popular in Europe - as well as a high number of domestic and day visits. .... taking children to school) has increased, but in London, as elsewhere, 'Leisure' trips ...... to travel to visitor attractions (and for business travel) via the New Jubilee Line ...
Working Paper 16
Jubilee Line Extension Impact Study VISITOR ACTIVITY SCOPING REPORT
Graeme Evans, Steve Shaw, Judy White and Janet Bohrer Centre for Leisure and Tourism Studies University of North London
October 1999
JLE Impact Study: Visitor Activity Scoping Report Contents Page No. 1.
Introduction
3
1.1
Aims and Objectives
1.2
Context of Scoping Study
1.3
Urban Tourism
1.4
Structure of Report
2.
Tourism Activity in London
2.1
Background
2.2
Profile of Tourists to London
2.3
Tourism Trends
2.4
Distribution and residence of tourists
2.5
Tourism and Hotel Planning Policies
3.
Defining the “Tourist“ and Visitor Activity
3.1
Tourist Definitions and Typologies
3.2
Main sources of Tourist and Visitor Data in the UK
3.3
Docklands/East London Visitor Surveys
3.4
Transport Mode to TourEast area
4.
Visitor Attractions in the JLE Corridor
4.1
Catchment Areas
4.2
Visitor Attendance
4.3
New attractions and Greenwich ‘Dome’
4.4
Marketing the JLE and East London as a Visitor Destination
5.
JLE Visitor Impact Methodology
5.1
Outline of Methodology
5.2
Visitor Activity Measurement and Constraints
5.3
Establishing the Baseline
5.4
Control and Reference areas
7
17
26
36
1
5.5
Hierarchy of Attractions
5.6
Intercept and other Survey Needs
5.7
Summary of Methods and Data Sources
5.8
Baseline Indicators
5.9
Causation of Change
5.10
Baseline Surveys and Modelling
6.
Co-ordinating the JLE Visitor Impact Study
6.1
Scoping Study
6.2
Beneficiaries and Stakeholders in the Impact Study
6.3
Summary of JLE Visitor Impact Study Stakeholders
6.4
Conclusion and Way Forward
7.
References and Reports
59
66
Appendices I
Key Visitor Attractions and Survey Points
73
II
Visitor Numbers by JLE Station Catchment
76
III
Annotated Station Catchment Maps
83
2
1.
Introduction
1.1 Aims and Objectives This report is based on a specification for the Scoping of Visitor Activity in the JLE Corridor outlined in a letter from London Regional Transport (LRT) dated 15th May 1998 and Brief for an Assessment of the Impact of the JLE on Tourist Activity dated 13th November 1997. This study therefore aims to provide the basis for measuring the impact of the JLE on tourist and visitor activity. The purpose of the scoping exercise is to: •
Define the methodology to be used to assess the effect on visitor activity
•
Define visitor activity and tourist typologies
•
Define key tourist attractions in the JLE corridor and survey points
•
Identify and determine the availability of data sources to be used for the study
•
Identify possible reference or control areas for visitor impact measurement
•
Identify potential stakeholders for further phases of the study
The main approach to the scoping study has encompassed literature and data search and review; interviews with key organisations, including LRT and other regional transport providers; mapping of visitor and other amenities within each JLE station catchment (see map1 for reference map); review and comment on proposed intercept survey and questionnaire and consultation with potential funders/partners for the Visitor Impact Study. In order to assess the current position of visitor attractions, including those under development, a short questionnaire was issued at the outset of the study (n=33) in order to determine recent visitor figures and the extent of visitor data collection undertaken by the key attractions in the corridor.
1.2 Context of Scoping Study This scoping study also forms part of the overall framework of assessing the impacts of the JLE and therefore informs other studies such as Employment and Economic Impact; Image and Land Use, as well as the Agents of Change assessment, within which visitor attractions will form part. Key reference documents which underpin this scoping study, including key definitions and assumptions, are Working Paper No.4 ‘The Concepts an Methodological Framework for Assessing the Impacts of the JLE’ (September, 1997) – Section 7. Tourism
3
and Consumer Activities, and Working Paper No.7 ‘Indicators and Analytical Framework for Evaluating the Impacts of the JLE’ (12.11.97).
1.3 Urban Tourism The field of modern urban tourism is relatively new and understudied (although such activity has of course existed for several centuries from Grand Tours to pilgrimage and business/trade tourism): “urban tourism is almost certainly among the most misunderstood and underestimated of all tourist types. It suffers from underestimation - sometimes even unrecognition” (Blank and Petkovich, 1987: 166). As Inskeep also observed: “There is surprisingly little literature on planning for tourism in urban areas - the characteristics of urban tourism and it planning have been studied less than resort and outdoor recreation development” (1991: 236) and this was echoed a year later by Law: “The topic of urban tourism is only gradually being recognised…Most text books on tourism make hardly any reference to it” (1992: 599). Give this the JLE Visitor Activity Study is novel, but is constrained by a lack of transferable models. The Impact Study as a whole is ambitious even unique in its scope and duration, and the Visitor and Tourism element whilst representing an important aspect of the regeneration and passenger market, and key ‘Agents of Change’ in the corridor itself, is not well served by either transport models and impact study approaches. As the Londomics Study (Employment Effects of the Millennium, 1997) noted in considering visitor and trip measurement: “this can not be done on the basis of empirical comparison, as previous modelling has relied on testing developments within an already testable system”. This study therefore recommended (p.24) that further research is needed to establish the proportion of new net visits/trips that the (Millennium) projects create, which are actually new to the transport system (by mode), in order for the transport authorities to be able to adjust their plans accordingly, and that there appears to be a need for better understanding of where the new net trips might occur, in order to assist those responsible for planning London’s transport system.
1.4 The novelty and strategic significance of the JLE Impact Study and Visitor Study can therefore be viewed as both valuable in research and academic study; in public policy and in transferable terms, i.e. any model developed should form the basis of future urban transport impact assessment and therefore contribute to a major gap in measurement and theory. This should be stressed in any discussions and feedback to interested parties and government agencies concerned with this phenomenon (e.g. DETR, DCMS, EU DGVII-Transport). From
4
this perspective, the Study arguably has a quantifiable ‘value added’ beyond the micro-level and direct beneficiaries of the JLE itself, as Ashworth states: “Urban tourism requires the development of a coherent body of theories, concepts, techniques and methods of analysis which allow comparable studies to contribute towards some common goal of understanding of either the particular role of cities within tourism or the place of tourism within the form and function of cities” (1992: 5).
1.5 Structure of Report The structure of this report starts with an overview of tourism and visitor activity in London both spatially and temporally, followed by definitions of visitor and tourist types and behaviour, and the prime visitor surveys undertaken in London. A mapping of visitor attractions and amenities in each of the JLE station catchments is presented, based on an audit of venues and facilities, including those under development in the JLE corridor and immediately adjoining areas. This has been produced on an annotated map for each station catchment and in database (MS ACCESS) format for GIS mapping and future updating. Visitor forecast figures for new and extended attractions have been obtained, where available, for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001. The methodology to be applied is then discussed in terms of visitor impacts and the establishment of ‘baseline(s)’ of visitor activity in the JLE corridor. Particular problems of establishing the baseline and visitor measurement generally are further discussed, together with an assessment of key data sources and comparatives which may serve as reference or control areas for JLE Visitor Impact evaluation.
Based on the mapping and methodological assessment and evaluation of baseline and secondary data sources, the Impact Methodology is analysed in terms of primary survey requirements (e.g. intercept and other visitor surveys), adaptation and integration of third party visitor surveys, and the phasing of the visitor impact study and survey exercise itself. The issue of co-ordination of data collection and visitor survey activity in the corridor and sub-region is then discussed, since this is likely to be key to building a robust model of visitor activity and change both at the destinations themselves and via transport and other gateways and collection points. A summary of data sources an baseline indicators is then followed by comments on the ‘Causation of Change’ and attribution of impacts to the JLE and other factors.
5
Finally, the report outlines the main partners who may be willing to provide information and support to the Visitor Impact Study and survey effort required to establish baseline, preopening and phased post-JLE opening visitor data collection. Brief recommendations then follow highlighting possible implementation and support mechanisms which may be adopted in order to help raise the profile of the Visitor Impact Study and related benefits of the work. Since this Scoping Study seeks to define the Visitor Impacts in terms of the methodology and appropriate research approaches, and to establish the preliminary baseline position, the most recent visitor and tourism data has been included both for London and where available for the local area concerned. This Report should therefore also serve as a resource and reference source for the next stage of the Study.
This Scoping report on the impact of the JLE on visitor activity provides the basis for the study which will need to be conducted in order to evaluate and calculate such impacts. It is therefore not the impact study itself, nor the final baseline and model that will need to be established for the JLE corridor in order measure the changes attributable to the JLE (‘before’ and ‘after’). Given the particular problems of measuring visitor activity and the lack of robust data at the local area level, the Report does provide a methodology and research approaches which can build a ‘model’ of visitor activity and measurement, including time series visitor data which will inform the various ‘baseline’ calculations.
6
2.
Tourism Activity in London
2.1 Background The profile and trends in tourism and related visitor activity in London provides the background against which the JLE impacts can be measured and contextualised. Tourism by its nature is a dynamic activity prone to cyclical variations, including international events (e.g. Gulf War), relative exchange rates and competition, but in the case of London, also showing an underlying growth trend. In the case of London this is due to a number of factors, not least its World City status generating considerable business and related visits (e.g. conference/convention, education), its cultural capital attractions - along with Paris the most popular in Europe - as well as a high number of domestic and day visits. Leisure and business visitors therefore co-exist with those visiting friends and relatives (VFR), daily commuters estimated at over 1 million and the ebb and flow and movement within London itself - intraregional travel.
London accounts for over half of UK tourism visits (but 60%+ of overseas tourists) although this share has declined from 58% to 53% since the 1980s (in part driven by national tourism strategy and promotion, and increasing competition from regional cities and transport infrastructure, e.g. Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow and Edinburgh). The UK is ranked 5 in world international tourism arrivals (after France, USA, Spain and Italy) representing 4.24% of the world market share (also ranked 5 and with 4.64% of world tourism receipts). In World City terms therefore, London ranks second after New York but ahead of Paris (c. 20 million tourists) in tourist arrivals. Particular threats in terms of growth and repositioning are emanating from Spain - Madrid and Barcelona - as business and leisure/cultural tourist locations - and the renewed capital Berlin.
2.2 Profile of Tourists to London To set the scale and profile of tourism in London, Table 1 shows an annual time series divided between domestic and overseas tourists (defined as those staying overnight). 1989 is taken as the base year, when the new system of measuring domestic tourists was introduced by the UK Tourism Survey (UKTS), previous years figures not therefore being comparable. In 1983 overseas tourists to London totalled 7.5 million – by 2001 this is expected to have more than doubled to 17 million; whilst domestic tourists are also set to increase by c.50% by this year.
7
Table 1. Tourists to London - 1989 to 1998 actual, 1999 and 2000 forecast (000s) Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Overseas 9870 10310 9240 9980 10243 11500 13300 13400 13500 13900 14400 Domestic 9000 7000 6500 7000 7200 8600 10400 12200 14600 15100 15500 18870 17310 15740 16980 19500 20100 23700 25600 28100 29000 29900 Total n/a n/a n/a Day Visits 132 304 683 (millions) Source: London Tourism Statistics, LTB (annual); Tourism Strategy for London, LTB 1997
2000 14900 16000 30900 n/a
Table 2 shows the profile of tourist spending in London with a clear divergence between overseas and domestic tourists and a steady increase (in cash terms) in the former, but an erratic but underlying decline in domestic tourist spending. Currently spending per day is in the ratio of 2:1 overseas:domestic tourist. Table 2. Tourists Expenditure – Average £ Spend per Day in London (forecast) Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 52.50 55.50 57.00 60.50 72.00 70.00 74.16 n/a 75 Overseas Total p.a. £m 4015 4290 3965 4150 4850 5205 6336 6509 6449 31.95 35.79 38.95 32.73 46.92 45.47 35.25 34.52 35 Domestic 650 720 640 875 1005 880 935 1040 Total p.a. £m 765 Est. Est. 11.08 Est. Est. Est. Day Visit 885 885 1462 1485 1520 1575 1615 n/a Total p.a. £m 885 Total p.a. £m 5665 5825 5570 6252 7210 7805 8791 9059 Source: IPS (1997), UKTS (1997), DVS (1996)
1998
1999
2000
6835
7235
7665
1090
1165
1245
n/a
n/a
n/a
Apart from travel cost (main mode of arrival), accommodation is the highest component of spending, and therefore also a function of the number of nights spent in London (also influenced by the type of accommodation used). VFR ‘tourists’ do not generally stay in paid for accommodation and therefore have a much lower spend per day. According to the LTB’s annual Overseas Visitor Survey, there is an inverse relationship between the distance tourists travel and their period of stay in London. Tourists from Australasia stay an average of 17 nights; from Japan 15 nights and North America 9 days, compared with 6 from Benelux; 8 from Scandinavia; 9 from Germany and 10 from France. Holiday visitors spend less (8.5 nights) than Business/Conference, VFR (13 nights) and those here for Study/Education (30). In the core summer season (mid-June to mid-October) 43% of overseas visitors stayed 4 to 7 nights; 21% 1 to 3 nights; 19% 8 to 14 nights and 10% 15 to 20 nights in London.
2.2.1 Transport mode The main transport modes of international tourists and day visitors are, not surprisingly, dominated by air and car travel respectively, both increasing modes of arrival to London, although car and coach transport via ferry travel have proportionately declined over the past
8
six years. Table 3 shows that in 1997 73% of overseas tourists to London arrived by air compared with 63% in 1990, 53% of these through Heathrow and 13% through Gatwick. Table 3. Overseas Tourists to London - International Transport Mode Mode 1997 73% Air Sea/Tunnel – with 4% private vehicle Sea/Tunnel – with 7% Coach 15% Sea/Tunnel – Foot (via train) Source: IPS, LTB OVS
The impact of the Channel Tunnel is evidenced by the fact that nearly 50% of cross channel passengers travelled this way in 1997, with a higher proportion arriving as foot passengers via train to London. Table 4. Foot and Vehicular passengers travelling by sea/tunnel, 1997 (All trips) Sea/Tunnel Tunnel only Mode % % Foot (Train) 55.7% 81.9% Car 14.2% 11.4% Coach 25.1% 4.7% Lorry 1.8% 0.6% Other 3.2% 1.4% Note: Domestic tourist travel to London indicates a higher use of the train particularly by business travellers, as well as by car (owned and hired).
Source: IPS, LTB OVS
Table 5 shows the transport used by UK “domestic” tourists (i.e. staying at least one night) to London, by main type. Table 5. Main mode of transport used by UK residents coming to London, 1997 Mode Holiday VFR Business All Tourists % % % % Train 28 28 43 30 Bus/Coach 13 12 4 11 Car 54 49 43 49 Plane 3 6 2 Other 2 11 4 8 Source: IPS, LTB OVS
Day Visitors The transport mode of Day Visitors completes the profile of ‘visitors’ to London, although there has not been separate data for London since 1992 (other than total visits) - only analysis
9
of visits to ‘towns and cities’ in England, from the periodic Day Visit Survey (DVS). The next table therefore analyses the main transport mode by Leisure Day Visitors to towns and cities in England, including those visits taken whilst on holiday in England. Table 6. Day Visits to ‘Towns & Cities’ by Transport mode, 1992 and 1996 Leisure Day Tourist Day Visits Mode Visits Day Visits to London 1992 1996 1996 1992 65 57 13 61 Car 24 3 10 13 Train/Tube 5 7 61 10 Bus 4 4 5 Coach/Other 2 29 5 Foot/Bike Note: Main form of transport to town/city
Source: UK Leisure Day Visit Surveys (DVS)
The main form of transport refers to that used for the longest part of the trip in terms of distance. Non-regular day visits are termed ‘tourist’ trips, where they take over 3 hours and are to destinations outside of the traveller’s ‘normal environment’. The average trip time for regular day visits to towns/cities was 3.5 hours with 2.2 hours spent at the destination (i.e. 1.3 hours travel/stopover time). For tourism day visits this rose to 5.2 hours overall and 3.5 hours at the destination (1.7 hours travelling), with an average distance travelled of 36 miles. In Britain overall 55% of day visits were by car and visits to urban destinations slightly higher at 56%. Day visits from a holiday base rather than from home relied on the car even more so with 61% using a car and less than 10% public transport.
The various national and London regional tourism and visitor surveys also generate data on temporal and spending patterns, including the number of bed nights, duration of stay (Day Visits) and daily spending or spend per trip, which will be of direct application to the JLE Economic Activity study, both as a control and indicator of change in the JLE corridor. The National Transport Survey (NTS) undertaken by the DETR also provides an analysis of journeys per person per year, by main purpose and by the residence of the passenger. Table 7. Selected Journeys per person per year, by purpose (percentage) Residence Business Education Shopping Leisure 1986 1996 1986 1996 1986 1996 1986 Inner London 4 4 7 10 24 21 28 Outer London 3 4 7 7 20 22 29 London 4 4 7 8 21 21 28 Rest of South 4 4 7 6 20 20 31 East (ROSE) G.B. 3 4 7 7 21 21 32 Source: National Transport Surveys (NTS), DETR
10
1996 30 27 28 31 31
Whilst commuting trips have declined in London over this period, ‘Personal Business’ (e.g. taking children to school) has increased, but in London, as elsewhere, ‘Leisure’ trips represent the highest proportion of journeys taken, with such trips from Inner London increasing between 1986 and 1996 but equally declining from Outer London.
