the filming process puts them on a lower level of power than the film industry. The film industry falls into high-power/high interest, as film makers have high power in influencing tourism development, albeit not intentional, but have low interest in tourism development and planning in general, due to their alternative agenda. Their product is the film and its success, not so much the consequences within the location once they have stopped filming. According to the stakeholder matrix they should be kept satisfied—which in most cases they are as the location in hoping to become a destination will assure that the film industry's needs are catered for. However, they have no direct involvement in the design of the film tourism product. In order to assure sustainable and integrated tourism development, they should be key players.

Figure 4. Film tourism stakeholder map.

The stakeholder map above is not to be seen as a static or fixed presentation of the film tourism process, as the position of each stakeholder is likely to vary, depending on several factors. On brown field locations/destinations, previous politics within the destination and tourism development process can have an influence on how well the stakeholders (community, businesses and governments) work together. In the case of experiences with conflicts, the cooperation between these groups might be already hindered. In the case of green field sites, the cooperation might be easier as there are no preconceptions or historical conflicting relationships. Another aspect that impacts the planning process is the level of involvement and the experience of the community in previous tourism planning processes (see Beeton, 2005, for a more detailed discussion on potential problems of community involvement in film tourism planning). Thirdly, the appeal and location of the destination varies. For example, This is England was a critically acclaimed film in 2007; however, no increase of tourism was reported out of a result of it being filmed in Cleethorpes. Whether there is a link between the decline of seaside resorts within the UK or the storyline was not tourism-inducing (although could very well fall under culture/heritage), is not clear, and supports the claims made here that there is still a wide lack of investigation. Next, as already outlined above, the interest of the film industry is crucial. While there is some evidence that suggests a closer collaboration between film and tourism industries, for example EM Media highlights that “understanding the impact of film tourism can open up new partnership opportunities regionally and nationally and enable us to better market to more targeted audiences, the benefits of film in inward investment terms” (EM Media, 2009). A fifth variable in the planning process is the success of a film—this will have influence on the amount of tourism that is induced by the film. Depending on whether it is a small scale, independent film or an internationally acclaimed commercial film, the audience might consist of a very small niche of movie-goers or a mass audience. No matter the size of the audience, only a percentage will turn into film tourists (be that serendipitous, general or specific). Connell and Meyer (2009) echo Riley and Van Doren's (1992) claim that film tourism, when comparing it to hallmark events, is of limited duration and limited means of sustaining tourism in destinations due to the limited duration of interest in film, TV and related sites, which results in a disadvantage in strategic planning. Yet, Beeton (2005) compares film tourism to pilgrimage, which has more potential for longevity, particularly in the case of televised drama (see for example Coronation Street in Couldry, 2004). Whereas most film tourism activity reaches its peak during or following the launch of the film, other film and TV outputs have lasting appeal with the potential of drawing visitors for many years. Due to cult status, a production such as The Sound of Music released in (1965) still attracts American tourists to Austria (East and Luger, 2002, in Connell and Meyer, 2009). This leads to the last point being made here with regard to tourist motivation. Not only do we encounter layers of motivations (see Figure 3), but attention has to be paid to the level of impact that the film has on tourism motivation. Dedicated fans of particular themes or the influence that literature-adaptations have can vary the influence of the film on tourist motivation and tourist behaviour, thus changing the position of tourists on the stakeholder map and the role of these tourists in the planning process. Accordingly, grasping first-time visits and transforming these into repeat visits will create a legacy of film tourism (Connell and Meyer, 2009).

Conclusion—Critical Discussion and Limitations

This paper has reviewed existing literature and case studies in order to highlight the current state of research by taking a broad brush through the definitions of film tourism as well as related concepts and film tourist motivation and typologies, identifying some areas that are still begging for more detailed research. While much investigation into this topic has been carried out recently and is still to follow, current academic literature is yet scattered and currently only one book is available on this topic. The phenomenon is approached from various angles within tourism—mostly focusing on tourist motivation, consumption and behaviour or marketing. It has been highlighted that much focus is still on the tourism side—taking film (and wider communication or media) studies into account in research could shed further light on the issue of understanding this concept. Alternative research disciplines such as geography, sociology, cultural studies and arguably most importantly film studies could further help us with the investigation of film tourism. What this paper has found is that there are still many gaps in the research into film tourism, consequently hindering the successful planning for sustainable film tourism.

Film tourism planning has not received much attention, and while film tourism has been treated as the new market opportunity for many (new or existing) destinations, not many have questioned the sustainability of this type of tourism. Does film tourism deserve its own planning agenda? Having identified that films as part of the media are an extension of our individual (and tourists’) worldview but does not create a new one, maybe film tourism should not be considered in its own right. Film could be taken as a trigger for the type of tourism that it stands for. If Braveheart put Scotland's highlands and Lord of the Rings put New Zealand's natural scenery on the map, did it just encourage the nature tourist? Slumdog Millionaire attracts slum tourism—if people go to see a social drama (albeit fictional), then their interest in this type of movie is extended through their tourist consumption and behaviour. The primary role that film plays in tourism motivation has been discussed widely, but yet there is no holistic understanding of film tourism.

Even if we consider film tourism in its own right, the various roles that stakeholders play in the planning process as highlighted in the preceding discussion show that there is potential for conflicting relationships due to the different levels of power and interest in the development process. As sustainable tourism planning and development suggests the involvement of all stakeholders, the film industry plays a vital part of this process. However, the film industry is the involuntary stakeholder—it has a different agenda and is not too concerned about the tourism consequences of their filming once they have left the location. As yet there is only limited evidence that the film industry has recognised the potential value of working together with tourism in order to establish a mutual beneficial relationship. To what extent such a relationship would be beneficial or more of a burden is yet to be researched.

Finally, the sustainability of film tourism has not been investigated in any detail. If there is evidence to suggest that the film industry is to play a significant part in the tourism planning process, the integration of all stakeholders in the development process could safeguard the sustainable management of the tourism product. Similarly, if we take the argument that films trigger existing types of tourism, then existing good practice from these arenas can be taken into account. With good management practices communities can actively participate and be involved in the process, and impacts on the physical environment can be kept to the minimum. However, there is one variable within the film planning process that is beyond control and which impacts significantly on the economic sustainability and overall success of the film tourism product—the success of the film. Through developing a film tourism product, this tourism product will automatically and intrinsically be linked to the success of the film. Large-scale commercial movies such as Lord of the Rings have shown that the impacts in general are positive and varied. Following Ritchie's (1984) comparison of films as mega events, the planning process has to be adapted to the event planning process. However, even multiple releases and re-releases cannot guarantee continuous success of the tourism product. Just as tourism, film is for entertainment purposes and within a postmodern world, entertainment is becoming increasingly short-lived and more volatile to consumer behaviour than ever before, thereby challenging film tourism right from the beginning.

Notes