Development of Narva River Water Tourist Routes Stage 2 (Routes Development): Key Findings

25.10.07

The present document is developed within the „Narva River Water Routes” project financed by the European Union

2

Today’s Objectives

Present key findings of Routes Development stage – Route development criteria

– Initial route options (5)

– Demand assessment: stakeholder focus groups

– Route evaluation and prioritization (scorecard method)

– Initial requirements (incl functional, technical) for river tourism vessel

Identify additional information / analysis needs

Agree on direction for next stage

3

Route evaluation criteria Expected demand

– Tourists• Domestic• Foreign• Corporate / conference• Excursion groups (leisure) • Individual tourists (leisure)

– Narva residents Value added

– Visual and aesthetic appeal– Educational and informational value– Contribution to social environment – Place marketing / Image-building value (for Narva)

4

Route 1: Silhouettes of Narva

Route: Narva Harbor – Hermann Castle – Narva Harbor - Väikesaar – Tank T-34 - Narva Harbor

Stopover: No Duration: 45 - 60 min Purpose / content:

City excursion Relaxation /

entertainment Snack food / bar

1

2

3

4

78

9

1011

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

5

6

1

2

3

4

78

9

1011

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

5

6

5

Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express Route: Narva Harbor –

Narva-Jõesuu – Narva Harbor

Stopover: Yes (Narva-Jõesuu)

Duration: 30 – 45 min Purpose / content:

Fast and convenient regular connection between Narva and Narva-Jõesuu

Several trips a day Snack food / bar Excursion possibility Bicycle storage

1

2

3

4

78

9

1011

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

5

6

1

2

3

4

78

9

1011

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

5

6

6

Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise Route: Narva Harbor –

Narva-Jõesuu – Narva Harbor

Stopover: No Duration: 2 hours Purpose / content:

Cultural events (concerts, theater, etc.)

Parties and other entertainment events (public, private)

Catering, bar Excursion possibility

1

2

3

4

78

9

1011

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

5

6

1

2

3

4

78

9

1011

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

5

6

7

Route 4: Narva Bay Cruise Route: Narva Harbor –

Narva-Jõesuu – Narva – Narva Bay – Narva-Jõesuu - Narva Sadam

Stopover: No Duration: 3-4 hours Purpose / content:

Cultural events Parties and other

entertainment events (public, private)

Catering, bar Excursion possibility Special package: sunset

cruise

1

2

3

4

78

9

1011

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

5

6

1

2

3

4

78

9

1011

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

5

6

8

Route 5: Robinson Cruise

Route: Narva Harbor – Väikesaar – Narva Harbor

Stopover: Yes (Väikesaar)

Duration: 10 – 15 min (1 way)

Prerequisite: active recreation possibility on Väikesaar (e.g., children’s theme park)

1

2

3

4

78

9

1011

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

5

6

1

2

3

4

78

9

1011

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

5

6

9

Demand assessment: focus groups 8 participants Age range: 16–59 years, average age: 34 63% male, 37% female Diverse educational and professional backgrounds

Narva Residents (10.10.07)

Local Tourism

Enterprises (11.10.07)

Tallinn Tourism

Enterprises (12.10.07)

10

Narva Residents: Situation Assessment

Representative quotes:

– ‘Selection is extremely poor for all groups and all possibilities are used up’

– ‘There are very few places for families with children’

– ‘There is no entertainment for middle-aged people’

– ‘Tourists have no reasons for returning to Narva – new events take place so rarely’

Evaluation of Leisure / Recreation Opportunities in Narva and Vicinity

3,00 2,75 2,75 2,75 2,63

3,50

-

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

Young adults Families w ithchildren

Teenagers Middle-Aged Seniors Comparison:tourists

Eval

uatio

n (1

=poo

r, 5=

exce

llent

)

11

Narva Residents: Situation Assessment Unmet Needs Regarding Leisure / Recreation Opportunitis in Narva

and Vicinity

2,38

2,38

2,57

2,75

2,88

2,88

3,00

3,19

3,50

3,57

4,25

4,25

4,50

4,75

- 1 2 3 4 5

Restaurants

Cinema

Playing areas for children

Public parties (discos, dance evenings)

