外文翻译影响城市形象的文化活动鹿特丹欧洲文化资本Word格式文档下载.docx
- 文档编号:19302007
- 上传时间:2023-01-05
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:7
- 大小:26.80KB
外文翻译影响城市形象的文化活动鹿特丹欧洲文化资本Word格式文档下载.docx
《外文翻译影响城市形象的文化活动鹿特丹欧洲文化资本Word格式文档下载.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《外文翻译影响城市形象的文化活动鹿特丹欧洲文化资本Word格式文档下载.docx(7页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
外文翻译
原文:
Theimpactofculturaleventsoncityimage:
Rotterdam,culturalcapitalofEurope2001.
Citiesareincreasinglyusingculturaleventstoimprovetheirimage,stimulateurbandevelopmentandattractvisitorsandinvestment.Aspartofitsevent-ledregenerationstrategy,Rotterdamstagedthe'
CulturalCapitalofEurope'
eventin2001.Theaimsweretoattractvisitorsandtostimulateculturalconsumptionamongresidents,whilepositioningRotterdamasaculturaldestination.Over2000questionnaireresponsesbyresidentandnon-residentvisitorstotheCulturalCapitaleventwereusedtoevaluatetheimageeffectsoftheevent.Indepthinterviewswerealsoundertakenwithpolicy-makersandculturalmanagers,topermitevaluationofsurveyfindingsinthecontextofricherqualitativematerial.Theimageofthecityasaculturaldestinationdidimprovein2001,butthephysicalandtangibleelementsofthecity'
simage(modernarchitecture,water)anditscharacterastheworkingcityoftheNetherlandscontinuedtodominate.[ABSTRACTFROMAUTHOR]
CitieshavelongusedmegaeventssuchasWorldFairs,Exposandsportingeventsasameansofrevitalisingtheireconomies,creatinginfrastructureandimprovingtheirimage(Getz,1991).Recentstudiesofcitymarketingandtourismhavepointedtotheincreasinguseofeventsasameanstomarketplacesandmajorcitiesinparticular(forexample,Robertson1998;
Waitt,1999,2003;
Schuster,2001).Thisphenomenoncanbelinkedtoageneralincreaseincompetitionbetweencitiesfortheattentionofimportantstakeholders,includingconsumers,investorsandpolicy-makers.Asaresultoftheincreasingintegrationoftheglobaleconomy,agreaternumberofplacesaredrawnintothiscompetitiveenvironmentand,atthesametime,thebuiltenvironment,infrastructureandamenitiesindifferentplacestendtobecomemoresimilar.
Citiesthereforeneedtofindnewwaysofdistinguishingthemselvesfromtheircompetitors.AsPaddison(1993)pointsout,citymarketingisoftendirectedattheleveringofprivatecapitaltosupportinfrastructuraldevelopments.Forexample,signaturebuildingsfrequentlyfeatureinurbanstrategiestodevelopanimageor‘brand’andcreatecompetitiveadvantage,oftenatgreatfinancialcost.RecentexamplesincludetheBilbaoGuggenheimmuseum,theTateModerngalleryinLondonandtheBalticFlourMillsinGateshead.
However,Paddison(1993)alsounderlinestherelativeinflexibilityofsuchinfrastructure-basedstrategies.Thecostofbuildingsuchlandmarksisperhapsoneofthemostimportantreasonswhyeventshavebecomeanincreasinglyimportantaspectofinter-urbancompetitioninrecentyears.Eventsprovideameansofaddingflexibilitytofixedstructures,supplyingasourceofspectaclewhichaddstotheimagevalueofalandmark.Eventsmayalsobeusedasaplatformforcreatinglandmarks,asinthecaseofthe1992WorldExpoinSevilleorthe1992OlympicGamesinBarcelona.Theyoftenrepresentalesscostlymeansofdistinguishingplacesandoftengeneratesignificantmediainterest.Eventsmayalsoencouragepeopletovisitaplacemorethanonceand,byhostingaseriesofdifferentevents,acitymayprofileitselfinanumberofdifferentpotentialmarkets.CitiesthereforecompetefiercelyforthehonourofhostingeventssuchastheOlympicGames,theWorldCup,WorldExpo(Hall,1992).
Citiesandtheirhinterlandshavebecomestagesforacontinualstreamofevents,whichleadeventuallytothe‘festivalisation’ofthecityand‘festivalmarketplaces’(Harvey,1991).Withthegrowthofthe‘symboliceconomy’andthe‘experienceeconomy’,culturehasbecomeincreasinglyimportantasameansofconsumingthecity.Indeed,Harvey(1989)maintainsthatthegrowthof‘blockbuster’eventsisafeatureoftheincreasinglyrapidturnoverofconsumption.
Insuchaclimate,culturaleventsinparticularhaveemergedasameansofimprovingtheimageofcities,addinglifetocitystreetsandgivingcitizensrenewedprideintheirhomecity.Thisenhancementofcommunityprideanddestinationimagefollowinganeventhasbeenreferredtoasthe‘haloeffect’,the‘showcaseeffect’andthe‘feel-goodeffect’.Zukinarguesthatcultureisaeuphemismforthecity’snewrepresentationasacreativeforceintheemergingserviceeconomy,cultureisthesumofacity’samenitiesthatenableittocompeteforinvestmentandjobs,its‘comparativeadvantage’(Zukin,1995,p.268).
