Advertisement

Cross-Border Tourism to Protected Areas in Poland and Germany: Methodology

  • 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

This chapter explains in detail the methodology used in our empirical study. It presents the hypotheses and design of the empirical research (workshops; pretest: focus group discussions; main survey: representative online questionnaire) and identifies the study population, before describing data collection, preparation (among other weighting) and analysis. We conducted a total of four workshops at different locations in the border region with various stakeholders; two focus group discussions, one in Szczecin and one in Berlin; and applied a representative online survey in both countries (with geographical sampling in the Polish voivodeships of Zachodniopomorskie and Lubuskie, and in eleven German counties along the border, including the city of Berlin). Each survey received over 600 responses. The format included several blocks of questions: first we asked about respondents’ leisure and holiday preferences, then for their environmental worldview and knowledge about protected areas in general, and in Poland and Germany, respectively. In the second part, respondents were asked to reply to questions concerning the image of the neighboring country, their perceptions of the border, the frequency of their border-crossings for different purposes, the barriers they perceive to cross-border activities, and their prejudices about Poland/Germany. The survey closed with sociodemographic questions.

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Auspurg, K., & Liebe, U. (2011). Choice-Experimente und die Messung von Handlungsentscheidungen in der Soziologie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 63, 301–314.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-011-0136-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baggio, R., & Klobas, J. (2011). Quantitative methods in tourism. A handbook. Bristol: Channel View.Google Scholar
  4. Beyer, H., & Liebe, U. (2015). Three experimental approaches to measure the social context dependence of prejudice communication and discriminatory behavior. Social Science Research, 49, 343–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.08.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogardus, E. S. (1925). Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299–308.Google Scholar
  6. Brosius, H.-B., Haas, A., & Koschel, F. (2016). Methoden der empirischen Kommunikationsforschung (7th ed.). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bürki, R. (2000). Klimaänderung und Anpassungsprozesse im Wintertourismus. St. Gallen: Ostschweizerische Geographische Gesellschaft.Google Scholar
  8. Canally, C., & Timothy, D. J. (2007). Perceived constraints to travel across the US-Mexico border among American university students. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(6), 423–437.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Central Statistical Office of Poland [GUS]. (2016). Population. Size and structure of population and vital statistics in Poland by territorial division. As of 30 June 2015. http://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/population/population/population-size-and-structure-of-population-and-vital-statistics-in-poland-by-territorial-divison-as-of-30-june-2015,3,14.html. Accessed March 01 2017.
  10. Göb, R., McCollin, C., & Ramalhoto, M. F. (2007). Ordinal methodology in the analysis of Likert scales. Quality & Quantity, 41, 601–626.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9089-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Häder, M. (2015). Empirische Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung (3rd ed.). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  12. Häder, M., & Häder, S. (2014). Stichprobenziehung in der quantitativen Sozialforschung. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 283–297). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  13. Haider, W. (2002). Stated preferences & 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). Vienna: Bodenkultur University Vienna.Google Scholar
  14. Henseling, C., Hahn, T., & Nolting, K. (2006). Die Fokusgruppen-Methode als Instrument in der Umwelt- und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. Berlin: IZT.Google Scholar
  15. Klemm, K., Lund-Durlacher, D., & Wolf, A. (2007). Erhebungs- und Auswertungsmethoden im Naherholungsverkehr: Das Ausflugsverhalten der Berliner Bevölkerung. In C. Becker, H. Hopfinger, & A. Steinecke (Eds.), Geographie der Freizeit und des Tourismus: Bilanz und Ausblick (3rd ed., pp. 181–192). München: Oldenbourg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kromrey, H., Roose, J., & Strübing, J. (2016). Empirische Sozialforschung. Modelle und Methoden der standardisierten Datenerhebung und Datenauswertung mit Annotationen aus qualitativ-interpretativer Perspektive (13th ed.). Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  17. Knapp, T. R. (1990). Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: An attempt to resolve the controversy. Nursing, 32(2), 121–123.Google Scholar
  18. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Porst, R. (2014). Fragebogen. Ein Arbeitsbuch (4th ed.). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pröbstl-Haider, U. (2016). Aufgaben und Bedeutung des Choice Experiments für die naturtouristische Forschung. In M. Mayer & H. Job (Eds.), Naturtourismus—Chancen und Herausforderungen (pp. 17–34). Mannheim: MetaGIS.Google Scholar
  21. Schnell, R., Hill, P. B., & Esser, E. (2013). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (13th ed.). München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  22. Steinbach, A. (2004). Soziale Distanz. Ethnische Grenzziehung und die Eingliederung von Zuwanderern in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  23. van den Broek, J., van der Velde, M., & ten Berge, H. (2015). Nullmessung des Ergebnisindikators der Priorität 2. “Wahrnehmung der deutsch-niederländischen Grenze als Barriere”. https://www.deutschland-nederland.eu/fileadmin/Dokumente/Publikationen/Nullmessung_des_Ergebnisindikators_der_Priorit%C3%A4t_2_Wahrnehmung_der_deutsch-niederl%C3%A4ndischen_Grenze_als_Barriere.pdf. Accessed April 21 2017.

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