University of Pannonia Doctoral School of Management Sciences and Business Administration
Éva Tóth
THE ANALYSIS OF THE DEMAND FOR ECO-TOURISM IN THE TERRITORY OF THE DANUBE–DRAVA NATIONAL PARK DIRECTORY
Thesis of Doctoral (PhD) Dissertation
Leading Professor Dr. Ágnes Raffay
Keszthely 2016
Content
1. Aims and significance of scientific research
3
2. Applied methods of scientific research
9
3. The results of scientific research, conclusions, suggestions 15 4. New and recent results and theses of scientific research
20
5. Trends of future research
22
6. List of publications
23
7. Links
29
2
1. Aims and significance of scientific research Significance of Research As in other parts of the world globalisation has a strong effect in Hungary and as a characteristic feature of the 21st century everything is measured in money. Consumer society has usually short-term thinking, the longterm interests of humankind are less taken into consideration. The situation is the same in tourism as well, which is one of the most important economic activities in our days. After World War II the huge change and the fast development that had not been experienced before affected all areas of life and it resulted that the regeneration of the resorts in tourism could not meet the requirements of increased demands. Due to the inventions of transportation at the end of the previous century the 20th century became the age of mass tourism. People wanted to travel more and on longer distances by which they put a huge impact on the environment. It was not sustainable on the long run because the uncontrolled, spontaneous arrivals of a great number of tourists increase the negative effects and there is no way and time to restore damage. Therefore the cultural and natural values for people set off to see them disappear or get destroyed. However experts started to deal with this problem only at the end of the 70s. They realized that the economic, social and ecological point of view can only be successful together in all areas of life, in tourism as well. Tourists are attracted to a given destination by some cultural or natural values that the destinations must preserve but not only for an economic interest. Tourism has very important effects on the natural environment and the society. Of course, the main aim should be the preservation of the original conditions, but while tourism show the values it also damages them at the same time. Conservation and display seem to be incompatible, however there is a chance to practise sustainable controlled tourism. This chance is ecotourism, which has the following definition according to IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), suggested for 3
acceptance as official Hungarian position by the authors’ of National Ecotourism Development Strategy: ‘ecotourism is a form of travel or visit in relatively undisturbed regions which takes responsibility for the environment in order to enjoy and appreciate the natural and cultural values of the past and present and provide social and economic benefits to the local residents, but these visits moderate the harmful effects’ (OÖS, 2008, p. 12.). Ecotourism can decrease the harmful environmental effects to minimum, but it is also an economic target that can be allowed with the supervision of nature conservationists and it cannot become multitudinious. Part of its income must always be spent the expenses of environmental protection. Thanks to its favorable geographical conditions, thousand years of history, colourful cultural traditions, famous gastronomy, hospitality of Locals Hungary plays an important role in the tourism of Europe (Dávid & Jancsik & Rátz, 2007). In our country, the contribution to the gross domestic product is about 8%, and tourism accounts for 4% of the total employment (Kocsis & Schweitzer, 2011). In Hungary there is a growing demand for the development of ecotourism mostly in the rural regions where there are not any other opportunities to enhance the economy. The proper scene for ecotourism is provided in nature parks created by the councils and civilian organizations and stately owned national parks.