2.3
Tourism Trends
Growth trends in tourism to London (ref. 2.2 above) have been showing an annual increase of 4% to 5% in arrivals from overseas and this is forecast (by the BTA and LTB) to continue at least until 2003, with an annual increase in spending of 5.9%. Domestic tourism has been increasing by 3% per annum and expenditure at 7%. These forecasts are not however distributed evenly across London, and do not directly take into account increases in the supply of attractions (e.g. Bankside, Greenwich) or distributive effects either between London and the rest of the UK or within London itself.
In terms of the profile of overseas tourists, the predominance of visitors from North America continues but their share is declining, from 23% in 1983 to 19% in 1997. Origin of groups during the late-1980s showed particular increases from Germany (up 30%), Japan (up 86%), Italy (up 10%), Spain (up 50%), Sweden (up 14%), with a decline in Australians (down 9%). Macro-economic factors (cost/price, exchange rates) and domestic economic conditions strongly influence these changes, as well as targeted marketing campaigns and competition from other cities. Prior to the recent decline in Far Eastern economies, this and Latin America were the two growth regions for arrivals to London and the UK, as well as Eastern Europe and Asia. Within the overall growth rate of 5% in overseas tourists to London, Far East (10%), Latin America (6.7%), and non-EU Europe (5.4%) were the above-average generator regions, with c.4% increase in the core US and EU markets.
World Tourism Trends are measured in terms of international arrivals and spending. These had been growing globally by 4% to 5% per annum, but with the emerging Asian financial crisis, these have been revised downwards. Recent years growth has been at the rate of 2% to 3% p.a. (European tourist arrivals grew by 3.4% between 1990 and 1995). In the longer term, global growth in arrivals is estimated at 4% p.a. between 2000 and 2020 (WTO 1998). European international arrivals are expected to grow by 3.1% (i.e. below average) in this period, but Western Europe by only 1.8%, however growth is still the underlying trend. The extent to which Asian and other generator country problems will affect overseas tourism to
11
London remains to be seen. One short term effect is that devaluing currencies make destinations that are still considered 'safe' much cheaper, which can have a negative effect on UK domestic and overseas tourists to London. The UK will fall from 5th to 7th place in international arrivals by the year 2020, albeit within a growing market.
2.4
Distribution and residence of tourists
A key factor in assessing the level of transport activity driven by tourists is their location when coming to London. Whilst the above (2.2.1) transport mode split indicates the means by which tourists and day visitors first arrive in London, they do not necessarily reflect the internal travel undertaken when here. In practice therefore tourists (i.e. overnight stay visitors) take up residence normally in hotels/B&B accommodation (although over 70% of domestic tourists stay with friends and relatives), and this becomes their point of origin for travel purposes. Day visitors by definition are not temporarily resident but given the high car usage by this group, may also combine other transport means, e.g. informal ‘park and ride’. Car parking at public transport stations (e.g. rail) and in town centres and larger venues, may also generate passenger trips to other attractions, given the severe (and growing, e.g. Royal Parks) restrictions to on-street private car parking in central London and tourist honeypot areas. Another factor in Day Visit behaviour is the extent of car ownership in terms of home residence. Home Counties and outer London/suburban populations may have 75% car ownership/access, whilst inner/urban areas, such as Newham less than 50% (in Inner London an average of 52% of households have no car compared with 30% in Outer London and 22% in the ROSE – Rest of South-East - region). Day visit activity from the latter areas will be more reliant therefore on public transport and the JLE would be expected to release latent demand for intra-regional travel from non-car owning groups, as well as generate some switching from car to underground usage from under-served areas such as Canning Town and Bermondsey1. Tourists from overseas and elsewhere in the UK may also take up temporary residence outside of London (e.g. Oxford) but commute into to London as day visitors, although overseas tourists in this case will not be reflected in the annual Day Visit Survey (DVS). UK tourist day visitors will be picked up however, since day visits from ‘holiday base’ are categorised separately in the DVS (see 3. below).
1
The DETR have recently commissioned a study of Public Transport and Social Exclusion, being undertaken by the Transport Research Unit (TRaC) at the University of North London
12
In terms of tourists, their accommodation location is therefore important in assessing the spatial distribution and travel patterns of both leisure and business tourist. The provision of hotel and other accommodation within the JLE corridor and individual station catchments will also influence the flow and nature of tourist activity, i.e. both inward and outward travel will occur between the JLE corridor and other parts of London and vice versa.
2.4.1
Hotel location in London
Hotel distribution and usage in London is highly skewed, with four boroughs hosting 80% of bed spaces - Westminster 60,000; Kensington 23,000; Camden 18,000, Hillingdon (Heathrow) 10,000, out of a total 139,000 (LTB Accommodation Services, 1993). The London Tourist Board’s original target in 1988 of a further 35,000 to 60,000 extra rooms by the year 2000, based on ‘unconstrained demand’ (LTB, 1988), was rejected by London planners, both in terms of the over-optimism of visitor growth and the negative environmental impacts of such expansion (LPAC, 1992). A more realistic target of 19,000 extra bed spaces by 2001 was suggested, but even this now looks unrealistic and this target date has been extended to the year 2005 (LPAC 1993:35). Although by 1993 availability had increased through the release to tourist-use of some bed & breakfast accommodation, central London provision had decreased, with outer London provision slightly increasing. Key tourist destinations lack sizeable hotels all together, such as ‘day-trip’ Greenwich with over 2 million visitors annually (CELTS, 1995) and Wembley, L.B.Brent (National Stadium and Conference/Exhibition Centre).
The percentage of total bed spaces located in the three London boroughs with the highest density was 73% in 1993 and this proportion remained the same by 1997, even with 3,400 new bed spaces created in London over this five year period of visitor growth. This included three new hotels in Camden, four in Kensington and five in Westminster, despite planning policies which restricted additional hotel development. Significantly, hotel developments in underdeveloped tourist locations were focused around new or upgraded transport gateways, such as the new Novotel at Waterloo, Lambeth (Eurostar terminus), Great Eastern Hotel (extension) at Liverpool Street, City (station redevelopment), London Bridge Hotel, Southwark and at locations already well supplied such as the Shaw Theatre Hotel and Travel Inn at Euston, Camden. The proximity to expanding visitor attractions also encouraged new hotel developments such as the British Library at St Pancras; ‘Chelsea Village’ at Chelsea F.C. (Hammersmith) and the new Stakis Hotel at the Business Design Centre (Islington).
13
Including hotels under construction/redevelopment, approximately 145,000 bed spaces will be available in London boroughs by the year 2000, per Table 8 below (JLE corridor ‘boroughs’ are listed first). A number of planning permissions and development proposals in the pipeline may well accelerate the rate of expansion and new hotels. However, with the exception of Westminster, where hotels are primarily located in the central zone, hotel provision in the JLE corridor is proportionately very low, despite new hotels and planned developments around Docklands (Canary Wharf), County Hall (Marriott; Travelodge), Waterloo, Greenwich (Reach) and Southwark. A number of hotel sites have outline planning permission, particularly in Greenwich. The five TourEast boroughs (Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Newham, Greenwich) host 4.8% of London’s total serviced accommodation and only 4% of bed spaces (i.e. accommodation is below average in size). In this area, Tower Hamlets (46%) and Southwark (28%) dominate hotels. In the TourEast ‘corridor’ there are an estimated 21 hotel/B&Bs. As the following table shows, the proportion of bed spaces in the JLE corridor (excluding Westminster, where no hotels are located within the JLE station catchment), compared with London as a whole, is not set to increase significantly to the year 2000, despite expansion in the level of hotel activity in the area. Hotels located or planned within JLE station catchments are shown in the attached maps (Appendix I) and schedules of attractions/amenities - 5. below) Table 8. Borough Location of existing hotel bed spaces and those under construction between 1997-2000 London Borough No. of bed spaces Total bed % Total under construction Spaces in the 1997 to 2000 year 2000 Westminster 294 60796 42% Lambeth 518 1367 1% Southwark 150 2370 1.6% Tower Hamlets 282 1797 1.2% Greenwich 200 788 0.5% Newham 349 0.25% Total:‘JLE’ boroughs 1444 67467 46.5% Kensington 113 23838 16.5% Camden 525 19242 13.3% Islington 220 3114 2.15% Ealing 142 1458 1% Hammersmith 390 1378 1% Hackney 852 0.6% Lewisham 849 0.6% Redbridge 534 0.4% City of London 103 417 0.3% Barking & Dagenham 35 115 0.7% nil 23536 16% Other 20 Boroughs Total 2972 144840 100% Source: Tourism Strategy for London 1997-2000 (LTB, 1997) and Evans (1993, 1999)
14
2.5 Tourism and Hotel Planning Policies
2.5.1 National planning guidance on ‘Tourism’ (Planning Policy Guidance No.21) issued in 1992 was responded to by LPAC in 1993. The regional response, although lacking statutory planning force, maintained that new hotels and serviced accommodation should be promoted only in commercially viable, environmentally acceptable and accessible locations (LPAC, 1992 and 1994). These included:
(i)
Strategic Centres with good public transport to Central London
(ii)
Major opportunity sites on London’s periphery, but not within the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land (MOL);
(iii)
London Docklands (with a major new exhibition centre ‘ExCel’)
(iv)
Thameside and other waterside locations (e.g. Bankside, Greenwich)
Central government’s ‘Strategic Guidance for London’ (GOL, 1996) was more developmentoriented than the London region’s own position, and government policy stated that boroughs should not seek to restrict hotel development throughout their area. Whilst supporting growth in provision generally, in continued response to the perceived shortage of supply, national planning policy did however consider environmental and ‘sustainable’ approaches. This included the location of hotels close to public transport facilities and accessibility to international and national transport termini, as well as the provision for picking up and setting down facilities for coaches and taxis. Over-concentration of hotels in the central core was acknowledged by government, but scope was still seen in the development of some vacant office space (given the oversupply since the end of the 1980s property boom). The policy of locating new developments - both hotels and visitor attractions – in town centres was however consistent with regional (LPAC) and local borough policy.
The LPAC policy not surprisingly therefore advocates the redistribution of tourist activity away from the congested central core, to: “Encourage the spread of tourism and foster regeneration by promoting new hotels outside central London . Identify non-residential locations in central London where the provision of new hotels may be acceptable and resist them elsewhere” (LPAC 1993:35-6). This was echoed by the London Tourist Board, who also look to a wider hotel price ‘offer’: “The emphasis remains on securing more investment
15
in middle priced hotels and in encouraging developments away from the centre where public transport links are good. Close co-operation with London boroughs should continue in order to identify sites and help with the planning process (LTB, 1997:6). Location in terms of national transport links and visitor attractions appears the overriding determinant in these central London cases once sites became available. However in outer London, although with less than a third of the new bed spaces created in inner London during 1993 and 2000, proximity to attractions such as Brent Cross Shopping centre (Holiday Inn) and Battersea Power Station (Granada Travelodge) have followed a similar pattern. Road links and routes are more important in outer/peripheral areas such as at Clapham Common, Wandsworth (Windmill), Western Avenue (Holiday Inn), Hanger Lane, Brent (Fox and Goose) and Travel Inns at Romford, Ilford, Beckton in East London (boroughs of Newham, Redbridge and Havering).
2.5.2 In terms of JLE impact on visitor activity, this is still largely going to be manifested by tourists travelling from the central and west London tourist accommodation areas into destinations within the corridor (64% of all overseas tourists arrive via Heathrow). Exceptions to this will be both the growing, albeit small number of hotel guests staying within the corridor, and tourists arriving from the south-east ferry ports mostly via coach and car, as well as train via the Waterloo terminus. Particular groups in the latter case are German and East European tourists for instance, Germans make up the largest overseas tourist group to Greenwich Town (Greenwich Town Centre Tourism Validation Study, CELTS 1995). The main group not reliant on hotel/B&B or other rented accommodation (e.g. hostel, student hall), those Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR), will obviously be distributed according to where their family links are located. In the case of immigrant populations for instance, these are likely to be concentrated in areas of higher concentration of particular groups. In the JLE corridor several of the riparian boroughs have high proportions of ethnic minority residents, with Newham at 50%, Tower Hamlets 40%, Lambeth 33%, Southwark 28% and Greenwich 16%. VFR visitors represented 11% of overseas visitors during the summer season, but 23% of overseas visitors stayed with ‘Friends and Relatives’. The difference is accounted for by Study/Educational, Business and Holiday visitors, this being their ‘main purpose’ for visit, but who also have a ‘secondary’ purpose. Furthermore, 70% of all Domestic Tourists to London stay with friends and relatives and this ‘group’ therefore represents a large and growing segment of visitors to London but one that is more ‘hidden’ and widely distributed than hotel based tourists.
16
3.
Defining the “Tourist” and Visitor Activity
3.1 Tourist Definitions and Typologies The previous section outlined the profile and trends in tourism in London, including hotel accommodation distribution and tourist types. The definition and categorisation of tourist and visitor activity needs to be established both in terms of measuring such activity within the JLE corridor, and in relation to statistical and other data sources which will need to be relied upon in order to establish baseline figures and measure pre and post JLE visitor impacts. Since reliance on secondary and published visitor and related data will be required by the JLE visitor impact study, it is essential that consistent definitions are used.
The following definitions are used by national, regional and international tourism organisations, including the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) and National Tourist Boards in the UK. Any categorisation at a local area level which may wish to use disaggregated data or comparisons from the following sources will therefore need to be consistent with these.
3.1.1 A Tourist Trip is defined as a stay of one night or more nights away from home for holiday, visits to friends and relatives (VFR), business, conferences or any other purpose, except boarding education or semi-permanent employment, being either from overseas or elsewhere in the UK.
3.1.2 A Tourist Night is a night spent away from home on a tourist trip, staying in any type of accommodation.
3.1.3 A Day Trip is defined as starting and ending on the same day from the same location, involving a round trip to anywhere in the UK. Leisure visits from a work address (e.g. to play sport after work) are included. Visits exclude normal business, education or shopping trips, but include such things as leisure shopping and visits to attractions, the theatre, sporting events and friends and relatives. Destination types are towns/cities (72%), seaside/coast (23%) and countryside (woods/forest, canals). Around two thirds of leisure day visits in 1996 were described as ‘regular’ trips - of the non-regular trips 65% lasted for 3 or more hours.
17
3.2 Main sources of tourist and visitor data in the UK The following are the main statistical sources of visitor activity in the UK. They may in part provide local area or ‘modelled’ data of application to the JLE impact assessment.
3.2.1 International Passenger Survey (IPS) This is an annual survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) based on face-to-face interviews with a sample of passengers (n=250,000) as they leave or enter the UK via principal air and sea routes, and the Channel Tunnel/Eurostar. Data collected throughout the year includes places visited by overseas tourists, up to 5 places visited for overnight stays, length of stay and expenditure, together with demographic and tour type (e.g. package, independent). The IPS is particularly useful for local area tourism data on overnight stays of overseas visitors.
3.2.2 UK Tourist Survey (UKTS) Commissioned by the four UK Tourist Boards (ETB, STB, WTB, NITB) c.7,000 adults are interviewed at their home each month throughout the year (this method is to be replaced by telephone interviews). A 2-month recall of trips is solicited covering detailed information on destination type, spending, demographic profiling, holiday type, frequency and transport mode. It therefore complements the IPS overseas and outbound traveller information with UK resident tourism. Published as the UK Tourist annually and available from the ETB/BTA in London.
3.2.3 Survey of Summer Overseas Visitors to London (OVS) This survey has been undertaken by the London Tourist Board since 1973. The current surveys cover an extended summer season from mid-June to mid-October. The survey collects data on overseas visitor behaviour, their activities, spending, profile. A small sample (c.1,500), the survey does not attempt to quantify tourist activity but provide details of places visited, advertising/image influence factors, repeat visits, use of facilities (e.g. TICs), accommodation type, length of stay, satisfaction ratings etc. A core of ten visitor attractions are mentioned as well as tourist areas (e.g. shopping streets) and type of location visited. No transport usage is solicited (see summary of 1995 below).
18
3.2.4 UK Day Visits Survey (DVS) This annual survey seeks information on day visits over the last 2 weeks and then asks for recall over the last year. The survey collects data on leisure day visits, where visited, expenditure, mode of travel, activity etc. The DCMS will be reporting further details of the non-regular/longer (3+ hours) trips made in 1996, including spending and annual comparisons.
The UKTS and DVS use sampling frames based on postal districts and or parliamentary constituencies/wards. Stratification and some disaggregation is possible providing regionallevel analysis. The UK Census also provides a snapshot of overnight stays (e.g. VFR) activity. There are several proprietorial ‘modelling’ packages’ of tourism data analysis, the main ones being the STEAM and Cambridge models. The former uses a bottom-up approach using local level data, commissioning surveys or prior knowledge of similar areas. The Cambridge model uses the national data sources, above, and regionally models these using multipliers (e.g. spending), it is primarily a mathematical model based on secondary data.
3.2.5 Visitor Attractions Individual visitor attractions publish their visitor statistics annually which are compiled by the National Tourist Boards in Sightseeing UK and other government publications (e.g. Social Trends). These include national museums and galleries, gardens, stately homes, but exclude live arts and entertainment venues. The latter usage data is available via the Arts Council if subsidised, or membership bodies such as for West End Theatres (the Society of London Theatres provide a detailed annual audience survey of all member venues). There is generally no breakdown of visitor type (other than between free and paying attractions), although past data provides a trend in visitor numbers. Individual venues collect various visitor data through commissioned and in-house surveys but these are generally not published and are not co-ordinated at either a local area or data level (i.e. they are not consistent or regular).
