Markéta Braun Kohlová, Jan Melichar, Kateřina Kaprová, Hana Škopková, Vojtěch Máca

Charles University Environment Center

10 May 2015Brno

Methods for visitor monitoring in protected areas

The work on this paper was supported by the project The use ofpricing mechanism for tourism directing and financing themanagement of specially protected areas in the Czech Republic, No. TD020049 financed by the Czech Technological Agency.

Objectives:

To enhance the discussion…

• on the application of monitoring methods,

• conditions under which they allow to produce high-quality data and

• to show which method may prove useful in each specific monitoring task,

• considering the characteristics of the protected area, visitor population and the purpose of the survey.

Sources of the assessment :1) Literature review

2) Original surveys and monitoring in 2 pilot PA (2014)

• On-site survey• WTP for recreation in selected parts of Šumava NP and PLA Český ráj:

• Peatbogs Jezerní slať, Tříjezerní slať• Lake Prášilské jezero• Rock town Hruboskalsko

• Spatial distribution of visitors• Hruboskalsko, central part of Šumava NP

• Off-site survey• Visitor monitoring (loads a visitors‘ structure)

… several monitoring methods applied simultaneouslyto compare their usability and measurement accuracy

Purposes of visitor monitoring:

A)… of visitors in localities with endangered species and habitats;B)… of spatial distribution of visitors into an area for identification:

– a) crowded localities; – b) localities with colliding activities (e.g. bicyclist and hikers); and – c) access to various performance groups;

C)… of demand for visitor infrastructure (parking places in particular);

… of demand changes due to regulatory or marketing measures;

… of potential changes in recreation demand;D)… of economic value of ecosystem services based on

preferences.Adapted from SEPA, 2007

Table 1: Available monitoring methods in protected areasRef.: SEPA 2007 Melville a Ruohonen

2002SEPA 2007 Adapted from (LVAF 2012)

Sampling type Type of data Data source and technology

Examples of methods

Sample plots

Other Photo and video monitoring of objectsIndirect Visual monitoring of objects

Records collected for other purposes (visitor books, parking data, sale of tickets, etc.)

Quantitative Manual observation of visitors from land / personalized monitoring

On-site Manual observation of visitors from air

Opinion Direct Questionnaire survey

Personal interviews (face-to-face)

Qualitative Questionnaire survey

Personal interviews (face-to-face)

Automatic counter visitor monitoring

Mixed Quantitative Automatic Location monitoring with GPS technologies

Monitoring using mobile signalization data

Off-site

Quantitative / qualitative / opinion Other

Questionnaire survey - off site

(general population)Quantitative Automatic Numbers of visitors of web-pages, QR-codes, number of geo-cache registrations, positionin of

photos, blog and visited trails on web, etc.

Issue nr. 1:

What do (should) the monitoring data represent?… if the method works as it should (otherwise an

issue of acuracy)

Pairs of feet vs. unique individuals

DenAutom. sčítač LD

Personál mon. LD

Personál mon. Prášilské j.

neděle 465 290 308sobota 265 172 176

Liščí díry (LD)

Issue nr. 2:

How can be the monitoring data aggregated ?

Spatialy = number of visitors in a broader area (Example: 1. zones of Šumava NP)

Temporaly = number of visitors over a longer period of time(Example summer season)

Datum DenAutom. sčítač LD

Personál mon. LD

Personál mon. Prášilské j.

Mobilni data Prasilsko

Personál mon. Poledník

10.8.2014 neděle 465 290 308 1050 43027.9.2014 sobota 265 172 176 696

Issue nr. 3:

• What if we are interested also in non-vistors?– For the identification of the barriers of the visit– For the estimate of the recreation demand– Economic values of ecosystem services

Off-site survey- 18 - 19% of the sample (N=1800, CR)

visited the two localities of interest (rock townHruboskalsko, Peatbogs Tříjezerní slať), respectivelyduring the summer season 2014

Concept of Total Economic Value

WoodRecreationpossibilities

Aestheticalexperience

from thecountryside

Possibility ofrecreation

in the future

Bequest ofconsumption

for thedescendants

Preservationof the

existenceitself

The valueof nature

regardless ofpreferences

VALUE INDEPENDENT

OF HUMAN

VALUE DERIVED FROM HUMAN PREFERENCES

Total economic value of forest

Use value Non-use value

Market

Utilitarian

Existencevalue

Bequestvalue

Optionvalue

Non-market

Intrinsicvalue

Bateman, et al. 2005

Table 2: Strengths and drawbacks of visitor monitoring methods (part 2)

Automatic counter monitoring

Personal monitoring

Personal interviews - on-site

Questionnaire survey - off-site

Monitoring using mobile signalization data

Evaluation criteria:II. Detail of the information:Direction Yes Yes Yes No No

Group size No Yes Yes Yes No

Group structure No Yes Yes Yes No

City/ county of origin No No Yes Yes Yes

Hikers vs. bicyclist Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Trip duration No No Yes Yes Yes

Trip frequency No No Yes Yes No

Spatial distribution in small-size area (e.g. Hruboskalsko)

No No Yes No No

Spatial distribution in large-size area (e.g. NP Šumava)

No No Yes Yes Yes

Most suitable for… long-term counting of visitors on tracks and seasonal variation

short-term counting of visitors, groups and their characteristics

investigation of users' experience, opinions, wishes, use values of ecosystems, recreational demand and spatial distribution in a broader area

identification of determinants of visit, incl., barriers, substitutionaleffects, recreational demand, non-use values of ecosystems

short- to middle-term counting of visitors in broader area, identification of the visitor's origin; from table realisation

The decision for a particular monitoring method … should further consider accuracy

Raised questions : • Do the automatic counters include everybody?• Are they suitable for the profiles of interest?• Does the personnel manages to notice all people who pass most

crowded profiles?• When to exclude the passing visitors from the mobile

signalisation data (short stops, transit)? • How to cover an area with poor mobile signal?… data collected for other purposes (esp. parking fees)

… in the prepared methodology of visitors’ monitoring

Selected references:Bateman, I. J., Lovett, A.A. and Brainard, J.S. (2005). Applied Environmental Economics: a GIS

Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis. Cambridge University Press, pp. 358.Cope, A., Doxford, D., Probert, Ch. (2000). Monitoring visitors to UK countryside resources.

The approaches of land and recreation resource management organisations to visitor monitoring. Land Use Policy, 2000, č. 17, s. 59 – 66.

González-Sepúlveda, J. M. and Loomis, J. (2010). Do CVM Welfare Estimates Suffer from On-Site Sampling Bias? A Comparison of On-Site and Household Visitor Surveys. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 39/3, P: 561 – 570.

LVAF (2012). Visitor Monitoring Guidelines in Protected Nature Areas. Example: SlitereNational Park, Latvia. Latvian Country Tourism Association.

Melville, S., Ruohonen, J. (2011). The development of a remote-download system for visitor counting. Working Papers of the Finish Forest Research Institute 2 [2011-07-04]. Available from: http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2004/mwp002.htm.

Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Brandenbug, Ch. (2002). Methods for Visitor Monitoring in Recreational and Protected Areas: An Overview. Conference Proceedings ed by A. Arnberger, C. Brandenburg, A. Muhar, s. 1 – 6.

SEPA (2007). Visitor monitoring in nature areas – a manual based on experiences from the Nordic and Baltic countries. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.

Charles University Environment Center

marketa.braun.kohlova@czp.cuni.cz

THANK YOU FOR YOURATTENTION!