Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Krems, 05 June 2014
Measuring Economic, Ecological and other Effects
of Gardens and Parks
Project Team/Authors:
Mag. Claudia Bauer-Krösbacher PhD* Delphine Okorokoff MA Mag. Stephanie Tischler Sandra Kraushofer BA
IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems Piaristengasse 1 3500 Krems Austria, Europe T: +43 (0)2732 802 0 *E: [email protected] I: www.fh-krems.ac.at
2
T ABLE OF CONT ENT S
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 7
2 The Garden Platform of Lower Austria .................................................................... 9
3 The Variety of Open Spaces ...................................................................................13
3.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................13
3.2 Typology ..............................................................................................................14
3.3 Considerations for The Garden Platform of Lower Austria..........................16
4 Overview of Effects ...................................................................................................19
5 Economic Effects ......................................................................................................20
5.1 Sources of Economic Value .............................................................................20
5.1.1 Direct Expenditure ......................................................................................22
5.1.2 Indirect Expenditure ....................................................................................25
5.1.3 Induced Incomes .........................................................................................26
5.2 Evaluation of Economic Effects .......................................................................28
5.2.1 The Concept of Multiplier Analysis ...........................................................28
5.2.2 Input-Output Analysis .................................................................................32
5.2.3 Limitations of both Methods ......................................................................32
5.2.4 Calculation of Visitors’ Expenditures........................................................33
5.3 Monitoring Visitor Motivations and Satisfaction .............................................34
5.3.1 Visitor Surveys.............................................................................................35
5.3.2 In-Depth Interviews .....................................................................................35
5.3.3 Observations ................................................................................................36
5.3.4 Mystery Shopping .......................................................................................36
5.3.5 Further Sources and Methods ..................................................................37
5.4 Increased Neighbourhood Desirability ............................................................37
5.5 Derived Indicators for Economic Effects.........................................................38
6 Ecological and Environmental Effects ...................................................................39
6.1 Sustainability Issues and Tourism ...................................................................46
6.2 Managing Carrying Capacity ............................................................................47
6.3 Educational Aspects and Environmental Interpretation ...............................48
6.4 Derived Indicators for Ecological and Environmental Effects .....................50
7 Sociocultural and Community Effects ....................................................................51
7.1 Community ..........................................................................................................51
3
7.1.1 Social Interactions.......................................................................................51
7.1.2 Revalorisation of Neighbourhoods ...........................................................52
7.2 Culture..................................................................................................................53
7.2.1 Tangible Heritage ........................................................................................53
7.2.2 Intangible Heritage ......................................................................................54
7.3 Health ...................................................................................................................56
7.3.1 Stress Reduction .........................................................................................56
7.3.2 Further Physical and Mental Benefits ......................................................57
7.4 Education .............................................................................................................58
7.4.1 Educational Benefits for Visitors ...............................................................58
7.4.2 Educational Benefits for Residents ..........................................................60
7.4.3 Educational Benefits for Scholars ............................................................60
7.5 Overall Experience .............................................................................................61
7.5.1 Enhanced Well-Being .................................................................................61
7.5.2 Aesthetic Enjoyment ...................................................................................62
7.5.3 Spiritual Retreat...........................................................................................63
7.6 Derived Indicators for Measuring Effects .......................................................63
8 Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................................................66
List of References .............................................................................................................69
Appendices ........................................................................................................................75
Appendix I: Economic, Environmental & Social Impacts of Gardens and Parks ....76
Appendix II: Questionnaire ..............................................................................................77
4
LIST OF T ABLES
Table 1: Typology of Garden and Open Space Sites (I).............................................14
Table 2: Typology of Garden and Open Space Sites (II) ...........................................15
Table 3: Site Characteristics and Implications for the Identification of Effects .......16
Table 4: The Variety of Members of The Garden Platform Lower Austria...............17
Table 5: Overview of Sources of Direct Expenditure ..................................................22
Table 6: Different Types of Employment in Gardens and Parks ...............................27
Table 7: Visitors’ Expenditures per Person per Day....................................................33
Table 8: The Pillars of Ecological Gardening ...............................................................40
Table 9: Principles of Ecological Gardening .................................................................42
Table 10: Key Questions for Site Managers for Monitoring Effects ..........................68
Table 11: Economic, Environmental & Social Impacts of Gardens and Parks .......76
L IST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Geographical Spread of the Garden Platform Members ...........................10
Figure 2: Overview of Identified Benefits of Gardens & Parks ..................................19
Figure 3: Non-touristic Sources of Income for Gardens and Parks ..........................25
Figure 4: The Multiplier Effect of Visitor Spending at a Garden or Park ..................29
Figure 5: Derived Indicators for Economic Effects ......................................................38
Figure 6: Linking Gardens & Parks, Ecological Sustainability and Education ........48
Figure 7: Derived Indicators for Ecological and Environmental Effects ...................50
Figure 8: Heritage Benefits and Non-Use Value..........................................................54
Figure 9: Interpretation Formats in Gardens and Parks .............................................59
Figure 10: Derived Indicators for Measuring Sociocultural & Community Effects ..64
Figure 11: Toolbox for Measurement Techniques .......................................................67
5
PHOT O CREDIT S
p. 8 Sonnentor
p. 12 Retrieved on April 6th, 2014 from
http://www.gartensommerblog.at/zauberhaft-winterliche-gaerten/#comments.
p. 23 Kittenberger Erlebnisgärten
p. 24 Schloss Hof
p. 27 Kittenberger Erlebnisgärten
p. 43 Arche Noah
p. 45 Die Gartenplattform Niederösterreichs
p. 56 Die Garten Tulln
p. 57 Sonnentor
p. 58 (1) Claudia Bauer-Krösbacher (2) Parc Marie-Victorin (3) Doris Astleitner UBU Natur im Garten
p. 64 Stefan Streicher UBU Natur im Garten
p. 78 Retrieved on June 5th, 2014 from www.fotolia.at
6
1 Introduction
Gardens and parks exist in many different sizes, contexts and styles leading from small front door gardens to landscape gardens and protected areas such as national
parks. They are as diverse as their creators, as different as their geographical
contexts and as manifold as their plants. No one garden or park is the same.
Gardens and parks have been cultivated and handed down over generations. But it
is not only the facilities themselves but also the gardening knowledge that has been
passed down across many generations. Hence, gardens and parks constitute an integral part of our tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Some of them are
regarded as being of universal value to humankind since they can be found on the world heritage list just next to the pyramids of Giza and the Great Wall of China.
They “have been at the centre of human physical existence and spiritual history
since the origins of mankind on the earth” (Benfield, 2013, p. 1). Gardens and parks have become important leisure attractions and are capable of luring huge numbers
of visitors.
A number of changes in our society have led to this growing recognition and higher demand of gardens and parks in urban areas as well as in the countryside. Our
society has become more environmentally conscious with changed values and
attitudes to nature and sustainability. Gardening and “grow your own” has gained a new lease of life. People nowadays make a social statement by cultivating a garden
and they are well up to speed with the latest gardening trends reported in an ever increasing number of garden magazines and garden shows. People also place more
and more value on buying organic products. Increased urbanization has caused a
distance between people and natural space (Li et al., 2005, p. 326) with the result that they are longing for green spaces. Big efforts have been put into “greening the
city” and open space planning based on ecological principles. Examples such as Singapore (Yuen & Hien, 2005), Beijing (Li et al., 2005), Hong Kong (Tian, Jim, &
Wang, 2014), and New York show that this can be implemented. Many historic
gardens in rural areas have been rejuvenated and restored and are no longer considered as nice “add-on” but have become successful attractions in their own
right.
7
Although there is evidence that gardens and parks benefit our society in a variety of ways it is important to show how such benefits could be measured and used by
practitioners. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify and explain indicators of the benefits of gardens and parks and to present techniques for the measurement
of these benefits. While emphasis is placed on the economic contribution of gardens
and parks, ecological and social effects are also considered in this study. The study presents a toolbox that should help managers of parks and gardens (especially
small and medium sized ones) to evaluate economic and other impacts of their sites.
The report first introduces The Garden Platform of Lower Austria and provides some basic information in relation to gardens and parks including definitions and
typologies. It then deals with the economic impact of gardens and parks by
identifying relevant indicators and suggestions for their measurement. In a similar vein, thereafter, the ecological and environmental impact as well as sociocultural
and community effects are introduced and examined. The report ends with a summary of identified methods collated in a “toolbox” and some conclusions and
recommendations.
8
2 The Garden Platform of Lower Austria
Founded in 2007 “The Garden Platform of Lower Austria” is a special interest group promoting sustainable garden tourism in the province of Lower Austria. Out of the
140 show gardens of “Nature in the Garden” – an association for ecological
gardening - 38 members form “The Garden Platform of Lower Austria” each representing between 800 m2 and 2.8 km2 of garden or parkland. However, three
partners are “knowledge partners”: a university of applied sciences, a tourism college, and a gardening college. Thus, the total number of members is 41.
Membership for gardens and parks is based on the basic principles of ecological gardening defined by “Nature in the Garden” and the fulfilment of a minimum level
of product- and service quality. The Garden Platform is financed by membership
fees and receives financial support from the Province of Lower Austria through EU-based regional funds. The Platform’s activities are supported by an advisory board.
Marketing in cooperation with the Lower Austria Tourism Board was launched with the result that garden attractions have become an integral part of the regional
tourism product.
The Garden Platform of Lower Austria includes a wide variety of different types of gardens and parks spread over the entire province with the highest concentration in
the “Waldviertel” (see Figure 1). Many of them have been restored and some have
been newly created and are now successful visitor attractions. These historical, revived or newly opened sites are able to attract about 3 million visitors per year.
The majority of their visitors are on a day trip (64 %), are female (61 %), and are in the age group of 40 plus (78 %) (Zehrer, Indra, & Grabler, 2010). The main
catchment area includes Lower Austria, Vienna and adjacent provinces. However,
Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and neighbouring countries such as Slovakia and the Czech Republic are increasingly important sending destinations
(ibid.).
9
Figure 1: Geographical Spread of the Garden Platform Members
Source: The Garden Platform of Lower Austria, 2013
At the outset of The Garden Platform of Lower Austria all members agreed on a
common strategy. This strategy defined the ambitious goal of Lower Austria becoming the number one garden destination in Central Europe with a focus on
garden visitors, not only on the garden itself. Hence, considerable effort is put into continuous product development and the provision of quality experiences for
visitors. A number of concrete studies have been carried out and actions taken:
• Comprehensive quantitative visitor studies in 2008 and 2010 for a better
understanding of the visitor profile, information behaviour, motivations, visitor behaviour including expenditure, satisfaction with different services provided,
and intentions to revisit the site.
• Mystery shopping studies in 2011, 2012 and 2013 to monitor the quality of
the “Garden Summer” and its special events, and in 2013 also on the
10
products and services in general. For more information on specific quality criteria please go to section 5.3.3 in this report.
• Establishment of a voluntary benchmarking club in 2013 for those members who want to exchange quantitative outcomes of their business practices and
to learn from each other in regular meetings.
The strategic goals of consistent learning, exchange of information and the creation
of networks on a national and international level are supported by:
• An annual expert conference (International Garden Symposium) to learn from best-practices, exchange ideas and provide opportunities for
networking.
• Participation in the annual meeting of “Nature in the Garden” International.
• Organisation of excursions and garden trips for members (e.g. Chelsea
Flower Show, International Garden Exhibition Hamburg 2013).
• Development of a training course on the management of gardens from a
tourism point of view.
In terms of marketing the website www.diegaerten.at was established in 2007 and
improved in 2013 embracing the possibilities of social media such as facebook, twitter, Pinterest, and a blog. The Garden Platform of Lower Austria regularly
participates in the “Ferienmesse Vienna”, Austria’s largest tourism fair, different events staged by partners (e.g. the “Natural Garden Festivals” held at “The Garden
Tulln” and the open-air museum in Niedersulz), and the “Tourism Day” organised by
the Lower Austrian Chamber of Commerce. Outcomes of the cooperation with the Lower Austrian Tourism Board comprise participation in PR events, inclusion in a
catalogue for group programmes and the establishment of “The Lower Austria Tourism Prize”, which will be launched in summer 2014. In 2011 the new campaign
“Garden Summer” was initiated by the Garden Platform of Lower Austria together
with the Lower Austrian Tourism Board and Nature in the Garden. By 2013 this project had 67 partners including not only gardens and parks but also local hotels,
restaurants and wine taverns.
11
Special highlights are the three full-moon nights when members offer attractive programmes such as guided tours, films, readings, music performances, and
culinary delights such as barbecues and picnics. A photo competition is also part and parcel of the “Garden Summer”. About 20,000 visitors flocked to the 250
different events of the full-moon nights between June and August in 2012 (The
Garden Platform of Lower Austria, 2012).
Since gardens and parks are usually visited during the summer members of The
Garden Platform of Lower Austria try to find ways of making the winter season
attractive for visitors. Much can be seen and learned also during this period of time through, for instance, special interactive guided tours on the topic of “Information
and Inspiration in the Winter Garden” and workshops offered at the “Garden Tulln”
and the National Parks Thayatal and Donau-Auen. The gardens and parks are also promoted for hosting special events such as Christmas markets.
In 2013 members of The Garden Platform of Lower Austria came together to think about the future and to define the strategy 2020. While this is still work in progress
it became apparent that with respect to positioning members want to place emphasis on increased differentiation. This should be achieved through a strong
focus on regionality, enhanced product quality and meeting the requirements of the
three pillars of ecological, economic and socio-cultural sustainability. Further concerns include the provision of meaningful experiences and setting the wheels in
motion to create new products.
12
3 The Variety of Open Spaces
In order to analyse the impact of gardens and parks first it is essential to understand the various types of sites. This chapter provides definitions and a typology that
reflects the diversity of the field under consideration.
3.1 Definitions
The IMC University of Applied Sciences (2012, p. 6) distinguishes between gardens and parks based on the following etymologies:
• The term garden probably derives from the Gothic word garde, garda (“Gerten”)
and originally described a piece of cultivated land, which was enclosed by
fences, thus separated from the surrounding wilderness.
