Visitors' satisfaction and perception of crowding in a German National ...

For. Snow Landsc. Res. 81, 1/2: 109–122 (2007)

109

Visitors’ satisfaction and perception of crowding in a German National Park: a case study on the island of Hallig Hooge Dennis Kalisch1 and Axel Klaphake2 1

2

Department of Landscape Economics, Institute for Landscape and Environmental Planning, Technical University Berlin, Sekr. EB 4–2, Strasse des 17. Juni 145, D-10623 Berlin. [email protected] Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit – GTZ, Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1–5, D-65760 Eschborn. [email protected]

Abstract The number of visitors choosing to visit the many national parks scattered around Germany is constantly on the increase, yet to date there have only been a few research undertakings into the social effects of tourism and outdoor recreation on these areas. With this in mind, we set out to investigate and identify the social effects of visitor crowding, as well as visitors’ expectations and satisfaction in one such national park; the Biosphere Reserve of the “Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer” on the island of Hallig Hooge. We feel that the findings of our study could be used by the local tourist management board as a guide for the implementation of future tourist management plans for the area. In the survey, we identified and interviewed two different types of dayvisitors, namely guided and independent visitors. As well as these groups, overnight visitors constitute an ever increasing percentage of those visiting the reserve. Tourism is the main source of income for the local economy and consequently there are many different businesses catering for both visitor groups, each with their own economic objective. A visual approach was used to identify the factors which influence the levels of crowding as perceived by tourists to the area. Each person surveyed was asked to evaluate the acceptability of a number of use levels as depicted in five computer-edited photographs. The results show that nearly 20% of the visitors reported some degree of crowding. So the majority of those interviewed found the level of tourist activity to be acceptable. The most sensitive visitor group were the non-guided dayvisitors, whereas guided visitors were much more tolerant of crowding. Otherweise perceptions of crowding seem to have had just only a slight impact on visitor satisfaction. As tourism is the main source of income for the local economy, our findings could be relevant for local businesses and for future tourist management planning in the area. Keywords: crowding, expectations, perception of visitor density, satisfaction, visitor motives, visual approach

1

Introduction

The increase in tourism to National Parks is of course not just a German phenomenon. The global growth in “Eco-Tourism” and visits to protected natural areas has led to new business and tourism opportunities for national and local economies. Yet as visitor numbers steadily increase, so too do the negative side effects and stresses on the environment and ecosystems of these sensitive regions. The objectives of our study on the Wadden Sea National Park are to examine: – the expectations of visitors and their motivation for visiting, – the factors influencing visitors’ satisfaction, – the relevance of crowding perception in different visitor groups, and – the factors determining the relative importance of crowding to the visitors.

110

Dennis Kalisch and Axel Klaphake

Furthermore, we discuss some implications of our findings for the design of visitor management approaches in the Wadden Sea National Park region in question.

