Assessing the Economic Value of Protected Areas with the Help of Visitor Information

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Assessing the Economic Value of Protected Areas with the Help of Visitor Information"

Sylvia Alexander
6 years ago
Views:

1 Assessing the Economic Value of Protected Areas with the Help of Visitor Information Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Services, Finland EUROPARC Conference Workshop #2 The Economic Value of Protected Areas Killarney, Ireland, 1 October 2014

2 Contents of the Presentation Demand and supply Data requirements Examples on more detailed reports Recent development National figures by spending categories Updating the multipliers Future development

3 Finland s National Parks 38 national parks 9,789 km million visits in 2013

4 The Most Popular National Parks Are Part of the Appeal of the Tourist Destinations Number of visits in 2013 Pallas-Ylläs Urho Kekkonen Nuuksio Oulanka Koli Pyhä-Luosto

5 Publicly Funded Visitor Facilities 28 Visitor Centres

6 Publicly Funded Visitor Facilities 3,000 campfire and picnic sites 2,300 outdoor dry toilets and waste collection points

7 Publicly Funded Visitor Facilities Over 7,000 km of maintained trails

8 The Total Value of a National Park Total value Use values Non-use values Direct use values (recreation, scenery) Option value (future use) Existence value (original nature, species, habitats) Bequest value Indirect use (water, climate, photos, films) The visitors spending increases income and employment in the area. Income effects are part of the direct use values, not the total value.

9 Local Economic Impacts of Visitor Spending Total value 2013 Minimum value* Million Jobs Million Jobs National parks National hiking areas * Minimum value indicates the economic impacts created by the visitors to whom the national park was the only or the most important reason for visit

10 Big Differences between the Parks The impacts are biggest in Northern Finland in parks located nearby a tourist center Pallas-Yllästunturi 34.3 million, 450 full-time equivalent Urho Kekkonen NP 21.6 million, 284 full-time equivalent Oulanka 15.5 million, 200 full-time equivalent In Southern Finland impacts per area smaller but many more areas Parks in archipelago regions significant, right after Koli NP, the southernmost tourist center park Koli 5.8 million, 77 person years Archipelago 4.0 million, 48 full-time equivalent Linnansaari 2.7 million, 33 full-time equivalent Tammisaari 3.2 million, 39 full-time equivalent

11 Reasons for Differences Differences in the amount of visitation (attractiveness, accessibility etc.) visitor profiles services in the surrounding region

12 Contents of the Presentation Demand and supply Data requirements Examples on more detailed reports Recent development National figures by spending categories Updating the multipliers Future development

13 What Did We Do? An application producing annually direct and total income effects ( ) employment effects (Jobs) Easy-to use, practical tool Estimate for each national park Cumulative, state-level effects /protectedareaslocaleconomyimpacts/sivut/defa ult.aspx

The More Detailed Data Requirements Annual number of visits Visitor spending in the park and its surroundings Any spending related to the trip: yes / no? Costs per visitor / party?

14 The More Detailed Data Requirements Annual number of visits Visitor spending in the park and its surroundings Any spending related to the trip: yes / no? Costs per visitor / party? In 7 categories (accommodation, restaurants etc.) Other visitor information The importance of the NP as a destination Municipality (Country) of residence Length of stay Size of the party

15 Constructing the Multipliers In Finland: local input-output tables are not easily available but need to be constructed from regional tables with the help of local information Defining each park s impact zone Usually the municipalities of location Classification of the impact zones by density of population Four classes (rural, built-up areas, capital, tourism centre) Deriving average multipliers for each class From local input-output tables Constructed for 21 parks from regional input-output tables

16 Contents of the Presentation Demand and supply Data requirements Examples on more detailed reports Recent development National figures by spending categories Updating the multipliers Future development

