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

Special interest tourism

INTRODUCTION

Historically Special Interest Tourism (SIT), both as aproduct/sector in its own right and as a distinct entity within theoverall tourism spectrum, has been largely ignored as an importantarea of study within the tourism field in general. Therefore, thecontention that it is both possible, and relevant, to distinguishbetween \"special\" and \"general\" interest forms of tourism activitymay be seen as lying at the heart of this work. In this work SIT isconceived as tourism undertaken for a distinct and specific reason;thereby indicating that the special interest tourist has aspecific, interest-based motivation for his/her travel to anotherdestination. This contrasts with what may be described as GeneralInterest Tourism (GIT), where the general destination and itscharacteristics provides a major, part of the components of thetourism product and the overall motivation for tourism travel. Theimplication of this distinction, for both the provision andmarketing of the tourism product, is seen to be that appropriatespecial and eral interest tourism products should be developed tomeet the specific needs of these different types of tourists. -uəsSimilarly, it is also contended that the marketing process forthese two types of tourism should embody a different focus in eachcase. Whereas the primary marketing focus for GIT is invariably thecharacteristics of the destination country/area/resort, this is notnecessarily seen as the most appropriate focus for the SITmarketing process. More specifically, if this type of distinctionis found to be valid, it would suggest that SIT requiresalternative marketing strategies, promotional messages, anddistribution channel decisions to those commonly adopted for GIT.In view of these propositions and the additional background ofrecent changes in the pattern of both tourist trips and travelmotivations, which indicate that SIT will constitute a potentialgrowth segment within the overall tourism market in the 1990s andbeyond (Martin and Mason 1987; De Knop 1990; Mintel 1990) it issuggested that this exploratory research could hold significantvalue for both developing SIT destination countries and establishedSIT source countries. In addition, there may also be value in thiswork for tour operators who, especially the 'mass market'companies, find they are facing a tourism market which isincreasingly undifferentiated, subject to intense pricecompetition, populated by more experienced and so- phisticatedcustomers, 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 destinationcountries who are heavily reliant upon tourism revenues, increasesthe importance of developing a parallel SIT markef. Indeed, as willbe argued later in this paper, there is also perhaps a morefundamental dynamic indicating the future im- portance of theseissues to tourism companies and destination countries within thebroader context of the ongoing tourism development process ingeneral.

In essence the research contained in this paper is exploratoryand descriptive in nature and seeks to provide answers to a numberof pertinent questions regarding Special Interest Tourism. Amongstthese perhaps the most significant are: (1) What are thecharacteristics of Special Interest Tourists ? (2) What are theholiday choices and patterns of Special Interest Tourists ? (3)What factors help to shape such behaviour ? (4) Whichactivities/interests are preferred by Special Interest Tourists?

THE CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

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

Typically, these studies have proposed a range of classificatorydimensions, often of a bi-polar nature, including those of: •Active - Passive • Participant - Spectator Solitary Social • Indoor- Outdoor • Appreciative Symbolic • Extractive - Symbolic PassiveFree Play • Sociable - Learning Many of these typologies relate toactivities which are primarily home- based and/or are conductedwithin an individual's normal and ongoing set of lifestyleactivities (Murphy 1985). Therefore they cannot be directlytransferred from one context to another for the purposes of thisSIT study (Mannell and Iso-Ahola 1987). However, the insightsderived from this work were found to be useful both in generatinginitial ideas and for determining a starting point to initiate theprocess of identifying the type of theoretical framework anddimensions appropriate to this study. In particular the move by IsoAhola (1982, 1983, 1984) to develop a theoretical framework capableof explaining both leisure and tourism motivation was found to beseful in this respect. This view contends that the motivation forboth leisure participation and tourism travel can be categorisedinto two broad types: escape from routine, and intrinsic experiencerewards. In view of these concerns, attention was then turned to areview of the tourism literature associated with the study. Againit became evident that much of the work in this field related to adifferent context than that identified for this study. As GIT has aprimary concern with the importance of destinations it is notsurprising that much of the literature commenting upon 'types' oftourism and/or tourists also strongly relates such typologies todestination types. This is particularly the case where studies havefocused on the issue of differentiation in the tourism destinationproduct and/or the associated 'pull' factors influencing touristmotivation. Murphy (1985) refers to these approaches as'Interactional'; as they emphasise the nature of interactionbetween tourists and destination areas. Similarly, though the workbased upon the 'push' side of tourism motivation, which Murphy(1985) refers to as 'Cognitive-Normative'; is concerned to identifythe motivational factors associated with distinct types/groups/segments of tourists this is also inextricably linked with thenotion of tourism destinations, (Plog 1974; Gray 1979). Therefore,although Dann (1977) pro- posed that there are two basic sets offactors influencing the decision to travel; push and pull; thecommon reference point for the two sides of this equation isdestination choice.