• The term park derives from the Latin word parricus and means an enclosed
space or enclosure. The word was already used in the Middle Ages as a parc in the sense of an animal enclosure and can be found in many languages (German:
park, Italian: parco, Spanish: parque, French: parc, English: park). Today we
define a park as a large-scale, partly wooded and enclosed green area.
It is also worth highlighting that
“what makes gardens and parks special in the European context is that they are man-made and consist of structural and organic elements. The vegetation (trees, shrubs, hedges, flowers and lawns) and artistically designed smaller structures (fountains, statues, pavilions, bridges, etc.) are part of the cultural-natural landscapes” (IMC University of Applied Sciences, 2012, p. 6).
The preponderance of cultural landscapes in Europe needs to be emphasised in a continent where human influence has been impregnating all territories − even
remote areas − for centuries. More generally, gardens and parks belong to several
categories that were identified to describe the diversity of open spaces in Europe, outlined in the following section. Although there is no universally accepted definition
for the concept of open space, it can be described as an
“area or plot of ground predominantly free of buildings in an urban region, which is sometimes protected from development by government action to provide for outdoor recreation, or, in Europe, to preserve prime agricultural land, wooded areas, exceptional views, land and water features, and to channel urban growth” (Evert, 2001, p. 228).
13
In addition to recreation benefits, openness is an important asset as such for cities to create alternations between built-up zones and viewpoints. Open spaces
therefore constitute a major focus for landscape architecture and site planning (Vroom, 2006, p. 297).
3.2 Typology
The diversity of gardens and open spaces is remarkable. In order to obtain a better
overview the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna1 and the Technical University Berlin2 developed a typology. The suggested typology consists
of six main categories and is outlined in Table 1 and Table 2 below.
Table 1: Typology of Garden and Open Space Sites (I)
Source: Krippner et al., 2012
1 Institute of Landscape Architecture – ILA 2 Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Chair of Vegetation Technology and Planting Design
1. Park, Garden
•Park •Palace and castle garden •Villa and country house garden •Residential garden •Private garden •Rooftop garden • Institutional garden •Forest park
2. Other Public Site
•Square or promenade •Memorial •Sports ground •Transport and infrastructural open space or route
3. Productive Garden
•Peasant or farmer garden •Allotment garden
14
Table 2: Typology of Garden and Open Space Sites (II)
Source: Krippner et al., 2012
The diversity of types of gardens is reflected in The Garden Platform of Lower
Austria which will be further elaborated in the next chapter.
4. Site for Exhibition and Collection
•Botanical garden •Zoological garden •Museum garden (includes open air museums) •Artist garden •Flower garden •Flower show •Archaeological park •Dendrological park •Thematic garden (e.g. Japanese garden, rockery, rosary, flower garden, tree collection (arboretum))
5. Spiritual Site
•Monastery courtyard •Mosque courtyard •Synagogue courtyard •Temple garden •Churchyard (cemetery) •Other spiritual place
6. Cultural Landscape
•Landscape designed and created intentionally by man (garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons)
•Organically evolved, relict landscape (e.g. strip mining reclamation area, industrial heritage landscape, relict traditional landscape)
•Organically evolved, continuing landscape (landscape which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time, it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time. e.g. monastic landscapes, continuing traditional landscape)
•Associative cultural landscape (e.g. holy mountains)
15
3.3 Considerations for The Garden Platform of Lower Austria
Before embarking on the identification and a detailed discussion of different effects
of gardens and parks, it is important to draw attention to the diversity of this field.
Indeed, the site’s economic, ecological and socio-cultural effects will be determined by its basic characteristics. The following Table 3 provides an overview of the
different types of sites with some major relevant distinctions.
Table 3: Site Characteristics and Implications for the Identification of Effects Example of Characteristic
Opposed Characteristic
Implication for the Identification of Effects
Garden (usually smaller in size)
Park (usually larger in size)
Different surfaces and weights/value for environmental effects
Paying attraction: Status of market resource, stated price
Free attraction: Status of non-market resource
Different methods for economic valuation (direct visitor spending versus contingent valuation method)
Stand-alone attraction Part of an attraction complex
Problematic isolation of the open space effects as such
Historical heritage Modern leisure facilities
Different visitor benefits (educational versus recreational)
Tourist-oriented Resident-oriented Focus on business versus community benefits
Source: by the authors
When applying the characteristics garden versus park and paying versus free
attraction to The Garden Platform of Lower Austria the diversity of garden types becomes immediately clear (see Table 4).
≠
16
Table 4: The Variety of Members of The Garden Platform Lower Austria
Site
Gar
den
- Par
k –
Nat
iona
l Par
k
Adm
issi
on -
Free
1 Alchemistenpark P F
2 Amethyst Welt Maissau G A 3 Archäologischer Park Carnuntum P A 4 ARCHE NOAH G A 5 Bad Vöslau Parkanlagen P F 6 Baden Kurpark und Rosarium P F 7 Bio-Kräuterlandgasthaus “anno 1920” G F 8 Das Kunstmuseum Waldviertel G A 9 DIE GARTEN TULLN G A 10 Gartenbauschule Langenlois G F 11 Gärtner Starkl G F 12 Hotel Molzbachhof G F 13 Karikaturgarten Brunn/Wald G F 14 Kittenberger Erlebnisgärten G A 15 Landesmuseum St. Pölten G F 16 LOISIUM Weinerlebniswelt G F 17 Marienschlössl Wiedendorf G A 18 Museumsdorf Niedersulz G A 19 Nationalpark Thayatal NP F 20 Naturhotel Steinschalerhof G F 21 PRASKAC DAS PFLANZENLAND G F 22 Privatschaugarten Hamilton G A 23 Privatschaugarten Köhler G A 24 Renaissanceschloss Greillenstein G F 25 Renaissanceschloss Schallaburg G F 26 Schloss Artstetten G A 27 Schloss Grafenegg P F 28 Schloss Hof G A 29 Schloss Laxenburg P A 30 Schlossinsel schlossORTH Nationalpark-Zentrum NP A 31 Sonnentor Kräuter-Sinnes-Erlebnis G F 32 Stift Altenburg G A 33 Stift Klosterneuburg G A 34 Stift Melk P/G A/F 35 Stift Seitenstetten P F 36 Stift Zwettl G F 37 Urgeschichtemuseum Niederösterreich P A 38 Wein4tler-Bauerngarten Parbus G A
Source: by the authors
17
The Garden Platform of Lower Austria includes the following different types of gardens and parks: national parks, palace gardens, monastery gardens, hotel
gardens, museum gardens, artist gardens, cottage gardens, show gardens, flower gardens, themed gardens, herb gardens, and garden centres.
The partner establishments of The Garden Platform of Lower Austria also vary in
terms of their ownership. While the majority are private businesses there are also members that are financed by the public sector (the province of Lower Austria or the
state of Austria), are under the auspices of the church, or constitute an association.
Members of the Garden Platform also differ in their size and recognition. Most of the
sites are of local importance; however, there are also a number of gardens and parks which are known nationally and internationally.
The members of the Garden Platform can be regarded as being part of the tourism
system meaning that they constitute important tourism attractions in Lower Austria. As such, they are “permanently established excursion destinations which are visited
by day visitors and tourists as well as local residents” (Askwith, 1999, p. 38). While the majority of the visitors spend a couple of hours or half a day at the gardens and
parks there are also full-day attractions.
From the above it can be concluded that The Garden Platform of Lower Austria
involves a wide range of sites, each unique by virtue of function, size, design, location, accessibility, ownership, facilities, and other variables. Therefore,
evaluating their different effects is a complex undertaking.
It is the effects and possible measurement techniques to which this report now turns.
18
4 Overview of Effects
Green space benefits communities environmentally, aesthetically, recreationally and economically (Li et al., 2005). Furthermore, Benfield (2013, p. 11) highlights that
gardens perform “different roles, exist for differing reasons and provide different
benefits”, which are described as “recreational, psychological, educational, environmental, economic and spiritual”.
Gardens and parks in their various guises constitute an important economic factor
for their regions. Although economic benefits are often given priority to justify financial investments, they cannot be isolated from other crucial effects. The raison
d’être of gardens and parks cannot be confined to economic advantage for ecological and socio-cultural factors are generally enshrined in their mission as well.
Such “soft” factors are increasingly important for the economic development of a
region since they contribute in different ways to people’s quality of life. Hence, both “hard” and “soft” factors are considered in this study.
Figure 2 below summarises the effects identified for gardens and parks. Such
spaces are considered here in parallel as natural assets, tourism attractions, and community infrastructure. In this study focus is on the positive effects of gardens
and parks and “effects” has been used synonymously with benefits.
Figure 2: Overview of Identified Benefits of Gardens & Parks
Source: by the authors
Benefits of Gardens & Parks
Economic Benefits
Other Benefits•Ecological and Environmental Benefits•Sociocultural and Community Benefits
19
5 Economic Effects
5.1 Sources of Economic Value
According to Askwith (1999, p. 35) the economic value of gardens and parks derives primarily from their following, frequently overlapping roles:
• As a ‘product’ within the wider markets of:
- Gardens and gardening, and - Tourism, leisure and recreation:
People can choose to visit a park or garden or they can spend their time
and/or money at a different type of site.
• As a ‘consumer’ of goods and services:
Whether or not a park or garden is open to visitors, its maintenance and management have a direct and secondary economic impact.
• As a ‘public’ good outside the marketplace offering non-monetary benefits –
for example cultural, aesthetic, health, educational, scientific, ecological, spiritual, and social.
• As a ‘catalyst’ in the process of local regeneration.
The economic benefits of gardens and parks occur in several ways. Some of the
most commonly cited economic benefits include:
• The generation of income for the local economy;
• The creation of employment opportunities.
Hence, for any aggregate estimates of the economic contribution of gardens and
parks it is essential to have as much information as possible on economic factors including visitors, income and expenditure, and employment (Askwith, 1999).
For measuring economic effects tourism needs to be integrated since most of the
gardens and parks under consideration are important tourist attractions. Gardens and parks are unique attributes of tourist destinations and can play a crucial role for
the image of a destination. It is exactly these (destination) images that have an
influence on the decision-making process and the behaviour of potential tourists (Jenkins, 1999). Also the level of satisfaction with the tourist experience depends
20
on images (Chon, 1992). Tourism managers are interested in the concept of image because it relates to decision-making and consequently to sales of tourist products
and services (Jenkins, 1999) generating economic value. Within this context, images are sets of beliefs, ideas and impressions that an individual or a target
segment has of a particular product or destination (Cook, Yale, & Marqua, 2010, p.
287). This image consists of three parts: cognition (sum of knowledge and believes), affect (feelings) and conation (likelihood to visit the destination in the near future)
(Cook, Yale, & Marqua, 2010, p. 287). An image of a region can be created through economic, cultural, historic and territorial factors. Likewise a garden or park can
contribute to the image of a destination or region (Brandt et al., 2002, pp. 42-3).
Qualitative methods such as focus groups and quantitative methods like surveys can be used to measure images (Jenkins, 1999) and to determine their economic
effects.
In very basic terms a tourism system comprises elements of demand or markets as well as supply. The markets are the tourists who show different motivations for
travelling whereas supply consists of the destination resource with all its attractions and services provided. Page and Dowling (2002) highlight that tourism activities are
dependent upon the concept of attractiveness meaning that without this element it
is unlikely that tourist visitation will occur. Travellers are drawn to a destination for a variety of reasons. Not only for nature based tourists but also cultural tourists a
destination’s natural surroundings and created landscapes are imperative in terms of their motivation. Gardens and parks have become significant tourist attractions
which are visited by day visitors, tourists and local residents alike. Visitors can be
classified as excursionists (same-day visitors and local residents) or overnight tourists (UNWTO, 2014). A study on visitors of The Garden Platform of Lower
Austria revealed that garden and park visitors typically do not stay overnight. The majority of visitors are day trippers or locals who mainly travel between 0 and 60
kilometres to the garden or park (Zehrer, Indra, & Grabler, 2010).
For an analysis of tourism expenditure primary and secondary data is usually required to establish (Page & Dowling, 2002, p. 154):
• Direct expenditure by visitors on goods and services consumed (e.g. hotels,
restaurants, transportation);
21
• Indirect expenditure by visitors which is often estimated by identifying how many tourism enterprises use the income derived from tourists’ spending;
• Induced impact by calculating the impact of expenditure from those employed
in tourism and the effect of the spending in the local economy.
5.1.1 Direct Expenditure
The most easily defined economic contribution from parks and gardens is that from
direct expenditure by visitors. It includes all expenditures for experiencing the site. Some of the common categories for direct expenditure are outlined in Table 5.
Table 5: Overview of Sources of Direct Expenditure Direct expenditure on-site Fees Entrance fees Admissions to specific facilities Use fees charged for use of specific objects e.g. rented equipment Location letting Opportunities (camping site) License and permit fees (similar to a use fee) Retail Catering Café Restaurant Concessions (lodging, restaurant) Education services Guided tours Training courses Hospitality Events
Source: based on Askwith, 1999, p. 36; Page and Dowling, 2008, pp. 166-167
In relation to the different types of sites considered in this study it needs to be highlighted that direct visitor spending might be quite different. First, as Askwith
(1999) argues, how much people are prepared to spend on-site depends on how much of their day the visit takes up. Part-time attractions find it harder to attract retail
spending whereas full-day attractions usually benefit from a much higher spending
per head (ibid.).
Second, not all sites may derive income from catering and retailing. This is the case particularly with smaller privately owned gardens. They usually do not offer catering
facilities or a shop. Also public parks are mostly without. However, catering and retailing have become vital to the visitor experience especially for bigger sites and
22
those which are on the tourist map. To increase visitor spending the promotion of local handicrafts and use of local agricultural produce can be useful (Page &
Dowling, 2002). Garden centres, which have become significant tourist attractions, are a special case. They draw their income mainly by selling plants but usually do
not charge entrance fees. Some of them have also come to offer catering facilities
with the effect of generating additional income.
Third, an increasingly important source of income is on the one hand the provision of educational
services and creative workshops and on the other hand accommodation. For educational services in
the form of special guided tours or audio-guides
and creative workshops such as painting or cooking courses visitors are usually charged extra.
For gardens and parks that are attached to a castle or historic house the provision of accommodation
can be a worthwhile option able to raise the value of garden and park experiences.