The actuality of the research subject The uncontrolled tourism than any other human activities, can cause significant environmental, social, cultural and economic damage. However, by proper planning, organization and control it can also have positive effects. "Tourism – particularly ecotourism – can contribute to the understanding of protected natural values and even the preservation of those. The tourists returnining home can utilize the knowledge gained about the environmental 4
protection, fauna and flora, and by this means perhaps they consider relevant the protection of their natural environment" (NTS 2005, p. 33). Unfortunately, we have no legislation to regulate the tourism and the ecotourism has no uniformly accepted definition. However, a number of development strategy highlights the importance and the actuality of eco-tourism. It was given high priority in the planning of the previous period (National Tourism Development Strategy 2005-2013), the European Union also strongly supported it so many eco-tourism development was realized, but it is playing equally important role in the next planning period (National Tourism Development Plan 2014-2024). The ecotourism is an important element of many national strategy (National Ecotourism Development Strategy, 2008; Cultural Tourism Development Strategy, 2009; Cycling Tourism Development Strategy, 2009; Youth Tourism Development Strategy, 2010), and its regional and local role is continuously growing. Ecoturism has an outstanding in the plans of the previous period of time (National Strategy for the Development of Tourism 2005-2013), but it is similarly significant in the current period of plans (National Conception of the Development of Tourism (2014-2020). It is also supported by the EU, therefore several developments of ecotourism have been established and are being established. In the years 2007-2013 11 billion forints were provided to support the developments of ecotourism exclusively (without the reconstraction of habitats), of which 69 establishments of ecotourism could be renovated (16) and constructed (59). The main supporter was KEOP but other programs (Life+), ROP, Cooperation Over the Borders) were available too (Rácz, 2015). Int he period of 2014-2020 34 billion euros were available for 10 operative programs, the most important of which was GINOP with the aim of economic development, for which 2586 billion forints were earmarked. The government’s aim was definitely the development of the economy by grouping differnt supports (in othee operative program sas well) and it wants to spend 60% of the supports on it. (Primer Minister’s Office 2015b). According to V. Németh Zsolt (2015) nature conservation has reach a more favourable position. The two main source of support is the 4 priority axises of 5
GINOP, which aim to convert places of exhibitions into more visitor friendly and innovative places (with 15 billion forints), and the 4 priority axises of KEHOP, which aim to develop Natura 2000 territories (with 3 billion forints) and habitats (28 billion forints). Besides these, several programs support nature conservation and ecotourism for example a significant part of the sources of rural development (V. Németh, 2015) The announcements of tenders are late and the majority of them will be available only in the near future (the middle and end of 2015). As the opinions and suggestions of the National Parks were asked when the territories to be supported were created they were taken into consideration, therefore we can say that the coherent connection of the aims and means will be assured in the future.
The motivation to select the the territory of scientific research I grew up by the River Drava I have a personal relationship to the terrtory of the Danube-Drava National Park. It is an invaluable region, its destruction would have an effect on the whole country. It is the task of the people living here to ensure the opportunity for the present generation to get to know this area and we would like to provide the same opportunity for their children. The other reason to choose DDNPI located in a large part of the South Transdanubia is that they keen on developing ecotourism and envolving the local residents to create a rich supply of this form of tourism. Recently, the region of the River Drava by the border, was a strictly controlled area. Large-scale industrial investments avoided it, which was a disadvantage for the local residents but at the same time it helped preserve the natural and cultural values. Thus, one of the most backward regions of our country, but perhaps the richest area considering the natural values, landscape. In the statistical region of Southern Transdanubia the annual gross income per capita is one of the lowest in the country, the rate of unemployment is high. The rate of salaries within 6
the gross income is the lowest (61.6%) (KSH, 2014). When we compare the touristical regions Southern Transdanubia is one of the most underdeveloped. The protection of this area is important but besides this ecotourism gives an opportunity to provide the local residents with economic and social benefits. (KSH, 2013)
Aims of scientific research and Hypotheses When we examined the number of visitors in the 10 Hungarian National Park sin 2013 (Magyar-Sulyok, 2014) the DDNPI occupied the 7th place, the majprity of visitors spend only a few hours there and their main motivation is not the visit to the National Park (Sulyok, 2009). In the examined period the number of registered visitors to DDNPI showed a continuous decrease. The aim of my scientific research is to examine the demand for ecotourism in the territory of the Danube-Drava National Park as the demand side has not been analysed since the establishment of DDNPI. My aim is to identify the charecteristics of the visitors who arrive at the national park in order to reach the potential demand wiith targeted marketing tools and to meet the requirements of the visitors with as complex ways as possible. For this the supply elements had to be mapped because the precise information of the supply is needed to if we want to evaluate the demand and characteristics of ecotourism in the DDNPI.