2

Methodology and conceptual background

Over recent years many recreation studies have investigated the ecological and social effects of outdoor recreation (GRAEFE et al. 1984; MANNING 1999; NEEDHAM et al. 2004; PIGRAM and JENKINS 1999). In these studies, several wilderness and natural areas with different user densities were evaluated. Their main findings show that there is a level of visitor use beyond which the quality of any given recreation experience decreases. Increasing numbers of visitors to recreational areas also have an impact on local management decision making. Management has to balance two main objectives: – Protecting the quality of park resources – Maintaining reasonable public access for recreation To maintain standards in the quality of any recreational experience, environment management actions are necessary. Besides studying information on actual or potential ecological impacts, the local decision maker must also monitor the social dimension to outdoor recreation. One of the main social elements of increased tourist activity is visitor density and crowding. The perception of crowding is defined by a normative concept (VASKE et al. 1986; SHELBY et al. 1989; MANNING 1999), where crowding is said to occur if a certain user density is negative, from the visitor’s perspective. Contemporary approaches dealing with observed or perceived crowding are predominantly based on the concept of Social Carrying Capacity. The visitor perceives the situation as crowded when the number of people encountered or observed in an area is too large (SHELBY et al. 1989). Crowding is also said to take place when the behaviour of other users interferes with an individual’s own goals or norms (TARRANT et al. 1997). So the subjective evaluation of user density in a recreational setting depends on individual standards of quality. If individual standards of visitor density are exceeded, the recreational experience is evaluated as being negative and the situation is deemed unacceptable. By using visitor surveys, research into recreation has identified variables (number of perceived encounters, location of encounter, type of activity, etc.) which influence the quality of the recreation experience. Visitor surveys offer the opportunity to evaluate personal preferences, by asking visitors to rate a minimum or maximum acceptable level of user density. Response scales and evaluation dimensions have been discussed in several studies (HEBERLEIN 1977; MANNING et al. 1999; ROGGENBUCK et al. 1991; SHELBY et al. 1989). Over the past few years, image-based methods have been increasingly employed to determine the acceptability of numbers visiting particular recreation areas where studies have been undertaken (MANNING et al. 1996). The advantage of the visual over the verbal method is that images provide a more realistic representation of particular levels of activity (HALL and ROGGENBUCK 2002). Numerous studies have focused on crowding perception in various tourism and recreational areas, in countries such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Depending on location, different levels of perceived crowding have been reported. In Europe, and especially Germany, there have been only a few studies in this field (ARNBERGER et al. 2004; FREDMAN and HÖRNSTEN 2004; GROSSMANN et al. 2004; PEREIRA DA SILVA 2002; STERL et al. 2006). Therefore the goal of our survey is to examine the effects of crowding in a high-density recreation area in a German national park.

For. Snow Landsc. Res. 81, 1/2 (2007)

3

111

Study area

The Wadden Sea is the name given to the area of sea directly off the North Sea coast of Germany. Since 1986 it has been protected as a National Park (Fig. 1), due to its unique marine fauna and its importance for sea birds. Besides its ecological value, it is also a very important recreation area. In the summer months there are more than 4 million day trips made to the entire National Park region and 17 million overnight stays are made in the northern part of the region. Given the long tradition of recreation on the North Sea coast, there is a highly developed tourist infrastructure along the shoreline and on the islands. During the summer months one can find several hot spots where user density is very high and crowding is supposed to occur. One of the tourist hot spots in the National Park are the “Northfriesan Halligen” – an area of small marsh islands in the Wadden Sea, on the outer-border of the National Park. When the park was established in 1986 it was only the smaller, uninhabited Halligen which was placed under protection and not the larger inhabited Halligen like Hallig Hooge. However, since March 2005 the Northfriesan Halligen have been part of a biosphere reserve and form the development zone of the reserve. The aim of the reserve is

Fig. 1. Map of the National Park “Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer” (Landesamt 2000).

112


to protect this special natural environment of the Halligen and also to support the sustainable development of the region. Since the 1960s the main source of income and economic activity on Hallig Hooge has shifted significantly from agriculture to tourism. In 1970 there were some 18 families involved in full-time agriculture. However, by 1996 this figure had dwindled to just 2 families. Many former farmers opted to become involved in the emerging and far more lucrative tourist industry, mainly by providing accommodation for overnight guests. Some 250 beds are provided by families on the island, while another 300 visitors can be accommodated in either the local youth hostel or the ranger’s station in the park. As well as the spin off from overnight tourism, daytrippers play a vital role in the island’s tourism income. There are several sea routes along which visitors are ferried between the mainland and the islands. During the high-season summer months, the numbers of daytrippers swell to over 3000 per day with some 150 000 recorded day visits per year (KLUG 1999). Facilities for visitors are located according to the perceived needs of the different categories of those who visit the Hallig. Most of the restaurants, souvenir-shops, cafes along with the museum are located near the main landing point on the island, whereas overnight accommodation is located in the more isolated parts of the island. The majority of visitors who arrive as members of organised travel groups spend most of their time in one of these two separate areas. Figure 2 shows a typical offseason setting in spring or autumn. However the level of visitor activity most likely to be encountered during the summer months, is closer to what appears in Figure 3. During times of such high visitor arrivals, increased negative effects of crowding are to be expected due to the varying interests of the two different user groups. To date, there have been only ad hoc management strategies put in place to control or limit visitor arrivals onto the Hallig, but a comprehensive approach based on a systematic assessment of crowding perception on the island is still lacking.

Fig. 2. Offseason setting (KALISCH 2006).