Fourth, an undoubtedly important source of income
is entrance fees. Many gardens could not survive
without them. However, not all of the sites under consideration charge entrance fees. National
parks, for example, usually offer open access to their visitors but may charge for other services
offered that are specific to their characteristic and
which might not be applicable to gardens. Also public parks are a specific case when it comes to
entrance fees. Public parks are not part of the market logic. They are public or collective goods and the state needs to provide for them. This means that the state
is responsible for their management and maintenance and that they can be
consumed by every one without exception. Such public goods are considered as merit goods meaning that “the facilities are socially needed even if the willingness
to pay for them in the marketplace is somewhat limited” (Fyall & Wanhill, 2005, p. 354). In simple terms this implies that everybody wants to use a park but nobody
Case Study: Kittenberger – Culinary Workshops
The Kittenberger Experience Gardens are located in northern Lower Austria. Visitors can stroll through more than 40 themed gardens covering an area of more than 30,000 m². It was the special aim of the founder Reinhard Kittenberger that the basic elements of life (earth, fire, air, water) can be experienced in the garden with all five senses. Local products and fresh and creatively prepared food are offered in the garden restaurant GLAS.HAUS. Different culinary workshops about tea, herbs etc. are regularly held. (www.kittenberger.at)
23
wants to pay for using it. Publicly owned attractions therefore “may receive all or substantial part of their funds from general taxation either directly or via grant-in-aid
for quasi-public bodies” (ibid., p. 364). In the absence of market and product price, especially for natural resources, the contingent valuation method (CVM) is
recommended. It is based on survey questions which aim to find out the willingness
to pay of the users of the concerned public good.
Governments do have to make everyday decisions on which projects to promote. Taking the diversity
of tourism expenditure into account Fyall and Wanhill (2005) argue that the most feasible method
of assessing government support is “to look at the
impact that spending by visitors to the attraction has a [sic!] local income and employment via the
multiplier process” (p. 365) (see chapter 5.2.1).
Fifth, many gardens and parks leverage festivals and events. While they are increasingly used to
raise the profile of garden tourism in general, gardens and parks try to enhance their income by
accommodating corporate functions, fairs, special
events such as full-moon nights, music performances, organic markets, and wedding
receptions. They have also become popular film locations and attractive places for photo shootings.
For staging big events a sites’ carrying capacity
needs to be thought of for not causing detrimental effects to the places and for not compromising the
visitor experience (see also chapter 6.2.). However, Askwith (ibid.) argues that limiting the number of
visitors will have ramifications for the economic contribution on both on- and off-site
expenditure. For the moment, there is undoubtedly room for growth in the total number of garden and park visitors.
Case Study: Hof Palace–Festivals and Events
The grounds of Hof Palace extend over more than 50 hectares of land in eastern Lower Austria. The ensemble of the palace, the terraced garden and the manor farm was laid out in the late 1720s as a country home and hunting lodge for Prince Eugene of Savoy. The Baroque garden was restored with the help of historical plans, old paintings and the expertise of well-versed landscape archaeologists, botanists and gardeners. Several events and festivals like concert series, the Grand Baroque Festival, Easter and Christmas Markets, Garden Days etc. are hosted in and around the Palace and the Baroque garden. Also garden workshops are offered. (www.schlosshof.at)
24
Sixth, the majority of gardens opens in March and closes in October and therefore parks as attractions face the problem of seasonality. While some have come to open
attractive programs also during the winter seasonality remains a notoriously difficult issue (ibid.). For analysing economic effects it is therefore important to take opening
days per year into consideration. Apart from tourism gardens and parks might have
other sources of income as outlined in Figure 3 below. Figure 3: Non-touristic Sources of Income for Gardens and Parks
Direct expenditure on-site Production Agriculture Horticulture Forestry
Source: Page and Dowling, 2008, pp. 165-168
Furthermore, besides spending money on-site visitors need to travel to the site and often combine the visit of a garden or park with other visits in the area. These are
considered as off-site secondary expenditure and include: travel/from the site, accommodation, catering, shopping, and other expenditure away from the
attraction. Askwith (1999, p. 46) notes the following:
“In considering the off-site expenditure generated by visitors to any individual site it should be remembered that a significant amount of such expenditure would arise whether or not that particular site had been visited. The net additional economic contribution arising from a particular site or group of sites depends on the extent to which these sites were the primary reason for the trip (and hence its associated expenditure) taking place”.
An overview of all expenditures and incomes and output is provided in Appendix I.
5.1.2 Indirect Expenditure
An analysis of the economic effects of gardens and parks cannot be limited to the direct expenditure on and off-site. While direct expenditure includes money directly
spent by visitors, indirect expenditure is created by gardens and parks because they
also need products and services from other organisations within the local economy. Indirect expenditure means economic activity generated by subsequent rounds of
expenditure. This implies that preceding industries benefit from visitor expenditure at gardens and parks. Specific forms of economic analysis, such as input-output
analysis may be used to identify the types of transactions which occur between
25
businesses to assess how indirect expenditure influences the local economy (Page & Dowling, 2008) (see section 5.2.).
5.1.3 Induced Incomes
During the direct and indirect rounds of expenditure, money will be paid to local residents in the form of wages, salaries, rent, interest, and dividends; and also to
local businesses for different services. Hence, economic benefits accrue from
gardens and parks by creating employment opportunities and thereby stimulating the development process in localities. In this sense gardens and parks provide a
positive contribution to the local economy. Page and Dowling (2002) argue that these benefits vary by locality dependent upon the nature of the attraction, access
and economy. However, they emphasize that even in remote areas small numbers
of jobs can be beneficial to the local employment base (ibid, p. 168). Moreover, they note that it is not just the number of jobs created, but the type and quality that is
important.
Gardens and parks operating as tourist attractions play a significant role in the local
economy through direct and indirect employment (Askwith, 1999). Examples for the latter are contractors for specialist tasks including gardening services (tree surgery,
topiary, spraying, pest control, pruning), structural work (repairs to buildings and
walls, fencing, JCB work, creation of lakes and ponds) and general maintenance work (mainly seasonal such as hedge cutting, lawn mowing) (ibid., 1999, p. 49).
There are now many examples where gardens and parks have been revitalized or newly built for local regeneration. Especially gardens and parks which are located
in areas of economic deprivation they can constitute an important employer and can
cause a wide range of other economic effects. The “Eden Project” in Cornwall/UK is one of the shining examples how a garden attractions can stimulate the local
economy by creation of employment.
For a calculation on the economic contribution of gardens and parks in terms of
employment the total number of jobs created is important. However, more specific
information on the number of people, as outlined in Table 6, according to their type of employment and qualification should be collected.
26
Table 6: Different Types of Employment in Gardens and Parks
Type of employment
Num
ber o
f ful
l-tim
e vs
. par
t-tim
e em
ploy
ees
Num
ber o
f ann
ual v
s. s
easo
nal e
mpl
oyee
s Garden:
Head gardener
Gardener
Volunteers
Trainees
Apprentices
(Tourism) Services:
Manager
Tour guides
Restaurant/Café
Shop
Parking area
Other service staff Source: by the authors
27
5.2 Evaluation of Economic Effects
5.2.1 The Concept of Multiplier Analysis
The concept of multiplier analysis is based on the recognition that industries of an economy are interdependent. In a tourism context this means that money visitors
spent on a tourism attraction, for example a garden or park, stimulates economic
activity in the respective community, thus creating additional business turnover, personal income, employment, and government revenue not only in the host
community but also in other precedent industries. In relation to the type of tourist expenditure, discussed in chapters 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, the economic impact can be
classified to have a direct, indirect or induced effect on a community. In order to
translate tourist expenditure data into impact information, multipliers can be calculated (Fletcher, 2008). Providing valuable estimates about regional effects of
tourism investments (Bödenhofer et al., 2009), multiplier models are often used as the basis for public sector decision making (Fletcher, 2008).
The economic contribution of gardens and parks do not only depend on how much
money flows into the region but also how much of what comes into the region stays in the region, thereby producing multiplier effects (Lindberg, 1998). This means that
so-called leakages – i.e. money spent outside the community - is not regarded as
economic gain to the community and does not influence the calculation of any multiplier. For example, if personal income is spent outside the local economy, i.e.
in another community, the economic stimulus is lost for the local economy. Consequently, the effect of indirect impact decreases with each additional,
subsequent round of spending (Bödenhofer et al., 2009). This process is shown in
Figure 4 with leakages shaded in grey. Thus, also the magnitude of multipliers depends considerably on the size of the economy chosen to investigate. Smaller
communities tend to have less interaction among their sectors than bigger ones because they are not able to offer all services and products themselves within their
communities. They have to import goods and services which results in the loss of
the economic stimulus for their community.
28
Figure 4: The Multiplier Effect of Vis itor Spending at a Garden or Park
Source: based on Crompton, 2010, p. 35
Generally, the following five different types of multipliers or economic impact can be distinguished (Fletcher, 2008):
1. The output multiplier measures the amount of additional output generated
resulting from an increase in tourist expenditure. 2. The sales (or transaction) multiplier measures the amount of additional
business revenue created as a result of an increase in tourist expenditure.
Output used for the calculation of the output multiplier represents the total level
Out-of-town visitor spending
Entrance fee Restaurant Retail / Shop Accommodation
Local interindustry purchases
Direct household
income
Local government
revenue
Non-local interindustry purchases
Non-local household
income
Non-local government
revenue
Local household purchases
Savings Non-local household purchases
All businesses
Local interindustry purchases
Secondary household
income
Local government
revenue
Non-local interindustry purchases
Non-local household
income
Non-local government
revenue
Local household purchase
Savings Non-local household purchases
INIT
IAL
INJE
CTIO
N O
F M
ONE
Y
FIRS
T RO
UND
OF
SPEN
DIN
G
(DIR
ECT)
SU
CCES
SIV
E RO
UNDS
OF
SPEN
DIN
G
(SEC
OND
ARY
)
29
of production, including products not sold. In contrast, business revenue also includes sales from inventory on stock (Fletcher, 2008). As tourism is a service-
based industry, the difference may be neglected. A sales multiplier of 1.55 means that every € 1 a tourist spends would generate € 1.55 in sales in the
economy (Crompton, 2010).
3. The income multiplier measures the amount of additional income (wages,
salaries, rent, interest, profit) created in an economy as a result of an increase in tourist expenditure (Fletcher, 2008). In order to calculate an accurate income
multiplier all potential income leakages have to be accounted for. This means
that neither savings nor income to non-locals should be included in the calculation. A personal income multiplier of 0.72 indicates that of every € 1 of
total tourist spending, € 0.72 of income accrues to residents of the respective community (Crompton, 2010).
4. The employment multiplier measures the total amount of employment
generated by an additional unit of tourist expenditure (Fletcher, 2008). Values of
different countries cannot be compared because their calculation is based on local currencies which differ in their value per unit (ibid.).
5. The government revenue multiplier measures the impact on government
revenue from all sources (sales tax, income tax) resulting from an increase of
tourist expenditure (Fletcher, 2008).
Multipliers are derived from complex input-output-tables that illustrate the
interdependencies of the various sectors of the economy or community. Therefore, multipliers for a particular community can hardly be calculated without support from
professionals (Crompton, 2010). Their complexity combined with their limitations lead to abuses in their calculation, presentation and interpretation (ibid.). Hence, the
potential pitfalls in the interpretation for the most important multipliers are explained
in detail in the following.
Although it has become commonplace for tourism projects to report economic
impact in terms of sales, Crompton (2010) suggest the application of income
30
multipliers instead. He argues that for the analysis of a park or recreation facility the impact on sales is of no interest to local residents because personal income is not
necessarily generated from sales due to imports or employment of non-residents (Crompton, 2010). However, sales multipliers tend to be considerably higher and
are therefore often reported in economic impact studies.
Employment multipliers are only appropriate for parks and recreation facilities where
a consistent flow of non-residential visitors can be expected and suggests that full-time jobs are likely to be created. However, the following issues are essential for an
accurate interpretation of an employment multiplier:
• No distinction is made between full-time and part-time jobs.
• No additional personnel will be hired in the case of short-term peaks, e.g. for
festivals or exhibitions. Rather, existing employees will be asked to work
overtime.
• Only residents will be hired for potential new jobs.
Only new money spent that is attributable to the facility or garden by non-residents
represents a positive economic impact (Crompton, 2006). Money that would have been spent in the community anyway on other goods or services does not represent
an economic stimulus to the economy (substitution effect). In particular, money spent by locals has to be looked at critically in this respect. Similarly, employees
who switch from one employment in the community to a new one should not be
included in the calculation of an employment multiplier (Crompton, 2006).
Furthermore, it is difficult to estimate the time lag when the full impact of any new spending can be recognized (Crompton, 2010). Therefore, commissioners of
economic impact studies should be aware that there may be even little impact in the short term.
Finally, an honest and accurate study should also include costs to the local
community, such as traffic congestion, garbage collection or even increased prices
to local residents for retail or rent. If the monetary evaluation of some of these impacts may be difficult or even impossible they should not be ignored but
qualitatively assessed in the respective economic impact report (Crompton, 2006).
31
5.2.2 Input-Output Analysis
The concept of input-output analysis is an analogous method used in order to evaluate the economic impact of an investment (Bodenhöfer et al., 2009). Contrary
to the multiplier concept outlined above, which is based on visitors’ expenditure, investments and current expenditures for a particular facility represent the “input”
which is multiplied with the various multipliers in order to estimate the indirect and
induced economic impact (Brandt et al., 2002; Bodenhöfer et al., 2009). However, a positive impact in terms of a high multiplier does not necessarily mean that an
investment should be made because associated opportunity cost also has to be taken into account, i.e. the benefits from another potential investment (Crompton,
2010).
5.2.3 Limitations of both Methods
Readers of economic impact studies should be aware of their limitations and the
underlying assumptions of both models introduced above. The most important ones in a tourism context are listed below:
• They are static models. This means that linear production and consumption
functions are assumed (Bodenhöfer et al., 2009, Fletcher 2008).
• Multipliers are only a snapshot of one point in time. Data of the past is only
an estimate for future performance (Fletcher, 2008).
• It is assumed that all sectors are able to meet additional demand (Fletcher, 2008).
