Scholarly article on topic 'Uncommon leisure traffic – Analyses of travel behaviour of visitors'

Uncommon leisure traffic – Analyses of travel behaviour of visitors Academic research paper on "Social and economic geography"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Transportation Research Procedia
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"leisure traffic" / "visitor traffic" / "choice of transport mode" / "traffic behaviour" / "environmental friendly" / "sustainable mobilty"}

Abstract of research paper on Social and economic geography, author of scientific article — Bieland Dominik, Sommer Carsten, Witte Claudia

Abstract The traffic performance of leisure traffic has increased over the few last years. The choice of transport mode for (short-time) vacations up to a distance of 1,000 km (oneway) is dominated by motorised private transport. There is, therefore a considerable potential for making visitor traffic more environment friendly by modifying traffic management. The current empirical database for holiday traffic that is required for optimally adopted concepts has certain limitations. This paper relates to uncommon leisure traffic. It examines the travel behaviour of visitors in Northern Hesse, based on a survey that was conducted in the summer of 2013.

Academic research paper on topic "Uncommon leisure traffic – Analyses of travel behaviour of visitors"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Transportation

Procedía

Transportation Research Procedía 25C (2017) 3975-3988 ■ ■ w «J «J

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

World Conference on Transport Research - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10-15 July 2016

Uncommon leisure traffic - Analyses of travel behaviour of visitors

Bieland, Dominik a*, Sommer, Carsten b, Witte, Claudiaa

aUniversity ofKassel, Chair of Transportation Planning and Traffic Systems, Mbnchebergstrafie 7, 34125 Kassel, Germany bProfessor Dr.-Ing. Carsten Sommer, University of Kassel, Head of Chair of Transportation Planning and Traffic Systems,

Mbnchebergstrafie 7, 34125 Kassel, Germany

Abstract

The traffic performance of leisure traffic lias increased over the few last years. The choice oftransport mode for (short-time) 'vacations up to a distance of 1,000 km (oneway) is dominated by motorised private transport. There is, therefore a considerable potential for making visitor traffic more environment friendly by modifying traffic management.

The current empirical database for holiday traffic that is required for optimally adopted concepts has certain limitations. This paper relates to uncommon leisure traffic. It examines the travel behaviour of visitors in Northern Tesse, based on a survey that was conducted in the summer of 2013.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD COOTERNCE ON TRANSPORT IffiSEARCH SOCIETY.

Keywords: leisure "traffic; visitor traffic; choice of transport mode; traffic behaviour; environmental friendly; sustainable mobilty

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 -561-804-3019; fax: +49-561-804-7382. E-mail address: d.bieland@uni-kassel.de

2352-1465 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of WORLD CONFERENCE ON TRANSPORT RESEARCH SOCIETY. 10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.236

Nomenclature_

MPT motorised private transport NMPT non-motorised private transport PT public transport n sample size

1. Introduction

Uncommon leisure traffic as part of the entire transport sector has not been sufficiently researched in the past. This kind of leisure traffic, including the trip to the vacation destination as well as mobility during vacation, is harmful to the environment due to its high share of motorised private transport (MPT). Traffic volume by (short) vacationers and same-day visitors is increasing. Uncommon leisure traffic must, therefore, be given more careful consideration, in order to achieve environmental and climate change objectives.

The current empirical data base for holiday traffic that is required for optimally adopted concepts has certain limitations. Especially the correlation between everyday mobility and the mobility at the vacation destination as well as subjective perceptions determining the choice of transport mode have not been surveyed yet.

This paper aims to gain scientific knowledge regarding uncommon leisure traffic and possible relationships of visitors' travel behaviour in order to finally help developing target-oriented measures for sustainable traffic management of holiday destinations. Therefore, the travel behaviour of visitors is examined based on several visitor surveys that were carried out in Northern Hesse. In the process, the heterogeneous group of visitors is analysed and differentiated by different group classifications. As a result, the findings regarding modal choice of both trip to the vacation destination and mobility during the vacation, as well as their determinants provide an indication of effective planning procedures to establish an environment friendly traffic management.

2. Definition: uncommon leisure traffic

Leisure traffic includes all trips or ways of passenger traffic that are not part of commuter traffic, school traffic, business traffic, shopping traffic or traffic due to escort (DIW 2011). Leisure traffic can be just a short ride or vacations of up to several weeks.

With leisure traffic, a distinction can be made into common and uncommon leisure traffic (Jain 2006). Common leisure traffic is characterised by behavioural routines, which means that transport mode and route are often chosen habitually without reflection. Common leisure traffic includes, for instance, frequent sport activities or cultural activities as well as frequent private visits to family or friends. Uncommon leisure traffic, by contrast, includes sporadic private visits or leisure events as part of short vacations or same-day visits. It should be noted that this definition is not distinct. Even frequent tours at weekends with different destinations might reveal habitualised behaviour. Tourism is usually part of uncommon leisure traffic (Freyer 2011). This paper concentrates on uncommon leisure traffic with a focus on short vacations and same-day visits.

