economic impacts of national parks – experiences from germany
Post on 24-Feb-2016
36 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 1Julius Arnegger
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 2Julius Arnegger
Economic Impacts of National Parks–
Experiences from Germany
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 3Julius Arnegger
Agenda
1. National Parks as tourist attractions
2. Research design and methodology
3. Results from six national parks in Germany
4. Conclusions
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 4Julius Arnegger
Protected areas: the economic perspective
Source: adapted from Munasinghe (1992): 229
Option value
Economic Value of Protected Areas
USE VALUES NON-USE VALUES
BiodiversityGenetic diversity
Existence value
Climate influenceCarbon sequestrationWatershed protection
Tangible assets:
Tourism/Recreation
Agriculture, Forestry, Wildlife harvesting
Intangible assets:
e.g. Image building
Indirect use valuesDirect use values
Aesthetic LandscapesRare Species
Bequest value
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 5Julius Arnegger
National parks as attractions
National Parks
guarantee for authentic nature and wildlife experience are rare and represent natural
heritage
cannot be imitated because of their legal status
create a positive image for a region
Can be seen as unique selling propositions (nucleus)
Conceptualized following Leiper 1990, Hannemann/Job 2003, Metzler 2007, Wall Reinius/Fredman 2007
are used in the globalized tourism market as attractive brands (marker)
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 6Julius Arnegger
Research questions
How many tourists visit German national parks?
What is the role of German national parks as tourist
attractions?
What are the economic effects generated by tourism in
German national parks?
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 7Julius Arnegger
Type 1 (traditional tourist destination withno specific national park orientation)
Berchtesgaden Harz Lower Saxony Wadden Sea*
Type 2 (national park destination strongly developed)
Bavarian Forest Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea West-Pomeranian Boddenlandschaft
Type 3 (averagely developed national park destination)
Eifel Jasmund Müritz Saxon Switzerland
Type 4 (below average developed national park destination)
Hainich Kellerwald-Edersee Lower Oder Valley
(*special case: Hamburg Wadden Sea)
National parksand spatial structure
Source: Job et al. (2009): 54-56
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 8Julius Arnegger
National parks within the regional economy
Source: adapted from Metzler 2007: 55
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 9Julius Arnegger
Survey design
Desti
natio
n su
rvey
shortinterviews
longinterviews
visitor structure
expendituremotivation
gross turn-over
Countings provide estimation on total number of visitors Short interviews comprise true random sampling Long interviews as intercept face-to-face survey (expenses,
knowledge of protection status and motivation)
countings visitor number
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 10Julius Arnegger
Calculation of income and employment effects
Multi-plier
Multi-plier
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 11Julius Arnegger
Visitors with high national park affinity
“Do you know whether this area enjoys any special protection?”
“Do you know whether this region is a national park?”
“How important was the existence of the national park in your decision to come to this region?”
45.8% = share of visitors with high national park affinity Other visitors
Yes(86.1%)
No(13.9%)
Yes(97.4%)
No(0.3%)
Importantor very important
(54.7%)
Less importantor unimportant
(44.6%)
Example: Bavarian Forest
46%
54%
High national park affinityOther visitors
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 12Julius Arnegger
National park affinity, visitor days, visitor density
Source: Mayer et al. (2010): 76
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 13Julius Arnegger
Economic impacts
Bayerischer Wald Eifel Hainich Kellerwald-
EderseeNds.
Wattenmeer Müritz
Visitor days 760,000350,000
450,000123,000
290,000119,000
200,00052,000
20,650,0002,256,000
390,000167,000
Share of daytrippers
33 %29 %
76 %70 %
76 %74 %
59 %58 %
15 %15 %
39 %37 %
Ø Daily expendituresper Person (EUR)
36.5738.70
19.3122.77
17.2518.85
19.4820.14
50.3751.32
34.3233.80
Gross turnover(m EUR)
27.813.5
8.72.8
5.02.2
3.91.0
1,040.2115.8
13.45.6
Income (m EUR) 13.56.5
4.31.4
2.51.12
1.90.52
525.158.2
6.92.8
Ø regional income per capita (EUR) 14,387 16,217 12,132 18,335 17,335 10,918
Income equivalent (persons)
939456
26585
20692
10528
30.2893.360
628261
Italics: tourists with a high national park affinity
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 14Julius Arnegger
Conclusions
National parks have the potential to be major destinations gaining importance in German tourism, especially if marketing is enhanced (strong brand)
National parks can contribute considerably to regional economies, especially in peripheral and structurally weak regions
National parks do not only need eco-monitoring, but also socio-economic monitoring
Visitor and economic monitoring must be based on sound knowledge of visitor structure and correct sampling
Monitoring data should be used to establish benchmarking in tourism of national parks
“Protect and prosper”, Oxford, 10 February 2011 15Julius ArneggerThank you for your attention
top related