3.2.6 SSA (Standard Spending Assessment) The SSA is the basis on which local authority revenue grant from central government is calculated each year. The SSA includes an element for tourist activity, i.e. local destination areas receive an allowance for extra resource and infrastructure needs (e.g. Kensington & Chelsea receive c.£3m a year for ‘tourism’ in their SSA). This calculation is based on overnight stays from the UKTS (above) and modelled using one of the regional level analysis
19
calculations. Occupancy data is therefore key to tourist statistics. The EU Directive on collection of statistical information for tourism (11/95) is designed to guide Member States but is non-mandatory. The Directive has yet to be fully implemented in the UK (see below), with a 3 year transition period in which time regional and local level data collection will need to be established. Hotel occupancy statistics are also collected by consultants on a proprietorial basis (i.e. not published but sometimes obtainable for a fee), although not providing guest origin or transport details. Monthly hotel monitoring is carried out by BDO Hospitality and Horwarth who are two of the leading hotel and tourism management consultancy firms based in London (others are Greene Belfield Smith/Touche Ross, whilst most of the major firms have tourism and leisure divisions, e.g. Coopers & Lybrand, KPMG, Price Waterhouse).
3.2.7 UK Occupancy Survey As part of the EU Directive on Tourism Statistics adopted in 1995, the UK submits monthly occupancy rates for hotel and similar establishments to Eurostat. The responsibility lies with the four national Boards. In England this is devolved to the Regional Tourist Boards which carry out monthly occupancy survey in each region according to a common specification and standard to ensure comparable data for the whole of the UK to be provided. The survey started in 1997 and covers hotels (including motels, travel lodges and inns), guest houses and bed and breakfast.
3.2.8 Overseas Tourists Types of visit from overseas tourists are categorised in London (LTB) by the following – the proportions of each main type is also shown (%). Over half (57% in 1997) of visitors from overseas to London are “repeat”: mainly Business, VFR and over-55 year olds. Overseas repeat visitors are highest from Germany and Benelux (67%), Scandinavia (64%) and France (61%), whilst 54% of Japanese and 53% of Eastern European visitors were on their first visit to London. Overseas Summer Visitor by main purpose (LTB, 1997) Holiday 69% Study/Educational Business/Conference 11% Other VFR 9% Duration of Visit 1-3 nights 4-7 nights 8-14 nights
17% 42% 19%
15-30 nights 1-3 months Average length
20
9% 2%
12% 9% 12.5 nights
These figures are based on the LTB’s London survey of overseas visitors, which is likely to overestimate length of stay (since these visitors are more likely to be interviewed). The International Passenger Survey (IPS) gave an average stay for all overseas visitors to London of 6.4 nights (5.2 nights for holidaymakers and 4.3 nights for those on business). Longest periods of stay are associated with Study (33 nights), Business (16.5 nights) and VFR (8.5 nights), and with long-haul tourists (e.g. Australasia, 15 nights) with holiday tourists staying for an average of 10 nights. 56% of overseas tourists stay in hotels/B & B accommodation; 26% with Friends or Relatives and 11% in a Youth Hostel/College.
3.3 Docklands/TourEast London Visitor Surveys 3.3.1 Whilst London-wide tourist data provides the regional background within which the JLE corridor and impact area sits, and thus provides one control or reference area by which the JLE impact may be measured, tourist activity in the local areas under consideration are of most interest. This is not least the case since the spatial distribution of tourist accommodation and visitor attractions has benefited the central zone and ‘islands of culture’ of central/west London. Just selecting the most popular visitor attractions confirms this bias. (The nine Royal Parks combined, attract over 11 million different visitors, or nearly 30 million visits each year of which Greenwich Park receives 3.5 million, CELTS 1995). Some attractions are located on the existing Jubilee Line (e.g. Madame Tussauds) and visitors may therefore link these to attractions in the JLE corridor if ticketing (entry, tube) and joint marketing is developed. Table 9. Admissions to Prime London Attractions in 1997 (thousands) Attractions, postcode Total British Museum, WC2 6,065 National Gallery, WC1 4,809 Tussauds, NW1 2,798 Tower of London, EC3 2,615 Westminster Abbey, SW1 2,500 St. Paul’s, EC2 2,000 Natural History Mus, SW7 1,793 Tate Gallery, SW1 1,757 Chessington ‘Zoo’, KT9 1,750 Science Museum, SW7 1,537 Hampton Court, KT8 1,200 London Zoo, NW1 1,097 V & A Museum, SW7 1,041 Source: Sightseeing UK (ETB, 1998)
Of those listed in Table 9 only Tower Bridge (425,000 visits, but not the Tower of London itself) is in the vicinity of the JLE corridor (London Bridge station catchment), with
21
Greenwich town’s venues (Cutty Sark, National Maritime Museum, Royal Park etc.) served by DLR (Extension and foot tunnel) and mainline railway station (Connex), as well as by river boats. The new attractions in the South Bank/riverwalk zone (Tate at Bankside, Globe Theatre, Vinopolis, Millennium Wheel: ‘BA Eye’ - Southwark station catchment) and the ‘Dome’ at North Greenwich, will therefore represent the first major visitor attractions in the corridor, although there are a number attracting significant numbers, notably the London Dungeon (c.700,000), Southwark Cathedral (100,000) and the Imperial War Museum (518,000). The latter is located on the edge of the Southwark station catchment and is more likely to be accessed via existing (Northern) line station. New developments outside the JLE corridor include the new exhibition centre at the Royal Victoria Dock which has forecast annual visits of 2.8 million and is served by the DLR. Other developments around the ‘Royals’ (new University of East London campus, urban village etc) will also generate traffic to this destination. The closest JLE link is the new Canning Town station and interchange with rail and DLR and therefore some passengers will access this area by the DLR via the Jubilee Line Extension.
3.3.2 London Docklands and TourEast Visitor Surveys There are no robust borough or local area visitor or tourist statistics above the level of individual attractions, however there have been successive visitor surveys undertaken in the Docklands (LDDC) area, which have recently been extended to a wider area encompassing parts of the TourEast programme area. TourEast was established in 1995 as part of a successful SRB programme to promote and develop tourism activity in five London boroughs of Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets (a development of earlier ‘East End’ tourism initiatives), but there is no formal delineation of TourEast’s area in terms of border or wards. A TourEast promotional map has been produced which provides a visual representation of the region and attractions covered, but this is deliberately not a technical map, i.e. the boundaries are somewhat blurred.
Since 1991 the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) commissioned an annual research study amongst visitors to London Docklands in order to provide information on visitor numbers and demography as well as covering visitor opinions and satisfaction levels. In 1993, annual visitor estimates to Docklands totalled 1.1m, but these levelled out at 1.5 to 1.6m since 1994. In 1996 TourEast extended the LDDC Visitor Survey to include the wider TourEast area (ref. TourEast map - not shown), with a combined questionnaire
22
enabling comparison to be made between Docklands and TourEast visitor areas (Table 10). In 1996, 1,028 and 2,092 interviews were held with visitors in Docklands and TourEast locations respectively - the basis of the survey sample from which annual projections in Table 10 were made. The definition of ‘a visitor’ in this case is in fact ‘visits’ (not separate individuals, i.e. the same person visiting twice would be two visits), and excludes resident day visitors and worker leisure visitors, i.e. intra-regional visits.
The last year this study was conducted was 1996 after which the LDDC ran down its marketing and promotional effort and budget, with the LDDC being wound up in March 1997. The loss of this exercise and tourism promotion in the area, with an annual budget of over £3 million (including the Docklands Visitor Centre which received 140,000 people in 1995), creates a hole in visitor data collection in the JLE corridor, particularly since it was the only longitudinal study at a sub-regional level. The responsibility for visitor measurement in this area now rests with the incumbent boroughs and the TourEast organisation. In the Docklands/TourEast survey which is the only recent sub-regional visitor survey - of the 2.9 million estimated visitors in 1996, 1.5m came to the Docklands and 1.4m to the rest of the TourEast area. These figures admittedly underestimate the numbers of Business Visitors (due to the locations selected for interview). TourEast contains the JLE Corridor, but is of course a larger area, including Greenwich, Hackney and wider areas around the key transport gateway/stations, whilst the Docklands represents a much narrower area and excludes several new JLE stations such as Southwark, Bermondsey, West Ham and Stratford. The LDDC/TourEast Visitor surveys do however provide historic data on another useful reference area along with London as a whole, since it includes areas such as the ‘Tower’ vicinity, Greenwich and Hackney with established as well as new visitor attractions, street markets and guest accommodation. The build up of visitors to Docklands has levelled out since 1996, although this is also due to limitations of transport infrastructure (e.g. DLR weekend closure, cessation of Docklands riverboat service). Unfortunately no surveys have been undertaken since 1996 and none are planned, post-LDDC (Evans and Taylor 1997).
23
Table 10. Docklands and TourEast Visitors 1996 1995 1994 Leisure Visitors 1,200 1,350 1,300 Business Visitors 300 250 250 Total Docklands 1,500 1,600 1,550 Rest of TourEast: n/a n/a Leisure 1,250 Business 150 Total TourEast 2,900 1,600 1,550
1993 1,000 100 1,100 n/a
1,100
Note: The separate LDDC Survey for 1996 estimated 1.6m visitors, 150k more Leisure, but 50k less Business visitors. This survey underestimated Business Visitors due to the tourist-based locations for interviews and the fact that such visitors use taxis, private transport more so than leisure visitors.
Source: Toureast/LDDC Survey (TTR 1996)
Table 11. TourEast area Visitor Purpose, 1996 Purpose Total UK Residents Overseas Weekdays Weekends Total London Other Leisure only 79% 70% 68% 75% 90% 74% 89% Mixed Business/ 9% 12% 11% 12% 6% 10% 8% Leisure Business only 12% 18% 21% 13% 4% 16% 3% Source: Toureast/LDDC Survey (TTR 1996) Note: Specific attractions cited as reasons for visit as a proportion of each interview location included at St Katharine’s Docks - (50%), Tower Bridge/of London (35%/29%); Isle of Dogs – Canary Wharf (38%), DLR (20%), Island Gardens (13%); London Bridge – Tower Bridge/of London (40%/25%); Shad Thames – Design Museum (50%). Attractions actually visited in the TourEast area were Tower Bridge (24%), DLR (18%), Canary Wharf (17%), St Katharine Docks (11%), Cutty Sark (11%), followed by markets at Spitalfields, Petticoat Lane and Greenwich (9%).
Table 12. TourEast Visitor Residence, 1996 Total Weekdays Weekends UK 54% 48% 66% Greater London 37% 30% 48% Rest of SEE 10% 11% 10% Rest of UK 7% 7% 7% Overseas 46% 52% 34% Germany 11% 13% 7% Rest of EU 12%` 13% 7% Rest of Europe 4% 5% 2% North America 7% 9% 5% Australasia 4% 6% 2% Rest of World 7% 7% 5% Source: Toureast/LDDC Survey (TTR 1996)
LDDC 32% 25% 9% 8% 58% 16% 16% 5% 8% 5% 8%
Rest of TourEast 66% 48% 12% 6% 34% 6% 6% 3% 7% 3% 5%
3.4 Transport Mode to TourEast area Transport usage is determined in these area surveys by both means of arrival and intention to use/leave the area. Satisfaction ratings are also elicited, with 66% rating public transport facilities in the TourEast area “very” or “quite good” (57% of business visitors).
24
Table 13. Main method of transport to TourEast area and other modes used, 1996 Mode How Also using Leaving by Total UK arrived Sample Residents Tube 39% 5% 39% 49% 41% DLR 18% 5% 18% 26% 23% BR 6% 2% 6% 9% 11% Foot 6% 5% Bus 8% 4% 9% 15% 15% Coach 3% 3% 3% 3% London 1% 1% 1% 1% Pride Bus Own vehicle 13% 1% 13% 14% 22% River Boat 3% 1% 3% 5% 4% Tax 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% Cycle 1% 1% 1% 2% Source: Toureast/LDDC Survey (TTR 1996)
Overseas Visitors 58% 30% 6% 16% 3% 2% 4% 7% 3% 1%
In comparison with London Docklands, while Underground usage was proportionately similar, DLR usage in 1996 was higher at 48%, but with lower car usage (7%) and bus and train usage. Given the switching from DLR to JLE lines (30% to 40%) which the DLR anticipates, the visitor proportion represented by DLR users provides the base from which JLE transfer will emanate, in addition of course, to new demand for JLE usage. On the other hand the DLR will pick up both new demand from the Lewisham extension and visitors to Greenwich Town (railway station, Cutty Sark) which were estimated to be 2.5 million in 1995, including to Greenwich Royal Park/Observatory. Once the DLR extension is open in 2000 it is estimated 30% of visitors to Greenwich Town and environs will use the DLR. The DLR is also a visitor attraction in its own right and is marketed as such (and will be more so – see 4.4). In the absence of the Docklands Visitor Survey, greater responsibility will fall on both TourEast, and especially individual boroughs, as well as transport operators and visitor attractions themselves to undertake visitor market research and a more destination area and integrated approach to data collection. In 1998 TourEast contributed to the London Tourist Board’s Summer Overseas Visitor Survey (3.2.3 above) adding specific questions relating to East London/Greenwich/Docklands visitation, transport mode and visitor attractions in their area. The expansion of this in future years will need to incorporate new attractions (e.g. Tate, Dome etc) in the JLE corridor.
25
4.
Visitor Attractions in the JLE Corridor
4.1 Catchment Areas The location of visitor attractions, amenities and tourist accommodation in the JLE corridor is the main driver of visitor activity which is to be measured by the Visitor Impact Study – they are the prime ‘Causation of Change’ in terms of visitor activity. JLE stations, particularly new ones, will also improve access for residents and others (e.g. workers) in these localities to travel to visitor attractions (and for business travel) via the New Jubilee Line.
The catchment areas have been measured taking a radius of 1,000 metres, based on average walk times to and from stations in Inner London, and adjusted for overlap and local conditions (JLE Working Paper No.4). For the purposes of this Scoping Study, the JLE station catchments have been used as the basis for mapping visitor facilities, but where these fell on or just over the boundary, these have been included. A more detailed assessment of catchment areas in relation to pedestrian and visitor flows, other transport modes and visitor behaviour patterns, will need to be carried out, as proposed, and this will need to consider visitor movement, formal and natural, such as walks, trails and itineraries. These marketing and promotional devices are increasingly used to create tourist routes, whereas riverwalks and themed routes may be used to link attractions and sites.
The source of visitor attractions and amenities, mainly hotel and other serviced accommodation, has included tourist board, local area, directory and other published reports. Details of new attractions have been obtained through our questionnaire survey (ref. Introduction) and London Millennium and London Pride Lottery studies, as well as other Millennium impact and LTB reports. Hotel and accommodation data is based on LTB annual reports and their latest update on hotel developments by borough. A physical audit has not been carried out at this stage, although this is recommended and proposed in the full baseline study (5.10.1), both to confirm actual location/postcode and to check for missing facilities, as well as reconcile site data used by other JLE Impact Studies.
4.2 Visitor Attendance The locational information has formed the basis of the time series analysis of visitor numbers and bed spaces/rooms in the case of hotels, scheduled above. This first audit of visitor numbers at these attractions has therefore been scheduled by year commencing in 1993 or
26
later if the first year of operation fell after this date. These figures represent the total number of visits, including ‘local’ users. As discussed in the next section (5.), this visitor (or more accurately, visit/admission) data forms one part of the Baseline position and ‘Indicators of Change’ which the Visitor Impact Study will seek to measure. Where new attractions and hotels are not yet built or open to the public, visitor projections have been shown based on operator forecasts. Appendix III shows each station catchment area annotated numerically and cross referenced to the name of the facility and full postal and contact details and visitor numbers where known. This data is held on a relational database (MS ACCESS) and can be updated as changes and new data arises. The postcode location will also enable the catchment maps to be converted to GIS format by the JLE Impact Study Unit.
The aggregate visitor numbers (i.e. recorded admissions, whether free or paid entry) in 1997 totals 14.6 million across the eleven JLE stations (full 1998 visitor data is not yet available), however this is skewed by Westminster (12.3m) with the next highest station catchment Waterloo at 763,000. This raise the issue of measuring impact of the JLE where underground stations already existed. JLE attributable effects may arise in the following ways in these cases:
1. Where increased capacity and quality/image result in change in usage by visitors; 2. Passenger trips from east to west (e.g. a Bermondsey resident travelling to Westminster Cathedral who would not have made this trip/visit before); 3. Visitors using Westminster or Waterloo as an interchange via JLE or other line (e.g. Bakerloo, Piccadilly)
The only reliable or measurable way of determining these effects is through intercept surveys of visitor passengers at these stations and other JLE stations/trains, and qualitative surveys of visitors to attractions themselves. The extent to which the JLE created increased visitor activity or just displaced or re-routed trips to visitor attractions would therefore need to be closely assessed. In practice, 2. above, may be the only discernable net change. A similar assessment arises in the case of other interchanges and alternative routes created by the JLE, notably the DLR at Canary Wharf, Canning Town and Stratford, and the East London Line at Canada Water.
27
A summary of visits to attractions identified in each JLE station catchment is shown in Table 14 below and in the following chart. These are only indicative and understate those attractions and amenities that do not or have not released visitor figures. Free or uncontrolled attractions and amenities likewise may overestimate attendances. From the TourEast 'Baseline Study and Economic Review’ (EDAW, 1998) 74% of attractions surveyed in the TourEast area (see Toureast Map below) collect data relating to visitor origins and 68% provide information relating to the proportion of visits made by individuals; those on education trips; groups and families. The extent to which the crucial 'transport mode' information is collected is not however explicit in this study. Certain types of visitor will be made up of groups, such as Educational (i.e. school parties) and organised tours, who are more likely to arrive and depart by coach.