3. Importance of leisure mobility concerning environment friendly traffic management

Between 2000 and 2010 a rise in the traffic volume could be recorded which has to be attributed to uncommon leisure traffic (vacation, short vacation, other private overnight travel, private same-day visit), particularly among private same-day visits. A further growth of traffic volume is expected in the future (Ifmo 2014). The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) (2015) states that travel and tourism grows at a faster rate than the economy and other significant sectors (e.g. automotive, health) and expects further growth within the next ten years. Among other things, the reason for this can be explained by the increasing number of trips per person. While the share of persons who travel regularly (> 1 time a year) increases, the share of persons who travel less decreases. This leads to an

overall increase of the yearly travel frequency per person. Structural changes of households, regarding a trend towards smaller households and households without children, result in an increased number of holiday trips (Petermann and Wennrich 1999). Moreover, Böhler (2006), Larsen (2008) and LaMondia and Bhat (2010a) indicate that long-distance leisure trips, which used to be a privilege, have become commonplace for many people over the past decade. Thus, households increasingly consider tourism travel as an extension of their daily activities making them part of their everyday life. At the same time, the overall duration of a trip decreases (FUR 2014).

Vacations include main holiday trips and short vacations, like city trips. While - in Germany - vacationers usually travel large distances (> 1,000 km) for main holiday trips, short vacations (1 - 3 overnight stays) mainly take place in the home country. Furthermore, research shows a steady growth for short vacations and city trips. Since the year 2000, the demand for and interest in this type of vacation has doubled (FUR 2014). Other studies support the fact that the number of short vacation close to home is increasing due to less expenditure, less pre- planning and particularly less time investment (LaMondia, Snell & Bhat 2009 ; LaMondia & Bhat 2010b).

However, the choice of transport mode is distance-related (Figure 1). The shorter the distance, the higher the share of persons who choose the automobile. Whereas the automobile dominates the modal choice up to distances of 1,000 km, the airplane is the main means of transport for distances of more than 1,000 km (FUR 2014).

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Automobile Train Touring Coach • Airplane • Ship • Others

Figure 1: Modal Choice for trips subject to distance ; Source: Bieland 2015 based on infas & DLR 2010

At the same time, it should be noted that automobile and airplane have a higher specific energy consumption in comparison to bus and railway and therefore contribute more to air pollution and CO2 emissions. IFMO (2014) estimates that the automobile is going to maintain its importance in the uncommon leisure traffic sector. The significance of the car as transport mode is not limited to Germany but is also found in studies from Great Britain, Scotland or the USA (Thompson & Ferguson 2006 ; Guiver, Lumsdon & Weston 2008 ; Buehler 2010).

Especially agglomeration areas experience difficulties in complying with stipulated limits for air pollution (annual average). The report for the resolution of the European Commission (2013) identifies traffic as the main contributor to pollution in several German agglomeration areas leading to high concentrations of NO2 (Europäische Kommission 2013).

Regarding the CO2 footprint of tourism, which includes mobility of visitors, overnight stays and gastronomical offers it is evident that visitor traffic - arrival and departure plus mobility within vacation destination - causes most

250 bis < 500

500 bis < 750 750 bis < 1000 1000 bis < 2000

> 2000

of the CO2-equivalent pollution. For example, visitor traffic in Vorarlberg (Austria) or Northern Eifel (Germany) causes 70 % of the CO2 footprint (Naturpark Eifel 2014 ; WWF 2009).

As a consequence of the increasing traffic volume, the quality of living is being reduced for both, natural landscapes as well as urban areas. The environmental impacts of tourism travel in general reach from local impacts, such as air pollution and soil sealing due to expanded roads and parking facilities - which are particularly bothersome when displacing natural landscapes - up to global impacts like the greenhouse effect (Bohler et al 2006).

Thus, a closer analysis of environmental effects caused by uncommon leisure traffic is gaining importance to achieve environmental and climate change objectives. For that matter, visitors also realise their responsibility as consumers and take a closer look at aspects of sustainability and climate protection, before and during their trip. Furthermore, from their point of view the government has to create the necessary conditions for sustainable offers that meet the needs of visitors for sustainable vacations. According to the results of a study carried out by FUR, visitors are willing to travel more environment friendly in their vacations (FUR 2014 ; WWF 2009). It is important to note that the types of activities being pursued by the visitors vary from narrow and specific to being broad. A combination of different activity types is also possible (Hwang and Fesenmaier 2003 ; Hellstrom 2006). There is a huge potential for protecting the cultural and natural heritage as well as increasing the quality of stay and leisure value by influencing uncommon leisure traffic in terms of environment friendliness.