4

Fig. 3. Dayvisitors on the Hallig (Landesamt 2000).

Study method

In order to examine crowding and visitor satisfaction on the island, we carried out a quantitative survey in 2005. Due to limited capacities, all-season data collection was infeasible and we focused the empirical analysis on the summer season, which is presumably the most relevant to crowding perception. The survey of 260 visitors was undertaken with the cooperation of the local government and the National Park administration. Over eight days in August and September 2005, visitors were surveyed on the ferry as they left Hallig Hooge to return to the mainland. Visitors were chosen randomly, the only condition being that no one


113

under 16 years of age should be interviewed. Our survey was structured in such a way as to extract as much varied information from those interviewed as possible. As well as the sociodemographic questions such as age, gender and occupation, we also asked respondents to state whether they were returning visitors, part of an organised group or independent travellers. In the case of overnight guest we asked them to state their intended length of stay and their accommodation arrangements while on the island. We also asked our survey group to comment on the main sights seen during their trip and to comment on facilities they had used, as well as on the transport infrastructure, to and from the island. In order to gauge the reaction of visitors to the levels of crowding that they experienced we decided to use verbal questioning to measure the perception of the visitor density of all visitors. They were asked if they felt disturbed by the number of other visitors and were instructed to rank their perception of crowding on a 5-point-scale. We also used a visual method in the survey, methodologically based closely on research carried out by MANNING et al. (1999). To keep the research as simple as possible we did not include aspects like placement in foreground/background, activities and different user groups in the visual approach.1 The study’s findings are also limited by the fact that the survey was conducted only during a short period in the summer months. Therefore a comparison between the visitor perception in an offseason setting versus the busiest part of the season is not possible. A series of five photographs (Fig. 4) were handed to each dayvisitor. Each image showed a particular path on one part of the island, with various numbers of hikers super-imposed on each. The user density depicted in the first picture represents a level which normally occurs in an off-season setting. The last picture better reflects the situation as it would be in the summer months, when more then 3000 people visit the Hallig daily. Five questions were put to those surveyed based on the different pictures and visitors were asked to identify the image which most closely matched their experiences of crowding.

Fig. 4. Series of photographs handed out to dayvisitors (KALISCH 2006).

1

We discussed the issue of positioning of the visitors in the visual approach during the development of the survey and we focused on this aspect in the pre-tests. Since the results of the pre-tests suggested that the issue of positioning plays, if any, a minor role in visitors’ perception of crowding, we decided to neglect the issue during the general data collection. However, a focus on the impacts of varying positions of the visitors and the precise activities depicted in the pictures could certainly enrich future research.

114


5

Study findings

5.1

Socio-demographic data

The socio-demographic data collected provides us with the age, gender and occupational profile of those interviewed (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic data. Category Gender

Sub-category Female Male Occupation Employed Retired Student Other Unemployed Type of visitor Daytripper Overnight visitor Daytripper Organised tour Independent N = 260

Percentage 58.5 % 41.5 % 43.3 % 39.8 % 9.8 % 5.1 % 2.0 % 78.5 % 21.5 % 65.2 % 34.8 %

The average age of those who took part in our survey was 52 years. The youngest participant was just 16 years old, the eldest 80. However, the vast majority of those who took part in the survey were middle-aged. The gender divide was 58.5 % female respondents and 41.5 % male. When asked for their occupational status there was a close balance between retired (43.4 %) and those still in employment (39.8 %). The third largest percentage (9.8%) was made up of students, while 5.1 % did not state whether they were in employment or not. 2 % said they were unemployed at the time. 78.5 % of those surveyed were daytrippers and 21.5 % overnight visitors. Hallig Hooge is the area of attraction within the National Park which is most popular with dayvisitors. It is less of an attraction for overnight guests and their numbers are far less significant than the numbers of day tourists. Of those visiting for the day, just over 90 % travelled to the island as part of a day trip taken while holidaying at resorts in the Schleswig Holstein area on the German mainland. Further enquiry identified 65.2 % of this group as having travelling as part of a trip organised by a tourist firm, while 34.8 % travelled to the area independently. Two-thirds of all guests were making their first visit to the Hallig and almost 22 % had at some previous stage visited at least one of the other islands in the Hallig. When we looked at the statistics for those visiting the island for more than one day, it quickly became clear that the Hallig is not a destination for very long-term stays. The average duration of stay was 7.7 nights, down somewhat on the 9.7 nights identified in a 1990 study by HAHNE (1990).