Table 14. The Jubilee Line Extension Corridor – total visits to attractions by station catchment (1993 to 1997 actual visits, 1999 and 2000 forecast) Station
1993
1994
Westminster Waterloo Southwark London Bridge Bermondsey Canada Water Canary Wharf North Greenwich Canning Town West Ham Stratford Total
7,632,129 977,071
1995
1996
866,256 129,000
8,273,950 1,193827 44,000 1,245,383 109,400
8,289,584 1,152,512 22,000 950,373 123,700
9,215,313 1,125,975 164,239 745,063 104,168
150,000
152,000
190,200
140,000
1997 12,326,279 763,000 192,000 539,000 140,000 33,000 510,000
1998
1999
2000 200,000
2,700,000 2,800,000
NEW BASELINE
260,000
DATA
12,000,000
9,754,456
11,018,560
10,728,369
107,000 11,601,758
255,000 14,758,279
+2,700,000
+15,260,000
Source: Sightseeing UK (ETB), CELTS survey of attractions (1998)
JLE Corridor - Aggregate visits to attractions by catchment area
15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 Thousands 11,000 of visitors 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 1993
Westminster
1994
Waterloo
Southwark
1995 Year
London Bridge
28
1996
Bermondsey
1997
Canada Water
Canary Wharf
Stratford
4.3 New Attractions and Greenwich Millennium ‘Dome’
4.3.1 New attractions that have been notified and which have forecast visitor numbers from first opening have been included from 1999, whilst 1998 data is not at the time of writing fully available. The Visitor Impact Study will first need to update these schedules to 1998, as the most recent ‘base year’ from which JLE phased opening can be compared. In 1999 2.7m new visits are forecast and in 2000 15.26m which includes 12m from the Millennium Dome in North Greenwich (in practice this number will straddle end–1999 and early–2001). The impact of the Greenwich Dome again is problematic in terms of impact measurement and phasing, given its scale and temporary nature (and uncertain future use of the site). The JLE station at North Greenwich is fundamental to public access and therefore to meeting visitor targets and funding criteria. In terms of the JLE Visitor Impact Study, the Dome is however just another visitor attraction, the effect of which will need to be measured at the destination (i.e. NMEC’s own visitor data), through intercept and visitor surveys in the JLE corridor. Since its day visit catchment is expected to be wide, assessment of visitor impacts will also be sought through separate studies which the BTA are required to carry out. The DCMS has requested the BTA to report on the effects on tourist revenue from the Millennium Dome: “The benefit of the additional tourist revenue from overseas to the British economy is undeniable. The effect on tourist revenue within the UK may, however, be redistributive as well as additional, and could thus be to the detriment of other tourist attractions and other regions in the UK” (DCMS Committee report, 11.12.97, HMSO). The BTA’s 1998 report found some contradictory opinion between tour operators and regional tourist boards as to the impact on visitor activity nationally, and the catchment area affected by the Dome – this study may therefore need to be revisited as the pricing and market planning by NMEC is clarified.
4.3.2 The ‘Dome’ visitor forecasts have been subject to change since the concept, design and planning for this event has developed. The official visitor estimate of 12 million during the year 2000, is based on the Median Forecast made by the project (Price Waterhouse 1994) and is built up from visits by market segment as detailed in Table 15 ‘Local’ is defined by residents of Greenwich as well as the boroughs of Bexley, Bromley and Lewisham.
30
Table 15. Projected Visitors to New Millennium Experience ‘Dome’ in the year 2000 Visitor Groups Repeat Visit Total Visits factor 000s Local population 3.2 1,100 Regional population 1.5 2,170 London Day Visitors 1 2,300 Domestic Tourists 1.1 2,220 Overseas Tourists 1.1 1,930 Education groups 1.1 1,890 Business Tourists 1.02 390 Total 12,000 Sources: Price Waterhouse (1994), CELTS (1995), Evans (1996)
The 12 million visitor target is expected to be phased over the year with monthly attendance ranging from 600,000 to 750,000 in January to March, and September to December; 1.1m in April and October, to 1.4 and 1.5m in the summer months. Peak demand in August from these estimates would be 125,000 (average 50,000), and the transport modal split was predicted as follows. Table 16. Visitors to NME Dome, by transport mode Mode Attendance Winter Summer Peak Day Car 25% 6,500 10,000 31,250 JLE/DL 30% 7,800 12,000 37,500 R Rail 28% 6,500 10,000 31,250 Boat 8% 2,080 3,200 10,000 Coach 10% 2,600 4,000 12,500 Bus 2% 520 800 2,500 Total 100% 26,000 40,000 125,000 Sources: Price Waterhouse (1994), CELTS (1995)
Table 17. Transport to the Dome by main mode and final leg Main mode Final Leg % Tube or Rail JLE 36 Car JLE 12 Car Bus 8 Car Ferry 8 Coach 13 Rioverbus 7 Taxi 5 Bus 4 North Kent Line Millennium Transit 5 Walk/Cycle 1 Car Car (disabled/VIP) 1 Total 100% Source: House of Commons, 12th March 1998
31
4.4 Marketing the JLE and East London as a Visitor Destination
4.4.1 The take up by passengers of the Jubilee Line Extension, whether as an alternative or switch from other routes and transport modes, or as a new visit destination, will depend on a range of motivations and trip purposes, but will also be influenced by marketing and promotion of the line and its attractions or ‘destination offer’. The marketing of the line to the leisure and ‘off peak’ visitor segment will be important not only to raise awareness and usage, but as a useful source of market research and passenger data. The impact of the JLE (and other transport and attractions) will therefore be influenced by the marketing effort and targeting of particular travelling groups. Joint marketing initiatives that already exist also provide an insight to visitor behaviour and to an extent direct visitor flows and itineraries where discount and linked ticket schemes operate (e.g. DLR, Royal River Thames, City Cruise, Tower and Maritime Museum discount ticket, joint Museum and Cutty Sark ticket, Carnet, White Card). These schemes can also capture very useful visitor information (e.g. via credit card booking) particularly on the modelling of the flow, habits and multiple visits to attractions
and
areas.
Assessing
the
marketing
effort
and
linkages
between
attractions/destination areas, transport operators, will therefore form one baseline (5.8 below) and JLE effect, as well as supply useful data on visitor movement and behaviour, above the level of individual attractions.
4.4.2 Following our discussions with transport operators in the East London region a summary follows of the key features of the emerging strategies for marketing excess capacity on the JLE and DLR to visitors. This includes collaborative initiatives through London Transport (LT), and with attractions, facilities and destinations.
JLE anticipate that throughout the period of the Visitor Impact Study, there will be opportunities to develop spare capacity during off-peak times. Marketing initiatives to stimulate journeys whose main purpose is leisure/ tourism will therefore provide scope to build up traffic more quickly. The approach is therefore to take up the slack in market growth and bringing it forward. This will be developed in the broader context of
LT’s marketing strategies,
programmes and products - notably the
Travelcard, and Visitor Travelcard (sold only outside of the UK) - as well as LT’s service information and promotional material to encourage leisure/tourism travel on the wider LT network. JLE has always been envisaged by LT as an important
32
opportunity to demonstrate the attractiveness of a fast and efficient modern metro for the capital.
In addition to its strategic role in providing access to the Millennium Dome in North Greenwich, JLE is planning joint marketing initiatives with a range of other visitor attractions, facilities and events for the year 2000. These include promotion of the ‘String of Pearls’ - a year long festival featuring a ‘necklace’ of cultural venues and events up to three quarters of a mile from the River Thames. These closely follow the line of the JLE route. As well as established venues, the String of Pearls will include some new sites and others which have not previously been open to the public. LT, working closely with JLE, are repackaging their promotions for 2000 to favour these sites. It is recognised that some of the sites and attractions north of the river, such as Westminster Abbey and St Paul’s Cathedral will have little capacity for additional visitors in 2000, and will not be seeking to attract any more. Nevertheless, there are some new and expanding venues which are keen to increase their visitor numbers and revenue, especially south of the river. When JLE opens, these will have the benefit of a fast link to the West End/central London, and there is an advantage to be gained in collaboration.
The JLE Marketing Team is currently formulating its South Bank Tourism Initiative (SBTI) between Waterloo and Canada Water stations extending from the River Thames to a line approximately 15 minutes walk south from the route. This includes the cluster of attractions at the South Bank, Bankside, London Bridge and the Pool of London. East of Canada Water, there are far fewer attractions, but some there is scope for future development in some locations, eg the association with the Pilgrim Fathers at Rotherhithe. This is seen as ‘a means of understanding and hence attracting the off peak travel market in this developing tourist area’ (SBTI, Williams 1997). A ‘Study of Tourism and Cultural Sectors in Southwark’ conducted by MVA Consultancy in 1994 (cited in Williams op cit. 3.1) indicated that 57% of visitors to Southwark use the Underground for at least part of their journey to reach attractions, even without the JLE. The MVA survey suggested that around 43% visitors were from overseas, 35% from London and the South East and the remainder from elsewhere in the UK.
33
The SBTI provides a framework to develop relationships between the JLE and attractions which the new line will serve, and to explore opportunities for collaborative marketing. This includes discussion with the major attractions recently opened or opening through to the Millennium - the London Aquarium, Millennium Wheel and the New Tate Gallery of Modern Art - each of which anticipates around 2 million visits per annum - as well as the IMAX Cinema and Globe Theatre. Contacts have been made with around 30 smaller attractions as well as the London Tourist Board, Southwark Attractions Group, South Bank Employers’ Group, Pool of London Partnership, Butlers Wharf Forum and relevant community groups. In the future, the development of access to tourism attractions and destinations served by JLE should be further boosted by the proposed interchange with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link at Stratford and with Thameslink 2000 at London Bridge.
The DLR - which has previously suffered from excess demand – will have some spare capacity through diversion of traffic when JLE opens. Overall, the fall in ridership on DLR will be substantial, with estimates varying from -30% to as much as -40%. DLR’s forecasts are on the optimistic end of this range. It is accepted that on certain sections of DLR the downturn will be considerable, eg the commuter flow from Waterloo (via Waterloo and City Line) through Bank to Canary Wharf on DLR. JLE will enable such journeys to be completed in half the time. Nevertheless, on other flows there will be a realistic choice between JLE and DLR, e.g. from the interchange with the Great Eastern at Stratford to near destinations in Docklands. Furthermore, it is anticipated that DLR will be able to build on its recent success in developing leisure/tourism traffic since the mid 1990s, when the light railway resumed full weekend and evening services.
With its sections of elevated track and spectacular views of the Isle of Dogs cityscape/ river DLR is promoted as a tourism attraction in its own right. The ‘Sail and Rail’ package, which includes a one-way trip by river boat and unlimited travel on DLR, plus discount for entry to the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, was further enhanced in 1998 with discounts for the London Aquarium and the Tower Bridge Experience. A monthly report summarises an on-system questionnaire survey of users commissioned by DLR, which asks respondents to identify the main purpose of their journey. On Sundays the leisure/tourism segment of ridership sampled through
34
the survey rises to around 7% ‘tourist’; 14% ‘sightseer’; 6% ‘special event’; and 12% ‘just out’ (Sep/Oct 1998). The DLR marketing team have emphasised the upward trend in leisure/ tourism traffic since 1995.
When the Lewisham branch of DLR opens (late-1999) the DLR network will regain something of its strategic role, opening up public transport access to Docklands from the south via the interchanges with the Connex Kent lines at Greenwich and Lewisham. The marketing possibilities for DLR include the leisure/tourism traffic generated by a potential catchment area of around half a million people. Again, DLR recognise the advantages of working with attractions, including the recently refurbished Arena, which launched ice hockey matches in winter 1998/9 - events which should attract up to 8,000 spectators. And, the scheme to construct a spur into London City Airport (2002/4) should provide a significant boost to traffic for business and leisure tourism flows on DLR as well as a market for ‘meeters and greeters’ visiting the airport. Thus, it will play a complementary role to JLE (via shuttle bus to/ from Canning Town interchange), the dedicated airport bus service to/ from Liverpool Street, and the Silverlink North London line at Silvertown/City Airport.
The proposed approach illustrates the more general emphasis to service promotion in Docklands and along the JLE corridor as a whole. Although there are sections of parallel route where carriers compete for leisure/tourism and other traffic, there is more to be gained through a collaborative approach to promotion of public transport as an integrated network supported by LT’s overarching marketing strategy. This should also feature collaboration with attractions and facilities as well as the marketing of destinations at a local level, especially through local authorities such as LB Southwark and through the London Tourist Board and - with the winding up of LDDC in spring 1998 - through promotional agencies such as Tour East.
4.4.3 As the Conclusion to this Report suggests (6.1), the inter-reliance of both transport systems and attractions should produce an integrated approach to data collection with clear research benefits to be gained from joint marketing research between the JLE and other organisations in the area.
35
5.
JLE Visitor Impact Methodology
5.1 Outline of Methodology 5.1.1 The methodology which underpins the measurement of the JLE impact is outlined in Working Papers No.4 and No.7 (1997). The aim is to assess objectively-measured impacts with subjective judgement and evidence based on expert opinion supporting trend analysis of tourism patterns. As the Papers note, analysis of tourism impacts is a very complicated process, with different people perceiving and valuing the effects of tourism differently. Impact from the JLE on visitor activity is also complicated by the range and mix of transport modes, including interchange with other lines such as the DLR which itself is undergoing extension from the present Island Gardens terminus through to Greenwich and Lewisham and due to open in 2000.
5.1.2 The basic principle by which JLE impacts are to be measured takes a ‘before’ position – the baseline of in this case visitor activity (i.e. arrivals/flow, spending, passenger journeys) prior to the JLE opening, and the ‘after’ position, commencing with the immediate opening and build up of activity over time. The proposed ‘Survey Programmes 1997-2008’ indicate tourism surveys being undertaken until 2001, although this will now have slipped due to later and phased opening of the Jubilee Line Extension. With major visitor attractions opening from 1999 to 2001, including the Greenwich Millennium ‘Dome’ as the site of the British ‘New Millennium Experience’, the full impact of the JLE and associated developments will not be assessable until at least 2003. (A full ‘post-Millennium event’ year will need to be analysed, i.e. 2001/2). The other basic premise is the application of the ‘additionality’ principle, i.e. only those impacts attributable (wholly or in part) to the JLE should be measured. This would mean that visitor activity arising from factors or investment that would have occurred without the JLE should be identified and discounted. Unfortunately additionality is better articulated in theory than in practice. Experience in applying this principle in the case of regeneration, European, Lottery (Connolly, 1998) and other investment programmes in the UK have been problematic at the very least, and this is acknowledged in Treasury Guidance and Evaluation policy (1991, 1995). Difficulties in assessing investment and public policy decisions and the lack of robust control scenarios have limited the evaluation of public investment programmes, with problems of measurement/attribution (e.g. economic multipliers), effects of displacement and limitations of impact area delineation arising in the case of input-output models. The assessment of
36
investment and consumption decisions and choices are also hampered by the lack of a true counterfactual ‘control’ and the ability to evaluate the ‘without’ (JLE) case.
An example where an investment grant regime was withdrawn whilst schemes were in the pipeline, was seen in the case of Section 4 Tourism Grants which were withdrawn in England in 1988. Here the research (PACEC 1990) found that that some schemes were cancelled; some went ahead without the public investment (other sources being found), some were deferred, some went ahead at a lower scale (and therefore impact) and/or lower ‘quality’, but it was not possible to attribute the ‘with’ and ‘without’ position sufficiently to make a clear assessment of the grant aid scheme itself 5.1.3 These limitations all apply in the case of the JLE impact exercise, and in the case of visitor activity and related developments, are further complicated by the dynamic nature of this activity and lack of reliable measurement. Measurement of baseline and ‘before’ and ‘after’ scenarios are more achievable where the rate and scope of change is fairly static, but this is not the case here with new developments within the corridor and elsewhere in London, and a changing visitor market (in volume, profile and behaviour).
5.2 Visitor Activity Measurement and Constraints 5.2.1 As already noted, unlike employment/economic, land use and other impact measurements which have either controllable or mandatory published statistical data (e.g. ward based employment, planning control and land use/registry), there is no visitor or tourism data collected at a local area level, with the highest level of longitudinal data maintained at the regional, i.e. Greater London level (based on IPS and UKTS national surveys, 3.2 above). There is therefore no responsibility on boroughs to collect visitor data, and individual visitor attractions collect sporadic and non-integrated visitor information primarily for their own purposes. The only exceptions in this case are publicly funded or national institutions which are required to maintain regular visitor statistics although these are not always in the public realm and are generally annual totals, with little visitor profiling. Attractions in the private/commercial sectors have no requirement to release such data (and this may be commercially confidential), whilst voluntary/trust venues may also not publish visitor figures. Reliance on secondary, local area and regional surveys (e.g. TourEast, LTB Overseas Visitor Survey) is therefore greater in this case. Hotel occupancy data collection has improved (ref. 3.2.7 above) but this does not provide sufficient profiling or guest origin information to be particularly useful for the JLE Impact Study, although it does provide one
37
‘Indicator of Change’ in terms of hotel distribution and capacity in comparison with other boroughs/sub regions and with London as a whole.