4. Case study: City of Kassel

Northern Hesse records over 3.7 million overnight stays a year, 700,000 of which take place in the city of Kassel. In addition, Northern Hesse has about 39.5 Mio same-day visitors (DWIF e. V. 2005 ; Hessisches Statistisches Landesamt 2013). These figures do not take the popularity of the region into account, which has increased since Bergpark Wilhelmshohe was included in the list of World Heritage Sites in 2013. Besides the World Heritage Site, the city of Kassel offers a wide range of cultural activities that attract in particular short vacationers and same-day visitors. Therefore, the city tourism in Kassel can be compared with that of other, even larger cities in Germany. With a view to the volume of uncommon leisure traffic, it is essential that this sector is organised in an environment friendly manner.

As part of the FREE research project^, the Chair of Transportation Planning and Traffic Systems of the University of Kassel carried out several visitor surveys in Bergpark Wilhelmshohe (2013). A total of 797 randomly selected visitors have been interviewed personally with a standardised questionnaire (paper and pencil questionnaire). Before the survey was conducted, the questionnaire was developed and pretested in terms of comprehensibility, consistency and logical flow. The interviewers were personally selected and trained, regarding interviewing skills, subtleties of the questionnaire and behaviour patterns during the interview. Information regarding the mode of transport for the trip to the vacation destination, mobility during vacation, everyday mobility, attitude towards electric mobility and socio-demographic data of the visitors was gathered (Fachgebiet VPVS 2013).

The survey shows an average of 3.3 overnight stays and 3.4 ways per day of overnight visitors in Kassel. With a

f The objective of the FREE research project is to make sustainable mobility services available from a single provider. With the additional option of using electric vehicles and pedelecs as a means of transport, overnight visitors can arrive in Northern Hesse without their own car and still remain flexible. Under these conditions, public transport can form the backbone of mobility. To simplify the use of the new services, a provider-wide information and booking system will be implemented, integrated ticket solutions will be developed and the charging infrastructure expanded. The federal ministry of transport and digital infrastructure funds the project. NOW GmbH Nationale Organisation Wasserstoff- und Brennstoffzellentechnologie is responsible for coordinating the programme.

total of 700,000 overnight visitors^ in Kassel, this comes to more than 5.5 million ways§ per year. Same-day visitors perform 2.8 ways a day in Kassel. When taking 11 million same-day visitors in Kassel as a basis, plus about 2.2 million same-day business trips (DWIF e. V. 2005), the traffic volume by visitors sums up to nearly 42 million ways a year. By comparison: the city of Kassel has approx. 197.000 inhabitants (Stadt Kassel 2015) with an average of 3.4 ways per day. This sums up to 251.6 million ways a year by the inhabitants. Visitors therefore account for approx. 14 % of all ways in the city of Kassel. This estimation neglects commuters' traffic.

The significance of leisure traffic under ecological aspects increases as the number of visitors rises. Besides their arrival and departure, visitors also travel at their place of destination. The different means of transportation can be distinguished by travel time, comfort, flexibility and costs. Knowledge of the current travel behaviour as well as its determinants is necessary to develop measures directed to influence the travel behaviour.

5. Statistical analyses: Traffic behaviour of visitors

As with every survey, survey design and interview situation have to be taken into consideration when interpreting the data. Visiting the water features in Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe (Kassel, Germany) is a time-consuming activity. On the one hand, it is often the only activity of same-day visitors since they have to arrive and depart as well. On the other hand, there are overnight visitors who do not arrive and depart on the day of their visit to the water features. Hence they have more time for further activities on the key date. Furthermore, only ways by foot within Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe that lead to an activity in addition to that of visiting the water feature (e.g. museum, gastronomy) were surveyed.

Since visitors can be characterised by a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic attributes as well as traffic behaviour, they have to be considered as a highly heterogeneous group. In this analysis, visitors are clustered due to their duration of stay. The clusters are designed as described below using existing touristic target groups.

The clustered groups are examined with regard to choice of transport mode for arrival, their motivation for choosing this transport mode as well as choice of transport mode at the vacation destination.

Classification by d/eation of stay

First of all, the interviewees were classified by their duration of stay into overnight visitors (visitors that stay overnight) and same-day visitors (visitors that do not stay overnight). In addition, same-day visitors are divided into residence trippers and same-day visitors who have their permanent residence outside of Kassel. Residence trippers have to be analysed separately since they are already familiar with local options, they might as well possess season tickets for public transport (PT) and show habituated (travel) behaviour. They also carry out an above-average number of private activities on the key date.