• Changes in relative prices, for example due to increased demand, are not
taken into account (Fletcher, 2008).
• Input-output-tables providing the necessary multipliers are published only
with a considerable time lag and only on national level (Statistics Austria,
2014).
32
5.2.4 Calculation of Visitors’ Expenditures
The above mentioned methods are based on visitors’ expenditures that drive the economic impact for any community. These figures are provided most accurately by
conducting respective personal surveys at the tourist facility. An example of a suitable economic impact questionnaire is attached in Appendix III. In addition to
finding out how much money visitors spent, it is essential to distinguish which of
these expenditures represent a new economic impact (Crompton, 2010). For example, visitors for whom the visit of the facility has not been the primary reason
for coming to the community (casuals) have to be excluded in the calculation. Similarly, if the study is conducted in order to evaluate the economic impact of an
event, spending of visitors who have been planning the visit for some time and the
visit coincided with the event (time-switchers) should not be attributed to the event (Crompton, 2010).
Tourist expenditures themselves provide valuable information to start with, even
without being translated into multipliers or an input-output-analysis. Table 7 illustrates how relevant visitors’ expenditures can be derived and used in order to
compare facilities within a region. The comparison of several Texas States Parks shown in Table 7 suggests that economic impact is related to both, visitor numbers
and visitors’ expenditures. Even parks with low expenditures per day can contribute
a substantial economic effect to a community if they attract large numbers of visitors. Although this reasoning may not be surprising, it might be useful to translate it into
monetary values at least once.
Table 7: Vis itors ’ Expenditures per Person per Day Park Total
number of visitors
Locals Casuals / Time-switchers
Non-local visitors
Non-local per person per day expenditure
Total amount expenditures of non-local visitors # % # % # %
Bastrop 233,452 26,196 11% 39,294 17% 167,962 72% $7.60 $1,276,512 Bentsen-Rio Grande
45,296 17,735 39% 9,347 21% 18,214 40% $45.88 $835,670
Brazos Bend
426,414 65,046 15% 43,364 10% 318,004 75% $4.19 $1,332,435
Source: based on Crompton, 2010, p. 57
33
5.3 Monitoring Visitor Motivations and Satisfaction
Satisfaction of visitors with the garden and park experience is essential to the long-
term viability of the sites. High levels of satisfaction cause positive word of mouth and revisitation of the site. For the provision of quality experiences gardens and
parks need to understand the different motivations and expectations of their visitors.
People come to visit parks and gardens for different reasons and knowing their needs and desires is essential for meeting and exceeding their expectations.
“Tourism is a fickle industry” (Page & Dowling, 2002, p. 151) and the motivations for tourists to visit specific destinations are complex and constantly changing.
Therefore, the tourists’ motivations and their ever changing expectations of society
need to be constantly monitored through lenses with a much broader perspective.
A wide variety of factors motivating garden visitation has been identified. These
motives include appreciation of the aesthetic and rare qualities of plants, interest in garden design and landscaping techniques, admiration of gardens’ scenery, and
pleasure in being outdoors (Connell & Meyer, 2004). Furthermore peace and tranquillity (Bennett & Swasey, 1996, as cited in Ballantyne, Packer, & Hughes,
2007) and recreation, inspiration, playing games, social interaction and the
opportunity to relax (ibid.) have been identified as motivators to visit gardens. In addition, the increasing popularity of garden visiting is due to the fact that a growing
number of people participate in gardening as a leisure pursuit (Connell, 2004, 2005). According to Ballantyne, Packer and Hughes (2007) garden visitors are less
interested in and committed to conservation issues, and less motivated to learn,
than visitors to other free-choice learning settings such (e.g. museums, zoos, aquariums, heritage sites, natural areas and wildlife tourism activities). The top five
motivations of visitors to The Garden Platform of Lower Austria include the following (Zehrer, Indra, & Grabler, 2010):
• excursions with friends and relatives;
• enjoying nature;
• recreation;
• general interest in gardens and parks;
• discover something new.
34
Visitors also want to get ideas for their own gardens and come to visit the gardens because they are interested in arts and culture.
Motivation to visit public gardens might be different, also the frequency of visitation. People living nearby a public park (often in urban areas) visit a park on a daily basis
and see it as a place for recreation in the first place.
Most gardens and parks are dependent on expenditures of their visitors. Askwith (1999, p. 44) emphasises that “the most successful approach is to pay greater
attention (and money if necessary), to all aspects of the visitor experience, as this still has a net benefit through increased sales”. Gardens and parks need to provide
quality experiences which result in high visitor satisfaction and leave behind a
memory. For the measurement of visitor satisfaction and experience levels a number of quantitative and qualitative methods can be applied which are explained
below.
5.3.1 Visitor Surveys
Surveys are the most prevalent form of quantitative research. Conducting a survey
includes the administration and collection of questionnaires. The aim of a survey is to provide representative results for the entire population and demands careful
sampling, questionnaire design and data analysis. Different elements have to be
considered before conducting a visitor survey: format of the instrument (pen and paper, online, electronic pad or telephone), form of the questions (category, rating,
ranking, list, open-ended or closed questions), sequence and number of questions, and survey length. The main advantage of such a survey is the ability to easily
collect a large amount of data (Mayo, 2014, pp. 105-6). Visitor surveys can be
conducted as on-site surveys, that can be either self-completed or interviewer-completed (Jennings, 2009, p. 242).
5.3.2 In-Depth Interviews
An in-depth interview is a one-to-one conversation, where no standardized questionnaire is used. These interviews are usually carried out face to face and
recorded for subsequent analysis (Bradley, 2013, p. 238). The interviewer has the
idea about themes and issues but should not dominate the conversation, as the purpose is to elicit the views of the interviewee (Jennings, 2010, pp. 172-3). In-depth
35
interviews tend to be much longer than questionnaire-based interviews and it is used if a topic is to be explored at a preliminary stage and if it is expected that the
information obtained varies considerably from each subject (Veal, 2006, pp. 198-9). This method permits to obtain detailed information and allows the interviewer to
encourage more conversation, check information that is unclear and to observe
nonverbal behaviour. In-depth interviews require profound interviewing skills and detailed preparation. The analysis requires transcription and coding in order to
conduct thorough analysis which can be very time-consuming (Mayo, 2014, p. 154). This method can be used to analyse visitor experience and enjoyment. Furthermore
it can be applied to examine consumer behaviour (motives, attitudes etc.).
5.3.3 Observations
Observational research techniques are used to identify and count or measure actual (customer) behaviour and actions (Mayo, 2014, p. 191). In addition, it can be used
for studying the way people make use of a site, which is particularly important in relation to the design and layout of leisure spaces and their capacity (Veal, 2006, p.
175). In observations there is no reporting bias, and potential bias caused by the interviewer and the interviewing process is eliminated or reduced. It is best to view
observation as a complement to survey methods (Malhotra, 2010, p. 237). The
results can be used as a management/design tool to influence the pattern of use of a site (Veal, 2006, p. 175).
5.3.4 Mystery Shopping
Mystery shopping as a special form of observation tries to provide objective information about what is happening, so that it can be used as a diagnostic tool.
Mystery shopping is sometimes referred to as consumer or incognito testing (Veal,
2006, p. 180). A mystery shopper/incognito observer is required to make use of facilities or services, armed with a checklist of features to observe, such as
cleanliness, information availability and clarity and staff performance (Veal, 2006, p. 180). This can help to motivate staff to do well in their performance and allows a
comparison to the competition or to industry benchmarks (Mayo, 2014, p. 196).
Such an approach draws on the expertise of the observer to assess quality of services and to record details (Veal, 2006, p. 180). The Garden Platform of Lower
36
Austria uses mystery checks on a regular basis in order to monitor the fulfilment of quality criteria set out for their members. These checks combine mystery shopping,
mystery mailing and mystery calling. Several criteria (inquiry, information, first impression, infrastructure, staff performance etc.) are tested and weighted resulting
in the degree of fulfilment and the gap towards excellence (Con.os, 2011).
5.3.5 Further Sources and Methods
Further sources to collect information on visitors’ motivation and satisfaction and to analyse visitor feedback include the following:
• Visitor books: constitute the simplest form of getting visitor feedback and
are applicable to any site.
• Social media (blogs, facebook, Twitter, Pinterest): can be used to gain
insights and information about audience views and their experiences.
Feedback systems in their various forms are an important tool for managing the
quality of the visitor experience. They provide information about what visitors liked and disliked and how satisfied they were with their visit (IMC University of Applied
Sciences Krems, 2013a).
5.4 Increased Neighbourhood Desirability
Gardens and parks are seen as an essential strategy for quality of life (Li et al., 2005). Especially in urban areas they provide open space close to residential areas
and offer places for recreation (ibid.). There are generally two types of benefits: “on-
site benefits that accrue to those directly using the park, and off-site or external benefits that accrue to people outside the park” (More, Stevens, & Allen, 1988, p.
140). Individuals who live near a park may receive both on-site and external benefits. Hence, it doesn’t come as a surprise that gardens and parks can have a
significant impact on prices of nearby property. A house close to a park usually sells
for more than a comparable house farther away. Location rents and indices can be used to estimate a value for the park. However, it needs to be emphasized that
effects of parks on property values vary according to park attributes such as size, facilities, aesthetic quality, etc. (ibid.). Also the number of new settlements and
change in population near a park or garden can reveal important information.
37
5.5 Derived Indicators for Economic Effects
From the discussion on economic effects the following indicators can be deduced
(see Figure 5).
Figure 5: Derived Indicators for Economic Effects
Source: by the authors
Visitor volume and type of visitor
• Number of day visitors• Number of tourists (incl. overnight stay)
Direct spending from the visitors on the site (site-based revenue)
• Entrance fee • Shop • Food & beverage services • Further ancillary services offered by the site (events, own production, etc.)
Visitor satisfaction with the garden/park experience
Number of employees directly contracted by the site
• From the city• From the region• Full-time, part-time• In total
Number of residents employed in related/precedent industries
Indirect contribution of the visitors to the site to the local economy
• Transportation • Accommodation • Food & beverage• Further consumption of goods and services (if applicable)
Creation of value in the region
• Indirectly related businesses: number of suppliers and sub-contracted external staff• Diversification of the economic base of the area, reducing reliance on the traditional industries for small medium and micro enterprises
• New opportunities for small businesses to develop in the area• Increase in the total number of businesses in an area/region• Household income levels• Tax revenues
Increased neighbourhood desirability
• Increase in demand for housing and other services• Impact on the house prices in the area• Dynamism of the real estate market in the area
38
6 Ecological and Environmental Effects
The decline in the diversity of plant and animal species as well as habitats warns us of a glaring imbalance on our planet earth. Large parts of European landscapes are
almost devoid of ecological structures due to rationalization in farming, enlargement
of plots, climate change and optimization of cultivation techniques solely with a view to achieving the highest yields possible (EuroNatur, Abl, & BfN, 2010). The decline
of bees and other wild insects which no longer find sufficient habitats and food is only one example of the consequences we have to face (ibid.).
In Europe in general and in Lower Austria in particular, there has been a growing
recognition among politicians, community groups and other gate keepers that an ecological cultivation of gardens and parks is of significance to both urban and rural
sustainable development. Under the auspices of “Nature in the Garden”, The
Garden Platform of Lower Austria has successfully shown how green or open space
planning based on ecological principles can be implemented to achieve long-term sustainability. By taking ecological responsibility the community of Lower Austria
shows high respect to the environment reflecting the growing concern for
conservation and the well-being of our environment within the wider public. Peoples’ commitment to ecological gardening can therefore be seen as making a value
statement towards environmental quality and intergenerational equity.
The foundations for the initiative of “Nature in the Garden” were already laid in 1997
with the aim of raising environmental awareness by highlighting the importance and
advantages of environmentally sensitive cultivation of gardens and green spaces. Within the EU Life Project starting in 1999 this idea was further developed by taking
the following first important steps: introduction of a garden guidebook to acquire subscribers, launch of a free garden-telephone to answer important questions
surrounding ecological gardening, and establishment of in situ consulting. These
first steps and structures have gradually been turned into a detailed concept. Results of studies within an EU-Life Project conducted in 2001 have shown
disappointing figures regarding of the use of pesticides also in Lower Austria with worrying detrimental effects on humans and animals. So it was clear that Lower
Austria wants to find a way to convince its community of ecological gardening and
the initiative “Nature in the Garden” was finally established. The “Nature in the
39
Garden” philosophy combines old garden knowledge, current expert knowledge regarding ecological gardening and a new garden lifestyle which has been able to
establish a movement that has already crossed local borders (Brocks, 2012).
Ecology regards the environment as a complex system of plants, animals, and
microorganism communities and the non-living environment which regulates itself
through interaction, feedback and dependencies. It is a functional unit. Humans are an integral part of ecosystems. “Ecosystems vary enormously in size; a temporary
pond in a tree hollow and an ocean basin can both be ecosystems” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, p. 3). Natural ecosystems are normally in an
ecological balance and are stable. Interventions in such a system lead to
imbalances with the effect that self-regulation of the ecosystem is hampered or does not work any longer.
The pillars of ecological gardening - often referred to as biological and organic gardening or horticulture, farming or bio-gardening – include five actions which can
be described as shown in Table 8 below:
Table 8: The Pillars of Ecological Gardening
Source: by the authors
While biodiversity, promotion of soil fertility and provision of employment are discussed in further detail, low energy use and reduced production of greenhouse
gases are beyond the scope of this study.
Colwell (2009, p. 257) suggests that biodiversity encompasses “the variety of life, at
all levels of organization, classified both by evolutionary (phylogenetic) and
Maintenance of biodiversity
Promotion of soil fertility
Low energy use
Reduced production of greenhouse gases
Provision of employment in rural areas
40
ecological (functional) criteria”. He goes on to argue that the level of biological populations and genetic variation among individual organisms and among lineages
contributes to biodiversity. However, the term biodiversity is most often applied with regards to species. Species richness is “the number of species of a particular taxon
(e.g., birds or grasses) or life form (e.g., trees or plankton) that characterize a
particular biological community, habitat, or ecosystem type” (Colwell, 2009, p. 258). The measurement of species richness is a very complex process for which experts
need to be consulted. Colwell (2009) suggests that a “species richness must generally be estimated based on samples” (p. 259). Looking at species richness
constitutes the simplest measure of species diversity, however, “a good case can
be made for giving some weight to evenness as well” (ibid. p. 260). Therefore, depending on the aim and issue at hand, the complexity of the applied method can
vary. While scientific investigations require advanced methods, for raising awareness and ecological education “citizen science” might be more appropriate.