5.2.2 The JLE impact study also stresses a ‘process’ oriented approach, or ‘Grounded Theory’: “One that is inductively defined from the study of the phenomenon it represents. That is, it is discovered, developed and provisionally verified through systematic data collection and analysis of data pertaining to that phenomenon. Therefore data collection, analysis and theory stand in reciprocal relationship with each other. One does not begin with a theory then prove it, rather one begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge” (Strauss and Corbin, 1990 p23). This is no more relevant than in the case of visitor activity which is typified by a complex relationship between human behaviour and the physical, economic and socio-cultural environments and which lacks systematic control data or clear identification of visitor from other activities and passengers. The relationship between these various factors and determining ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ is seldom apparent or linear, nor entirely rational (but is in some respects ‘chaotic’ and lacking systematic risk assessment by developers and consumers alike). Recent studies on London have highlighted the dearth of measurable data and indicators of visitor activity and flows. The ‘Employment Effects of the Millennium’ study (Londomics 1997) observed in the case of visitor assessment that: “A readily useable methodology does not seem to exist”. Certainly the qualitative aspect of JLE impact on visitor behaviour and activity manifested by largely quantitative measurement and indicators will be difficult to establish. Whilst the delphic approach proposed through the ‘Agents of Change’ exercise seeks to evaluate supply side factors (e.g. impact on investment, location decisions), the impact of the JLE on demand is harder to measure beyond the quantitative changes in visitor activity. Changes in demand of which a proportion will be JLE passengers will be driven by: •
Underlying tourism growth and change (2. above) in London
•
Increased supply of attractions and visitor experiences
•
Improved access to JLE corridor (cost/time, ‘Clawson’ effects)
•
Improved image and promotion of the area and attractions
A basic demand equation for visitor activity (V) quantified by the number of visits ( n ) would rest on the main variables which would need to be measured at the baseline and after opening
38
stages, and secondly to be attributed in terms of the ‘JLE-effect’ which has contributed to the changes arising in these quantifiable activity levels: V n = (f) van, hn, a, t, p, ps, m
[Where va=visitor attractions; h = hotels/accommodation; a=amenities (inc. visitor quarters/zones);
t=transport
access;
p=total
trip
price,
p=price
of
substitutes,
m=marketing/advertising. Transport access can be measured by the JLE station catchment as already delineated, in relation to visitor origins and routes and Clawson (time/cost of travel) effects, whilst open quarters/zones which are not controllable through entrance/ticketing, can be quantified through an assessment of approximate carrying capacity].
A simple supply and demand ‘curve’ would demonstrate the position in this case where a real upward shift in visitor demand will take place with no real increase in price. The increase in the supply of visitor attractions has been driven by public funding/subsidy (transport, public venues), with largely marginal increases in cost (of production), or price (to the visitor), and with the private sector effectively 'piggy backing' on the new investment in infrastructure, both hard and soft (e.g. image, marketing, critical mass of attractions). Instead of an increase in price exploiting increased demand, the level of visitor demand is likely to increase even more so as a result of the combined factors above. The factor in the London visitor market will be the extent of switching between visitor attractions and areas, image/marketing positioning, and the travel-time parameters. Relative price (p, ps) will therefore be another determinant of visitor activity, but in most cases this will be the marginal cost of transport/visit. Speedier public access to the JLE attraction zones will therefore release latent demand as well as redistribute tourist activity, particularly overseas tourists and those others with limited available time and itineraries. 5.3 Establishing the Baseline 5.3.1 With the absence of adequate local area (borough, sub-region) visitor data collection and verification, the Visitor Impact Study therefore faces particular problems of measurement and methodology. The problems of a lack of local area visitor data has been recognised by government and tourist boards both nationally and regionally. The move towards harmonisation of tourism statistics in 1995 requires that member States both collect and
39
distribute visitor and related data, although not currently a mandatory (EU or UK) requirement. A study commissioned by the DCMS and national tourist boards in 1997 (Gilchrist and White, CELTS 1997) sought to evaluate existing models of visitor estimation and develop alternative or improved systems of translating national/regional visitor statistics into to usable local area
figures (e.g. borough/district level). Existing models such as
STEAM (‘Scarborough’) and ‘Cambridge’ are proprietorial, commercial models, but which on their own, fail to generate reliable or verifiable local urban area data. They are based on a combination of macro (e.g. UKTS, IPS) tourist data and local and regional factors, effectively a statistical model derived from the national data sets. The study for the DCMS concluded that there is no substitute for local area primary visitor surveys, coupled with occupancy and periodic site/gateway surveys. This requires both boroughs and individual sites/attractions to improve and integrate their visitor and tourism statistical data collection and analysis. Only when this procedure is in place can the macro models be validated at a local area, and errors in the system corrected (e.g. double counting).
As the most recent sub-regional visitor survey states (EDAW for TourEast, 1998): “Data for local visitor numbers are more difficult and costly to generate. The only conclusive means is by visitor survey, but this can be costly”. Three approaches were suggested in this case:
1. Identify regional trends in visitor numbers and apply these growth patterns locally (assumes that the local area share of Greater London visitors remains constant though clearly developments such as the Greenwich ‘Dome’ will increase this share dramatically);
2. Compare actual trends in visitor numbers at major attractions in the area with those regionally, to identify where the most rapid growth/decline is being experienced; and
3. Conduct a visitor survey every two years, the results of which can be compared against both the baseline of visitors and the growth rates in visitors experienced regionally. This will be especially interesting once the Millennium developments are complete.
The authors also state that these methods are not exclusive and indeed a combination of each should provide the most comprehensive means of identifying growth in tourism to the local area. Applying growth patterns (1.) is clearly inappropriate and too crude, given the uneven
40
rate of visitor growth and new attractions in London and in the JLE corridor in particular, although London will serve as the prime ‘control’ area for JLE impact assessment (below). A combination of 2. and 3. therefore provides the only quantitative tool by which visitor activity can be measured, in the absence of general local area visitor statistics, or reliable disaggregation of national and regional data.
5.3.2 From the above assessment of visitor activity, and whilst no figure for actual visitors to the area is available (and which might be translated into passenger trips), the first element of the local area estimation is provided by the most recent Visitor Survey undertaken in the Docklands and wider TourEast corridor (3.3.2 & 3.3.3 above). Secondly, from our mapping of visitor attractions in the JLE corridor, we have begun to construct a baseline of visits to attractions in the form of a time series and forecast where known for new attractions, in each station catchment area. It should be noted that visits equate to ‘admissions/attendances’ and not to an individual visitor or passenger. The difference and relationship between these data sets is the incidence of multiple visits to attractions, i.e. one visitor or passenger trip may be represented by 3 or 4 visits to separate attractions during the same trip. Developing a model and establishing the pattern of visitor behaviour and activity is therefore key to establishing the relationship between passenger trips and attendance at visitor attractions (and also the temporal and economic effects that will arise – the more attractions in an area the longer the stay and the higher spending is likely to be).
5.3.3 A local example of this is provided by the validation of visitors to Greenwich Town (CELTS 1995) which was required to support the case for the DLR Extension station at Cutty Sark and tourism planning for this day trip area. Indications of visitor behaviour were derived from the annual LTB Overseas Visitor Survey which asks tourists their intention and actual visits to named attractions in London, and from visitor surveys at attractions in the town, such as the Maritime Museum, Cutty Sark, and Royal Park. From this it was determined that an average of 25% of Museum Visitors also visit the Cutty Sark on the same trip, whilst the OVS suggested that overseas visitors attended at least two from the Museum/Royal Observatory, Cutty Sark and Royal Park. Other local surveys (e.g. Greenwich Park) provided a visitor split by category and by applying the combined visits to each quantified group of local, domestic and overseas visitor, both locally (‘bottom up’) and as a proportion of London visitor by type (‘top down’), it was possible to estimate the number of new visits or ‘visitors’ (which equates to ‘passenger trips’) to the local area. These proportions were then applied to
41
transport arrival mode from these and other local visitor surveys. For example in a JLE station catchment, baseline visits may be made up of several key destinations:
Attraction 1 Attraction 2 Attraction 3 Total Visits p.a.
250,000 100,000 75,000 425,000
Analysis of visitor data from individual attractions, joint-ticketing, LTB surveys (trip intentions, actual trip visits), may indicate that 20% of visitors to Attraction 1 also visit Attraction 2 and 3. Net visitors to these attractions is therefore 250,000 + 50,000 + 25,000 = 325,000 which translates into passenger trips before discounting visits by local/residents. Visitor profiling and transport mode will be built up in each case (attraction, catchment) from local data collection, observation, transport and other origin data sources and applied to visitor types (overseas, domestic, day visit, intra-regional). The ability to ‘model’ local area visitor numbers and analyse these by type/purpose and transport mode therefore relies on: •
Visitor Attraction admissions data and integration (e.g. combined visits, ticketing)
•
Visit intention and action data (LTB, OVS)
•
Regional Tourist Studies (i.e. London - LTB, IPS/UKTS, DVS)
•
Transport, Gateway and Intercept Surveys (LRT/LUL, boroughs, TourEast)
5.3.4 The methodology used to ‘gross-up’ visitor survey samples is also a function of both the sample size, location and timing of surveys. The larger the survey sample and the more it is spread over different time periods and seasons, the more accurate the estimation is likely to be. In terms of London, whilst overseas tourism is higher in the extended summer months (June to October), domestic tourism is more evenly spread, whilst conference and business tourism is higher in the autumn, and leisure shopping may also be seasonally different. London benefits from a widening monthly distribution of visitor activity, and therefore any surveys must reflect this is in their interviewing schedules (most however fail to do so, e.g. Docklands Survey). Once patterns are established however, survey samples sizes and timing may be reduced over successive surveys, particularly where survey findings are consistent. In the case of the Docklands/TourEast Visitor Survey (1996), in addition to interviews, counts were made in order calculate the visitor flow and number, which in turn were multiplied to reach a daily visit number. Using differing factors for weekdays and weekends, these
42
estimates are then grossed up to reach an annual figure by each main visitor type, adjusting for business and leisure visitors, and excluding local visitors etc. Given the assumptions and extent of multipliers used in these surveys, the resultant annual figures are very broad estimates and in no way are accurate or easily verifiable totals (despite expressed ‘confidence’/error levels).
5.4 Control and Reference Areas 5.4.1 In view of the fact that there are no regular local area visitor statistics, other than admissions/visit numbers at attractions and hotel occupancy by borough, the lowest level at which longitudinal and verifiable visitor statistics can be compared is for the London area as a whole. The prime source for this data as outlined above, is the London Tourist Board’s Annual Statistics and Overseas Summer Visitor Survey, and regionalised national (UKTS, IPS) data on which the LTB relies. Day Visitor Surveys are reliant upon the Countryside Recreation Network (Countryside Commission et al) who have taken over this periodic survey. Since the JLE corridor is wholly contained within Greater London, one basic measurement will be the change in visitor activity in London as a whole compared with the equivalent activity in the JLE corridor (the Economic and Labour Market Activity Study by Roger Tym & Partners, dated June 1998, has also taken a reference area which includes the JLE corridor itself). Very simplistically, if visits, whether measured by modelled Visitor Surveys, or visits to attractions, increase by 7% in London but 10% in the JLE corridor the gross ‘JLE effect’ (or ‘Indicator of Change’) may be taken as 3% (10% less 7%). The net JLE impact will then be judged, based on the assessment of JLE effects (5.9 below) and other determinants, such as they can be quantified.
5.4.2 Periodic (‘one off’) visitor survey estimates are carried out by individual boroughs, and as part of sub-regional areas from time to time. The latter includes grouping of boroughs who have joint marketing and promotion efforts, such as in south west London (Richmond, Kingston, Wandsworth, Merton, Sutton), north west London (Brent, Harrow, Ealing), whilst others have grouped according to regeneration programmes, such as in the Upper Lee Valley Partnership area (Haringey, Enfield, Waltham Forest), Kings Cross (SRB-Camden and Islington, Partnership), and the five TourEast boroughs have also been highlighted, above. Individual boroughs also commission occasional visitor surveys such as Kensington and boroughs such as Croydon and Barnet have instigated tourism development plans and impact assessments for the first time. For instance Richmond estimate that 100,000 overseas and
43
200,000 domestic visitors stay in the borough, plus 8 million day visitors. These are derivative (from LTB and local attractions) and unvalidated estimates however, and this borough admits that “obtaining comparative figures for the borough is difficult to achieve without spending vast amounts of time and money on research”. Whilst the London region as a whole provides the only detailed and longitudinal data source for the JLE impact exercise, obtaining comparative data from other sub-regions could be useful in building a multivariate range of reference areas and visitor activity. In this case the above south west borough region would provide a useful benchmark since it is outside of the JLE/East London area, but a discrete tourist/visitor sub-region with heritage, river and mixed-use attractions.
5.4.3 Given the spatial relationships, distributory and ‘image’ effects which the new visitor attractions and transport system may generate, comparison should also be made with other cities having a diverse destination offer and visitor profile. Although London dominates overseas tourist arrivals, Manchester and Birmingham and perhaps Glasgow would provide useful national controls to London, with (expanding) international airports and a mix of leisure, cultural, VFR and business tourists. Since the Millennium effect is not limited to the JLE corridor, comparing visitor change between London and other cities may also suggest that there are London specific effects, to which the JLE and area regeneration may have directly contributed (and benefited). Likewise, since London is an international touristic city, comparison with other cultural capitals in Europe may extend this ‘control’, given that other UK cities are undergoing Millennium/Lottery and other visitor improvements (e.g. Glasgow 1999 Festival). Paris is the only directly comparable city, and the one most often linked with London in terms of overseas visitors combining two European cities. The relative change and profile of Paris and London would therefore also provide a useful comparative, particularly any shifts in overseas tourist activity. Visitor data is available via Visitor and Convention Bureau and/or regional/city tourism boards and offices in these cases, on a similar basis to the LTB annual publications. Comparable figures for visitors to attractions in these other cities would also provide a control. A much wider set of control areas and comparisons will improve the overall assessment, and to an extent ‘smooth’ the effects of cyclical and exceptional events and trends.
5.4.4 Whilst comprehensive borough and local area visitor data cannot be relied upon (although where it exists it will form part of the incomplete picture), comparing the change in visitor numbers at individual attractions, ‘bottom up’, provides the other control by which
44
JLE impacts can be measured. Since this forms part of the baseline and monitoring exercise proposed above, using visitor attractions from elsewhere in London provides another indicator of change and impact – the extent to which visitor attractions in the JLE corridor are doing better or worse than similar attractions elsewhere. Factors which influence individual attractions are of course both exogenous and endogenous. Museums, galleries and theatres experience the ‘blockbuster’ phenomenon which cannot be maintained continuously (and cultural policies may require a mix of programming, some more ‘popular’ than others). Attractions with fixed collections/themes have tended to decline (e.g. Cutty Sark, Thames Barrier), whilst those with touring and changing attractions are more successful in maintaining visitors, hence the expansion at venues such as the Maritime Museum and growth of temporary exhibitions at museums and galleries. A more sophisticated comparison could be made between attractions of similar nature and scale, such as museums, heritage and themed attractions. Comparing attractions within London means that external factors such as overseas tourist numbers, price/exchange rates and seasonal differences would be largely cet. par.
5.5 Hierarchy of Attractions 5.5.1 A key factor in modelling and impact measurement ‘bottom up’ is in determining and understanding the ‘hierarchy’ of attractions and areas themselves. The ‘must see’ attraction (Getz 1991) or destination area itself, is a phenomenon in tourist and visitor activity. This will be the prime (and overriding) purpose for visiting a particular site/area and undertaking the trip in the first place. Americans visiting London for instance cite reasons such as “educational” or “cultural’”, “a different culture” and “full of old historical places”. This interest is more than realised when they reach here – 80% of travellers surveyed report visiting museums and art galleries (compared with 45% of domestic US travellers); 56% go to the theatre (compared with 32% of all overseas visitors) and a third go to music recitals and concerts (compared with only 11% of all overseas visitors). The identified US ‘culture seeker’ represents 35% of past travellers to Europe and exhibits a significantly higher cultural visitation than overseas visitors to Britain as a whole and also compared with cultural visits when travelling at home. The point here is that this visit motivation is translated into an itinerary made up of visits to specific attractions or ‘must see’ destinations. Visits to other places on the same trip are therefore secondary. In a few cases ‘must see’ visits may be to areas not to individual attractions, and made up of a cluster of attractions and public realm, such as the South Bank/river walk, Oxford Street (and other linear street markets at Camden,
45
Portobello). For example at Greenwich the Maritime Museum and Royal Observatory may be the prime purpose for visit, but the Cutty Sark a secondary one (or forsaken altogether).
5.5.2 ‘Flagship’ attractions would normally be typified by larger scale and diverse (visitor types, range of attractions) venues, but also with a ‘unique’ image (this may be as much architectural or landscape as the collection or experience itself). The atypical ‘Dome’ will be one, as will the new Tate and Millennium Wheel, but Vinopolis may not. In the case of the JLE corridor and Visitor Impact, determining the hierarchy of attractions will be important in measuring the main journey purpose, visitor type/profile (transport, spend) and in evaluating their role as a primary cause of change in activity levels (i.e. a ‘must see’ attraction will have a higher impact factor than a secondary or ancillary attraction). Likewise clusters of attractions and ‘cultural tourism quarters’ will also have a greater impact on trip purpose, the potential ‘JLE change factor’ and higher temporal and economic impacts (i.e. people spend longer and more money than in isolated or single purpose visits). The baseline study and modelling of Visitor Activity ‘before’ and ‘after’ the JLE will therefore need to develop a hierarchy of attractions and zones, with more intensive visitor analysis (quantitative/profiling and qualitative) at the prime locations and sites, since these will drive passenger trips, behaviour and impacts.
5.6 Intercept and other Survey Needs Intercept surveys have been carried out at Southwark, Bermondsey, Canary Wharf and Canning Town station catchments, before the opening of the JLE and will be repeated sometime after opening of the JLE. It is also suggested that other surveys are carried out to supplement these at the ‘after’ stage. The tables in Appendix I shows the key attractions in all JLE station catchments and suggestions where it may be appropriate to undertake visitor surveys. The attractions which already collect and publish tourism visitor statistics are listed within each station catchment, and where possible a contact name has been provided. In those attractions where visitor surveys are already undertaken and statistics collected, it is recommended that discussions are undertaken to see if a question (or series of questions) determining the transport modes which visitors use to reach or leave the attraction can be added. There will also be a need to add visitor survey points as new attractions are opened. It is also suggested therefore that the survey points used by the Tour East survey in 1996 could be a useful basis from which to start assessing where these points might be. The 1996 Tour East survey points have been indicated by an asterisk in Appendix I.