Bars and Pubs

Sports

Walking parks

Facilities for private parties (e.g., birthdays)

Concerts: open-air

Concerts: indoor

Theater

Theme parks (all-family activities)

Boat rides on Narva River

Water center / Water park / Spa

Unmet Need (1=Very Low, 5=Very High)

12

Unmet Needs: Sample Quotes

‘There are no pubs or restaurants in Narva which I could recommend to a visitor as something different. Everything is just the same.’

‘The main drawback is that we don’t have a theater’.

‘There are no experiential/educational possibilities for children’

‘There are no bicycle paths’

‘There is a lack of places where to organize private events for children – which would be fun and where alcohol would not be sold’

13

What kind of experience / ship? ‘Event ship’ rated as most attractive (4,75), followed by ‘river tram’ (4,5)

and ‘restaurant ship’ (3,5)

Sample quotes:

– ‘It would be nice for the ship to combine catering and entertainment functions’

– ‘Possibility of live music on the ship is a must! Various kinds of entertainment activities for residents of Narva could be held on the ship’

– ‘Events on the open deck – for local residents and tourists’

– ‘Historical ship, live music, fast food – this is what residents are interested in’

14

Residents: Route Evaluation

Route 1: ‘More interesting for tourists and schoolchildren’

Route 2: ‘Greatest practical utility’

Route 3: ‘Appropriate for various kinds of events’

Route 4: ‘Attractive only when accompanied by entertainment program’

Route 5: ‘With appropriate infrastructure this could be a great recreation opportunity for families with children’

Evaluation of 5 River Tourism Routes by Narva Residents

4,054,78

4,23 4,33 4,20

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

Route 1:Silhouettes of

Narva

Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express

Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise

Route 4: NarvaBay Cruise

Route 5:Robinson

Cruise

Attr

activ

enes

s (1

=not

at a

ll at

trac

tive,

5=

very

attr

activ

e)

15

Residents: Route Evaluation

Attractiveness of 5 River Tourism Routes By Demographic Segments

-

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

Familie

s with

child

ren

Teen

agers

Youn

g adu

lts

Middle-

Aged

Senior

s

Attr

activ

enes

s (1

=not

at a

ll at

tract

ive,

5=

very

attr

activ

e) Route 1: Silhouettes of NarvaRoute 2: Narva-Jõesuu ExpressRoute 3: Narva-Jõesuu CruiseRoute 4: Narva Bay CruiseRoute 5: Robinson Cruise

16

Demand assessment: focus groups 8 participants Age range: 16–59 years, average age: 34 63% male, 37% female Diverse educational and professional backgrounds

Narva Residents (10.10.07)

Local Tourism

Enterprises (11.10.07)

Tallinn Tourism

Enterprises (12.10.07)

10 participants from Narva and nearby – Accommodation enterprises (Narva, Inger, King,

Vana-Olgina Manor, Narva-Jõesuu Sanatorium)– Travel Agencies (Adali, Silver Dream Travel)– Events & Entertainment (Geneva Center) – Tour guide

17

Demand assessment: local tourism enterprises

Evaluation of Unmet Needs Among Different Tourist Segments in Narva

3,44

2,50 2,67

3,33 3,57

-

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

Foreign tourist Domestic tourist Individual tourist Excursion Groups Corporate /Conference

Unm

et N

eed

(1=

no u

nmet

nee

d,

5=ve

ry h

igh

unm

et n

eed)

‘ There is potential among all customer segments. In Narva there is no supply (of tourism products), therefore no demand either’

18

Unmet needs: local tourism enterprises

‘There is no river tourism, nothing for children’

‘There are no tourism products for children’

‘We perceive demand for new tourism products, incl water tourism, active recreation, products for children’

‘Nature tourism oriented at children’

‘Dining for transit groups’