The latter engages lay persons in monitoring processes. Some situations may
require a combination of both.
“A fertile soil provides essential nutrients for (…) plant growth, supports a diverse
and active biotic community, exhibits a typical soil structure, and allows for an undisturbed decomposition” (Mäder et al., 2002, p. 1694). Hence, the three main
components of soil fertility are physical, chemical and biological and the interaction
of these determine soil fertility (Soilhealth, 2014a). Methods for the assessment of soil fertility include different expert analyses relating to these components such as
(Soilhealth, 2014b):
• soil texture, soil structure and water holding capacity (physical);
• acidity, alkalinity, salinity and nutrient status (chemical);
• plant pathogens or beneficial organisms using bioessays, number or activity of groups of organisms that perform similar functions, etc. (biological)3.
Table 9 outlines important principles of ecological gardening as defined by “Nature in the Garden” which will be further discussed below.
3 Generally more difficult to measure than the other two components. It is suggested to consult specific expert literature for this.
41
Table 9: Principles of Ecological Gardening
Source: based on Natur im Garten, 2003
The concept of ecological gardening suggests maintaining or enhancing soil fertility
and fighting erosion. A healthy ground is the prerequisite for the health and growth of plants, without the use of synthetic chemical products like fertilizers, pesticides,
and antibiotics. Ecological gardening starts with non-destructive, careful and natural soil cultivation. In order to preserve a fertile and active soil the ground is loosened
and nutrients and organic substance lost through harvests are given back using
composting. Year-round vegetative ground cover in the form of mulching is applied for both ground protection and for achieving consistent ground conditions.
However, the right choice of plants is just as important meaning that they should be suitable for the location and more local and robust varieties should be given priority.
Only when taking into consideration that each plant demands particular conditions
regarding soil and climate (sun versus shade, wet versus dry, chalky/limy versus acid) they can grow strong and healthy.
Ecological gardening also includes crop rotation and mixed crops. Crop rotation requires a planned sequence of different plants (with high, medium or low nutrient
demands) on the same ground. It protects the soil from exhaustion of nutrients and prevents plant diseases and pests from one year to the next. Mixed crops also
support a healthy growth of the plants. Different plants protect each other from
diseases and pests and support each other in their growth. The following general rule applies: The greater the variety of plants the greater the effect. Therefore, plants
might be arranged and regulated differently than in formal gardens. It is diversity
(1) Promotion of a healthy soil
•Mulching and composting•Versatile crop rotation/mixed crops
(2) Right choice of plants (suitability for location, robust varieties)
(3) Organic fertilization (teas, brews)
(4) Promotion of beneficial organisms and insects
(5) Tolerance, observation and learning
42
and natural growth which are characteristics of ecological gardens. They are usually more colourfully arranged and follow the principle to accompany rather than control.
Ecological gardening works with organic fertilizers such as compost, teas and brews and abstains from chemical pesticides, chemical fertilizers and turf (peat). Plant
protection includes all measures to create optimal living conditions for plants and
support plant health. This involves first a number of preventive measures and only secondly combating diseases and pests.
Preventive measures include for example the selection of site-appropriate and resistant plants,
appropriate tilling and plant hygiene, suitable plant
combinations/‘neighbours’ and rotation systems, and the use of plant strengthening means. At all
times such measures need to be environmentally friendly doing no harm to aquatic organisms,
earthworms, bees, beneficial organisms, birds, and
other animals.
The promotion of beneficial organisms and insects
involves understanding the needs of organisms and plants in order to create suitable habitats. Beneficial
organisms contribute significantly to the regulation
of harmful pests and their propagation and are therefore indispensable for ecological gardening.
The aim of ecological gardening is not to achieve a bountiful harvest, as with agriculture. Therefore
tolerance, observation and learning are required.
Not every plant disease needs an immediate counteraction.
While techniques to measure biodiversity and soil fertility have been outlined above the measurement of economic effects of ecological gardening remains to be
addressed. Studies on organic agriculture offer convincing evidence that the change
can be a lucrative one in the long run (e.g. Delbridge et al., 2011). However, scientific studies do not yet exist for gardens and parks that are visitor attractions.
Case Study: Noah’s Arch – Biodiversity & Seed Policy
The aim of the ARCHE NOAH initiative is to protect biodiversity of species and varieties. The ARCHE NOAH seed bank is one of Europe’s biggest private collection of cultural plants, maintaining over 6,000 varieties of rare vegetables and grains. ARCHE NOAH’s garden is located in the valley of the River Kamp, in a small town called Schiltern. This garden attracts more than 30,000 visitors per year and presents a huge diversity of species and varieties to gardeners, farmers, shoppers, children and those looking for a relaxing day out. Also educational guided tours are offered. ( www.arche-noah.at)
43
Economic effects of ecological gardening need to be discussed against the backdrop of the particular “ethos” that guides garden design and maintenance.
Since no studies exist that clearly show how much ecological gardening costs, or what costs can be saved in the long run, it is time for the gardens and parks to collect
primary data. Data should be gathered on the following, sometimes overlapping
areas:
• Garden design
o Cost of non-organic plants vs. organic plants; o Cost of plants, materials and services of local vs. international suppliers;
o Cost of certified eco-friendly materials;
o Cost of particular ecological garden elements that require specialists’ expertise in their construction (e.g. dry stone walls, humid and arid habitats,
‘near to nature’ children’s play grounds, creating meadows, roof greening, utilisation of rain water, crushed stone surfaces, feeding grounds etc.);
o Information signs that explain the ecological importance of these areas.
• Maintenance o Costs of chemical fertilizers vs. costs of organic fertilizers (savings made by
not using chemical fertilizers);
o Costs of number of man days required to maintain the garden non-organically vs. costs of number of man days required now to maintain the
garden organically; o Costs of equipment needed for non-organic maintenance vs. costs of
equipment needed for organic maintenance.
As with economic valuation of natural resources, the challenge for gardens and parks is to find ways “to measure benefits that do not enter markets and so have no
directly observable monetary benefit” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, p. 130). Such effects and measurement techniques are discussed below in relation to
raising awareness and environmental education in section 6.3. and in section 7 later on in this report. However, ecological garden design and maintenance and the
communication of their benefits can have positive economic effects on the
restaurant and the shop (e.g. revenues through sale of organic and regional products after raising awareness for them during the visit to the garden).
44
Furthermore, it can stimulate regional economic value creation by supporting regional providers.
45
6.1 Sustainability Issues and Tourism
Tourism and the natural environment have a somewhat uneasy relationship (e.g. by
Page and Dowling, 2002). In tandem with the development of mass tourism a growing demand for nature based forms of tourism have been observed. In fact our
natural environment is harmed by tourism; however, there is “potential that the two
can work together in a symbiotic manner where each adds to the other” (Page & Dowling, 2002, p. 1). The environment-tourism relationship is increasingly
discussed against the background of the sustainable use of natural resources laid down as principles and guidelines by the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN) and
the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). The Bruntland
Report (United Nations, 1987) defined sustainability to be “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs”. These identified needs were to (Fletcher, 2005, p. 261):
• take an holistic approach to planning and strategy;
• protect the environment (biodiversity) and man-made heritage;
• preserve the essential ecological processes;
• facilitate and engage public participation;
• ensure that productivity can be sustained into the long-term future; and
• provide for a better level of fairness and opportunity between different countries.
Sustainability is connected with economic activity and social responsibility as it
involves a long-term perspective rather than short-term profit. It requires the wise use of resources, sound planning and the cooperation of both tourism providers and
consumers alike. A sustainable approach also improves the welfare of the local people.
46
6.2 Managing Carrying Capacity
Gardens and parks, more than any other heritage attraction, are fragile (Askwith,
1999).
“They cannot support infinite numbers of visitors and all sites have a maximum visitor capacity beyond which either the wear and tear effects of thousands of feed and/or the sheer numbers of visitors prevent the peaceful, contemplative pleasures which are for many the essence of garden visiting” (Askwith, 1999, p. 53).
Carrying capacity has been defined as the maximum number of people who can use
a site without an unacceptable alteration in the physical environment and without an unacceptable decline in the quality of experience gained by visitors (Mathieson &
Wall, 1982). To ensure that economic goals are not achieved at the expense of ecological stability, carrying capacity of gardens and parks needs to be addressed.
For gardens and parks carrying capacity implies the extent to which the site is aware
of and manages its capacity thresholds within its ecosystems. However, exceeding a sites’ carrying capacity means that not only the ecosystem and the quality of the
resource is at risk of being impaired, but also the visitor experience. Ultimately this balance has an economic impact.
In order to determine the level of carrying capacity the following factors need to be
taken into account (Fletcher, 2005, p. 268):
• the average length of stay;
• the characteristics of the tourists and hosts;
• the geographical concentration of tourists;
• the degree of seasonality;
• the types of tourism activity;
• the accessibility of specific sites;
• the level of infrastructure use and its spare capacity;
• the extent of spare capacity among the various productive sectors of the
economy.
47
6.3 Educational Aspects and Environmental Interpretation
Although all tourism should be sustainable, ecotourism can be regarded as being
an ecologically responsible form of tourism. It provides a viable economic alternative to exploitation of the environment (Page & Dowling, 2003). However, the central
idea of ecotourism does not only involve an ecologically sustainable management
but also education and interpretation of the environment. Ecotourism recognises that the natural environment includes cultural components (ibid., p. 58). As such,
the idea of ecotourism can also applied for gardens and parks since cultural components can not only be found in natural resources, but even more so in created
environments. Gardens and parks are creative expressions of a people in a
particular context and therefore constitute important cultural assets.
The educational element is imperative for ecologically cultivated gardens and parks
since a better knowledge fosters understanding, awareness and appreciation of these cultural resources (see
Figure 6). Ultimately, interpretation improves the quality of the visitor experience. If
the message is communicated well it can cause inspired visitors who return home with the motivation of creating or enhancing their own garden in an ecological way.
Education is discussed in more depth in section 7.4 in this report.
Figure 6: Linking Gardens & Parks, Ecological Sustainability and Education
Source: by the authors
Gardens & Parks
Ecological Sustainability
Environmental Education
48
It needs to be highlighted that raising awareness is the starting point to anchor issues in a consumers’ consciousness. The subsequent changes in consumer
behaviour are important factors that drive a market, e.g. the agrofood market (Azzurra & Paola, 2009; Tsakiridou et al., 2008). This means that educational and
awareness raising activities can ultimately lead to a change in consumer behaviour
with respect to quality orientation and to increased willingness to pay for ecologically cultivated gardens and parks and their organic products. This should be supported
by clearly communicating the “theme” of the garden. If visitors are not aware that the garden or park is cultivated in an ecological way it has clearly failed not only in
its mission to raise awareness but also to communicate the fundamental experience.
Gardens and visitors are not separate from one another – one interacts with the other and gives meaning and purpose to it (Hudson, 1999). The organic idea also
needs to be reflected in all elements of the garden experience including catering and shopping. A shop or market where certified local products, endemic plants and
organic herbs are offered can help to achieve this. Shops can provide visitors with
additional information about the plants and garden and have something to take home as a souvenir. Also the restaurant or café should go along with the overall
theme of the attraction by offering organic food and drinks. The continuing fierce competition among cultural and environmental attractions requires a clear
positioning in the market. What differentiates ecologically cultivated gardens and
parks from their non-ecological counterparts is their design and maintenance and ultimately their mission to educate people about our environment.
Finally, to find out people’s experiences of the site and if the visit to the ecological garden or park has changed their environmental consciousness and behaviour can
only be found out by conducting visitor studies. In its simplest form visitors can be
interviewed or asked to complete a questionnaire immediately after their visit. However, a clearer picture can be gained through the application of longitudinal
studies. This means that visitors should be asked about any changes in attitude and behaviour within a few weeks or months after their visit and this should be repeated
again a few months later.
49
6.4 Derived Indicators for Ecological and Environmental Effects
From the discussion on ecological and environmental effects the following indicators
can be deduced (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Derived Indicators for Ecological and Environmental Effects
Source: by the authors
Improvement of biodiversity and wildlife habitat
Improvement of soil quality
Costs of garden design and maintenance of ecological vs. non-ecological gardens
Raising awareness and supporting a better understanding of the natural assets and related conservation issues
Working within carrying capacity
Atmospheric CO2 reduction; production of oxygen; air quality improvement; Water retention; storm water runoff mitigation; increased infiltration reducing the intensity of flooding, water purification, wind and noise filtering, absorption of vehicles and industrial pollution, micro-and urban climate stabilisation.
50
7 Sociocultural and Community Effects
Gardens and parks are delightful environments for open-air activities which attract local residents and tourists alike. The enjoyment of a visit originates from the floral
exhibits that provide the visitors with a pleasant multisensory stimulation. These
sites are also ideal settings for resting and socialising (Benfield, 2013). Such benefits cannot be overlooked and draw attention to the sociocultural and
community perspective. It is crucial for obtaining a holistic assessment of the contribution of gardens and parks to the territory they are part of. As nonmaterial
benefits, it is however axiomatic that these soft factors (such as spiritual enrichment,
cognitive development or aesthetic experiences) in opposition to hard factors (such as the economic outputs, e.g. jobs created, funds invested, etc.) are not easily
quantified (Askwith, 1999; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
In the following, distinct themes have been identified to characterise sociocultural
benefits more specifically. They are reviewed according to several perspectives: community, culture, health, education and the overall garden and park experience.
7.1 Community
As the principles of sociocultural sustainability require an appropriate return to the
local community, it is crucial that residents can benefit from the attraction’s activity, namely the proximity of gardens and parks (Page & Dowling, 2002; Roberts & Tribe,
2008). This is particularly significant in the case of state-funded or subsidised sites
where community service provision plays a key role (Sydney Urban Parks Education & Research Group, 2001).