7
Hypotheses
H1: The visitors of the DDNPI can be characterized by the general specialities, and motivations like Hungarian ecotourists in general, that is they have degrees, live in cities, young, travel in groups who gain information from the brochures of the national park and they can be regarded as hikers.
H2: In the preference system of the visitors to the DDNPI sustainability and nature conservation have a priority than individual interests.
H3: The inventory of communications tools used by the Danube-Drava National Park Directorate contributes to the achievement of the strategic aims of the DDNP Directorate in line with the ecotourism demand however, its success is not reflected in the growth of the regsitered visitor numbers.
H4: The demand for the DDNP is characterised by the demand for complex packages incorporating ecotourism product elements and other tourism services.
8
2. Applied methods of scientific research Secondary research The point of the secondary data collection is to use materials collected by others for our own purposes (Majoros, 2004). After reviewing the Hungarian and international technical literature, I examined the data of the Central Statistic Office, (KSH), and I analysed the data provided by the National Park. Communication with the leaders and the staff of the National Park in the area of the park meant great help for me and I have active connection with almost all the staff of the Department of Ecotourism and Environmental Education. I often visit the Headquarters of the Directory on the Tettye in Pécs. I received different publications and reports here in order to survey the conditions in the area. Besides studying the technical literature there are electronic publications (CD materials), maps, and internet based resources at my disposal in great quantities. I drew the inference by these data. When I analysed the demand I systematized the data of the visitors in several divisions in the previous years certified by DDNPI and I organized them into an integrated form then I carried out statistical analysis, comparisons and predictions.
Primary research Primary data collection is needed when the given topic has not been by others (Majoros, 2004). I mainly did my primary research on the premises of the examined areas of the national park. Primary research can be divided into two parts. 1 Quality research, which helps understand tendencies, characteristics, are subjective and cannot be evaluated statistically. Two methods were applied in my quality research: observation and interviews 9
2 Quantity research, which are objective, can be quantified and evaluated. I used the most widely spread form of quantity research, which is:
surveys
Observations The observations I made can be divided into two groups. 1 Observations at the first occasion. When I visited the display areas at the first time I made observations secretly, integrated and spontenously. My aim was to get the same experience as an ordinary visitor, while I was watching carefully for the information which were valuable for me. I looked for the answers for my survey I was going to do later, for example whether the visitor got the information regarding the rules of behaviour, whether they found rubbish bins or the route signs could be followed easily and so on. I personally experienced another very important factor that is the guide’s ability and the process of guidance, the organization of the programs, the rate of involvement of the local inhabitants in tourism. 2 Observations in display areas and trips. When doing the surveys I made observations im an integrated way (I went hiking with some groups) but most often I made my observations spontenously in the display areas (that is I was waiting at the entrance of the display areas). During the survey my personal appearance helped me gain a lot of valuable information and experience that I would have never got if I had hired an interviewer. That is the reason why I thought it to be important to be present at the surveys which I managed to do 97%. On the trips (I always did all the trips with pleasure)–as they were unique and weren not repeated at the same areas- I thought my fellow tourists’ opinion was more important than the results of my subjective secret observations therefore these observations were always integrated and spontenous with a lot of edifications.