46
5.7 Summary of Methods and Data Sources 5.7.1 Introduction - The foregoing has attempted to deal with the problem of visitor measurement and impact assessment in the absence of reliable local area visitor information which is required both to establish the quantifiable JLE baseline ‘Indicators of Change’ and to measure these indicators after opening, as the basis for then assessing the JLE effect on visitor activity. Since as mentioned throughout this study, there is no valid local area visitor data source, or any feasible method of retrospectively producing this by primary research, a largely ‘synthetic model’ is proposed, drawing on exhaustive analysis and manipulation of secondary data sets at national, regional and local levels, as well as comparable impact and behavioural studies of travel, tourism, transport and related urban activity. The synthetic modelling approach which uses and adapts a wider set of variables than national and disaggregated tourism statistics, is also that approved by the DCMS in its review of local area tourism statistics (Gilchrist & White 1997). Summarising the method, this seeks to adopt both a ‘bottom up’ and ‘top down’ approach to visitor activity measurement, which can be validated at the regional and local area levels, and in aggregate across the JLE corridor shown diagrammatically below. The profiling and sub-analysis of visitor activity (e.g. by visitor motivation/type, destination) which can be used as the basis for the JLE baseline and attribution, will triangulate destination, visitor flow and transport data at the micro, macro and meso levels in order to establish a robust ‘before’ position to be used as the basis of comparison for post-JLE impact measurement.
47
Diagram of JLE Visitor Impact ‘Top Down’ and Bottom Up'
UK
LONDON
IPS + UKTS LDVS NTS
Control
Before
After
Visitors
Visitor Profiles, Behaviour and Transport mode
DESTINATIONS Visitor Attractions Amenities/Cultural Quarters Hotels & Accommodation
48
5.7.2 Data sets and information sources - This Scoping Study provides both an overview and analysis of visitor activity in the London regional context; East London sub–region (Docklands/TourEast) and JLE corridor respectively. Since there is currently no JLE area visitor baseline as such, only a wider area estimate and annual visits to attractions in each station catchment, the approach to developing a pre-JLE opening baseline position will need to draw on a number of secondary data sources, and local area data extracted from surveys such the annual LTB Overseas Visitor Survey. The purpose of monitoring regional visitor data is firstly to act as a control or comparative trend, but also to provide the basis for modelling visitor profiles and behaviour, since this will influence the effects of visitor activity in the JLE corridor. Changes in the balance between overseas, domestic and day visitors; changes in the country of origin; the proportion of business, leisure and VFR tourists, all will have a disproportionate impact on the JLE area when compared with other areas given its destination and accommodation profile. Table 18 therefore summarises the key survey and data sources which are generated at a national, London, sub–region and JLE area level. All will feed into the above measurement model and impact assessment (although not with equal statistical validity), with most primary research required at the local (station catchment/interchanges, attractions, hotels) and regional (LTB, control area) levels. Table 18. Summary of Visitor Data (Sources: in bold) National London Region Sub-Region Overseas Visitors: LTB Overseas Visitors OVS: LTB Survey (OVS annual) TourEast (to 2000) IPS UK Tourists: UKTS LTB Statistics TourEast “ n/a Day Visitors: DVS DVS Hotel Occupancy: LTB (monthly); BDO LTB, Boroughs DCMS, DETR Attractions/Venues: Arts Venues: TMA, Borough - if owned or funded, e.g. local DCMS (e.g. Tate, SOLT (London Dome), ETB, museums, civic theatre, Theatres) park); National Visitor Attractions: Monuments, LVRPA (Lee Valley LTB/ETB; Venues, M&GC, Arts Regional Park Authority) Reference Boroughs Council, Trade Bodies, Conference/ Exhibition: EIF, Thames Gateway BTA; MIA London Partnership Transport: DETR NTS
LUL, LT, Private operators (e.g. boats, coaches), LTB OVS
LT Underground Surveys, ELL, DLR
JLE Corridor Individual Visitor Attractions; Boroughs; TourEast (1993 & 1996) LTB OVS (extended); JLE Intercept Surveys; TICs (Greenwich, Southwark, new: Royal Docks);
LT/LUL and other passenger surveys
5.7.3 Data collection and distribution in the tourism, transport and related cultural statistics fields have been a particular weakness at local, national and European levels, due to their
49
multiple dimensions, political and economic responsibilities and largely non-mandatory status in local and national government provision. Improvements and standardisation in statistics have been promoted however in recent years, notably in the area of hotel occupancy, tourism and participation and public spending in arts, sports and heritage activity. This has been led by the Department for Culture and Media and Sport in England and the European Union. At a London region level , the London Tourist Board and boroughs are also starting to develop more systematic measurement of tourism activity, including hotel occupancy, whilst the return of a regional government - Mayor, Greater London Authority (GLA), and establishment of a regional development agency (RDA) and regional cultural consortium, will all presage reorganisation and increased attention to travel and transport. This will directly effect both LT and the LTB as well as other bodies such as LPAC, which may alter existing data collection and time series. At a national level, reorganisation and resource priorities with tourist and cultural agencies may also effect national and regional research exercises noted in Table 18 above. One change has already been proposed - to the UK Tourist Survey (UKTS), which will switch from face-to-face to telephone interviews as its data collection method. It will be important therefore that close monitoring of both methodology and changing data sources is maintained in the Baseline and subsequent JLE impact studies, to ensure consistency and comparability.
5.8 Baseline Indicators The variables which are represented by the various baselines of visitor activity, will be assessed in terms of their relative and proportionate change between the defined JLE corridor and London as a whole (main control area); and with more general comparatives between London and other cities; between the JLE and other sub-regional tourist clusters (e.g. south west London) and between a typology of visitor attractions within the JLE and control areas. A range of ‘performance indicators’ will be established at the ‘before’ and ‘after’ assessment points and change measured over time. These will include the following (equivalent visitorbased employment/economic indicators are also to be captured by the Economic Activity and Labour Market Study, Roger Tym and Partners 1998):
1.
Change in the number of attractions and facilities in the JLE corridor - total and by station catchment (baseline = catchment area mapping and schedule of attractions);
50
2.
Change in total number of visits to attractions in JLE corridor - total and by station catchment (baseline = audit of admissions/attendance at attractions);
3.
Change in the number of visits to flagship (“must see”) attractions and to their comparators (e.g. Tate at Bankside, Tate, Millbank);
These quantitative indicators can also be further analysed in terms of size, e.g. changes in the proportion of attractions in the range of 100,000+, 250,000+ annual visits, conference (e.g. hotel) occupancy levels.
4.
Change in the proportion of overseas visitors to the JLE corridor - total and by station catchment (baseline = LTB Overseas Visitor Survey, LDDC/TourEast surveys, LRT/JLE surveys);
5.
Change in the proportion of domestic visitors to the JLE corridor - total and by station catchment (baseline = LTB Statistics, LDDC/TourEast surveys, LRT/JLE surveys);
6.
Change in the proportion of Leisure Day Visits to the JLE corridor - total and by station catchment (baseline = LDV Survey, LDDC/TourEast surveys, LTB and local area visitor profiles);
7.
Change in the number of accommodation establishments in the JLE corridor - total and by station catchment (baseline = serviced/registered accommodation – hotels and B&B, by no. of rooms/beds);
8.
Change in % occupancy levels in JLE corridor accommodation - total and by station catchment (baseline = occupancy surveys, LTB/boroughs - analysis per 7.);
9.
Change in the average number of bed nights spent in JLE accommodation: hotels and B&B (baseline = hotel occupancy statistics, amenity/hotel survey, LTB OVS);
10.
Change in the proportion of accommodation and occupancy levels and average bed nights in the JLE as a % of London (baseline per 7. 8. and 9.);
51
11.
Change in the ratio of business-leisure stays in accommodation establishments in JLE corridor (baseline per 8. to 10.);
12.
Change in marketing spend of visitor attractions, hotels, LTB, borough and local agencies on JLE area (baseline = LDDC, TourEast, LTB, boroughs, survey of attractions, LT/EJL);
13.
Change in the proportion of attractions in JLE corridor collecting admissions, origin/visitor type data (baseline = BTA/ETB, LTB annual, visitor attraction survey and mapping).
The above indicators are not exhaustive and further analysis will be undertaken subject to availability of data on the mix of tourist and visitor types (e.g. business, leisure, educational, VFR) and by attraction/destination type, both within the JLE area and in comparison with London as whole and other areas where such comparable data is available (e.g. other subregions). Similar indicators will also apply to visitor-driven economic activity, notably employment change and distribution in visitor spending and arising multiplier effects, again in volume, quality terms and in contrast to other reference areas. Key to all measurements lie in further refining the baseline statistical data and monitoring activity (e.g. new attractions and amenities), and establishing an integrated model of visitor activity from secondary and primary surveys during the baseline, opening (1st wave) and ‘after’ (2nd wave) stages of the JLE’s impact.
5.9 Causation of Change 5.9.1 The measurement of visitor activity and flows, and the above ‘Indicators of Change’, provide the foundation for a more qualitative assessment of the JLE impact on this sector. The extent to which the JLE has influenced not only visitor activity and related consumer choices, but also the investment and locational decisions which have created the improved and expanded destination area itself, is to be assessed through ‘Agents of Change’ and other impact
studies,
including
those
focusing
on
Economic/Employment
and
Property/Development. Visitor attractions and amenities (e.g. hotels) represent sectoral investment alongside other forms of development in the area. Many have been developed through substantial public funding, whether regeneration (e.g. SRB, City Challenge), European or Lottery funds. Two of the largest lottery funded projects in the UK, the
52
Greenwich ‘Dome’ and Tate at Bankside are located within the JLE corridor, as are a number of medium-sized projects (e.g. Theatre Royal/Salway Road Stratford, BFI Imax, Millennium Bridge, Docklands Museum). The feasibility of several of these projects rests on public access and visitor targets which can only be achieved with the improved transport infrastructure, and the JLE is therefore a significant factor in the visitor impacts that will arise in each case. Visitor surveys undertaken prior to trips being taken also provide an indicator of the importance that the JLE ‘destination area’ and attractions have in generating visits to London in the first place (e.g. overseas tourists), whilst actual visits made whilst in London gauges the extent to which access (e.g. travel and transport, marketing) has influenced visitor behaviour. Integrating JLE area visitor attractions into surveys undertaken by the LTB, BTA and others will therefore be an important source of testing both quantitative indicators and qualitative (e.g. motivational) impacts.
5.9.2 Hotel and related hospitality facilities which have located (or expanded) in the JLE area, and the activity levels (occupancy, bed nights, spending, employment) that arise through visitor activity represent another ‘JLE-attributable’ activity. Hotel investment decisions are of course complex, but dependant on capital/land values, planning and other environmental conditions, but in London, driven by location and transport (public, car parking) factors. The resistance of hotel developers to locate away from the core zones (2.4.1 and 2.4.2 above) is strong, and the extent to which new and expanded establishments are developed in the new JLE/East London area, is therefore a measure of both increased visitor activity, and transport access to arrival points (e.g. Heathrow, railway interchanges). Combining hotel occupancy and visitor survey data to establish the trend and profile of hotel usage will also provide a key measurement of JLE impacts and the extent to which hotels represent agents of change. This analysis will also distinguish between hotels by size (no. of beds) and facilities (e.g. conference, retail) and between independents and members of chains. In terms of visitor flow activity, hotels in the JLE corridor will generate new arrival movements (i.e. inbound - from point of origin/transport gateway, e.g. Heathrow, to JLE catchment) and intra-regional and outbound travel to other areas of London from the hotel base.
5.10
Baseline Surveys and Modelling
The following are the main tasks which will make up the programme of work to be undertaken over a period of approximately four months. This exercise will establish the baseline indicators outlined above; model visitor activity in the JLE catchment in terms of
53
gross visits and in terms of net visitors/’passengers’ by transport mode. It will develop the ‘with’ and ‘without’ JLE visitor forecasts and through analysis and further refinement of qualitative ‘agents of change’ and other assessments, seek to attribute the likely JLE-effect in terms of visitor additionality and distribution in London. Reference data will also be developed based on London as the prime control area, and on comparable visitor attractions (London and elsewhere) and other discrete sub-regional tourism activity levels.
5.10.1 Data collection and analysis i)
Visitor Attractions - update the existing database of attractions, accommodation (hotels, B&B) and discrete visitor amenities in the JLE corridor. Obtain and verify visitor figures for 1998, 1999 year-to-date and projections for 1999/2000. Information to be obtained from source (post/phone); annual statistics (ETB/ETC, LTB, BTA, DCMS, trade associations) and boroughs/TICs.
ii)
Site visits to all JLE station and impact areas - define the hierarchy of visitor attractions/destination zones and typologies and clusters of major, minor attractions and ancillary facilities, and map the likely visitor flows within and between station catchments.
iii)
Survey of attractions, amenities - design and distribute questionnaire to attractions and venues in i) above, to assess the level and quality of visitor survey and usage data, collection methods and trends.
iv)
Exchange and collate information (preliminary results) with other JLE Impact Study consultants, notably ‘Economic and Labour Market‘ (R Tym) and ‘Agents of Change’. Assess coverage of employers and ‘Agents’, and if deemed necessary undertake additional interviews of visitor-based organisations (e.g. attractions, hotels) to refine visitor data, forecasts, impacts and JLE attribution.
v)
Interview and follow-up survey of key attractions, to discuss - marketing, strategic planning, front-of-house/ticketing functions - in order to expand on iii); review quality and quantity of visitor data; the inclusion of transport mode and origin information, temporal data (e.g. monthly vs annual, length of visit, seasonal, usergroups/segments). Discuss perception of JLE impacts, extent of attribution, qualitative
54
issues (accessibility, image, time/spend impacts), joint marketing and collaboration on visitor data collection, validation and sharing.
vi)
Hotel/accommodation activity - obtain occupancy and forecast (new/extended) data by type (rating, rooms/capacity, facilities, e.g. conference). Occupancy and development trend analysis from 1989, mapping (post code/GIS) supply of accommodation in London, sub-regions, JLE corridor and ‘support areas’. Source (including proprietorial data bases) – hotels/chains, LTB, boroughs, DCMS (occupancy statistics), British Hospitality Association (BHA), commercial hotel data sets (BHO, Howarth).
vii)
Exchange data and information re. LT passenger surveys; market research; passenger and user survey data and from interchange/transport operators: ELL, DLR through LT and from rail, boat and bus operators.
viii)
JLE Impact Intercept Surveys - analysis and further cross-tabulation of SPSS files by selected station catchment.
ix)
Collate and analysis of data from i) to viii) - refine and update visitor attraction database (i above) in MS ACCESS and EXCEL formats, with full post code details for GIS/mapping and visualisation.
5.10.2 Modelling and Control Areas i)
Tabulate London Tourism Statistics and Overseas Visitor Survey (OVS) data – from 1989 (consistent time series) and update to 1998. Complete trend analysis of visit/intentions to major attractions, calculate smoothing and log-linear trend lines to measure underlying trend and cyclical changes, by tourist-types - origin/nationality; accommodation/VFR; trip purpose and repeat versus first time visitor profiles. From TourEast/Docklands surveys (1993 to 1996) and local area surveys, undertake comparative analysis with London control and sub-regional areas visitor data to assess pre-JLE visitor change effects (and ref. iii below).
ii)
Tourism forecast analysis – tabulate and calculate variations in London tourism forecasts (LTB/ETB, BTA) and periodic strategies (LTB 1987/88; 1994-1998; 1997-
55
2000; 1995-2004); review annual adjustments (exogenous and endogenous) and JLEeffect assumptions, undertake actual versus forecast variance analysis. Establish ‘pre’, ‘before’ and ‘after’-JLE London tourism forecasts of overseas and domestic visitors.
This will therefore compare the ‘with’ and ‘without’ JLE position at key measurement points, including interim revisions, coinciding with the JLE milestones:
Before expectation
1989 (earliest year for LTB/BTA time series 2.2 above)
Before opening
1998/99 (baseline)
st
iii)
1 wave after
2000
2nd wave after
2002
Long term
2006/7
Time series analysis of annual/periodic Leisure Day Visit surveys (UK DVS) London disaggregation by destination type, origin, transport mode and other indicators (subject to ONS permission/data sets).
iv)
Undertake comparative analysis and tabulation of visitor data (totals, profiles/origins) from other London attractions (by hierarchy/typologies above); local areas/subregions (e.g. south west London corridor); other cultural capitals (e.g. Paris); and regional cities (e.g. Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham). Review international tourism trends – national/regional comparison (World Tourism Organisation, WTTC, BTA) and growth assumptions.
v)
Interviews with key agencies, stakeholders: refine and verify data above - including London Tourist Board (borough liaison, strategy, new Millennium team); English Tourism Council (ex-ETB) research department; DCMS (Chief Statistician and Economist, National Museums and Galleries, Royal Parks, Millennium and Tourism units); Millennium Commission (event co-ordinator, impact assessment exercise); London Development Partnership (Tourism strategy, pre-GLA planning); borough tourism officers and tourist information centres (TICs), SRBs (e.g. Cross River, London Bridge, Stratford)
56
vi)
Visitor Model and Baseline Indicators - The collection of visitor and other data (e.g. hotel occupancy) for each station catchment will be modelled in terms of behaviour patterns to determine the degree of multiple visits to individual attractions in order to calculate the net number of visitors which can be translated into passenger trips/transport mode(s) and trip origin (see 5.3.3. above).
In practice the manipulation of data, profiling and behavioural assumptions underlying the development of a model of local area visitor activity will be complex, incomplete and therefore necessitate judgement by the researchers. Wherever possible, assumptions and resulting visitor flow models will be verified with ‘endusers’ (attractions, hotels, transporters), comparable visitor models, and with regional data sets – i.e. triangulation. Where material or non-justifiable variances result, modelling will be re-assessed. It is likely that visitor baseline data will understate rather than exaggerate net visits, due to visits to open (uncontrolled/recorded) areas, mixed mode transport usage, although the latter is intended to be captured through assessing all transport passenger movement in the sub-region, not limited to the JLE corridor (e.g. DLRExtension, East London Line).