Regarding the distance between the permanent residence of the interviewees and the city of Kassel (Figure 2), it is evident that overnight visitors almost accomplish twice the distance (258 km) of same-day visitors (134 km). Same-

' This figure is based on data of the Hessisches Statistisches Landesamt (2013). Overnight stays in private accomodations are deduced from data of the visitor survey.

§ This estimation is based on following assumptions:

• 65 % of overnight visitors visit Kassel related to business

• Business visitors stay for one night

• Business visitors perform 2.1 ways a day on average

• 35 % of overnight visitors visit Kassel related to leisure

** This assumes that the volume of same-day business trips accounts for about 20 % of all same-day trips (DWIF e. V. 2005). An average of 2.1 ways a day is assumed for same-day business trips.

day visitors (86 %) travel mainly up to 250 km. On the one hand, 48 % of same-day visitors travel 100 km to Kassel, merely 14 % travelled more than 250 km. The major part of overnight visitors on the other hand (94 %) travelled more than 100 km to Kassel. 48 % travelled more than 250 km.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

10 - 50

50 - 100

0% 100 - 250

0% 250 - 400

I same-day visitor ■same-day visitor (cum.)

overnight visitor overnight visitor (cum.)

residence tripper residence tripper (cum.)

Figure 2: Distance between permanent residence of the interviewees and the city of Kassel, split by duration of stay ; Source: Bieland 2015 (data

basis: visitor survey Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 2013, n = 704)

Classification by touristic target groups

Representative surveys have already characterised different subgroups of (short) vacationers. Examples are the joint INVENT project (Öko-Institut e. V. 2005), funded by the German federal ministry of education and research, and the manual of target groups by the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia (Tourismus NRW e. V. 2009). The target groups mentioned in these reports are used by various other cities and regions and were slightly adapted (Thüringer Tourismus GmbH 2011 ; Sauerland Tourismus e. V. 2013). (Short) Vacationers are summarised by demographic and socioeconomic attributes, preferences and behaviour. The above mentioned target groups can also be applied to visitors of Kassel.

Depending on their age and travel companions, the interviewees were assigned to the target groups: "Young singles and couples", "Families", "Adults without children", "Seniors" and "Adult single travellers" (Table 1).

Table 1: Classification of interviewees into touristic target groups ; Source: Bieland 2015

Touristic target group Classification criteria

Young singles and couples - age: 18 to 25 years old - accompanied and unaccompanied - no kids

Families - age: 18 to 65 years old - accompanied - with kids

Adults without children - age: 25 to 65 years old - accompanied - no kids

Seniors - age: above 65 years old

Adult single travellers - age: 25 to 65 years old - unaccompanied

Highly significant independencies can be determined with the Chi-square test of independency between group classification by duration of stay as well as group classification by touristic target group and the tested attributes. Chi-square test of independency determines the relation of two attributes. The test shows whether the attributes are stochastically independent or not. The size of the five relevant touristic target groups, distinguished by the duration of stay, is shown in Table 2.

Over 60 % of overnight visitors and same-day visitors to Kassel are "Adults without children" and "Seniors". Adults without children are the largest group. Young singles and couples (n = 53) and adult single travellers (n = 63) are the smallest groups. Furthermore, the number of same-day visitors (n = 405) exceeds the number of overnight visitors (n = 167).

Table 2: Overview of the group size ; Source: Bieland 2015

Touristic target groups

Young Adults Adult Total

singles and Families without Seniors single

couples children travellers

Overnight quantity 12 28 74 41 11 167

visitors % of target group 7.8% 16.8% 44.3% 24.6% 6.6%

Same-day quantity 17 71 185 97 35 405

visitors % of target group 4.2% 17.5% 45.7% 24.0% 8.6%

Residence quantity 23 22 39 31 167 132

trippers % of target group 17.4% 16.7% 29.5% 23.5% 12.9%

Total 53 121 298 169 63 704

5.1. Choice of transport mode: trip to Kassel

The modal split (motorised private transport (MPT), public transport (PT), non-motorised private transport (NMPT))

of the interviewees for their trip to the destination differentiated by duration of stay is shown in Table 3. Overnight visitors and same-day visitors primarily use the MPT as transport mode for their trip to Kassel. Böhler et al. (2006) conducted a survey in three German cities with a sample size of n = 1991. The results are similar: 3 out of 4 overnight visitors (short vacationers) use the automobile, 20 % travel with PT to the vacation destination.

As far as overnight visitors are concerned, there is a highly significant relation between touristic target group and choice of transport mode for the trip to Kassel. Cramers V indicates a relatively strong association.