Zukin’sviewof‘culture’ascoveringalltheamenitiesofacityreflectsthefactthattheverynotionof‘culture’hasexpandedtotakeinnotjust‘traditional’,‘high’cultureattractionssuchasmuseums,theatresandconcerthalls,butalsoincreasinglyincludeselementsof‘popular’culture,suchaspopmusic,fashion,andsport.Bothhighcultureandpopularculturehavebecomeimportantsourcesfortheimageswhichareusedtounderpinthe‘brandimage’ofcities(KearnsandPhilo,1993).
Increasingcompetitionbetweencitiesinacrowdedfieldofimagesisoneofthemajorfactorsstimulatingcitiestoadoptsuchbrandingstrategies,oreven‘hardbranding’thatseekstotransformfixedculturalcapitalintocompetitiveadvantagethroughthestagingofculturaleventsortheconstructionofculturallandmarks.Citybrandingusedtobeassociatedwiththeflightfromanindustrialpast(Holcomb,1993;
BramwellandRawding,1996),butisnowlinkedtoenhancingtheurbanlandscapewithgloballybrandedartsandentertainmentdestinations,encapsulatedinthe‘fantasycity’(Hannigan,1998).AsHannigan(2003)suggests,asuccessfulbrandshouldbeinstantlyrecognisable,playonthedesireforcomfortandcertaintyandprovideapointofidentificationforconsumersinacrowdedmarket-place.
Somemajorculturaleventshavearguablybecome‘brands’intheirownright,suchastheEdinburghFestival,theCannesFilmFestivalortheNottingHillCarnival.TheEuropeanCulturalCapital(ECC)eventhasalsoarguablybecomea‘brand’,whichisnowextendingtoothercontinentsaswell(Evans,2003).SuchisthevalueofthisbrandthatthehonourofstagingtheeventisalmostasfiercelycontestedastheOlympicGames.Forexample,14UKcitiescompetedinthestartingline-upforthehonourofhostingthe2008ECCevent.
Theresearchpresentedhereillustratesdifferentaspectsofthecomplexprocessofstimulatingimagechangethroughamajorculturalevent.ThedataindicateamarkedpositivechangeintheimageofRotterdam,amongresidentsandexternalaudiences,atleastimmediatelyfollowingtheevent.Thisgeneralsatisfactionwiththereturnoninvestmentintheeventseemsjustified,particularlywhencomparedwiththeresultsofthePorto2001ECC,whichinvestedfarmorebutobtainedFewerbenefitsintermsofeitherimageChangeoreconomicimpact(Richardsetal.2002).
However,theimageimpactsobservedinRotterdamalsounderlinedtheircomplexity.TheimageofRotterdamseemstobestronglydifferentiatedintermsofitscomponentsandintermsoftheimageheldbydifferentgroupsofvisitorsandthusitisclearthatweneedtostarttalkingabout‘images’ratherthan‘image’.Ingeneral,theimagecomponentsidentifiedmoststronglybyrespondentswerethedesignativeandtangibleaspectsofthecityscape,suchasmodernarchitectureandwater.Theappraisive-evaluativeimagecomponentsassociatedwiththe‘character’ofRotterdam,suchasmulticultural,workingcity,internationalanddynamicalsoscoredveryhighly.Cultureandartalsoseemtohavescoredrelativelyhighlycomparedwithothercomponentsrelatedtothefacilitiesoramenitiesavailableinthecity,whichsuggestsapositiveimpactoftheECContheimageofRotterdamasaculturalcitybyatleastaddingaculturaldimensiontotheexistingimages.UnfortunatelytheappraisiveaffectivecomponentsoftheimageofRotterdamscorelowest,indicatingthatthecity
provokesaratherneutralaffectiveresponseandimageformationhastakenplaceatamoresuperficialanduninvolvedlevel.ThisperhapssuggeststhatRotterdamislackingintheambience/atmospherethatmanyculturaldestinationsstriveforinordertocomplementthehardulturalinfrastructure(allowingvisitorstomakeamoreemotionalconnectionwiththecity).
ThecomponentsoftheimageofRotterdamidentifiedbyvisitorstotheECCalsovaryconsiderablyaccordingtovisitororigin,age,statusandgender,withdifferentgroupshavingdistinctivecommonevaluationsofimagecomponents.Ingeneral,Rotterdammerstendtohaveastrongerandmorepositiveimageoftheirowncity.DutchtouristsfromotherpartsofthecountrytendtoscoreRotterdamhigherintermsofitsphysicalfeaturesandappraisive-evaluativeaspectssuchas‘multicultural’,‘inter-national’and‘dynamic’.ThismayreflectthefactthatRotterdamhas“analmost‘American’urbanform”(RussoandvanderBorg,2002,p.634),boastingthehighestconcentrationoftallbuildingsandthelargestproportionofethnicminoritypopulationintheNetherlands.DomestictouristsmaythereforeseeRotterdamasabiginternationalcityincomparisonwithotherDutchcities.Foreigntourists,ontheotherhand,tendtoscoreRotterdamloweronimageattributesacrossboard,indicatingthattheyhaveaweaker,morediffuseimageofthecityasawhole.Thisstudythereforesuggeststhatthedifferentcomponentsofplaceimageidentifiedintheliteraturecanbeusefulinanalyzingtheimageeffectsofevents.
AcomparisonoftheresearchconductedinRotterdamduringtheECCeventin2001withpreviousstudiesofEuropeancityimageshowsthatRotterdamimproveditsrankinginthefieldofEuropeanculturaltourismdestinationsin2001.TheproportionofrespondentsseeingRotterdamasasuitabledes
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 外文 翻译 影响 城市形象 文化活动 鹿特丹 欧洲 文化 资本