This model will be built-up by visitor/tourist type, distinguishing between day visit, overnight tourist (based in corridor and out-of-corridor), and where possible, group size (e.g. tour/educational groups) and length of stay (in attraction/area). The pattern of visitation and flows will also be compared with other local area visitor models (e.g. Greenwich CELTS 1995, TourEast EDAW 1998). Verification of visitor profiles, numbers and patterns will be undertaken from manipulation of UKTS/IPS datasets, and passenger data from transport operators serving the station catchments.
vii)
Data consolidation and completion of quantitative model of visitor activity in JLE catchment based on primary and secondary analysis above; establish baseline indicators outlined in 5.8 and change factors for JLE corridor, London ‘control’ and sub-regional ‘reference’ areas and external comparators.
viii)
Map visitor activity by destination/attraction type (database/GIS transfer) for each station catchment
57
ix)
Outline key ‘after’ survey requirements, including survey points and data collection strategy. This assessment will offer the rationale for the JLE-effect attribution to the Change Indicators measured at the baseline (above) and to be tested at the ‘after’ stages. Evaluating the changes in perception, behaviour and the impact on visitor travel patterns will require qualitative assessment through consultation with visitors themselves, and with key agencies such as the LTB, BTA (‘Marketing Britain’ and London overseas), boroughs and attractions/venues themselves. Mechanisms such as focus groups, self-completion questionnaires during the opening/after phases of the study may therefore be required to assess the extent to which the JLE contributes to redistribution of visitor activity and switching between transport modes, and/or to real growth in demand and improved quality (‘satisfaction’, repeat visits) in the trip and visit experience.
58
6.
Co-ordinating the JLE Visitor Impact Study
6.1 Scoping Study This study has provided the foundation for both establishing the baseline of visitor activity in the JLE corridor and developing a research framework for measuring the impact of such activity once JLE stations open and the visitor economy expands between 1999 and 2001. Given the need to consult with other organisations and interested parties towards the ‘before’ and baseline positions, and to elicit the required local area data for next stage of the JLE Visitor Impact Study, an assessment of prospective partners for this programme has been made. The JLE Impact Study has been established by London Transport, with support of the Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions (DETR): “The Government is very pleased to assist London Transport in carrying out such a broad impact assessment of a major public transport investment. The results of the research will contribute to our understanding of the role of public transport in achieving the Government’s objectives” (JLE Newsletter July 1998). The “Tourism” Impact Study therefore sits alongside several other studies which have been programmed to be undertaken between 1998 and 2001 and beyond. In terms of the specific JLE impact assessment and measurement of passenger activity, this is obviously the creation, responsibility and for the benefit of, LRT (and the DETR). As has been mentioned, bearing in mind the scope and novelty that the JLE Impact study represents, and the dearth of robust models of wider and visitor impacts in particular, the Study does have merits beyond the transport policy and public investment spheres, both to inform future transport investment decisions and impact assessment (in the UK, Europe and overseas, e.g. World Bank), and as a tool for academic research and comparative analysis.
6.2 Beneficiaries and ‘Stakeholders’ in the Impact Study 6.2.1 There are also clear beneficiaries or ‘stakeholders’ in visitor activity in the JLE and surrounding sub-region of London, who are also active and/or responsible for evaluating impacts of the public investment at local area and micro (e.g. site, attraction) levels. Interest in tourism and visitor activity as an economic, regeneration and social ‘agent’ is held by individual boroughs (regeneration, tourism and leisure departments); by development partnerships such as SRB/Challenge areas, and agencies such as Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) and Business Links. Specific tourism interest is held by the TourEast (SRB) organisation (3.3), particularly since the demise of the LDDC, as well as the London Tourist Board (LTB) and the shadow Greater London Authority (London Development Partnership)
59
at a regional level. Sub-regional ‘Partnerships’ also have an interest in parts of the JLE corridor, such as Thames Gateway London (TGLP), Lee Valley (and LVR Park Authority), English Partnerships (Royal Docks, Greenwich peninsula, Woolwich Arsenal) and the LDDC ‘residuary’ bodies (Commission for New Towns, British Waterways). East London and Bankside development and promotional agencies have also been established by London First (East London ‘landing net’), East London Partnership (private sector) and the South Bank Employers Group.
6.2.2 Interest and responsibility for measuring the impact of the Greenwich ‘Dome’ has already been noted (4.4) and both the DCMS and the BTA may support aspects of JLE Visitor Impact exercise as a valuable element in evaluating the effects on national tourism of Millennium projects and London as the prime ‘gateway’ (‘Tourism for Tomorrow’, DCMS 1999). The requirement for projects in receipt of Lottery, ERDF and other public funding to measure impacts (visitors, employment) also means that access to visitor data and sharing of survey information will be of mutual benefit (to the JLE, visitor attractions and funders alike). Several visitor attractions form part of regeneration areas or joint marketing initiatives, such as the South/Bankside, Greenwich Waterfront, Stratford Challenge and TourEast groups. Approaching attractions and employers via these partnerships will increase the economies of scale and ‘value added’ of collaboration on local area visitor surveys and data sharing.
6.2.3 In addition to individual visitor attractions and venues in the JLE corridor, there are three levels of agency that are key to collaboration and generation of visitor data on the JLE corridor: •
Boroughs (Westminster, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Newham)
•
TourEast
•
London Tourist Board
Boroughs - Liaison with borough departments and officers will be necessary in order to secure local area, council venue and other visitor information (hotel occupancy; visitor, household, employer survey data; town centres and markets activity) and assess the extent to which primary visitor surveys may be combined for both JLE and borough purposes. Many
60
local facilities are run or funded by boroughs, such as local museums, theatres, halls and parks, which attract some non–local visitors, but are often missed in visitor surveys and interview points. Tourist information is increasingly required at a borough level for Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) and EU directive compliance, and as this activity increases the incentive and imperative to collect and validate visitor data will also increase. Boroughs also promote and host festivals and events, and undertake market research on visitors. Examples include the Greenwich and Docklands Festival, a planned Newham Millennium Festival and festivals held at sites such as Three Mills island, Stratford and Jubilee Gardens.
TourEast - With the vacuum created by the closure of the LDDC, TourEast is the only visitor-led organisation with a geographic interest which is consonant with the JLE (although wider than the JLE corridor). The loss of the LDDC tourism and marketing budget should not be understated. This reached over £3 million a year, supporting the Docklands Visitor Information Centre, annual Docklands Visitor Survey, Events and Festivals and major marketing and promotional advertising campaigns. This resource has not been replaced, although efforts by incumbent boroughs and others (Thames Gateway, English Partnerships) have established a putative East London Marketing ‘agency’ (with a consortia/partnership approach), although without the marketing and visitor research budget. TourEast, whose SRB funding has one more full year to run (1999/2000), will be important in the short-term to the JLE exercise, both as a comparative source (wider area and Docklands longitudinal survey) and as several attractions and other transport operators are ‘members’ of TourEast (as is the JLE). The future of TourEast is uncertain without continued SRB or other funding, however a sub-regional tourism development function is important both for exploiting the visitor opportunity and to achieve targets set by attractions, as well as to co-ordinate the otherwise fragmented data and information sources on which the JLE impact assessment in part relies.
London Tourist Board – As the regional tourist authority for London (how this may change with the establishment of the new Greater London Authority after 2000 remains to be seen – however the LDP has Tourism as one of its eight strategic policy areas), the LTB has the responsibility for promoting London as a destination, monitoring tourist activity and facility development, and advocating national (i.e. English via DCMS) tourism policy (e.g. redistribution of activity, hotel standards, training). London is also the prime gateway and hub for overseas tourists visiting elsewhere in England and the UK and therefore has strategic importance that is being recognised again after a period of ‘internal marketisation’ of UK
61
tourism. The LTB is a prime source of visitor data and comparatives as detailed throughout this report. Their survey and analysis of visitors will provide both control data for the JLE impact assessment, and increasingly act as a generator of visitor data for attractions in the JLE corridor itself (via Overseas Tourist Surveys, hotel occupancy and development reports).
6.3 Summary of JLE Visitor Impact Study Stakeholders The following organisations may therefore be considered interested parties, based on their own interest and benefits, and which correspond, at least in part, to aspects of the JLE Visitor Impact Study.
National British Tourist Authority (re. ‘Dome’, Millennium impacts, UK Tourism and overseas markets) New Millennium Experience Company (Lottery Impacts and Evaluation) Department for Culture Media and Sport (BTA/NMEC above, Tourism, hotel occupancy, Lottery impacts, EU/Eurostat (tourism statistics) DETR (e.g. Public Transport and Social Exclusion) EU DGVII (e.g. SONERAIL, Vth Framework)
London London Tourist Board (survey extension and data sharing, e.g. OVS) London First (Inward Investment, Millennium, East London Landing Net) Association for London Government (ALG/London Pride Partnership) Government Office for London (SRB Round 5/6) London Development Partnership (GLA/Major 2000/1)
East London TourEast East London Partnership TECs - FOCUS Central London, LETEC SRBs (e.g. Cross River, Green Street) Boroughs (Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Greenwich) Commission for New Towns (LDDC residuary) British Waterways (Docklands)
62
English Partnerships (Royal Docks, Greenwich Peninsula, Woolwich Arsenal) Thames Gateway London Partnership (Marketing, Impact assessment, promotion) Lee Valley Partnership/ERDF Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (e.g. Three Mills, Stratford) University of East London (Stratford and new Royal Docks Campus) - students/surveys, research University of Greenwich (Naval College, Woolwich campus)
Visitor Attractions/Amenities Tate Gallery of Modern Art, Bankside Globe Theatre Millennium Wheel Vinopolis, ‘Wineworld’ South Bank/Employers Group Coin Street (Gabriel’s Wharf) Southwark Cathedral Tower Bridge Design Museum Maritime Museum/Cutty Sark Ibis Hotels Greenwich & Docklands Festival
Transport Docklands Light Railway East London Line London City Airport City Cruises (Westminster) White Horse Cruises (Greenwich) EuroStar (post 2000, Stratford CTRL)
63
6.4 Conclusion and Way Forward
6.4.1 The strategy and approach which has emerged from this Scoping Study has sought to respond to:
a) the acute difficulties in measuring visitor activity at the level required to undertake the JLE impact study;
b) the need for information sharing and generation in order to carry out and validate the Visitor Impact Study
The ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ method adopted to establish the baseline(s) and Indicators of Change, provides the only viable model in this case, in the absence of a massive primary survey exercise in the JLE corridor. The more integrated approach does seek to develop a more detailed assessment of activity and change indicators, and also to enable problems of duplication (double counting) and incidence of both over and underestimation to be minimised. A wider range of control or reference areas also seeks to make comparisons between a hierarchy of visitor scenarios, from local area, attraction and visitor types, to subregion and regional city levels. This approach does rely in both collaboration and support from other organisations and interest groups identified, in addition to the Impact Unit’s own Intercept Surveys and other visitor surveys recommended in this report. The success of this will, to a large extent, depend on the degree of collaboration and quality of visitor data which can be relied upon from these third parties, e.g. the extent to which transport mode information is captured along with other visitor information. The less that can be relied upon (and accessed/shared), the more synthetic modelling and primary research will be required in the ‘after opening’ stage.
6.4.2 As proposed in the baseline work programme (5.10.1), interviews with individual attractions, amenities and agencies will be held, however it has been suggested from our preliminary
discussions
with
local
organisations
(e.g.
boroughs)
that
a
joint
‘meeting/seminar’ is also held to include transport operators (e.g. DLR, ELL), key sub/regional organisations and visitor attractions listed above. The prime rationales for such a meeting will be to:
64
•
Review marketing the JLE/East London corridor as a ‘Visitor Destination’
•
Review market research and visitor monitoring activity
•
Agree joint research and reporting mechanisms
•
Raise the profile of transport and tourism in the JLE corridor (e.g. with DCMS, DETR, EU).
The purpose of the meeting would not be solely to focus on the JLE impact study itself, but to develop areas of common interest and benefit; explore synergies and share research and survey resources and both define and refine the impact methodology for maximum benefit of the key partner organisations. Outcomes could include the following: •
indications of market/research programmes;
•
resourcing visitor survey and data collection work;
•
agreement on sharing and access to visitor activity data;
•
agreement on phasing and timing of survey programmes;
•
agreement on the reporting of findings;
•
feedback and follow up mechanisms;
•
external reporting (e.g. to government departments, GOL);
•
possible joint funding bids (e.g. SRB, EU).
The lead for the implementation of any joint research and data collection may also be a likely outcome of such an initiative. Whilst each organisation will retain its own interests, marketing and work programme, co-ordination of certain aspects of the sub-regional effort may naturally fall to specific organisations, such as a ‘lead borough’ (per SRB co-ordination), with bodies such as the London Tourist Board focusing on integrating the JLE/East London regional activity into the London wide research programme and national passenger and tourist surveys.
65
7.