5.2

Motives for visiting

Stemming from the Expectancy Theory Formula (SCHREYER et al. 1970), the motives for visiting an area are integrated into research on relaxation and recreation. In our Hallig study we questioned people on their motives for coming to the island, with the natural environment

115


being the basis of our questioning. We asked participants to rate the reasons for coming to the area based on six criteria: fresh air activity, nature observation, natural environment, self education about life on the Hallig, group or family trip and solitude. The majority highlighted the natural environment as being their main motive for visiting Hallig Hooge (Table 2). The study findings also show differences between the motives tourists have for visiting the island according to the various visitor groups. In Table 3 we have focused on one of these motives, solitude. The majority of the overnight visitors highlighted solitude as their main motive for visiting. On the other hand, less than half of dayvisitors felt that this was their main motive for making the trip.

Table 2. Mean values of the motives for visiting Hallig Hooge und type of visitors (1 = it is not a motive, 5 = it is a motive). Motives for a visit (N = 260) Mean Fresh air activities Nature observation Nature experience Study Hallig life Group/Family trip Solitude

4.40 4.23 4.18 4.14 3.55 3.46

Overnight visitor 4.48 4.27 4.44 3.73 3.22 4.13

Daytripper “Independent” 4.45 4.32 4.16 4.23 3.59 3.33

Daytripper “Organised” 4.31 4.13 4.03 4.29 3.73 3.06

Table 3. Motive solitude and type of visitor. Motive solitude Dayvisitor (N = 133) Overnight visitor (N = 55)

5.3

“It is a motive for visiting” 47.4 % 76.4 %

Unsure “It is not a motive for visiting” 24.1 % 34.7 % 10.9 % 12.7 % p ≤ 0.001

Perception of visitor density – verbal approach

79.1 % of those surveyed did not feel disturbed by the number of other visitors they encountered during their stay on the Hallig. We further sought to identify any great variation in attitudes between the different visitor type overnight, independent and organised visitor (Table 4). There were marked differences between the attitudes of the organised and independent daytrippers to the levels of disturbance that both experienced. 84.9 % of those who arrived as part of an organised group did not feel that the large number of other visitors that they encountered constituted a disturbance. This was not wholly unexpected, as it can be assumed that someone travelling as part of an organised group would be expected to be more tolerant of crowds than the independent traveller. In comparison 68.7 % of independent daytrippers were of the opinion that the high number of other visitors to the island was a disturbance. It is therefore clear that levels of perceived disturbance vary greatly within the two different groups of daytrippers.

116


Table 4. Level of disturbance experienced due to other visitors. Type of visitor No disturbance experienced Daytripper organized (N = 126) 84.9 % Overnight visitor (N = 56) 78.6 % Daytripper independent (N = 67) 68.7 % All (N = 249) 79.1 %

5.4

Unsure 12.7 % 14.3 % 16.4 % 14.1 %

Experienced disturbance 2.4 % 7.1 % 14.9 % 6.8 % p ≤ 0.017

Perception of visitor density – visual approach

Which pictures best portrayed the observations of those surveyed? A total of five questions were put to the visitors2 and they were asked to choose a picture out of a series which best matched their answer to each question. In Figure 5 we can see that between 35 % and 25 % of visitors felt that pictures 3 and 4 best represented the number of other visitors that were on the island during the period of the survey. When asked what would be the ideal level of other visitors (Fig. 6) that they would like to share their time with while on the island, 43 % felt picture number 2 to be ideal. On the other hand, less than 5 % chose the most crowded picture (number 5). In question number 3 (Fig. 7) we asked people to decide on the picture that showed the maximum number of visitors that they would find acceptable during their visit. Both pictures 3 and 4 were by far the most popular, with the other pictures scoring less than 10 % of all votes. Question number 4 (Fig. 8) related to the expectations that those surveyed had had before arriving. Given the time of year, it came as a surprise to us that nearly 30 % of people had expected as few people as depicted in picture number two. Finally the overwhelming majority (Fig. 9) of visitors chose picture number 5 as being representative of a visitor density that would cause them to decide not to make a return trip to Hallig Hooge.

