“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