References and Bibliography
National AEA (1997) Scoping Study for the Economic Impact Assessment of the National Lottery, Adrian Ellis Associates, January, London
BTA/ETB (annual) The UK Tourist, London
BTA (1998) Impact of the Millennium Experience, BTA for the DCMS, February, London
Carling, P. and Seely, A. (1998) The Millennium Dome, Research Paper 98/32, Business and Transport Section, House of Commons, 12th March
Centre for Leisure Research (1996) UK Day Visits Survey 1994, Edinburgh
Countryside Recreation Network (1995) UK Day Visits Survey 1993
DCMS (1998) Measuring the Local Impact of Tourism: A Guidance Pack from the Department for Culture Media and Sport, September, London
DoE (1992) Planning Policy Guidance: Tourism, PPG No. 21, Department of the Environment, London: HMSO
ETB (annual) Sightseeing in the UK, English Tourist Board
Evans, G.L. (1997) Study into the Employment Effects of the Arts Lottery in England, Arts Council of England Research Report No.14, March, London
European Commission (1998) Study on Impact of tourism on transport and analysis of policy relevant implications Task 12.6, DG VII, Framework IV, Brussels
Hanna, M. (1998) Visits to Tourist Attractions 1997, BTA/ETB Research Services, May
HMSO (1991) Economic Appraisal in Central Government: A Technical Guide, HMSO
66
Gilchrist, R. and White, J. (1997) Modelling Local Area Tourism Statistics, CELTS Report to the Department of National Heritage and UK Tourism Boards, January
PACEC (1990) Additionality in Section 4 (Tourism) Projects Final Report, PA Cambridge Economics Consultants
SCPR (1998) UK Leisure Day Visits, Summary of 1996 Survey Findings, July, London
H.M.Treasury (1995) A Framework for the Evaluation of Regeneration of Projects and Programmes, London
White, J. and Evans, G.L. (1997) The Economic and Social Impact of the National Lottery: Research Digest Volume No.I, CELTS for the Department for Culture Media and Sport, July
WTO (1998) Tourism 2020 Vision: A New Forecast from the World Tourism Organization, June, Madrid
London Region London Tourist Board fact sheets 1998: •
London attractions with over half a million visits 1994 –1997
•
Occupancy trends – London monthly 1997 to April 1998
•
Potential 10 year growth in overseas and domestic visits and expenditure 1995-2004
•
Recent trends in tourism visits to London 1994-1998
Visitor to London information package, London Tourist Board 1998
Focus on London 1998, London Research Centre, Government Office for London and the Office for National Statistics
London Tourism Statistics (annual to 1998), London Tourist Board The Arts and Cultural Industries in London - Key Facts, London Arts Board
67
Employment effects of the Millennium, Londomics,
A Vision for London report co–
sponsored by London Transport and Focus Central London, Vision for London, Oct 1997
Survey among overseas visitors to London summer 1997, London Tourist Board
Tourism Strategy for London 1997-2000, London Tourist Board, July 1997
London for the Travel Trade, London Tourist Board, 1995
Britain’s Millennium Festival Project at Greenwich, Price Waterhouse, 1994
Survey amongst Overseas Visitors to London - Summer (annual), London Tourist Board
Draft Advice on Strategic Planning Guidance for London, June, LPAC, 1993
Tourism Strategy for London Action Plan 1994-1997, London Tourist Board, December 1993
Draft Planning Policy Guidance on Tourism: LPAC Response, 28, April, Report No.20/92, LPAC, 1992
London: World City, London Planning Advisory Committee, 1992
The Tourism Strategy for London Action Plan 1990-1993, London Tourist Board, 1990
Local Area Studies Baseline Study and Economic Review of TourEast London, Draft Final Report, EDAW, July 1998
Britain’s Millennium Festival Project at Greenwich, Price Waterhouse, February 1994
Consultative Report on Tower Hamlets 2000 Programme and Strategy A proposal for discussion, L.B. Tower Hamlets and Canary Wharf Ltd, July 1998
68
Developing a Tourism Strategy for South West London, Research Proposal prepared for AZTEC, MORI and CELTS, May 1998 ELL Marketing Plan - a plan to attract ridership on the East London Line, October 1998
Leisure Industries Training Strategy for Bankside, CELTS for FOCUS Central London TEC, 1998
London Docklands Visitor Survey 1996, Travel and Tourism Research, LDDC, December 1996
Docklands and TourEast Visitor Surveys 1996, Research proposal by MORI for the LDDC, July 1996
Greenwich Town Centre Tourism Validation Study, CELTS for the Greenwich Waterfront Development Partnership, April 1995
Kingston upon Thames Tourism Strategy 1998-2002
London Docklands and TourEast Visitor Survey 1996, Research proposal by Travel and Tourism Research, LDDC, July 1996
London Docklands: the end of the beginning, Builder Group Supplement, March 1998
London Shopping and Markets Map, TourEast (undated)
Marketing East London Strategy, Evans, G.L. and Taylor, M. (CELTS and TaylorMade Solutions) for the LDDC, L.B. Tower Hamlets and Newham, English Partnerships, Thames Gateway London, 1997
Market Research Survey of People Using the Royal Parks, Annual Report 1995, CELTS for Royal Parks Agency, 1996
Market Research Survey of People Using the Royal Parks, Annual Report 1994, CELTS for Royal Parks Agency, 1995
69
Opportunity Greenwich - Hotel Sites for the Millennium, Supplementary Information, Greenwich Planning, Development Services, March 1997
Richmond upon Thames Tourism Strategy 1995
Survey of Visitors to Greenwich Town: Cutty Sark Gardens and Craft Market, CELTS for L.B. Greenwich, 1995
TourEast London Visitor Survey, 1996, Final Report, London Docklands Development Corporation, TourEast London, Bethnal Green City Challenge Company Ltd, December 1996
Tourism in South West London Building a Business Led Action Plan, L.B.Richmond, 1997
JLE Reports and Publications East to West on the Jubilee Line, ‘New Civil Engineer 6th February 1997 Economic Activity and Labour Market Study, Roger Tym and Partners, University of Westminster JLE Impact Study, May and June 1998
Indicators and Analytical Framework for evaluating the impacts of the JLE, Working Paper No. 7, University of Westminster JLE Impact Study, Nov 1997
JLE promotional map and newsletter November 1997 and July 1998 Jubilee, ‘The Independent Magazine, 14th June 1997
Jubilee Line Extension, ‘New Civil Engineer’ and London Underground, EMAP Business Communications, 1996
Methodology and Study Programme for and Impact of the Effects of the JLE, JLE Research Seminar Presentation, University of Westminster JLE Impact Study, 6th July 1998
The Big Dig - Archaeology and the Jubilee Line Extension, Museum of London and Jubilee Line Extension Project, 1998
70
The Concepts and Methodological Framework for Assessing the Impacts of the Jubilee Line Extension, Working Paper No. 4, University of Westminster JLE Impact Study, Sept 1997
South Bank Tourism Initiative: Marketing the New Jubilee Line, Simon Williams, May 1997
A Year in Pictures 1996, Jubilee Line Extension Project
Other References Ashworth, G. (1992), Is there an urban tourism?, Tourism Recreation Research 17 (2), pp3-8
Blank, U., Petkovich, M., (1987) Research on urban tourism destinations, in Ritchie, J.B. and Goeldner, R. (eds.) Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers, New York: Wiley, pp.165-177
Connolly, S. (1997) The measurement of Additionality: A Case Study of the UK National Lottery, Business and Economics in the 21st Century, Volume I, BES International Conference
Evans, G.L. (1993) Planning for Tourism in London: World City, Whose City?, Urban Tourism Conference, South Bank University
Evans, G.L. (1996) Planning for the British Millennium Festival: Establishing the Visitor Baseline and a Framework for Forecasting, Journal of Festival Management and Event Tourism Vol. 3, Illinois, USA: 183-196
Evans, G.L. (1997) Measuring the Economic and Social Impact of the National Lottery Methodological Issues, Research Note in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A Statistics in Society, 160, Part 2: 213
Evans, G.L. (2000) Planning for Urban Tourism: A critique of Borough Development Plans and Tourism Policy in London, International Journal of Tourism Research 1, pp.1-20, Wiley
Evans, G.L. and Shaw, S. (1999) Urban Tourism and Transport: Marketing the Destination, European Urban Tourism Conference, Funchal, Madeira, February
71
Fanstein, S. and Judd, D. (eds) (1999) Tourism and the City
Getz, D. (1991) Festivals, Special Events and Tourism, Van Nostrand, New York
Hall, C.M. (1992) Hallmark Tourist Events: Impacts, Management, Planning, Belhaven Press, London
Inskeep, E., (1994) National and Regional Tourism Planning, London: Routledge
Judd, D.R., Fanstein, S.S. (1999) The Tourist City, Yale University Press, New Haven
Law, C.M., 1992, Urban Tourism and its Contribution to Economic Regeneration, Urban Studies, Vol.29 (314) pp. 599-618
Law, C.M. (1993) Urban Tourism: Attracting Visitors to Large Cities, Mansell, London
Law, C.M. (ed) Tourism in Major Cities (1996), International Thomson Publishing
Ritchie, J.R. (1984) Assessing the impact of hallmark events: conceptual and research issues, Journal of Travel Research, 23(1), 2-11
Tyler, D., Guerrier, Y., Robertson, M. (1998) Managing Tourism in Cities: Policy, Process and Practice, Wiley
Willamson, E. and Pevsner, N. (1998) The Buildings of England: London Docklands An Architectural Guide, Penguin
72
Appendix I
Key Visitor Attractions and suggested survey points
JLE Station Catchment
Visitor numbers/survey data collected (not a definitive list of attractions refer to tables)
Westminster
National Gallery - Visitor figures 1993-97 stated in tables. Survey response. Visitor numbers collected by door counts. Mori Poll carried out during1995 and 1996. Portrait Gallery - Visitor figures 1993-97 stated in tables. Banqueting House - Visitor figures 1993-97 stated in tables. Survey response contact Lin Kennedy. Visitor numbers collected by tickets. Buckingham Palace - 1993-97 visitor figures stated in tables. Only open Aug/Sept Westminster Abbey - 1993-97 stated in tables. ICA - 1997 visitor figures stated in tables. Survey response contact Sian Stirling. Visitor numbers collected by tickets. Cabinet War Rooms - 1993-97 stated in tables. Survey response contact Phil Reed. Visitor numbers collected electronically till to computer. Mori reported in 1997. Guards Museum - 1993-97 visitor figures stated in tables
Waterloo
London Aquarium - annual attendance figures stated in tables. Survey response contact Caroline Randell. Visitor numbers collected by surveys and ticket sales. Museum of Garden History 1993-97 visitor numbers stated in tables. Survey response contact Rosemary Nicholson. Collected visitor numbers by surveys. Florence Nightingale Museum 1994-1996 visitor numbers stated in tables. Survey response. Visitor numbers collected by tickets. Museum of the Moving Image - 1993-1996 visitor numbers stated in tables. Survey response contact Anna Butler. Visitor numbers collected by surveys and tickets. South Bank Centre: Royal Festival Hall - annual attendance figure stated in tables. Survey response contact Kenelm Robert. Visitor numbers collected by tickets and clicker counts. Hayward Gallery - 1993-97 visitor figures stated in tables. Survey response contact Sarah Briggs. Visitor numbers collected by tickets exhibitions only. Royal National Theatre - annual attendance figure stated in tables
73
Additional survey points (‘after’ stage)
New Attractions
South Bank Centre - exit surveys at buildings, on street and gardens interviews suggested.
Jubilee Gardens and possible Ferris Wheel attraction. BFI IMAX Cinema due to open 1999
Southwark (Intercept Survey Point)
Bankside 1994-96 visitor figures stated in tables Contact Alison Rowe.
Globe Theatre and exhibition 1994-97 visitor figures stated in tables. Survey response Rachel Sharples . Visitor figures collected by surveys and tickets.
London Bridge
Bermondsey (Intercept Survey Point)
Canada Water Canary Wharf (Intercept Survey Point for business and business visitors.)
*Southwark Cathedral 1994-97 visitor figures stated in tables. Survey response contact Sarah King. HMS Belfast 1993-97 Visitor figures stated in tables Tower Bridge Experience 1993-97 visitor figures stated in tables. Survey response contact Jo Murray. Visitor numbers collected by tickets. Old Operating Theatre and Herb Garrett 1993-97 visitor figures stated in tables. Survey response contact Felicity Horada. Visitor figures collected from till roll. London Dungeon 1993-96 visitor figures stated in tables. *Design Museum 1993-97 visitor figures stated in tables. Survey response contact Naomi Simpson. Visitor numbers collected by tickets. In house survey completed in 1997 summary available. Bramah Tea and Coffee Museum 1993-95 visitor figures stated in tables. Contact Edward Bramah. Interchange Station London Arena 1997 figures stated in tables. Survey response contact Ross Macdonald. Visitor figures collected by surveys and tickets.
The Space Arts Centre 1997 visitor figures stated in tables. Survey response contact Robert Richardson. Visitor figures collected by tickets.
74
Oxo Tower Complex potentially useful for additional surveys
The Millennium Bridge due to open 2000 as an access point could be a useful interview point. Tate Gallery of Modern Art due to open 2000 Vinopolis - City of Wine opens in 1999
Shad Thames - route between Design Museum and Tower Bridge may be a useful interview point.
Canary Wharf Tourist Information Centre - may be an important interview point.
Docklands Museum due to open Jan 2000 Survey response contact Andy Topping
Cutty Sark - outside area but important interview point for Greenwich based tourist attractions.
North Greenwich
Canning Town (Intercept Survey Point)
{Golf Driving Range - we have no details}
West Ham Stratford
London Gas Museum - may need a physical audit of this area. *Three Mills 1996-97 visitor figures stated in tables. Owned by Lee Valley Regional Park who may do their own surveys. Theatre Royal Stratford East visitor figures 1996 -97. Useful for evening visitor data. (admissions data)
* Tour East Visitor Survey Point (1996)
75
Millennium Dome - if NMEC does not do sufficient profiling of transport modes and make them available JLE will need to complete own survey.
May have exhibition visitors from new exhibition centre if exhibition centre complete visitor surveys, then see if a question could be included on mode of transport.
Salway Road opening 1999 useful for evening visitor data. (admissions data)
Appendix II Visitor numbers by JLE station catchment - 1993 to 1997, plus projections for new attractions (figures in brackets are estimates) Table One: Westminster
Cenotaph St. Margaret's Westminster Mall Gallery Jewel Tower St. John's National Gallery St. Martin in the Fields
Open all year? Yes No Yes No
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
17,998
40,000 20,279
No Yes Yes
3,882,371
4,301,656
4,469,019
5,000,000 200,000
5,000,000 200,000
National Portrait Gallery
No
611,377
1,044,149
849,223
807,545
0.9m LTB figures
Banqueting House Houses of Parliament Buckingham Palace Westminster Abbey St. James' Park ICA Gallery and Cinema Victoria Tower Gardens Methodist Central Hall Horseguards Parade Westminster Pier Cabinet War Rooms Guards' Museum Nelsons Column Orion
Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
25,608
28,000
26,399
27,000
377,000 (2,500,000)
420,824 (2,200,000)
412,677 (2,245,000)
398,000 (2,500,000)
No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
1999
2000
2001
notes
New wing centenary development 0.2m only pre book only open Aug/Sept
5.5m 120,000
212,767 22,997
251,931 27,390
258,203 29,063
233,748 31,022
290,000 256,000
opened March 1998 opened September 1998
Sanctuary House
Total
1998
7,632,129
8,273,950
76
8,289,584
9,215,313
12,326,279
189 rooms 34 Rooms
200,000
Table Two: Waterloo
Museum of the Royal Pharmacy London Aquarium St. George’s Cathedral Imperial War Museum Gabriel’s Wharf Museum of Garden History Florence Nightingale Museum Museum of the Moving Image Young Vic South Bank Centre
open all year? Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No
1993
1994
1995
1996
[annual
attendance
1.5 m
to 2 m]
435,468 also in (43,000)
467,912 Southwark (52,000) 15,234
477,784
444,279
(52,000) (18,468)
50,000 20,000
364,330 also in
(400,000) Southwark
385,139
385,000
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
485,000
SBC development 4.5 m p.a.
BFI IMAX Cinema
due to open spring 1999 700,000 expected
King’s College Vacation Bureau
82 rooms open vacations only 72 rooms open July August September
University of Westminster International House Waterloo Novotel
187 rooms opened 1995
County Hall - Marriott Hotel
200 rooms opened 1998 318 rooms opened in 1998
County Hall - Travel Inn King’s College Waterloo Campus
due to open summer of 1999
The Hot House (provisional) Hungerford Bridge Thames Lido (provisional) Jubilee Gardens inc. Millennium Ferris Wheel The Old Vic Hayward Gallery National Film Theatre Royal Festival Hall Royal National Theatre Total
Projection/notes
due to open 2002 upgrade of existing walk way due to open 2001 due to open 1999 2.0m p.a. No No No Yes
also in 177,230
Southwark 258,681
219,121
[annual [annual
attendance attendance
3.5 m] 600,000+]
977,071
1,193827
1,152,512
77
226,696
278,000
refurbishment until 2003 1,125,975
763,000
2,700,000
Table Three: Southwark open all year?
1993
1994
1995
Bankside Hostel (LSE)
Lower Marsh Market The Anchor, Bankside Gabriel’s Wharf Old Vic Theatre Young Vic Theatre Union Theatre Jerwood Space Bankside Pier Globe Theatre / exhibition The Millennium Bridge Tate Gallery of Modern Art Bankside Gallery Oxo Tower Holiday Inn Express Monopro
1996
1997
1998
2000
2001
Projection/notes
out of term use 576 rooms opened 1996
[annual
attendance
60,000]
opens Autumn 1998 Yes
(25,000)
no figs
155,429
192,000 Spring 2000 Due to open 2000 2.8m p.a.
Yes No
[annual
(19,000) attendance
(22,000) 1m]
8,810 opened June 1998
Frantour Hotel
The Mad Hatter Total
1999
88 room hotel Possible new hotel, 260 rooms Under construction, , 100 rooms Proposed hotel, (unknown name) 400 rooms 30 room hotel,
opening March 1999
opened Feb 1998 44,000
78
22,000
164,239
192,000
2,800,000
Table Four: London Bridge
Golden Hinde Hay’s Galleria Southwark Playhouse George Inn London Dungeon Southwark Cathedral HMS Belfast London Fire Brigade Museum Tower Bridge Clink Exhibition Old Operating Theatre and Herb Garret London Bridge Hotel
open all year? Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
(527,000)
597,139 36,500
610,000 (109,500)
N/A (125,000)
100,000
164,145 [annual 66,274 [annual 8,837
201,238 attendance 400,506 attendance (10,000)
232,821 4,000] 404,130 20,000] 12,922
186,711 417,358
425,000
15,994
14,000
1999
2000
2001
notes
120 rooms opened 1998 opens Autumn 1998
Southwark Information Centre Vinopolis - City of Wine Borough Market St.Christopher’s Inn Winston Churchill’s Britain
1998
opens May 1999 8 rooms Yes
100,000
130,000
N/A
Interpub
Proposed new hotel, 42 rooms Proposed new hotel, 11 rooms 2 proposed hotels, (unknown names)
Interpub
Total
866,256
1,245,383
950,373
745,063
539,000
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
(19,000) (110,000)
21,460 (87,940)
23,700 (100,000)
104,168
140,000
129,000
109,400
123,700
104,168
140,000
Table Five: Bermondsey
Bramah Tea and Coffee Museum Design Museum Bermondsey (New Caledonian) Market Total
open all year? No Yes
79
1998
1999
2000
2001
notes
Table Six: Canada Water
Mayflower Rotherhithe YHA Conference Holiday Inn - Nelson Dock Café Gallery Pumphouse Educational Museum Surrey Docks Farm Total
open all year? No
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Projection/notes
38 rooms 364 rooms No Yes Yes
3,000 30,000 33,000
Table Seven: Canary Wharf
The Space Arts Centre Canary Wharf Tourist Information London Docklands Visitor Centre Cabot Hall Storm Water Pumping Station London Arena Canary Wharf Tower Docklands Museum
open all year? Yes No No
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
10,000 (150,000)
152,000
190,200
(140,000)
No No Yes No No
Now Closed
500,000 0.66 m p.a. Due to open Jan 2000 - expect 260,000
Canary Wharf Hotel - Riverside
Under construction, 150 rooms opens 1999
Granada Travelodge - East India Dock
132 rooms opened 1997
The Urban Learning Foundation
Purpose built training centre 47 rooms
The International Hotel Forte Posthouse
Total
Projection/notes
Under construction, opens Apr 99, 314 rooms 150,000
152,000
80
190,200
140,000
510,000
260,000
Table Eight: North Greenwich
Millennium Dome
open all year? No
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Due to open 1999.
12.0 m
2001
notes
12,000,000
Total
Table Nine: Canning Town open all year?
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Projection/notes
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Projection/notes
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Projection/notes
82,000
80,000
Golf Driving Range
Table Ten: West Ham
London Gas Museum Total
open all year? No
Table Eleven: Stratford
Theatre Royal, Stratford East Grange Wood Lodge Hotel River Lee Park Forest View Hotel Salway Road Arts Centre Three Mills The Stratford Rex (cinema) Ibis Hotel
open all year? No
18 rooms No 20 rooms No No Yes
opening 1999? 25,000 (restored)
25,000 150,000 Under construction, opens September 2000, 120 rooms
107,000
Total
81
255,000
Table Twelve: The Jubilee Line Extension Corridor - Aggregate Visits to Attractions Station Westminster Waterloo Southwark London Bridge Bermondsey Canada Water Canary Wharf North Greenwich Canning Town West Ham Stratford Total
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
7,632,129 977,071 866,256 129,000
8,273,950 1,193827 44,000 1,245,383 109,400
8,289,584 1,152,512 22,000 950,373 123,700
9,215,313 1,125,975 164,239 745,063 104,168
150,000
152,000
190,200
140,000
12,326,279 763,000 192,000 539,000 140,000 33,000 510,000
9,754,456
11,018,560
10,728,369
107,000 11,601,758
255,000 14,758,279
82
1998
1999
2000 +200,000
+2,700,000 +2,800,000
NEW BASELINE
+260,000 +12,000,000
DATA
+2,700,000
+15,260,000
2001
Projection/notes
Appendix III Annotated Station Catchment Maps
83