5.5

Attitudes and perception according to visitor type – visual approach

Our findings show that there was a close consensus between the visitor groups in their perceptions of user density while they were on the island. However, responses differ more when referring to the level of user density that visitors would have liked to have experienced during their stay, and what would constitute an unacceptable level. In Table 5, we see that there are clear differences in the type of photographs highlighted by the two different groups of daytrippers as representing the preferred number of others visiting the island at any given time. We see that 65.7 % of independent day travellers chose pictures 1 and 2 as being their preferred options, while 48 % of those on organised group trips felt that picture 2 was most acceptable. Only 7.3 % chose picture 1. Those in organised groups had a tendency to prefer to share the island with a larger percentage of fellow travellers. This sector made up the largest percentage of those that chose pictures 3 and 4. However, only 4.9 % felt that levels as depicted in picture 5 would be preferable. As Table 6 shows, this difference in preference for larger levels of visitors is closely connected to the tolerance of organised groups to larger numbers of tourists, as opposed to the more sensitive nature of the independent traveller. 2

Due to practical reasons and some reservations expressed by the local authorities we removed the overnight visitors from this part of the analysis. Accordingly, the visual approach could be used for daytrippers only.

117

45

45

40

40

Percent of respondents



35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

1

2

3 Picture

4

25 20 15 10 0

5

45

45

40

40

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

2

3 Picture

4

5

35 30 25 20 15 10 5

1

2

3 Picture

4

5

Fig. 7. Question 3: “Which picture contains the maximum number of visitors which you would personally feel to be acceptable?” N = 195 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

1

Fig. 6. Question 2: “Which picture best indicates your preferred number of fellow visitors?” N = 193



30

5

Fig. 5. Question 1: “Which picture best matches the approximate number of visitors you observed on the island?” N = 195


35

1

2

3 Picture

4

5

Fig. 9. Question 5: “Which visitor density would be a reason for you to decide not to return to the island?” N = 196

0

1

2

3 Picture

4

5

Fig. 8. Question 4: “Which picture most closely represents the number of visitors you had expected to meet?“ N = 195

118


Table 5. Preference individual vs. organized daytrippers. Preference Independent Organised All (N = 193)

Picture 1 18.6 % 7.3 % 11.4 %

Picture 2 47.1 % 40.7 % 43 %

Picture 3 27.1 % 35 % 32.1 %

Picture 4 5.7 % 12.2 % 9.8 %

Picture 5 1.4 % 4.9 % 3.6 % p ≤ 0.048

Picture 3 4.2 % 0.8 % 2%

Picture 4 21.1 % 6.4 % 11.7 %

Picture 5 43.7 % 46.4 % 45.4 %

None 29.6 % 40.8 % 36.7 % p ≤ 0.012

Table 6. Tolerance individual vs. organized daytrippers. Tolerance Independent Organised All (N = 196)

Picture 1 1.4 % 4% 3.1 %

Picture 2 0% 1.6 % 1%

In addition, an ordinal regression revealed factors which influence preferences for a certain visitor density (see KALISCH [2006] for the details of the model). In the ordinal regression we analyse the influence of different variables on the decision for a certain picture. The dependent variable in the model is preferred user density. To test the independence of variables, we chose age, experience, sex and group size as independent variables. The result of the model shows that visitor age and group size influence the preferences for a certain visitor density. The results show that these factors are 1) the age of the visitors, and 2) the size of the tourist group. Young visitors and small visitor groups prefer lower visitor density as depicted in picture 1 and 2. The tolerance limits of both groups are shown to be strongly defined according to the degree of crowding depicted in the photos. Whereas 21.1 % of independent visitors identified picture number 4 as being the upper limit they would tolerate if they were considering a return visit, only 6.4 % of those on organised trips were of the same opinion. There was, however, more consensus between the two groups in their attitude to picture 5 and over 40 % of members of both groups felt that they would not make a return visit to the island if use levels were that high.

