Advertisement

Revealed and Stated Preferences for Cross-Border Tourism to Protected Areas in Poland and Germany

  • Marius MayerEmail author
  • Wojciech Zbaraszewski
  • Dariusz Pieńkowski
  • Gabriel Gach
  • Johanna Gernert
Chapter
Part of the Geographies of Tourism and Global Change book series (GTGC)

Abstract

With this chapter we finalize the presentation of the results of the online survey by analyzing the influencing factors on cross-border tourism to protected areas in Poland and Germany. The correlation and regression analyses are based on both revealed and stated preference data on visits to protected areas in the home and neighboring countries in order to test the explanatory power of various influencing factors on the revealed and stated visitation behavior to protected areas in the Polish-German border region. Regarding the stated protected area choices, Poland’s Woliń National Park and Germany’s Island of Usedom Nature Park turned out to be the preferred destinations. All-in-all, respondents’ preferences for hypothetical day and weekend trips are very similar. Once again, Polish respondents have a higher tendency to visit protected areas in Germany than vice versa. As expected, the distance between residents’ homes and protected areas has an influence on the number of hypothetical visits, but the level of awareness of protected areas emerged as a much stronger influencing factor. Images and prejudices play more important roles for stated than revealed preferences. Despite these findings, any suggestion as to the direction of causality remains speculative.

References

  1. Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2008). Multivariate Analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung (12th ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Freeman, A. M. (2003). The measurement of environmental and resource values. Theory and methods. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  3. Haider, W. (2002). Stated preference & choice models—A versatile alternative to traditional recreation research. In A. Arnberger, C. Brandenburg, & A. Muhar (Eds.), Monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas. Conference proceedings (pp. 115–121). Wien: BOKU.Google Scholar
  4. Mayer, M. (2013). Kosten und Nutzen des Nationalparks Bayerischer Wald - eine ökonomische Bewertung unter Berücksichtigung von Tourismus und Forstwirtschaft. München: Oekom.Google Scholar
  5. Mayer, M., & Woltering, M. (2018). Assessing and valuing the recreational ecosystem services of Germany’s national parks using travel cost models. Ecosystem Services, 31(Part C), 371–386.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Ward, F. A., & Beal, D. (2000). Valuing nature with travel cost models. A manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Wooldridge, J. M. (2008). Introductory econometrics—A modern approach (4th ed.). London: South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marius Mayer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wojciech Zbaraszewski
    • 2
  • Dariusz Pieńkowski
    • 3
  • Gabriel Gach
    • 4
  • Johanna Gernert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Geography and GeologyUniversität GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany
  2. 2.Department of System Analysis and FinanceWest Pomeranian University of TechnologySzczecinPoland
  3. 3.University of Life Sciences in PoznańPoznańPoland
  4. 4.LVR-Kulturzentrum Abtei BrauweilerLandschaftsverband Rheinland (LVR)PulheimGermany

Personalised recommendations