The relevance of visitors' national park affinity for effective visitor management in protected areas.

Abstract

This chapter introduces the concept of visitor affinity to the visitor management (VM) literature. It illustrates the basic possibilities and limits of segmentation by visitor affinity, within the framework of visitor monitoring in protected areas. For this purpose, different methodological procedures are identified and discussed in order to allow a better comparison between protected areas. Hereupon, guiding strategies for a target group-oriented VM are formulated. The Hohe Tauern National Park, Austria, is used as a case study for empirical research.

Assessing Visitors’ Understanding of River National Park Functions and Landscapes

“…Successful national park management requires information about the role the park brand plays in tourism and the visitor's understanding of national park functions and landscapes [12,14,21]. Despite the frequent use of the national park affinity concept [10][11][12][13][14][18][19][20][21], it appears that this segmentation concept has not been tested regarding visitors' perceptions and understanding of river national park landscapes. Such information, however, is crucial for sustainable visitor management and educational program development.…”

“…An adaption of the national-park affinity concept [10][11][12][13][14]20,21] was used. The affinity-based segmentation relies on the combination of three consecutive questions addressing the role of the national park brand for visitor trip motivation and identifies three segments among visitors.…”

“…The national park affinity concept which is rooted in the travel motivation theory [15][16][17] identifies visitor segments based on visitors' national park awareness and the importance of the national park brand in trip planning [9][10][11][12][13][14]. This concept has frequently been used for the tourism-induced, regional economic impact assessment of national parks [10,11,18,19], satisfaction with park facilities, services and landscape scenery, visitor loyalty and perceptions of outdoor recreation experience or attitudes towards the park and visitor management [12][13][14]20,21]. Studies showed that visitors with higher park affinity have a better understanding of the functions and nature conservation goals of national parks.…”

Sozioökonomische Untersuchungen in Schutzgebieten der Euroregion Pomerania: Besucherzufriedenheit, wirtschaftliche Effekte und Akzeptanz der Schutzgebiete

“…4) Schließlich muss die Motivation der Besucher des Schutzgebiets bekannt sein, um dem Schutzgebietstourismus den angemessenen Anteil des regionalen Einkommens zurechnen zu können, denn wenn die Besucher auch ohne das Schutzgebiet in die Region gekommen wären, können ihre Ausgaben nicht dem Schutzgebiet zugerechnet werden und sollten nicht in die wirtschaftlichen Effekte einbezogen werden. Küpfer (2000), Job et al (2003), Wall Reinius und Fredman (2007), , Arnberger et al (2012Arnberger et al ( , 2019 und Backhaus et al (2013) haben leicht abweichende Verfahren entwickelt oder verwendet, um die Motivation von Schutzgebietsbesuchern zu bewerten und sogenannte Besucher mit hoher Schutzgebietsaffinität zu identifizieren, d. h. Besucher, die höchstwahrscheinlich nicht gekommen wären, wenn es das Schutzgebiet nicht gäbe Bayer et al (2017) geben einen Überblick über diese Verfahren.…”

Socio-economic research in protected areas of the Euroregion Pomerania: Visitor satisfaction, economic impacts and park–people relationships

“…Küpfer (2000), Job et al (2003), Wall Reinius and, , Arnberger et al (2012Arnberger et al ( , 2019 and Backhaus et al (2013) came up with or used slightly differing schemes to assess PA visitors' motivation and to identify so-called visitors with a high PA affinity, i.e. visitors who most likely would not have come if the PA had not existed - Bayer et al (2017) provide a review of these approaches.…”