‘Water tourism for local population and individual tourists’

‘Nature tourism, water tourism products’

‘Comfortable accommodation’

19

Demand assessment: local tourism enterprises

River Tourism Product Potential Among Various Tourist Segments

4,40

3,60

4,40 4,20 4,14

-

1

2

3

4

5

Foreign tourist Domestic tourist Individual tourist Excursiongroups

Corporate /Conference

Pote

ntia

l (1=

very

low

, 5=v

ery

high

)

20

What kind of experience / ship? ‘Event ship’ rated as most attractive (4,08), followed by ‘restaurant ship’

(3,76) and ‘river tram’ (3,5)

Sample quotes:

– ‘River tram would be oriented at local residents, it will not impress tourists.’

– ‘Without on-board events – a kind of a ‘hook’, there would be no demand’

– ‘Tourists need a combination of catering and events’

– ‘Large carrying capacity is most important – for organizing events in the evenings and excursions/relaxation events during the day’

– ‘Best would be if tourists come to Narva, visit castle, learn about history and then ride on a modern ship to Narva-Jõesuu’

– ‘There is no need to exaggerate. There are already many historical objects in Narva, we need to create something modern as well.’

21

Route evaluation: local tourism enterprisesEvaluation of 5 River Tourism Routes by Narva Tourism

Enterprises

2,823,45

3,97 4,193,63

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

Route 1:Silhouettes of

Narva

Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express

Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise

Route 4: NarvaBay Cruise

Route 5:Robinson Cruise

Attra

ctiv

enes

s (1

=not

at a

ll at

tract

ive,

5=v

ery

attra

ctiv

e)

‘Narva Bay Cruise could be used for both daytime and evening events’ ‘Routes 3 or 4 are interesting for all segments and simply obligatory for further development’ ‘Not particularly interested in ‘Silhouettes of Narva’ – not sure which customers would want it’ ‘Why not extend the route to Sillamäe and Toila?’ ‘There should also be routes for yachts and small vessels (e.g., canoes)

22

Demand assessment: local tourism enterprises

Attractiveness of 5 River Tourism Routes By Tourist Segments

-

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

Foreign

touri

st

Domes

tic to

urist

Indivi

dual

Excurs

ion G

roups

Corpora

te/Con

feren

ce

Attr

activ

enes

s (1

=not

at a

ll at

tract

ive,

5=v

ery

attra

ctiv

e) Route 1: Silhouettes of NarvaRoute 2: Narva-Jõesuu ExpressRoute 3: Narva-Jõesuu CruiseRoute 4: Narva Bay CruiseRoute 5: Robinson Cruise

23

Demand assessment: focus groups 8 participants Age range: 16–59 years, average age: 34 63% male, 37% female Diverse educational and professional backgrounds

Narva Residents (10.10.07)

Local Tourism

Enterprises (11.10.07)

Tallinn Tourism

Enterprises (12.10.07)

10 participants from Narva and nearby

– Accommodation enterprises (Narva, Inger, King, Vana-Olgina Manor, Narva-Jõesuu Sanatorium)

– Travel agencies (Adali, Silver Dream Travel)

– Events & Entertainment (Geneva Center)

– Tour guide 5 participants from leading Estonian tourism

enterprises – Incoming travel agencies (Baltic Tours, Estonian

Holidays, Restling, Con-Ex/Latvian Tours) – Event marketing / incentive agency: East Express

24

Unmet needs re: Narva

Lack of attractions and highlights in addition to Hermann Castle

– Specifically, demand for 1 – 3 h activities (excursions, etc.)