7.1.1 Social Interactions
Gardens and parks provide the community with leisure facilities and infrastructure. Wedge (2010) highlights the link between an increasing urbanisation and the
shortage of spaces for social gatherings. Children or adults, friends, extended
families and community groups tend to use the streets and roads for their common activities (social or recreational). In this context, green open spaces offer a safe
alternative for picnicking, playing sports and other forms of social gathering. They increasingly appreciate natural settings for their leisure time and generate a rising
51
demand for such experiences. The issue of authorising the use of the sites’ lawns is therefore crucial to enable social interactions, i.e. by offering picnic areas
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Wedge, 2010).
Gardens and parks can facilitate the development of social ties, family bonding, and child development for all social classes (Bongartz, 2012; Malek, Mariapan, & Shariff,
2012). This is due not only to their status as open spaces but also to the positive
effects of vegetation on individual behaviours (Coley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2007; Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sulllivan, 1998). Outdoor open spaces particularly suit visitors and
users with special needs such as children or elderly people, who can find opportunities for activity there (Sydney Urban Parks Education & Research Group,
2001).
In addition, gardens and parks can generate further potential for the local community. Residents can, for example, get involved in the provision of knowledge,
services, facilities and products. The possibility of volunteering can also stimulate social enterprising and public initiatives (Bendt, Barthel, & Colding, 2013; Page &
Dowling, 2002).
7.1.2 Revalorisation of Neighbourhoods
As indicated in the analysis of the economic effects, the proximity of gardens and
parks is essential for the valorisation of a neighbourhood. Besides the real estate
dynamics, green open spaces can enable the repopulation of an area, depending on the scope of their activity as for all tourism attractions. Indeed, new employment
opportunities can attract young people and change makers that will help to renew the identity of the revitalised area. More generally, the implementation of a
successful tourism attraction enables “a broadened community outlook”
encouraging new ideas and exchanges between people (Tourism Victoria, 2010, para. 8-10).
More specifically, in socially deprived neighbourhoods, green spaces can play a considerable role regarding security issues. For instance, Kuo and Sullivan (2001)
report that nearby trees and grass visible from private residences augment the
inhabitants’ abilities to cope with life challenges and decrease the number of intra-familial aggressions. In this study fewer incivilities, a lower level of fear and a
52
reduction in aggression and violence were reported by the residents of green neighbourhoods (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001).
Generally speaking, the connection between a local identity and its garden or park was highlighted by several studies referring to an “improved community spirit”
(Askwith, 1999, p. 63), “experiences which give the visitor a feeling of belonging and
identity” (Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003, p. 39) and a stronger “sense of place” (Wedge, 2010, p. 3). In a case study on a botanic garden Wedge (2010) found out that
residents ascribe a symbolic meaning to the physical spaces where they live. This is particularly true for those of whom the garden carries personal memories
(childhood activities, romantic encounters, etc.), confirming once again the crucial
role of gardens and parks as a space for interactions (Wedge, 2010).
7.2 Culture
Gardens and parks can encourage the reconsideration of culture by supporting at
the same time the enhancement of the tangible (i.e. built) heritage, as well as the
vitality of the intangible heritage (i.e. living cultures).
7.2.1 Tangible Heritage
Gardens and parks are important components of our cultural heritage. Their
historical and heritage value often originates from characteristics reflecting different epochs and styles. They also illustrate the evolution of gardening methods and
garden design. As visitors and users are interested in the cultural and historic value of a site, the awareness of these assets must be increased. They can even be
revitalised to contribute to the promotion of a city as a tourism destination (Kim,
Uysal, & Sirgy, 2013; Wedge, 2010).
In addition to raising awareness, gardens and parks can contribute to preserving the
local physical heritage. This is a key mission of these sites as human societies value the continuity of their resources irrespective of whether they exist in the form of
landscapes or species (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). It is however
worth noticing that individuals can take advantage of this conservation value directly in the present or from the perspective of future generations. In this respect, Powe
and Willis (1996) argue that heritage benefits do not only rely on its use-value, such
53
as recreation or education but also on its non-use value. As presented in the Figure 8 below, the latter includes potential interests of non-visitors, who may still
appreciate having the option of visiting the site whenever they wish in the present, to see it maintained for the next generation, or generally preserved for its quality as
a heritage site.
Figure 8: Heritage Benefits and Non-Use Value
Source: modified after Powe & Willis, 1996, p. 261
The same approach can be applied to gardens and parks. As a result, emphasis can be put on preservation benefits; whether they may be actually enjoyed in the
future or in the present, on a personal or community level (Askwith, 1999, p. 64).
7.2.2 Intangible Heritage
With the valorisation of a physical heritage asset, several components of living cultures can be stimulated. First, an enhanced community pride can be observed,
especially if the garden or park attracts visitors and tourists at the regional, national and even international levels. This is closely related to the identity of the community
which is shaped by the symbolic relation to its environment − as mentioned earlier
in relation to the concept of “sense of place” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Tourism Victoria, 2010).
Ecosystems constitute a rich source of inspiration for living cultures such as art, folklore, national symbols, architecture, and advertising (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005). However, attention should be paid to the mediation between
the site, the local culture and the visitors. This means that gardens and parks should
54
provide enough information to ensure that visitors understand and appreciate local customs, history and culture (Roberts & Tribe, 2008).
If well nurtured, this phenomenon can lead to the revival of community celebrations and cultural activities. The dynamics generated by enhanced tourism activity can
also broaden the range of local cultural offerings which are redesigned for tourists
(Kim, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2013; Tourism Victoria, 2010). Open spaces and cultural landscapes, gardens and parks are well positioned to host such manifestations of a
revived living culture.
Finally, gardens and parks can help to promote cultural diversity by providing
opportunities for residents to interact with other people and, if visitors are attracted
from far away, with different lifestyles and cultures. Nevertheless, equal access to the site amongst tourists and visitors has to be ensured in order to obtain such a
benefit. From a broader perspective, the diversity of ecosystems is regarded as an essential condition for cultural diversity (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005;
Roberts & Tribe, 2008; Tourism Victoria, 2010).
In practice tangible and intangible heritage cannot be separated and are usually regarded as a whole. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind the concept of cultural
landscapes, which “are at the interface between nature and culture, tangible and intangible heritage, biological and cultural diversity” (Schaich, Bieling, & Plieninger,
2010, p. 271). Cultural benefits are closely connected to environmental benefits as
described in the previous chapter.
55
7.3 Health
Health benefits of parks and gardens can be physical or mental (Askwith, 1999, p.
63; Benfield, 2013). As it can be problematic to distinguish between both perspectives, the following sections will review first the topic of stress reduction
which has drawn significant academic interest and secondly, further health benefits.
7.3.1 Stress Reduction
A substantial body of work has explored the positive impact of greenery and green
spaces on the level of stress perceived by human beings. Gardens are often
considered as a restorative antidote to urban stress and a space for psychological stabilisation. This is especially true in urban settings where green spaces interrupt
the monotonous continuity of a greyish concrete which is in most cases perceived negatively. Parks, squares, gardens, and green open spaces occupy a crucial urban
function: to allow inhabitants to take a breath of fresh air and let the steam off from
the stress and the pressure of the city (Benfield, 2013; Origet du Cluzeau, 2011).
A study by Kuo et al. (1998) found that residents of lower income housing were more polite and less aggressive if they lived near areas containing trees and grass. In the
same study, it was also demonstrated that girls were more likely to study harder in residences located close to greenery.
Regarding garden visits more specifically, by researching the psychological effects
of botanic gardens on visitors a correlation has been established between stress reduction and visiting gardens. In a study conducted in three botanic gardens in
Florida, Kohlleppel (1999) found that after a garden visit the respondents’ perception
of their own stress level substantially decreased. In particular, this was verified by most of the stressed visitors showing a dramatic decrease in their stress level.
More recently, Stigsdotter and Grahn (2003) stated that gardens and parks can be
efficiently used for the treatment of burnout related diseases, in combination with horticultural therapeutic treatments. This is based on the concept of “healing
gardens” which positively impact on the physical and mental condition of the visitors
through various methods and channels (Marcus & Barnes, 1999; Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003).
56
7.3.2 Further Physical and Mental Benefits
Additional health benefits of gardens and parks rely first of all on the recreational opportunities they
provide for individuals, including physical activities. By offering facilities for the practice of various
sports, the sites can encourage health
improvement and fitness motivation amongst residents and tourists. Sites with greater proactivity
can even ensure education in sports thanks to workshops (Malek et al., 2012; Sydney Urban
Parks Education & Research Group, 2001).
Besides, several studies have focused on the positive role of green spaces for patients’ recovery
(e.g. Tzoulas, Korpela, Venn, Yli-Pelkonen,
Kázmierczak, Niemela, & James, 2007; see also Benfield, 2013; Chiesura, 2004). In a pioneering
work, Cimprich (1991) showed, for instance, that cancer patients experienced a substantial
improvement if they practiced restorative work
such as gardening or walking in the woods. By the same token, the various studies which have been published by Ulrich (1999) since
the nineties are widely cited as they validate the health benefits of landscaped areas in hospitals. Patients assigned to rooms with a garden-view showing a natural
setting had shorter post-operative stays than those with views restricted to buildings.
Similarly, the therapeutic power of essential oils extracted from plants started to be scientifically investigated during the last century. Nowadays, they are used in
aromatherapy which can heal several health issues, such as digestive, sleep and attention deficit disorders. When offered in gardens and parks, they can provide
interesting product developments in the form of perfumes, soaps and cleansing
products. The medical and olfactory effects of garden visiting have been explored by alternative medicine in the so called field of naturopathy (Benfield, 2013).
Case Study: The Garten Tulln – Therapy Garden
People with disabilities, depression, dementia or substance abuse problems, children and young people who are struggling with problems and severely ill patients in hospitals benefit from the therapeutic work in a garden. Amongst other topics garden therapy plays an important role for "Natur im Garten". The GARDEN TULLN presents garden therapy elements that were developed and designed as part of a joint EU project with the Czech Republic. Furthermore specialized experts advise institutions who plan to develop therapy gardens. (www.diegartentulln.at)
57
As summarised by Chiesura (2004) and more extensively reviewed by Tzoulas et al. (2007), contemporary research has engendered a high number of studies
focusing on the topic. They identified a link between the presence or use of gardens and parks and reported good physical and mental health for adults and children. In
the cases observed, green spaces contributed, for instance, to decreasing mental
fatigue and attention deficits. This confirms the numerous health benefits that greenery and natural settings can offer (Benfield, 2013).
7.4 Education
In the following section, educational benefits of
gardens and parks are investigated. On the one hand, they include learning outcomes generated for
the general public (visitors and residents). On the other hand, knowledge benefits for experts are also
examined as gardens and parks can play a
significant partnering role for the academic community (Askwith, 1999, pp. 63-64).
7.4.1 Educational Benefits for Visitors
Visitors to gardens and parks, whether they are residents belonging to the local community or tourists
staying in the destination for a limited amount of time, can enjoy educational benefits at several levels.
Firstly, they can acquaint themselves with the cultural
and historical value of the site. The abundant
interactions between ecosystems, knowledge systems and different cultures can also be presented
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). This however has to be ensured by providing adapted
interpretation material on site as this knowledge
transfer needs active mediation (Bongartz, 2012; Roberts & Tribe, 2008, Wedge, 2010).
Case Study: Sonnentor Herb-Senses-Experience
SONNENTOR was founded in 1988 by Johannes Gutmann. His idea was to sell organically farmed goods under the logo of the smiling sun. Next to the company’s headquarters in Sprögnitz (Lower Austria) an own herb garden and an informative Herb Trail full of a variety of kitchen and tea herbs, Hildegard specialities and rare herbs was established to allow visitors to experience and learn. Displays next to each plant inform about the culture and history of ancient knowledge about herbs, myths and traditions and give traditional and medicinal information. Visitors are encouraged to sample, admire and touch the herbs. ( www.sonnentor.com)
58
For interpretation in gardens and parks, several formats can be considered. As presented in Figure 9, the interpretation material includes a wide spectrum of
options which can be simply static (attached to one fixed point of the site); mobile for individual visitors; or, at a more sophisticated level, interactive with a visitor
centre, guided tours and other group activities for instance (Bauer-Krösbacher,
2013; IMC University of Applied Sciences, 2013b; Wedge, 2010).
Figure 9: Interpretation Formats in Gardens and Parks
Source: by the authors
When developing interpretation material careful consideration should be given to
visitors with special needs. Like all tourism attractions, open air sites need to
enhance their accessibility not only by adapting their physical setting but also by producing explanatory content accessible to all audiences (IMC University of
Applied Sciences, 2013a).
Secondly, visitors to gardens and parks can gain information on horticultural
practices and cultivate their practical gardening skills. Information can also be
collected on local environmental conditions (soil, climate, shade and wind patterns, etc.). This can be achieved by observing the personnel in charge of the garden
maintenance or engaging in informal discussion with them. However, without doubt a more effective option consists of workshops organised on this topic. They
considerably enhance the facilitation of knowledge transfer between gardening
Fixe
d fo
rmat
• Information boards(installed in various areas of the site):• Texts and pictures
• Maps and signage
• Plant labelling Tran
spor
tabl
e fo
rmat
• Print material:• Leaflets• Plant list• Brochures• Comprehensive guidebooks
• Technological equipment:• Audio-guides• Smartphone applications
• QR codes Inte
ract
ive
form
at
• Visitor centre (including the use of new technologies),
• Public lectures on theoretical topics,
• Workshops and practical demonstrations on gardening methods
• Guided tours
59
experts and visitors. In the case of allotments or community gardens, information exchange also occurs between the different members of the gardening network
(Askwith, 1999; Bendt et al., 2013; Wedge, 2010).
Lastly, gardens and parks can enable visitors to familiarise themselves with the
topics of sustainability and ecology. As a result they contribute to raising awareness
of current environmental challenges, conservation issues and possible alternatives to existing behaviour by teaching the principles of ecological gardening (see also
section 6.3). In this respect it is particularly interesting to target younger generations with school groups and provide a space where “students of all ages [can] learn about
the natural environment” (Sydney Urban Parks Education & Research Group, 2001,
p. 3; Wedge, 2010).