Table 3: Choice of transport mode of target groups for the trip to the destination differentiated by duration of stay ; Source: Bieland 2015 (data

basis: visitor survey Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 2013)

Overnight visitors MPT PT NMPT Same-day visitors MPT PT NMPT Residence trippers MPT PT NMPT

Young singles and couples 31% 69% 0% 59% 41% 0% 22% 30% 48%

Families 96% 4% 0% 89% 10% 1% 0% 73% 27%

Adults without children 88% 12% 0% 89% 11% 0% 18% 51% 31%

Seniors 80% 20% 0% 71% 23% 6% 41% 35% 24%

Adult single travellers 30% 70% 0% 86% 14% 1% 16% 48% 36%

Total 79% 21% 0% 86% 14% 1% 16% 48% 36%

Sample size (n) 158 405 132

Chi-square

Asymp. Significance (two- ,000 ,000 ,000

sided)

Cramers V 0.511 0.194 0.28

Cramers V is a contingency coefficient based on the Chi-square test statistic and has a value between 0 and 1. Cramers V measures the magnitude of the association between two nominal scaled variables. One of the variables needs to have more than two expressions (Backhaus et al. 2008). Rea and Parker describe the value of Cramers V as follows (Rea & Parker 1992):

Value of Cramers V Magnitude of association

0.00 to < 0.10 Negligible association

0.10 to < 0.20 Weak association

0.20 to < 0.40 Moderate association

0.40 to < 0.60 Relatively strong association

0.60 to < 0.80 Strong association

0.80 to 1.00 Very strong association

Especially families, adults without children and seniors prefer the automobile as transport mode for their trip to Kassel. Young singles and couples, and adult single travellers tend to use PT.

Same-day visitors show highly significant relations between touristic target group and choice of transport mode for

their trip to Kassel, too. However, the magnitude of association is weak. Same-day visitors are more automobile-orientated than overnight visitors. Young singles and couples, and adult single travellers represent the highest share of public transport for their trip to Kassel. Yet, in comparison to overnight visitors the share of public transport is smaller.

Residence trippers focus on eco-mobility (NMPT, PT). The high share of NMPT, mainly walking or cycling, can be explained by spatial proximity. The high percentage of public transport in conjunction with the low percentage of MPT shows that B.W is easily accessible by public transport in general.

Determinants for choice of transport mode for the trip to Kassel help to interpret differences between the touristic target groups.

5.2. Choice of transport mode: Determinants for the trip to Kassel

The causes for the choice of transport mode for the trip to Kassel were surveyed by an open question and the option of multiple answers. Since open questions induce a wide range of answers, the answers had to be categorised afterwards. Table 4 shows the allocation of the respective category based on all answers the specific touristic target group gave. Categories with very few entries (<10 % of the specific target group) are not mentioned in this table. Flexibility describes the possibility of spontaneous activities, independent or unrestricted mobility. Transport offer involves mainly benefits of travel time as well as accessibility, and the quality of public transport connections (e. g. switchovers).

Except for young singles and couples staying overnight, every target group gives convenience and transport offer as a reason for their choice of transport mode. Young singles and couples state costs as a criterion for their choice. As expected, families state more often than other target groups that they are travelling in company. BMU (2004) states, that the automobile is especially advantageous for families due to their household size and the need to transport luggage. Flexibility and transport offer are important for adults without children. Seniors see the greatest value in convenience and transport offer.

Attachment to a mode of transport and costs are the main reasons stated by touristic target groups (overnight visitors) arriving in Kassel by public transport. In contrast to other groups, young singles and couples declare convenience as cause for their modal choice to a lesser extent.

In total, same-day visitors use MPT more often. This is reflected by the determinants. In comparison to overnight visitors, costs are scarcely given as a reason for choice of transport mode. Flexibility and transport offer are gaining importance. Since same-day visitors arrive, depart and do their activities in just one day - depending on the distance travelled - they primarily need these characteristics (flexibility, (temporal) short ways) to save time. In many cases, public transport is not sufficient to meet this demand, especially where and when there is a generally low demand for public transport.

Residence tripper barely state attachment to a transport mode or transit. Convenience and transport offer are paramount.

All in all, the significance of PT as transport mode is rather small, wherefore the obstacles for using PT were taken into consideration with over 80 in-depth-interviews (Bohler et al 2006). Their study has shown, that time, money, luggage carriage and anticipated complications obstruct the use of PT. Furthermore, as far as luggage carriage is concerned, the interviewees do not trust the reliability of this kind of service as well.