Lack of catering options – e.g., group lunches while in transit between Tallinn and St. Petersburg

Lack of tour guides – esp. German language

Narva’s location makes it difficult to bring incentive/corporate groups – convenient air access would improve situation

However, general agreement that Narva’s tourism potential is high and so far mostly unrealized

– Cultural-historical tourism products

– Narva as EU’s Eastern border, East-West meeting point

25

Unmet needs by tourist segments

Evaluation of Unmet Needs Among Different Tourist Segments In Narva

3,44

4,5

3,75

3

00,5

11,5

22,5

33,5

44,5

5

Foreign

Touri

st

Domes

tic To

urist

Indivi

dual

Touri

st

Excurs

ion G

roups

Corpora

te/Con

feren

ce

Unm

et N

eed

(1=n

o un

met

nee

d, 5

=ver

y hi

gh

unm

et n

eed)

26

Unmet needs by tourist segments

River Tourism Product Potential Among Various Tourist Segments

3,64,2 4 4

3

0

1

2

3

4

5

Foreign

Touri

st

Domes

tic To

urist

Indivi

dual

Touri

st

Excurs

ion G

roups

Corpora

te/Con

feren

ce

Pote

ntia

l (1=

very

low

, 5=v

ery

high

)

27

What kind of experience / ship? ‘Event ship’ rated as most attractive (3,6) compared to ‘restaurant ship (3,18)

and ‘river tram’ (2,65)

Sample quotes: – ‘The ship should combine catering function (even if simple coffee breaks)

with a quality tourism experience – to get the most out of the limited time tourists spend in Narva

– ‘Restaurant ship would be appropriate for foreign tourists while ‘event-ship’ for domestic tourists’

– ‘There is huge potential for an event ship where Estonian companies could hold summer days (100-150 persons)

– ‘In Narva it would be great to combine history, culture and events in river tourism’

– ‘The ship should certainly have a historic character,preferrably 30’s style’– ‘More important than style (historical vs modern) is quality of service and

carrying capacity’ – ‘I see little potential for a river tram: for local residents or tourists’ – ‘A decent ship in an attractive area like Narva could be a commercial hit’

28

Route evaluation: national tourism enterprises

‘Narva Bay Cruise sounds most exotic and and interesting. Something that can be really exciting.’

‘A shorter cruise (Route 1) could be suitable for coffee breaks / lunches’.

‘Route 1 for transit tourists, Route 4 for overnighting tourists’

Evaluation of 5 River Tourism Routes By Estonian Tourism Enterprises

3,65 3,60 3,83 4,35

2,80

-

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

Route 1:Silhouettes of

Narva

Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express

Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise

Route 4: NarvaBay Cruise

Route 5:Robinson

Cruise

Attra

ctiv

enes

s (1

=not

at a

ll at

tract

ive,

5=v

ery

attra

ctiv

e)

29

Demand assessment: national tourism enterprises

Attractiveness of 5 River Tourism Routes by Tourist Segments

-

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

Foreign

touri

st

Domes

tic to

urist

Indivi

dual

touris

t

Excurs

ion G

roups

Corpora

te/Con

feren

ce

Attr

activ

enes

s (1

=not

at a

ll at

trac

tive,

5=v

ery

attr

activ

e)

Route 1: Silhouettes of NarvaRoute 2: Narva-Jõesuu ExpressRoute 3: Narva-Jõesuu CruiseRoute 4: Narva Bay CruiseRoute 5: Robinson Cruise

30

Focus groups: Summary

Evaluation of River Ship Types

0

1

2

3

4

5

Residents Local tourism enterprises National tourismenterprises

Event ship

Restaurant ship

River tram

‘Event ship’ rated highest by all stakeholders

31

Focus groups: Summary

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

Route 1:Silhouettes

of Narva

Route 2:Narva-JõesuuExpress

Route 3:Narva-JõesuuCruise

Route 4:Narva Bay

Cruise

Route 5:Robinson

Cruise

Residents

Tour. Enterprises: local

Tour. Enterprises: national

Route 4 tourists’ favorite, Route 2 rated highest by residents

32

Focus groups: Conclusions Expected demand in river tourism development high among all customer

segments (incl tourists, residents) – whereas unmet need appears to be highest among residents

All focus groups pointed at ‘event ship’ as the most exciting type of ship; for residents, ‘river tram’ came as a close second.