10
My observations were always recorded posteriorly and it has several reasons. On the one hand making notes on the premises was imossible, (eg. river trips), on the other hand I did not want show up and I wanted to do it as secondary scientific research. I made thirty-nine so-called selective reports. Interviews I have made oral interviews with the people concerned during the years, which is also a quality method of research. ‘According to experts this form is the most popular deep, careful, exact and suitable for the planned representation.’(Bércziné, 2006.p 72). I had the opportunity to have a short, controlled conversation with the technical leader, the guide and the staff in each display area and trip. In this way I could find out the opinion of some council leaders about the National Park (DDNPI) as I could not get in touch with them by post or in writing. I wanted to know the opinions of other organizations and the representatives other supply elements therefore I met others as well who are in connection with the DDNPI. My aim with the direct conversation I had with the only person I asked was to fulfil the striking description by Malhotra (2009): The aim of the direct, unstructured, personal questioning is to reveal the motivations, views, attitudes and feelings of the interviewee in connection with a given question. I had controlled conversations with 24 people altogether, I talked to some of them severaé times over the years. My interviewees (year of the interview): 1. Ildikó Iványi, DDNPI, former director (2007). 2. Eszter Buchert, DDNPI, general deputy director (2007-2015). 3. László Fenyősi, DDNPI, Drava territorial division, head of department (2005, 2007-2010). 4. György Borián (†), DDNPI, Drava Territorial Division, responsible leader for ecotourism (2008). 5. Szilvia Wodtke, DDNPI, Tettye Education Centre, Department of Ecotourism and Environmental Education, head of department (2007-2014). 11
6. Attila Komlós, DDNPI, Tettye Education Centre, marketing and communication manager (2009-2015). 7. Éva Horváth, DDNPI, Tettye Education Centre, cultural organizer (2012-2013). 8. Andrea Temesi, DDNPI, Tettye Education Centre, cultural program organizer (2012-2013). 9. György Varga, Mohács, National Memorial Park, manager (20092015). 10. Nikoletta Rittlinger, DDNPI, White Storke Museum, Kölked, cultural organizer (2010). 11. Antal Kéki, Sinter Cave of Tettye, speleologist, manager (2010). 12. Péter Tóth, DDNPI, Abaliget Cave, cave guide manager (2010). 13. Károlyné Ötvös, DDNPI, Tettye, Pintér Garden Arboretum, instructor (2010). 14. Tibor Gergely, DDNPI, Abaliget Bat Museum, museum guide (2010). 15. Albert Kevy, The Őrség National Park Directorate, Department of Ecotourism and Environmental Education, head of department (2014). 16. Klára Nórántné dr. Hajós, project administrator of the „Complex ecotourism development of Dráva River Basin” (2006). 17. Attila Molnár, representative of Drávaszentes (2006). 18. Erzsébet Pénzes, assistant lecturer, University of Pannonia, Department of Tourism (2007, 2011). 19. András Rácz, Ministry of Rural Develeopment, assitant of state (2014). Besides the interviews related to only the DDNPI I had the pleasure of guided conversations with some service providers fitting to a complex service package in my opinion. For example: 20. Nóra Róth (2010) Róth Winery, Bóly, cellar and wine tasting, visiting the Mausoleum Montenuovo. 21. Csaba Gerber (2009) Kölked, host, rider program organizer. 22. János Sárdi (2009, 2010) Workshop making of the indigo dye, Nagynyárád, 95-year-old master making of the indigo dye. 23. Józsefné Mezei (2010, 2012) Barcs, Drávatours, Drava River cruises organizer. 24. Norbert Bugarszki (2010) St. Nicholas Watermill Mohács, mill manager.
12
Surveys Besides analysing the existing secondary, statistical data I made surveys to get more information about the characteristics of the actual demand of DDNPI in order to get conclusions that can help future changes. When the visitors’ data of the 10 Hungarian National Parks were examined in 2013 (Magyar-Sulyok, 2014), I could see that the DDNPI was in the 7th place, the visitors spend only a few hours there and their main motivation is not a visit to the national park. (Sulyok, 2009). According to my own descriptive scientific research its rate of publicity among young people is the 5th. In the examined period the number of registered visitors in the DDNPI shows ccontinuous decrease. In my questionnaire I wanted to find answer to the following questions among others: Do the visitors to the DDNPI have the same features as the other ecotourists in Hungary? Are its visitors environment conscious? What are their motivations? Do they get previous information? Can the attraction that they do not know be important? The base population is the visitors to the DDNPI, the sample is 631 people, the survey was carried out 38 times in 17 spots between 2009 and 2010. For this survey I made a mock survey four times at four spots the useful data of which were also used in the sample. During the period under survey, the average number of recorded visitors to DDNPI was 122 207, of which 0.52% that is 631 people were added to the sample by random sampling, random query. Based on Babbie (2008), the sample is considered to be representative. At the editing of the questionnaires the general guidelines exhibited in detail by Bércziné (2006) and Babbie (2008) were enforced. The questionnaire was made in three languages (Hungarian, English and German) in which I used both open and closed questions. I also asked questions indicating the group (age, qualifications, place of living) in order to determine further connection examinations. The data I acquired could be mostly measured on a nominative scale but order, ranking, 13