6

Discussion

6.1

Discussion of the main findings

If we put all the pictures together along with the 5 different questions, we can more clearly identify both the expectations and actual experiences of those visitors surveyed. As previously mentioned, tourism is the main source of income for residents and businesses on the Island. The bulk of all of tourist activity takes place during the busy summer months. It is therefore in everybody’s interest, that the expectations that visitors have are fulfilled to the best of the ability of those local management and local government bodies responsible for tourist development. These organisations can maximise the potential of the island for all visitor groups and avoid situations where crowding occurs. This could be achieved through various initiatives, which could create an atmosphere where the expectations of visitors and their motives for visiting can be met. The expectations of the majority can be seen in pictures 2 and 3, which show low or moderate levels of visitor numbers. If the scene in picture


119

number 5 became reality, findings show that a large percentage of visitors would not return. This would have very serious consequences for all involved in the tourism industry, whether directly or indirectly. The results of our survey confirm the findings of a study on the Hallig Hooge which was conducted in 1976. In this study RIECKEN (1982) identified an overuse of the island by dayvisitors and recommended management actions to solve the problems of crowding during the summer months. In general, our findings also confirm the usefulness of the visual approach and its potential to better inform the empirical analysis of crowding perception in natural areas (MANNING 1999). In comparison with other studies (FREDMAN and HÖRNSTEN 2004; STERL et al. 2006) that determined a rather strong crowding sensitiveness of visitor satisfaction in natural areas in Europe, the level of crowding perception we identified seems to have been low or moderate during the period in which our survey was undertaken. Our results show that visitors to Hallig Hooge tend to tolerate high levels of visitor activity. However, the survey was conducted in a region with a high level of tourist activity already in existence. The findings of visitors surveyed are typical of those to be expected of organised group travellers to such areas during the high-season summer months. Accordingly, our findings correspond to other studies that emphasized the relevance of situational factors and types of visits to crowding perception (e.g. TARRANT et al. 1997). It can also be assumed that self selection of visitors plays an important role in our study because prior expectations of high levels of crowding on the Island might cause crowding sensitive visitors to cancel potential visits during expected high visitation periods or weekends. In this way, our findings complement the results of GROSSMANN et al. (2004), which stress the importance of self selection of routes for canoeing in Germany. Furthermore, our empirical findings, in particular the significant differences in crowding sensitiveness between different visitor groups, confirm the relevance of heterogeneous preferences of visitors that have already been identified in several other studies (BOXALL et al. 2003; GROSSMANN et al. 2004). Apparently, heterogeneous crowding sensitivities and preferences towards the implementation of visitor management approaches aiming at reducing negative effects of crowding are two sides of the same coin and should be regarded as a matter of fact by local decision makers. To achieve more conclusive results, a further development of our approach is necessary (structure of visual approach, period of research) and could be integrated into futher research on the Hallig. As a next step, the visual approach could be developed according to the principles of economic choice experiments that might help to analyze the influences of factors determining crowding perception in a more differentiated manner. ARNBERGER et al. (2004) have already demonstrated the usefulness of an economic concept in the context of a highly frequented recreation setting.

6.2

Suggested measures based on the study findings

Although the study’s findings are limited by certain factors e.g., restricted data collection, varying of only a few attributes in the pictures, the data and main results can be read as recommendations for a visitor management program as the analysis shows that perceived crowding plays a significant role on the Hallig.The following are suggestions which we would put forward as possible and effective management measures that could be introduced on the Hallig Hooge:

Measure 1: Limitation of visitor numbers Rather than drastic actions, such as setting a general daily limit for visitor numbers, we suggest that limits be placed on the number and size of organised tourist groups. This would help to control the number of tourist arriving on the island at the same time. In turn this

120


would alleviate crowding on pathways and at the tourist facilities provided. On the other hand, it seems to be problematic to implement measures like the limitation of visitor use as such measures are alien to the running of national parks in Germany and the widespread open-access policy of the National Park Administrations. However, more subtle and/or indirect approaches, e.g. management of the ferry traffic, and on-site management, e.g. re-design of trails, development of new attractions in order to de-concentrate visitor flows might be realistic short-term options.