7.4.2 Educational Benefits for Residents
Besides the learning outcomes that a visit can bring about, residents can benefit
from gardens and parks through citizen participation. In cases where the management of a site is delegated to the community or where volunteers are
integrated into the site’s operations, people willing to get involved can increase their knowledge in several areas such as the civic management of a public space, social
enterprising and self-organisation. They can also learn more about the design of
urban landscapes, events and programs (Bendt et al., 2013; Malek et al. 2012).
7.4.3 Educational Benefits for Scholars
Finally, review of educational benefits provided by gardens and parks needs to include the scientific perspective. Sites can for instance possess some rare plants
or collections that they can help to cultivate and propagate. The gene banks of
botanic gardens are also essential for the scientific community, especially for the conservation of endangered species. The preservation of seeds and plant tissues
goes hand in hand with the education of the public. Gardens and parks also testify to the evolution of horticultural techniques and garden design through the centuries
and are therefore regarded as important primary sources of information in these
fields (Askwith, 1999; Wedge, 2010).
60
In addition, gardens and parks can support scientific research. They can, for instance, carry out investigations on their medical, culinary or economic benefits; on
the knowledge and conservation of indigenous flora; or on plants suitable for specific localities. It should nevertheless be remembered that in most cases, research costs
cannot be supported by the site only. This situation can stimulate partnerships with
a university or further research organisation to conduct research projects of a larger scope (Wedge, 2010).
From a broader perspective, green spaces “shoulder significant roles in sustainable urban development and urban ecology” and consequently encourage practitioners,
planners and politicians to rethink the city (Tian et al., 2014, p. 97).
7.5 Overall Experience
Providing communities with social, cultural, health and educational benefits, parks and gardens reflect a valuable combination of cultural and natural advantages.
Taking a more holistic view, they actually facilitate the satisfaction of various human
needs, from basic physiological requirements to more complex expectations. Following the renowned terminology developed by Maslow, the latter includes for
instance a sense of belongingness, cognitive needs, self-actualisation and transcendence. Beside the social and psychological benefits already mentioned,
green open spaces also enable people to decrease their level of anxiety on the one
hand and to cultivate a veritable sense of personal development on the other (Bongartz, 2012, p. 1; Chiesura, 2004, p. 130).
This development is based on three pillars: an enhanced general well-being, as well
as aesthetic and spiritual benefits that gardens and parks can offer. These dimensions are now considered in more detail.
7.5.1 Enhanced Well-Being
Already celebrated by Bacon centuries ago, gardens and parks can be considered as “the purest of human pleasures. It is the greatest refreshment to the spirits of
man” (Bacon, 1625/1642, p. 266). This function of rejuvenation relies on the effects
of the visit itself. Visitors to such places can fulfil their desires for freedom, happiness, luck and unity with themselves and nature. These were the five most
61
frequently experienced emotions reported by respondents in a park in Amsterdam (Chiesura, 2004).
Furthermore, activities in green spaces enable human beings to reconnect with nature and compensate for the scourge of contemporary life. “Laying out a garden
takes time, as does plant growth” (Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003, p. 46). A long time is
needed for nature projects to mature. Bringing individuals closer to weather conditions and seasons, gardens and parks also reintegrates urban dwellers into
the cycles of nature and interrupts the monotony of the city. This is particularly prevalent when visitors can engage in cultivation themselves (Origet du Cluzeau,
2011; Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003).
Closely related to a slower pace, contemplativeness is stimulated by gardens and parks as they represent continuously changing environments:
“A garden also constitutes a constantly ongoing process as it changes all the time. It is experienced differently early in the morning and late in the evening, in rain and in sunshine, in the spring and in the autumn, today and in ten years” (Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003, p. 46).
Consequently, gardens and parks help visitors to decelerate the rhythm of their daily life, which conversely, continuously accelerate into in today’s societies.
7.5.2 Aesthetic Enjoyment
Dedicating time to the contemplation of nature is the condition for aesthetic enjoyment, which is central to the experience of gardens and parks. Indeed, “the
ethereal and aesthetic values of the garden must not be forgotten as it is the ability
to activate the visitor’s senses that makes the garden so unique” (Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003, p. 46).
The concept of beauty and its changing nuances has been placed at the very heart of gardens or parks for centuries, as their various artistic representations highlight
(Bongartz 2012; Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2003). Nevertheless, it is worth emphasising
that the demand for access to pleasant natural landscapes is considerably growing nowadays, in response to an increasing urbanisation and modern sophistication
(Bongartz, 2012; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
62
7.5.3 Spiritual Retreat
In addition, green spaces offer people a feeling of freedom, “privacy and intimacy” (Chiesura, 2004, p. 130), in an era where urbanisation implies an intensification of
a cities’ density. Whereas city inhabitants see their living and social space decrease, gardens and parks safeguard the “space, peace and tranquillity that many people in
contemporary life seek” (Wedge, 2010, p. 95). This is reflected in a study about
rooftop gardens in Singapore and the related resident’s perceptions and expectations: the desire for an escape or for a “break” from the continuous urban
noise and the search for peace are important visit motives consistent with further studies carried out in other countries (Yuen & Hien, 2005). Such studies confirm the
status of gardens and parks as a retreat.
Generally speaking, gardens and parks are closely related to the concept of spirituality. Bridging the gap between nature and culture, they are common symbols
in different creation myths and reflect fundamental themes of human civilisations (Bongartz, 2012; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). For instance, the
biblical motif of the idyllic garden of Eden illustrates this association, given that the garden is a creation of God which becomes synonymous with paradise to a certain
extent. From an etymological perspective, the word “paradise” precisely refers to a
garden (Benfield, 2013; Origet du Cluzeau, 2011).
7.6 Derived Indicators for Measuring Effects
In summary, it can be stated that gardens and parks contribute to the enhancement
of the quality of life of communities. Indeed, the sociocultural, health, educational
and spiritual dimensions are key elements for the definition of human well-being (Eurostat & INSEE, 2011; Malek et al., 2012; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
2005; Sydney Urban Parks Education & Research Group, 2001). Figure 10 summarises the indicators which can be suggested to assess the sociocultural and
economic benefits of gardens and parks in relation to the concept of quality of life.
It should be kept in mind that especially for sociocultural and community indicators “not all values at stake can be quantified, and thus quantification can provide a false
objectivity in decision processes that have significant subjective elements” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, p. 99). As a result, it is recommended
63
that some of these indicators are evaluated on a comparative scale basis and not in absolute figures, also referring as much as possible to the visitors’ perceptions that
have been determined through additional research (e.g. surveys on site).
Figure 10: Derived Indicators for Measuring Sociocultural & Community Effects
Source: by the authors
Finally, it is worth emphasising that some of these indicators can be considered from an economic perspective with the so called avoided costs method. Without the
benefits generated by parks and gardens, health care costs could increase as much
as crime (Sydney Urban Parks Education & Research Group, 2001, pp. 2-3). Besides, it has been argued that cultural and recreational values of green spaces
increase the attractiveness of a city as a tourist destination, thus generating
Community benefits
• Number of people who can gather in the areas available for public use• Annual number of frequently returning visitors• Size of lawns authorised for public use• Evolution of crime and vandalism in the neighbourhood
Cultural benefits
• Size of heritage protected areas• Annual number of items restored• Annual number of initiatives implemented to promote the local living cultures on site
Health benefits
• Perceived levels of stress before/after the site visit• Number/size of sports facilities, fields and playgrounds available for visitors for physical training
• Number of initiatives implemented to promote the site's health benefits amongst patients suffering from mental and physical disorders
Educational benefits
• Range and quality of interpretation material offered on site• Accessibility of interpretation material for people with special needs• Annual number of participants in interactive interpretation programmes (workshops, lectures, guided tours, etc.)
• Annual number of volunteers working for the site• Number of residents/stakeholders involved in the site decision-making/management• Number of research projects carried out• Number of partnerships for scientific research
Overall experiential benefits
• Subjective level of well-being perceived by returning visitors in comparison to non-visitors
• Aesthetic enjoyment experienced by the visitors• Spiritual value and meaning attributed to the site by the visitors
64
employment and revenues (Chiesura, 2004; Kim, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2013; Wedge, 2010). The interrelation between economic and sociocultural benefits is therefore
clearly demonstrated.
65
8 Conclusions and Recommendations
In this study different effects of gardens and parks have been identified and explained. It has become clear that economic effects are important, however, they
cannot be fully separated from other impacts. Indirect benefits of a healthy
environment including ecosystems do have economic impacts which are, however, harder to pinpoint in terms of monetary value as opposed to direct economic impacts
caused by visitor spending at a site.
The choice of measurement technique depends on the particular site and its characteristics (e.g. size) and by the availability of data. For small and medium sized
sites, visitor spending on and off-site can be easily calculated providing a useful estimate of their direct economic impact. For bigger sites, more demanding
methods, like calculation of multiplier effects and input-output analysis, can reveal
comprehensive information about the overall economic impact including indirect and induced effects. However, the latter methods are not without limitations. They are
static models and often only have partially accurate data available (e.g. outdated multipliers on national level). Hence, these limitations should be considered before
starting time-consuming data acquisitions.
Below a toolbox (see Figure 11) is provided which can help managers of gardens
and parks to identify not only indicators, referring to the three different types of effects discussed in this study, but also the different measurement methods
appropriate for their sites. For each suggested measurement method an evaluation is provided. This includes information on the complexity of the method and whether
it can be applied by the site itself or if external consultation is needed.
The toolbox is followed by some key questions (see Table 10) that should provide guidance for managers to monitor the various effects of gardens and parks and to
stay competitive through the delivery of memorable and value-added garden and
park experiences.
66
Figure 11: Toolbox for Measurement Techniques
Source: by the authors
Conduct Level of complexityVisitor volume and type of visitor
Number of day visitors Visitor survey Internal BasicNumber of tourists (incl. overnight stay) Operational records Internal Basic
Direct spending from the visitors on the site (site-based revenue):Entrance fee Visitor survey Internal BasicShop Revenue Analysis Internal BasicFood & beverage services Operational records Internal BasicFurther ancillary services offered by the site (e.g. events, own production, etc.)
Visitor satisfaction with the garden/park experience Visitor survey, Mystery Shopping Internal - External Basic - AdvancedIn-depth interviews External Advanced
Number of employees directly contracted by the siteFrom the cityFrom the regionFull-time, part-timeIn total
Number of residents employed in related / precedent industries Operational records of external providers External BasicIndirect contribution of the visitors to the site to the local economy
Transportation Operational records of external providers External AdvancedAccommodation Expert interviews External BasicFood & beverage Visitor survey External AdvancedFurther consumption of goods and services
Creation of value in the region Expert interviews External AdvancedIndirectly related businesses: number of suppliers and sub-contracted external staff Operational records Internal BasicDiversification of the economic base of the area, reducing reliance on the traditional industries (for small medium and micro enterprises) Regional and macroeconomic data - one time and longitudinal External AdvancedNew opportunities for small businesses to develop in the area Statistics on new businesses External BasicIncrease in the total number of businesses in an area/region Purchasing power External BasicHousehold income levels Input-Output-Analysis External AdvancedTax revenues Multiplier Analysis External Advanced
Increased neighbourhood desirability Changes in total population External BasicIncrease in demand for housing and other services Number of new settlement External BasicImpact on the house prices/property value in the area Real estate secondary data - current and longitudinal External AdvancedDynamism of the real estate market in the area Expert interviews External Advanced
Improvement of biodiversity and wildlife habitat (incl. promotion of beneficial organisms and insects) Studies on biodiversity (e.g. counting species) External AdvancedImprovement of soil quality (mulching, composting, crop rotation, organic fertilisation) Soil sample from a representative area External AdvancedCosts of garden design and maintenance of ecological vs. non-ecological gardens Primary data, operational records Internal - External AdvancedRaising awareness and supporting a better understanding of the natural assets and related conservation issues Visitor study, observation Internal - External AdvancedSite works within carrying capacity Number of visitors per m² and length of stay Internal Basic
Specific environmental study methods External Advanced
Community benefitsNumber of people who can gather in the areas available for public use Primary data on site characteristics Internal BasicAnnual number of frequently returning visitors Secondary data from public authorities External BasicSize of lawns authorised for public use Visitor survey Internal - External Basic - AdvancedEvolution of crime and vandalism in the neighbourhood Operational records Internal Basic - Advanced
Cultural benefitsSize of heritage protected areas Internal BasicAnnual number of items restored Internal Basic - AdvancedAnnual number of initiatives implemented to promote the local living cultures on site
Health benefitsPerceived level of stress before/after the site visit Medical/health studies on stress levels External AdvancedNumber/size of sports facilities, fields and playgrounds available for visitors for physical training Operational records Internal BasicNumber of initiatives implemented to promote the site's health benefits amongst patients suffering from mental and physical disorders
Educational benefitsRange and quality of interpretation material offered on site Mystery shopping External AdvancedAccessibility of interpretation material for people with special needs Visitor survey Internal - External Basic - AdvancedAnnual number of participants in interactive interpretation programmes (workshops, lectures, guided tours, etc.) In-depth interviews with visitors External AdvancedAnnual number of volunteers working for the site Observation Internal - External Basic - AdvancedNumber of residents/stakeholders involved in the site decision-making/management Operational records Internal BasicNumber of research projects carried outNumber of partnerships for scientific research
Overall experiential benefitsSubjective level of well-being perceived by returning visitors in comparison to non-visitors Visitor survey Internal - External Basic - AdvancedAesthetic enjoyment experienced by the visitors In-depth interviews with visitors External AdvancedSpiritual value and meaning attributed to the site by the visitors Observation Internal - External Basic - Advanced
Evaluation of Methods
Internal Basic
Soci
ocul
tura
lEc
onom
icEc
olog
ical
and
En
viro
nmen
tal
Atmospheric CO2 reduction, production of oxygen, air quality improvement, water retention, storm water runoff mitigation, increased infiltration reducing the intensity of flooding, water purification, wind and noise filtering, absorption of vehicles and industrial pollution, micro and urban climate stabilisation, energy savings, pollution reduction
Possible MethodsIndicatorsDimensions
Operational records
Operational recordsPrimary data on site characteristics
Table 10: Key Questions for Site Managers for Monitoring Effects Questions 1 Is the theme of the site clearly communicated?
