economic impacts of tourism in german protected areas

Economic Impacts of Tourismin Large Scale Protected Areas

Key Figures for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Parliamentary Evening:„25 years protected areas in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern –

biodiversity policy as contribution to a sustainable (economical)development “ 25.11.2015, Brussels

Niklas Scheder

Large Scale Protected Areas of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

27.11.2015 Department for Geography and Geology / Chair for Geography and Regional Research 2

Why Monitoring of Tourism in Protected Areas?


“Any phenomenon that is not measured and reported does not exist politically. Governments, societies, communities and individuals place more value on that which is documented.“

Prof. Paul F.J. Eagles

• Self-evaluation and benchmarking

• Justify budget

• Internal and external marketing/communication

• Gain regional acceptance

• Visitor Management

Evaluation of Regional Economic Impacts: A Brief History

• 2001/02: First attempt to evaluate economic impacts of tourism withinthe Berchtesgaden National Park region

• 2003-05: Development of a standardized method for the evaluation of economic impacts of tourism in German large scale protected areas based on three case study regions

• 2006-2019: Application to 14 national parks and 12 biosphere reserves by a series of research projects

• Funding was always granted by by the Federal Ministry for Environment, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) and Federal Nature Conservation Agency (BfN) as well as some of the local management bodies


Research Design


Destination Survey

Short Interviews

Long Interviews

Gross Tourist SpendingCountings

& Official Statistics Visitor Days per Year

Total Income &Income Equivalents

(FTE)

Direct & IndirectMultipliers

Computation Official Statistics

Visitor Structure

Expenditures & Motivation

Visitation

Visitors with a High Affinity towards Protected Areas


low

high

only economic effects induced by the core group of visitors can be linked toprotected areas

= core group


Awareness and Share of Visitors with a high PA Affinity

*STEINGRUBE & JESCHKE (2011)

89,5%*

65,4%

77,2%

69,6%

32,7%

47,7%*

31,5%27,5%

21,7%

4,9%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

Müritz NLP VP Boddenlandschaft NLP Jasmund NLP Schaalsee BR SO-Rügen BR

Knowledge of PA High Affinity (Core Group)

Visitor Numbers


PA Year of study Visitation Days OvernightGuests in %

Daytrippersin %

Schaalsee BR 2011/12 490.000 17,6 82,4

SO-Rügen BR 2011/12 5.288.000 93,3 6,7

Müritz NLP 2004 / 2010* 375.000* 90,8 9,2

Jasmund NLP 2013/14 679.000 91,8 8,2

VP Bodden-landschaft NLP

2013/14 4.766.000 84,8 15,2

Total 11.598.000


Visitor Spendings


Avg. spending per Person per Day in €

PA Overnight Guests Day Trippers

Core Group Other Core Group OtherSchaalsee BR 58,60 48,40 20,40 17,20

SO-Rügen BR 76,50 75,60 - 17,20

Müritz NLP 58,00* 57,91* 16,68* 12,58*

Jasmund NLP 81,70 72,00 23,10 15,20


70,50 68,00 20,50 14,90


Economic Impacts

Economic Impact Assessment: Value Added Analysis


Scha

alse

eBi

osph

ere

Res

erve

Economic Impacts for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern


Gross Turnover in € Total Regional Income in € Full Time Equivalents

PA All Visitors Core Group All Visitors Core Group All Visitors Core Group

Schaalsee BR 11.609.500 3.032.100 5.747.800 1.489.200 336 87

SO-Rügen BR 379.274.800 19.890.000 203.924.700 10.875.750 14.281 762

Müritz NLP 20.236.200* 9.677.500* 10.410.900* 4.970.700* 768** 367**

Jasmund NLP 47.509.000 13.959.400 24.838.500 7.327.200 1.583 467


290.049.800 94.420.500 150.392.000 49.070.350 9.582 3.126

total 728.443.100 131.302.000 384.903.000 68.762.500 25.782 4.442

*STEINGRUBE & JESCHKE (2011)**own computation based on data from STEINGRUBE & JESCHKE (2011)

Special Events: e.g. Birding


• additional study in 2013• 74,5% of visits only because of

the cranes• 6.246 visitor days through crane

day trippers (11,5%)• 127.340 visitor days through

crane overnight guests (88,5% )

Special nature events elevatethe average PA affinity in a significant way: among cranetourists 46% had a high national park affinity compared to 31,5% annual average

Conclusion

• Regional income due to the core group of PA Visitors in MV ≈ 70 million €(not including Flusslandschaft Elbe BR & Nature Parks)

• One Time Evaluation → Continuous Monitoringe.g. Müritz NLP:


2004 2010Visitation Days 390.000 375.000*

Share of Core Group 43,7 % 47,7* %

Total Regional Income 6.858.800 € 10.410.900* €

Full Time Equivalents 628 768**

*STEINGRUBE & JESCHKE (2011)**own computation based on data from STEINGRUBE & JESCHKE (2011)


Thank you.