17 Example of a Summary Report: All National Parks Year 2013 Area Total Impact of Spending (Mill. ) Total Impact on Employment (FTE) Economic Impact When Area Priority Target (Mill. )* Impact on Employment When Area Priority Target (FTE)** Number of Visits Archipelago National Park 4,0 48 2, Salamajärvi National Park 0,3 5 0, Seitseminen National Park 0,3 4 0, Bothnian Sea National Park 1,6 20 0, Sipoonkorpi National Park 0,1 1 0, Syöte National Park 2,1 28 1, Tammisaari Archipelago National Park 3,2 39 0, Tiilikkajärvi National Park 0,2 2 0, Torronsuo National Park 0,3 4 0, Urho Kekkonen National Park 21, , Valkmusa National Park 0,1 1 0, Total Number of Visits Total Economic Impact 115, ,2 716

19 Average spending per visitor and per visit, Repovesi NP Average per visitor All Overnight Day trippers stayers All visitors, n Average spending ( ) Domestic tourists, n Average spending ( ) Foreign tourists, n Average spending ( ) * Local people, n Average spending ( ) * n < 10 Visitor counting applied: Repovesi NP visits year 2013 Visitor survey applied: Repovesi NP visitor survey years Average per visit All Overnight Day trippers stayers All visitors, n Average spending ( ) Domestic tourists, n Average spending ( ) Foreign tourists, n Average spending ( ) * Local people, n Average spending ( ) * n < 10 Visitor counting applied: Repovesi NP visits year 2013 Visitor survey applied: Repovesi NP visitor survey years

20 Local economic impacts by spending categories and visitor types, Repovesi NP Spending category Gasoline and other gas station purchases Domestic tourists n = 684 Income effect (, VAT excluded) Employment effect (Jobs, FTE) Foreign tourists n = 69 Income Employment effect effect (, VAT (Jobs, FTE) exclude d) Income effect (, VAT exclude d) Local people n = 287 Employment effect (Jobs, FTE) Income effect (, VAT excluded) Total n = Employment effect (Jobs, FTE) , , , ,7 Local traffic , , , ,3 Groceries, other retail , , , ,0 shopping Cafes and , , , ,5 restaurants Accommodation , , , ,6 Programme services , , , ,7 Other spendings , , , ,0 Sum of direct effects Indirect effects Total effects

21 Local economic impacts by spending categories and visitor types, Repovesi NP Spending category Income effect (, VAT excluded) Day trippers n = 460 Employment effect (Jobs, FTE) Overnight stayers n = 611 Income Employment effect effect (, VAT (Jobs, FTE) excluded) Income effect (, VAT excluded) Total n = Employment effect (Jobs, FTE) Gasoline and other , , ,7 gas station purchases Local traffic 261 0, , ,3 Groceries, other retail , , ,1 shopping Cafes and restaurants , , ,5 Accommodation , , ,4 Programme services , , ,7 Other spendings , , ,0 Sum of direct effects Indirect effects Total effects

22 Contents of the Presentation Demand and supply Data requirements Examples on more detailed reports Recent development National figures by spending categories Updating the multipliers Future development

23 Updating of the multipliers Effects with old multipliers Effects with new multipliers Total Income Effect (Million ) Employment effect (Jobs, FTE) , ,107 Change, / Jobs Change, % ,4

24 National effects Spending category Gasoline and other gas station purchases Economic effects with new multipliers (Mill. ) Employment effects with new multipliers (Mill. ) Employment effects with old multipliers (Jobs, FTE) Local traffic Groceries, other retail shopping Cafes and restaurants Accommodation Programme services Other spendings Sum of direct effects Indirect effects Total effects on local economies Indirect effects elsewhere in Finland Total effects on national economy ,107 1, ,374

25 Contents of the Presentation Demand and supply Data requirements Examples on more detailed reports Recent development National figures by spending categories Updating the multipliers Future development

26 Ideas for future development of the model New reports and calculations: In addition to local effects also national indirect and direct effects into the model (now calculated only for year 2013 as part of a research project) Report on visitor spendings per park (now per visitor and per visit) Report where in addition to output ( ) labour income and value added Possible to produce park specific multipliers

27 More information Finland on/protectedareaslocaleconomyimpacts/sivut/ default.aspx The United States mics.cfm

28 Thank you!

Monitoring National Park Visitors in Metsähallitus

Monitoring National Park Visitors in Metsähallitus Social media data for conservation Workshop, 26th of October 2016 Senior Advisor Contents Visitor Information System Use of Visitor Information Information