Table 4: Determinants for choice of transport mode of the target groups for the trip to the destination differentiated by duration of stay ; Source:

Bieland 2015 (data basis: visitor survey Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 2013)

Overnight visitors (n=197)

Same-day visitors (n=463)

Residence trippers (n=162)

Convenience Transit

18 25 26 30

24 32 30 34

Flexibility 8 9 19 15

Costs 46 15 8 9

Travelling in company 0 12 3 2

Transport offer (e.g. travel time) 0 15 16 15

Attached to a mode of transport 23 0 1 7

6 6 6 24 8 12 18 6 7

19 0 10 10

24 28 26 29

0 4 4 0 8 12 12 4 7

12 19 23 26 26

25 0 10 5

16 16 23 20

A mode-specific analysis of the reasons reveal that convenience is stated both by visitors choosing MPT and PT for their trip to Kassel. On the one hand, flexibility, transit or the need to transport items are reasons that were mainly given by overnight visitors and same-day visitors choosing MPT as transport mode. Costs and attachment to a mode of transport are on the other hand important for those who choose PT as transport mode (Bieland & Witte 2015).

5.3. Choice of transport mode: mobility behaviour at the vacation destination

The choice of transport mode at the vacation destination (Table 5) resembles the choice of transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination. There is a highly significant relationship between choice of transport mode by overnight visitors (moderate association) and same-day visitors (weak association). Again, young couples and singles as well as adult single travellers use PT more frequently, whereas adults without children, families and seniors mainly use MPT at the vacation destination. Same-day visitors use MPT more frequently than overnight visitors. regardless of the touristic target group the use of MPT at the vacation destination of same-day visitors is 15 % higher than by overnight visitors.

The association of residence trippers is weak but significant. They use MPT more often for daily activities than for the trip to Bergpark Wilhelmshohe. Differences between the target group of residence trippers in comparison to overnight or same-day visitors are weakly defined.

An examination of the relationship between transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination and the use of PT at the vacation destination shows a highly significant, relatively strong association. Overnight visitors choosing PT

as transport mode for their trip to Kassel have a five times higher probability of using PT in Kassel (> 50 % of ways within Kassel) in comparison to overnight visitors choosing MPT. As far as same-day visitors are concerned, the probability is ten times higher.

A highly significant association (moderate association) exists between everyday mobility of the interviewees and choice of transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination. The more common the everyday use of PT, the higher the chance for using PT for the trip to the vacation destination. Regular and casual users of PT are seven times more likely to choose PT for their trip to the vacation destination than PT-non-users.

Table 5 : Choice of transport mode of target groups at the vacation destination differentiated by duration of stay ; Source: Bieland 2015 (data

basis: visitor survey Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 2013)

Overnight visitors MPT PT NMPT Same-day visitors MPT PT NMPT Residence trippers MPT PT NMPT

Young singles and couples 24% 68% 7% 45% 36% 18% 44% 24% 68%

Families 79% 13% 8% 84% 11% 6% 60% 79% 13%

Adults without children 67% 17% 16% 78% 12% 10% 57% 67% 17%

Seniors 59% 22% 19% 78% 14% 8% 59% 59% 22%

Adult single travelers 17% 62% 21% 67% 25% 8% 43% 17% 62%

Total 60% 24% 15% 76% 15% 9% 55% 60% 24%

Sample size (n) 503 920 556

Chi-square

Asymp. Significance 0,000 0,000 0,049

(two-sided)

Cramers V 0.299 0.143 0.118

Regarding the number of trips, overnight visitors conduct 3.16 ways a day on average. Same-day visitors perform 2.85 ways a day. This can be mainly attributed to the fact that same-day visitors conduct the trip to the vacation destination and back home as well as their activities on one and the same day.

6. Conclusions regarding traffic concepts for vacation destinations

Developing new mobility concepts requires specific knowledge of the mobility behaviour of visitors. For this purpose, a visitor survey was conducted to identify major interdependencies and determinants of choice of transport mode.

Currently, MPT dominates the choice of transport mode and the mobility at the vacation destination. At the same time the high share of MPT has a great potential for designing traffic management, so it offers visitors a more environment friendly choice. The results can be used to develop target group focused measures with the objective of environment friendly visitor traffic. These findings are not limited to the city of Kassel nor to Germany. As seen above, other studies demonstrate the significance of the private car as transport mode for the trip to and trips within the vacation destination, too. The use of private cars, combined with an increasing number of travellers and vacations per person can lead to increased emissions and air pollution as well as destruction of natural environment due to infrastructure development in any city or region with tourism. Therefore, uncommon leisure traffic may

influence living conditions negatively. There are different (theoretical) chances in order to remedy these negative impacts on the environment, for example modal shift in favour of environmental friendly transport modes or reducing the traffic volume of private cars.