2 What is the visitor spending at the site?
3 How much does the site contribute to the local/regional economy?
4 How many jobs are created by the site?
5 Who are the visitors: Where do they come from? Is visiting the garden the primary reason to come to the region?
6 What kinds of services and experiences are provided at the site?
7 What is the level of visitor satisfaction?
8 How does the site contribute to ecology?
9 What does the site do to safeguard the environment?
10 What have visitors learned from visiting the site?
11 How is the local community involved?
12 How does the site meet the requirements of people with special needs?
13 In which respect does the site support the preservation of local tangible and intangible cultural heritage (green heritage)?
14 Are there collaborations with other tourism partners in the area/region?
Source: by the authors
List of References
Askwith, C. (1999). The economic contribution of historic parks, gardens and designed
landscapes: A review of existing data and research and recommendations for future research. Cultural Trends, 35, 28-79.
Azzurra, A., & Paola, P. (2009). Consumers’ behaviours and attitudes toward healthy food
products: The case of organic and functional foods. Paper presented at the 113th EAAE Seminar, Chania, Greece. Retrieved on April 15th, 2014 from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/57661/2/Annunziata.pdf.
Bacon, F. (1625/1642). On gardens. In The essayes or counsels, civill and morall, of
Francis Lo. Verulam, Viscount St. Alban. London: Jo. Beale for Richard Royston.
Bauer-Krösbacher, C. (2013). Mobile interpretation at cultural attractions: Insights into
users and non-users of audio guides. In R. Raj, K. Griffin, & N. Morpeth (Eds.), Cultural
tourism (pp. 64-73). Wallingford: CABI.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Hughes, K. (2007). Environmental awareness, interests and
motives of botanic gardens visitors: Implications for interpretive practice. Tourism
Management, 29, 439-444.
Bendt, P., Barthel, S., & Colding, S. (2013). Civic greening and environmental learning in
public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109, 18-3.
Benfield, R. W. (2013). Garden tourism. Wallingford: CABI.
Bodenhöfer, H., Bliem, M., & Klinglmair, A. (2009). Ökonomische Wirkungsanalyse des
Nationalparks Hohe Tauern. Institut für Höhere Studien und wissenschaftliche Forschung Kärnten. Retrieved on March 18th, 2014 from www.lawine.ktn.gv.at/198047p_DE.
Bongartz, E. (2012). What is social about parks and gardens? Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
[Presentation]. Retrieved on March 6th, 2014 from http://www.hybridparks.eu/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/11/Presentation_Bongartz_Lund.pdf.
Bradley, N. (2013). Marketing research: Tools & techniques (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Brandt, A., Blumberg, M., Kramer, J., Schroer, M., Steincke, M., & Werner, A. (2002).
Das Gartenreich Dessau-Wörlitz als Wirtschaftsfaktor. NORD/LB Regionalwirtschaft,
Hannover: Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale. Retrieved on March 6th, 2014 from http://www.mw.sachsen-anhalt.de/fileadmin/Bibliothek/Politik_und_Verwaltung/MW/Uploads/06DessauWoerlitzerG
artenreich.pdf. 69
Brocks, J. (2012). Natur im Garten. Eine Idee. Eine Geschichte. Ein Weg. Bad Traunstein:
Steinverlag.
Cimprich, B. (1991). Attentional fatigue and restoration in individuals with cancer. PhD
dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 68, 129-138.
Chon, K. S. (1992). The role of destination image in tourism: an extension. The Tourist
Review, 2, 2-7.
Coley, R., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1997). Where does community grow? The social
context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29, 468-494.
Con.os (2011). Mystery Guest Checks 2011. Vienna: con.os tourismus.consulting gmbh.
Colwell, R. K. (2009). Biodiversity: Concepts, patterns, and measurement. In S. A. Levin,
S. R. Carpenter, H. C. J. Godfray, A. P. Kinzig, M. Loreau, J. B. Losos, B. Walker, & D. S.
Wilcove (Eds.), The Princeton Guide to Ecology (pp. 257-263). Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Crompton, J. L. (2006). Economic impact studies: Instruments for political shenanigans?
Journal of Travel Research, 45, 67-82.
Crompton, J. L. (2010). Measuring the Economic Impact of Park and Recreation Services.
The National Recreation & Park Association. Retrieved on March 4th, 2014 from
http://www.sehn.org/tccpdf/Crompton%20Research%20Paper-Final-150dpi.pdf.
Cook, R. A., Yale, L. J., & Marqua, J. J. (2010). Tourism: The business of travel (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Connell, J., & Meyer, D. (2004). Modelling the visitor experience in the gardens of Great
Britain. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(3), 183-216.
Delbridge, T. A., Coulter, J. A., King, R. P., Sheaffer, C. C., & Wyse, D. L. (2011).
Economic performance of long-term organic and conventional cropping systems in Minnesota. Agronomy Journal, 103 (5), 1372-1382.
Evert, K.-J. (Ed.). (2001). Lexikon: Landschafts- und Stadtplanung [Dictionary: Landscape
and urban planning]. Berlin: Springer.
EuroNatur, Abl, & BfN (2010). For a fundamental reform of the EU Agricultural Policy.
Report for the project “The new Lisbon Strategy and the rural areas – opportunities and risksfor nature conservation”. Retrieved on March 7th, 2014 from http://www.die-bessere-
agrarpolitik.de/uploads/tx_gapdoc/German_Platform-Paper_EU-GAP-2013-engl.pdf. 70
Eurostat, & INSEE (2011). Sponsorship group on measuring progress, well-being and
sustainable development. Report of the UNECE/Eurostat/OECD Task Force on the multidimensional measurement of the quality of life. Retrieved on March, 5th 2014 from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/pgp_ess/0_DOCS/estat/TF3_Final_rep
ort_Quality_of_Life.pdf.
Fletcher, J. (2005). Sustainable tourism. In C. Cooper, J. Fletcher, A. Fyall, D. Gilbert, & S.
Wanhill (Eds.), Tourism: Principles and practice (4th ed., pp. 258-294). Harlow: Pearson.
Fletcher, J. (2008). The economic impact of tourism. In C. Cooper, J. Fletcher, A. Fyall, D.
Gilbert, & S. Wanhill (Eds.), Tourism: Principles and practice (4th ed., pp. 129-159). Harlow: Pearson.
Fyall, A., & Wanhill, S. (2005). Attractions. In C. Cooper, J. Fletcher, A. Fyall, D. Gilbert, &
S. Wanhill (Eds.), Tourism: Principles and practice (4th ed., pp. 344-383). Harlow: Pearson.
Garden Platform Lower Austria (2012). Hybrid Parks: Situation report by Garden Platform
Lower Austria. Retrieved on March 3rd, 2014 from
http://www.hybridparks.eu/reports/HyPa_SR_Garden_Plattform.pdf.
Hudson, K. (1999). Foreword. In A., Pierssené (1999). Explaining our world: An approach
to the art of environmental interpretation. Oxon: Routledge.
IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems (2013a). Feedback systems for visitors.
Retrieved on March 18th, 2014 from http://www.culttour.eu/en/knowledge-base/management-recommendations/site-characteristics/visitor/.
IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems (2013). Management recommendations: Site
characteristics, visitor services. Interpretation material on site & plants. Retrieved on March 6th, 2014 from http://www.culttour.eu/en/knowledge-base/management-recommendations/site-characteristics/visitor-services/#c1548.
IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems (with the University of Natural Resources and
Life Sciences Vienna and the Technical University Berlin) (2012). Garden tourism:
Definitions, concepts and examples [Brochure]. Retrieved on March 3rd, 2014 from
http://www.culttour.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Media/Garden_Tourism_Brochure_online_Version.pdf.
Jenkins, O. H. (1999). Understanding and measuring tourist destination images.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 1, 1-15.
Jennings, G. (2010). Tourism research (2nd ed.). Milton: Wiley.
71
Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M.J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the
quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management, 36, 527-540.
Kohlleppel, T. (1999). Coping with the effects of stress: do botanic gardens make a
difference? Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Florida, Tallahassee.
Krippner, U., Brüning, A., Jacobs, P., Kühn, N., Lička, L., & Seliger, A. (2012).
Transnational methodology for garden and open-space heritage assessment. Retrieved on March 3rd, 2014 from www.culttour.eu/nc/en/knowledge-base/scientific-texts.
Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner city landscapes.
Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 28-59.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Aggression and violence in the inner city. Effects of
environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 543-571.
Li, F., Wang, R., Paulussen, J., & Liu, X. (2005), Comprehensive concept planning of
urban greening based on ecological principles: a case study in Beijing, China. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 72, 325-336.
Lindberg, K. (1998). Economic aspects of ecotourism. In K. Lindberg, M. Epler Wood and
D. Engeldrum (Eds.), Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers, Vol. 2 (pp. 87-117). Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.
Mäder, P., Fließbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., & Niggli, U. (2002). Soil fertility
and biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296, 1694-1697.
Malek N. A., Mariapan, M., & Shariff, M. K. M. (2012). The making of a quality
neighbourhood park: A path model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 202-214.
Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing Research. An Applied Orientation. Pearson: New Jersey.
Marcus, C. C., & Barnes, M. (Eds.). (1999). Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and
design recommendations. New York: John Wiley.
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts.
Harlow: Longman.
Mayo, F. B. (2014). Planning an Applied Research Project in Hospitality, Tourism & Sports.
New Jersey: Wiley.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Synthesis. Retrieved on March 3rd, 2014 from http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.
72
More, T. A., Stevens, T., & Allen, P. G. (1988). Valuation of Urban Parks. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 15, 139-152.
Natur im Garten (2003). Pflanzenschutz und Bodenpflege. Der NÖ Naturgarten-Ratgeber,
22, St. Pölten: Natur im Garten.
Origet du Cluzeau, C. (2011). Vendre le Tourisme des Jardins [Selling Garden Tourism].
Paris: Économica.
Page, S., & Dowling, R. K. (2002). Ecotourism. Harlow: Pearson.
Powe, N. A., & Willis, K. G. (1996). Benefits received by visitors to heritage sites: A case
study of Warkworth Castle. Leisure Studies, 15, 259-275.
Roberts, S., & Tribe, J. (2008). Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), pp. 575-594.
Schaich, H., Bieling, C., & Plieninger, T. (2010). Linking ecosystem services and cultural
landscape research. GAIA, 19, 269-277.
Statistics Austria. (2014). Input-Output-Statistik. Retrieved on March 16th, 2014 from
www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/volkswirtschaftliche_gesamtrechnungen/input-output-statistik/index.html.
Soilhealth. (2014a). What is soil fertility? Retrieved on April 16th, 2014 from
http://www.soilhealth.com/soils-are-alive/what-is-in-soil/p-01.htm#TopOfPage.
Soilhealth. (2014b). How is soil fertility measured? Retrieved on April 16th, 2014 from
http://www.soilhealth.com/soils-are-alive/what-is-in-soil/p-01.htm#TopOfPage.
Stigsdotter, U. A., & Grahn, P. (2003). Experiencing a garden: A healing garden for people
suffering from burnout diseases. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture, 14, 38-48. Retrieved on March 6th, 2014 from http://www.hybridparks.eu/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/11/Presentation_Grahn_Lund.pdf.
Sydney Urban Parks Education & Research Group. (2001). The value of public open
space for community service provision (Technical Report 0731363973). Retrieved on March 14th, 2014 from
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/council/Select_Committees/PublicLand/Submissions/pl-sub128_att_1.pdf.
The Garden Platform of Lower Austria. (2012). Erfolgreicher Sommer für
Niederösterreichs Gartentourismus! [Press release]. Retrieved on April 6th, 2014 from http://www.diegaerten.at/presse.html.
73
Tian, Y., Jim, C. Y., & Wang, H. (2014). Assessing the landscape and ecological quality of
urban green spaces in a compact city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 121, 97-108.
Tourism Victoria. (2010). Benefits of tourism. Retrieved on October, 21st, 2013 from
http://www.tourismexcellence.com.au/Growing-Destinations/Benefits-of-Tourism.html.
Tsakiridou, E., Boutsouki, C., Zotos, Y., & Mattas, K. (2008). Attitudes and behaviour
towards organic products: an exploratory study. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 36(2), pp. 158-175.
Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kázmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green
Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 167-178.
Ulrich, R. (1999). Effects of gardens on health outcomes: Theory and research. In C. C.
Marcus & M. Barnes (Eds.), Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design
recommendations (pp. 27-86). New York: John Wiley.
United Nations. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development:
Our common future. Retrieved on May 13th, 2014 from http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf.
Veal, A. J. (2006). Research methods for leisure and tourism: A practical guide (3rd ed.).
Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Vroom, M. J. (2006). Lexicon of garden and landscape architecture. Berlin: Birkhäuser.
Wedge, R. (2010). Christchurch botanic gardens: A sense of place. Saarbrücken: LAP
LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
Yuen, B., & Hien, W. N. (2005). Resident perceptions and expectations of rooftop gardens
in Singapore. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73, 263-276.
Zehrer, I., Indra, I., & Grabler, K. (2010). Besucherbefragung „Die Gärten
Niederösterreich“ 2008-2010. Vienna.
74
Appendices
75
Appendix I: Economic, Environmental & Social Impacts of Gardens and Parks
Table 11: Economic, Environmental & Social Impacts of Gardens and Parks Types of economic contribution Open to
public as ‘visitor attraction’
Open to public as public amenities e.g. public parks
Not generally open to public e.g. private estates
A. Inputs Visitor expenditure: On-site Admissions Retail Catering Off-site Travel, food and drink, accommodation, retail, other visits
Commercial activities: Events Corporate hospitality Location letting Training courses Production (agriculture, horticulture, forestry, game)
Non-commercial and social benefits: Education Social/community focus Ecological/scientific Cultural Health Aesthetic/visual Spiritual Catalytic effects of restoration, enhancement and good management:
Local area regeneration Short-term jobs, goods & services Long-term jobs, skills, facilities Inward investment (business and residential)
Funding support Local authority Other grant-in-aid B. Output/expenditure Employment Goods and Services Rates and tax
Source: based on Askwith, 1999, p. 36
76
Appendix II: Questionnaire
Source: Crompton, 2010, p. 29
77