Measure 2: Sustainable use of the entire Hallig Biosphere Reserve We suggest that, based on our findings about tourists’ motives for visiting the Hallig, the area may be divided into sub-areas. Each sub-area or zone could cater to the wishes of the various tourist type groups. For example, those visitors who visit to study the flora and fauna of the region could be catered for in a particular zone within the reserve. There, they would not be disturbed by those who perhaps want to visit the region simply for recreation or as a family day out. Zoning of the island would more closely cater for the expectations of the various visitor groups and would help to achieve a more sustainable use of the natural resources available.

Measure 3: Continuous monitoring and evaluation We feel it is vital that any new programs or measures introduced should be monitored on an ongoing basis in order to assure that the original concepts and goals of such policies can be fulfilled. At the same time, it is important to monitor changes in the levels of tourist activity in order to take any actions necessary to maximize the expectations and desires of business people, tourists and conservationists alike.

7

Conclusions

The results should be considered within the framework of a predefined policy on tourism development and management on the Hallig Hooge. If primary economic interests are seen as a priority, then this data could be used to determine potential areas of conflict between visitor groups by identifying sources of disturbance, annoyance and dissatisfaction. Yet this in itself would only go part of the way to satisfy some of the visitor types coming to the area. In order to create a model for ensuring a higher quality of tourist experience, we feel that the information gathered should be interpreted in a more holistic manner. This is vital in order to avoid creating policies and implementing measures which could conflict with each other. The most relevant result for visitor management is that there are not only differences in crowding perception but visitor groups differ also in terms of their satisfaction with the visit, their evaluation of the different activities, and their motivations for making the trip. The survey also shows that the number of visitors who felt that the Hallig was an area of mass tourism were in the minority, with 20 % of visitors reported some degree of perceived crowding. The level of tourist activity seems to be within the limits of what the majority of those interviewed found to be acceptable. The survey also shows that non-guided dayvisitors are the most sensitive visitors with nearly 30 % reporting some degree of perceived crowding. The majority of this group seemed, both in the verbal and visual approach, to prefer a lower level of visitor use. The tendency of those travelling as part of an organised group to favour a higher level of user density could be construed as a source of potential conflict between the two types of dayvisitors. However, this, we feel can be easily explained by the fact that members of these groups are used to travelling in large numbers and congregate in particular


121

areas of the Hallig where there is a concentration of tourist facilities. Only a minority tend to walk or cycle to more secluded or isolated areas where they may be more sensitive to overcrowding. We feel that this explains the higher tolerance of crowding amongst members of organised tours. The findings of our study could therefore be used as a basis for further surveys of tourist activity on the island to identify factors which influence perceived issues of crowding. They could also be important for establishing a concept of visitor flow to the Hallig and for researching where crowding occurs on the island. Overall we would suggest that ongoing research on Hallig Hooge should be carried out by those in authority to benefit both tourist and business interests, and, most importantly, to safeguard and protect the unique environment of the Hallig for future generations. Acknowledgements The authors like to thank the National Park Office “Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer” and the local government of Hallig Hooge for their support during the survey. Mark Kidney is thanked for his assistance.