The survey revealed that transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination has a considerable effect on the mobility at the vacation destination. Likewise, the impact of everyday mobility on the choice of transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination could be stressed. Uncommon leisure traffic can be handled in a more environment friendly manner when influencing either everyday mobility or transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination. Vacation destinations have - if any - only a marginal impact on everyday mobility of visitors. Providers at the vacation destination should therefore focus on developing offers and measures that influence the choice of transport mode of visitors for their trip to the vacation destination.

When developing offers, special attention should be paid to the determinants of the choice of transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination of visitors. The analysis of causes for the choice of transport mode shows that MPT is mainly chosen because of convenience and is therefore associated with flexibility as well as advantages in transport offer (e.g. travel time).

Overnight visitors differ from same-day visitors in their mobility behaviour for the trip to the vacation destination as well as mobility at the vacation destination. Flexibility and transport offer, such as fast and direct connections for their arrival and departure, are essential for same-day visitors. However, overnight visitors show bigger differences regarding distinct touristic target groups: Young singles and couples and adults without children already demonstrate an environment friendly traffic behaviour. Designing convenient offers directed to the demands of this target group can strenghten this traffic behaviour. Further services like luggage transport or full travel packages, including free luggage carriage and door-to-door organization could result in a significant increase of visitors, using PT. However, since the reasons against the use of PT are very versatile, these statements should be handled with care (Bohler et al 2006).

Transport mode of adults without children, families and seniors is focussed on MPT. As far as families are concerned, convenience and travelling in company are paramount, whereas adults without children and seniors prefer convenience, flexibility and transport offer. If the traffic behaviour of these target groups is to be influenced, their specific needs must be met. To guarantee flexibility, the static offer of public transport with timetable for arrivals and departures plus fixed routes are not sufficient. Points of interest for leisure activities beyond the core area of PT are difficult to reach. This means that the possibilities for activities of visitors arriving by PT are limited. Moreover, it should be noted that using PT in regions away from home is especially difficult for persons who are MPT-affine since they have to face cognitive and practical challenges.

Including bicycles, pedelecs and (e-)cars for rent in the public transportation offer ensures flexible mobility of the visitors even when travelling without their own car. The extended service offers visitors the possibility to easily reach points of interest also during times and in areas with poorly developed connections to public transport. In this context it is important that the offers are easy and transparent to use.

Bundled offers, comprising arrival and departure by PT, shuttle service to the accommodation as well as a tariff product including local public transport along with the usage of pedelecs and (e-)car sharing contribute to a convenient and attractive alternative to MPT. At the same time, local traffic offers are communicated to the visitors. Nevertheless, the offers should be differentiated according to duration of stay.

Communicating the offers is essential to increase perception among visitors. An information and booking system can draw the visitors' attention to these integrated offers before they start their trip and therefore can close the gap between the environmental consciousness of the visitors and their actual (traffic) behaviour.

References

Backhaus, K. et al. (2008): Multivariate Analysemethoden, 12th ed., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Bieland, D. (2015): Fachgebietsinterne Präsentation von Ergebnissen der Besucherbefragung im Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe. Kassel.

Bieland, D., Witte, C. (2015): Determinanten des Verkehrsmittelwahlverhaltens von Besuchern in Nordhessen. In: Institut für Verkehrswesen der Universität Kassel (Eds.): Nahverkehr und Freizeit — Neue Kunden durch innovative Konzepte gewinnen: Nahverkehrs-Tage 2015 (Kassel 2015). Kassel: University- Press, not yet printed.

BMU - Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2004): Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2004, BMU, Berlin, Bonn.

Böhler, S. et al. (2006): Encouraging environmentally sustainable holiday travel. Transportation Research A, Vol. 40, Issue 8, pp. 652-670.

Buehler, R. (2010): Determinants of transport mode choice: a comparison of Germany and the USA. In: Journal of Transport Geography, pp. 644 - 657.

DIW (Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung) (2011): Verkehr in Zahlen 2011 / 2012. Hamburg; BMVBS.

DWIF e.V. - Deutsches Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Institut für Fremdenverkehr e.V. (2005): Tagesreisen der Deutschen. Schriftenreihe Nr. 50, München.

Europäische Kommission (2013): BESCHLUSS DER KOMMISSION vom 20.2.2013 betreffend die Mitteilung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland über die Verlängerung der Frist für das Erreichen der NO2-Grenzwerte in 57 Luftqualitätsgebieten. Brüssel.

Fachgebiet VPVS - Fachgebiet für Verkehrsplanung und Verkehrssysteme (2013): Interner Methodenbericht zur Besucherbefragung im Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe. Kassel, not published.

Freyer, W. (2011): Tourismus — Einführung in die Fremdenverkehrsökonomie. Oldenburg.