As a result, Route 4 (Narva Bay Cruise) emerged as the combined favorite route:

– No. 1 for local and national tourism enterprises

– No. 2 for residents

However, high ratings of other routes imply that there is demand for multiple river tourism routes, depending on target customers and their specific needs

– Shorter route (Route 1) for transit tourists, longer route (Route 4) for overnighting tourists

– Route 5 as a potential ‘hit’ for local residents (families with children)

33

Route evaluation criteria: relative weights Relative Weights of Route Evaluation Criteria

8%

8%8% 8%

8%

20%

10%10%10%

10%

Tourists - Domestic

Tourists - Foreign

Tourists -Corporate/ConferenceTourists: Excursion groups

Tourists: Individual

Narva Residents

Aesthetic / visual appeal

Educational / informationalvalueContribution to socialenvironmentPlace marketing / image-building value

Tourist demand: 40%

Resident demand: 20%

34

Scorecard: Data

Weight (%) Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 51. Expected demandTourists (Weighted average) 40% 3,24 3,54 3,90 4,27 3,21Narva Residents 20% 4,05 4,78 4,23 4,33 4,2

2. Value-addedAesthetic / visual appeal 10% 4 4 4 5 3Educational / informational value 10% 5 3 3 3 3Contribution to social environment 10% 3 5 4 4 5Place marketing / image-building value 10% 5 4 4 4 3

35

Scorecard: Results Composite Ratings of 5 River Tourism Routes

3,80 3,97 3,91 4,17 3,53

-

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

Route 1:Silhouettes of

Narva

Narva-JõesuuExpress

Narva-JõesuuCruise

Narva Bay Cruise Robinson Cruise

Route 4 (Narva Bay Cruise) highest rated; however other routes not far behind

Recommendation to develop master route network rather than single route

36

Narva River Tourism Route Network: Draft

Hermann Castle

Narva Harbour

Väikesaar

Tank T-34

Narva - Jõesuu Harbour

Russian Federation

Republic of Estonia

Narva Bay

Control line

1 2 3 4 5

1

1

2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1

1 2 3 4 55

2 3 44

4

4 22 3 4

2 3 15

37

Functional requirements: ship

Parameters which facilitate events and contribute to memorable experiences received highest ratings (incl sundeck, spacious inner deck, live music possibility)

Full-scale restaurant not an obligatory product feature, but catering capability is a must

Other things equal, stakeholders prefer an historical type of ship, however historical ‘feel’ should not come at the expense of convenience and quality of service

Importance of River Ship Parameters (Average ratings from 3 focus groups)

4,12 3,98 3,96 3,92 3,74 3,73 3,61 3,22 3,05

- 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00

Sunde

ck

Inner

deck

Histori

cal s

hip Bar

Live m

usic

Caterin

g - fa

st foo

d

Caterin

g - re

staura

nt

Modern

ship

Luxu

rious

inter

iorAttra

ctiv

enes

s (1

=not

at a

ll im

porta

nt, 5

=ver

y im

porta

nt)

38

Technical requirements: ship

Meets requirements for river (Narva) AND coastal sea (Narva Bay) navigation

Inner deck carrying capacity: 70 - 100 persons

Possibility to use sundeck for open-air events

Sufficient supporting infrastructure for recreational use (e.g., toilets)

Capability of off-season navigation / use (e.g., heating)

39

Outstanding Questions

How to prioritize between ‘event ship’ and ‘river tram’ ?

Which routes should be included in feasibility study?

– Option 1: Routes 1, 3, 4

– Option 2: Routes 1-4

– Option 3: Routes 1-5

How to address interests/needs of small vessels (e.g., yachts, canoes)?

40

Next Steps

Adjust Stage 2 findings based on today’s discussion

Conduct Narva River inspection: Oct. 30, 2007

Finalize Stage 2 conclusions (Nov. 2), submit presentation (PPT)

– More detailed route definition

– Updated scorecard and route ratings

Begin work on Stage 3 (viability / feasibility study)

Schedule next working meeting (review of feasibility study 1st draft)