8

References

ARNBERGER, A.; HAIDER, W.; MUHAR, A., 2004: Social Carrying Capacity of an Urban Park in Vienna. In: SIEVÄNEN, T.; ERKKONEN, J.; JOKIMÄKI, J.; SAARINEN, J.; TUULENTIE, S.; VIRTANEN, E. (eds) Policies, Methods and Tools for Visitor Management. Proceedings on the Second International Conference on Monitoring and Management on Visitor Flows in recreational and Protected Areas. Rovaniemi, Finland. 371–378. BOXALL, P.; ROLLINS, K.; ENGLIKN, J., 2003: Heterogeneous preferences for congestion during wilderness experiences. Resour. Energy Econ. 25: 177–195. FREDMAN, P.; HÖRNSTEN, L., 2004: Social Capacity and Visitor Satisfaction in National Park Tourism. Reprint from Proceedings from the 12th Nordic Symposium in Tourism and Hospitality Research. Stavanger, Norway. GRAEFE, A.R.; VASKE, J.J.; KUSS, F.R., 1984: Social Carrying Capacity: An integration and synthesis of twenty years of research. Leis. Sci. 6: 395–431. GROSSMANN, M.; KLAPHAKE, A.; MEYERHOFF, J., 2004: Canoes versus Birds or Canoeists versus Canoeists? Combining interview survey and visitor monitoring to inform visitor management in the Mueritz National Park. In: SIEVÄNEN, T.; ERKKONEN, J.; JOKIMÄKI, J.; SAARINEN, J.; TUULENTIE, S.; VIRTANEN, E. (eds) Policies, Methods and Tools for Visitor Management. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. June 16–20, 2004. Rovaniemi. 283–290. HAHNE, U., 1990: Die Halligen Hooge und Gröde – Eine wirtschafts- und sozialgeographische Untersuchung. Flensburger Regionale Studien. Band 1. HALL, T.; ROGGENBUCK, J., 2002: Response Format Effects in Questions about Norms: Implications fort he Reliability and Validity of the Normative Approach. Leis. Sci. 24: 325–338. HEBERLEIN, T.A., 1977: Density, crowding and satisfaction: Sociological studies for determining carrying capacities. In: River Recreation Management and Research Symposium. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-28: 67–76. KALISCH, D., 2006: Auf der Suche nach Zufriedenheit – Eine Besucherbefragung zur sozialen Tragfähigkeit des Tages- und Übernachtungstourismus auf Hallig Hooge. Diplomarbeit, TUBerlin. KLUG, A., 1999: Bewertung der Erholungseignung und tourismus-bedingten Naturraumbelastungen an der Nordseeküste Schleswig-Holsteins mit GIS – Grundlagen für Planung und Küstenmanagement. Berichte, Forschungs- und Technologiezentrum Westküste der Universität Kiel.

122


Landesamt für den Nationalpark Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer 2000: Wege ins Watt. Informationsmaterial des NPA. Tönning. MANNING, R.E., 1999: Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Oregon State University Press. MANNING, R.E.; LIME, D.W.; FREIMUND, W.A.; PITT, D.G., 1996: Crowding Norms at Frontcountry Sites: A Visual Approach to Setting Standards of Quality. Leis. Sci. 18: 39–59. MANNING, R.E.; VALLIERE, W.; WANG, B.; JACOBI, C., 1999: Crowding Norms: Alternative measurement approaches. Leis. Sci. 21, 2: 97–115. MCCOOL, S.F.; LIME, D.W., 2001: Tourism Carrying Capacity: Tempting Fantasy or Useful Reality? J. Sustainable Tour. 5, 29: 372–388. NEEDHAM, M.D.; ROLLINS, R.B.; WOOD, C.J.B., 2004: Site-Specific Encounters, Norms and Crowding of Summer Visitors at Alpine Ski Areas. Int. J. Tour. Res. 6: 421–437. PIGRAM, J.J.; JENKINS, J.M., 1999: Outdoor Recreation Management. London, Routledge. PEREIRA DA SILVA, C.O., 2002: Beach carrying capacity assessment: How important is it? J. Coastal Res. Special Issue 36: 190–197. RIECKEN, G., 1982: Die Halligen im Wandel. Institut für Regionale Forschung und Information im Deutschen Grenzverein e.V. ROGGENBUCK, J.; WILLIAMS, D.; BANGE, S.; DEAN, D., 1991: River float trip encounter norms: Questioning the use of the social norms concept. J. Leis. Res. 23: 133–156. SHELBY, B.; VASKE, J.J.; HEBERLEIN, T.A., 1989: Comparative Analysis of Crowding in Multiple Locations: Results from Fifteen Years of Research. Leis. Sci. 11: 269–291. STERL, P.; WAGNER, S.; ARNBERGER, A., 2006: Kanufahrer und ihre Präferenzen für Besucherzahlen. Nat.schutz Landsch.plan. 38, 3: 75–80. Touristikbüro Hallig Hooge 2005: Gastgeberverzeichnis 2005. Informationsmaterial des Touristikbüro. Hallig Hooge. TARRANT, M.A.; CORDELL, H.K.; KIBLER, T.L., 1997: Measuring Perceived Crowding for Density River Recreation: The Effects of Situational Conditions and Personal Factors. Leis. Sci. 19: 97– 112. VASKE, J.J.; SHELBY, B.; GRAEFE, A.R.; HEBERLEIN, T.A., 1986: Backcountry Encounter Norms: Theory, Method and Empirical Evidence. J. Leis. Res. 18: 137–153.

Revised version accepted June 14, 2007