FUR - Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen e.V. (2014): RA 2014 — erste ausgewählte Ergebnisse der 44. Reiseanalyse zur UTB 2014, <http://www.fur.de/fileadmin/user_upload/RA_Zentrale_Ergebnisse/RA2014_ErsteErgebnisse_DE.PDF> (05/11/2015).

Guiver, J., Lumsdon, L. and Weston R. (2008): Traffic reduction at visitor attractions: the case of Hadrian's Wall. In: Journal of Transport Geography, pp. 142 - 150.

Hellstrom, J. (2006). A bivariate count data model for household tourism demand. Journal of Applied Economics, 21, 213-226.

Hessisches Statistisches Landesamt (2013): Gäste und Übernachtungen im Tourismus (Vorläufige Ergebnisse), für Kalenderjahr im DezemberBericht, <http://www.statistik-hessen.de/publikationen/download/968/index.html> (02/20/2013).

Hwang, Y. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2003). Multidestination pleasure travel patterns: empirical evidence from the American Travel Survey. Journal of Travel Research 42, 166-171.

Ifmo - Institut für Mobilitätsforschung (2014): Langstreckenmobilität—Aktuelle Trends und Zukunftsperspektiven,

<http://www.ifmo.de/tl_files/publications_content/2014/ifmo_2014_Langstreckenmobilitaet_de.pdf> (11/11/2014).

infas & DLR (2010): Mobilität in Deutschland 2008 - Ergebnisbericht. Berlin, Bonn.

Jain, A. (2006): Nachhaltige Mobilitätskonzepte im Tourismus. In: Blickwechsel - Schriftenreihe des Zentrum Technik und Gesellschaft der TU Berlin, Bd. 5. Berlin.

LaMondia, J., Snell, T. & Bhat, C. R. (2009): Traveler Behavior and Values Analysis in the Context of Cavation Destination and Travel Mode Choices: A European Union Case Study,

<https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/23803/TRR_Vacation_destination_15March2010.pdf?sequence=2> (08.12.2015).

LaMondia, J. and Bhat, C.R. (2010a). A conceptual and methodological framework of leisure activity loyalty accommodating the travel context: application of a copula-based bivariate ordered-response choice model. Technical paper, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin.

LaMondia, J. and Bhat, C.R. (2010b): A Study of Visitors' Leisure Travel Behavior in the Northwest Territories of Canada,

<http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/bhat/abstracts/combinations_leisureactivities_rev_1nov2010.pdf> (08/12/2015).

Larsen, J. (2008). De-exoticizing leisure travel. In: Leisure Studies, Vol. 27, pp. 21-34.

Naturpark Eifel (2014): CO2-Fußabdruckfür den Tourismus in der Nordeifel <http://www.naturpark-eifel.de/go/eifel-

detail/german/Klimaschutz/Klimaschutz/553_co2_fussabdruck_fuer_den_tourismus_in_der_nordeifel.html> (11/07/2014).

Öko-Institut e.V. (2005): Zielgruppenmodell <http://www.invent-tourismus.de/html/projekt02.htm> (03/21/2013).

Petermann, T. Wennrich, C. (1999): Entwicklung und Folgen des Tourismus. Endbericht, Bericht zum Abschluss der Phase II , TAB Arbeitsbericht, Nr. 59, Büro für Technikfolgenabschätzung, Berlin.

Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992): Designing and conducting survey research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sauerland Tourismus e.V. (2013): Zielgruppen, <http://www.sauerland-tourismus.com/Themenmanagement/Zielgruppen> (03/21/2013).

Stadt Kassel (2015): Zahlen zur Bevölkerung, <http://serviceportal-kassel.de/cms11/verwaltung/statistik/bevoelkerung/index.html> (07/16/2015).

Thompson, K. & Ferguson, N. S. (2006): Investigation of travel behaviour of visitors to scotland. Edinburgh.

Thüringer Tourismus GmbH (2011): Zielgruppe und Gästepotential, <http://fachpublikum.thueringen-tourismus.de/kooperationen-partner-downloads/zielgruppe-und-gaestepotenzial-131642.html> (03/26/2013).

Tourismus NRW e.V. (2009): Zielgruppenhandbuch - Masterplan Tourismus Nordrhein-Westfalen <http://www.touristiker-nrw.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Zielgruppenhandbuch-Tourismus-NRW.pdf> (11/11/2014)

World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) (2015): Travel & Tourism — ECONOMIC IMPACT 2015 — WORLD, <https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic%20impact%20research/regional%202015/world2015.pdf> (02/29/2016).

WWF (2009): Der touristische Klima-Fußabdruck — WWF-Bericht über die Umweltauswirkungen von Urlaub und Reisen,

<http://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/Der_touristische_Klima-Fussabdruck.pdf> (11/11/2014).