proportion and Likert-scale (discreet evaluating scale) also appeared in the surveys. In some cases I asked open questions about motivation, the decision about the trip, likes and dislikes, because I did not want to influence the interviewees in any way. Looking at the analysis it is interesting to rank the questionnaires, to see the paired preference examination and the survey of agreement and disagreement. In questionnaires the order of the questions is not by accident it is the consequence of a logical system depending on the importance and the dangerousness of the questions. In applied methodology several methodological written resources1 helped my work besides the ones I studied in higher education. Besides my previous studies, plenty of technical literature was at my disposal in order to apply basic statistics and statistical calculations in a proper way. The methodological basics of the examinations that was carried out in the essay was provided by the wide range of mathematic and statistic tools both simple and more complicated ones were used. The results were evaluated by Microsoft Office Excel 2007 and SPSS Statistics 17.0 programs. My studies in the doctoral school (econometrics I, II) and manuals played an important role to use the latter one in a proper way. The map that showed the starting points of the tourists was made by the programs Google Earth and Map Art. The most important statistical indexes and methods used during the analysis: mean values, variability, ratios, analysis of timeline, examination of association, the examination of the closeness on the sequence line. setting up order, preference examination, agreement examination
14
3. The results of scientific research, conclusions, suggestions The relationship between the demand and supply of DDNPI The DDNPI has exceptional supply elements it provides a great number of programs and leisure time activities. Although there are several exhibition areas and educational centres waiting for the visitors all the time and the communication of the DDNPI is developing and getting more and more modern continuously, the number of visitors decreased during the examined period. Nonetheless the same tendency cannot be observed in other national parks. The supply elements of the DDNPI do not form complete packages in spite of the fact that there is a demand for that from the side of the visitors and local people.
The general features of the visitors to the DDNPI
The majority of the visitors of the DDNPI is Hungarian citizens (85.9%) mostly women (59.7%) and have degrees (43.3%) or secondary qualifications (30.4%), however 30.8 % of them are students. Their average age is 35.9 and half of the respondents are younger than 33 years. Regarding their marital status 62.8% are married or have a partner, 28.3% are single. The majority of the visitors (57.5%) arrived from Pest, Baranya or Somogy counties and three quarters of the respondents live in cities. Most of the respondents (42.3%) have mental jobs however only less than half of them are employed. At the time of the survey the net monthly income per capita for the majority was between 71,501 and 200,000 forints, 18.9% earned 57,000-71,500 forints and 21.2% of them made 100,001-200,000 forints.
15
The characteristics of the visitors of the DDNPI regarding travelling According to the statistics the most popular exhibition areas were the cave of Abaliget, The Bat museum and the Memorial place of Mohács, therefore it is not surprising that the people who took part in the survey also chose these attractions for their leisure time activities. Most of them said that they chose the destination because of the attraction or the sight. The majority of the respondents (61%) arrived from home almost a quarter of them (24%) interrupted their holidays for the visit and came with their families or they arrived with an organized group, they travelled mostly by car (51.8%), which is not a very environmentally friendly means of transport. A great proportion came by coach (36.5%). 17 people travelled together on average, which means that many of them arrive in a group but most of the time 2 or 4 people travel together. 64% of the respondents are hikers,which means that they leave the destination on the same day. 43% of the respondents visited the DDNPI for the first time, the others are returning visitors and they visited the area of the Danube during their previous trips. Half of the respondents (55.2%) did not receive any previous information about the DDNPI before their trips. There is an obvious connection between gathering information and the number of trips. 65.9% of those who arrived for the first time did not gather any information, while 80% of regular customers were well-informed. 44.8% of of the respondents gathered information in advance, mostly on the website of the DDNPI or othe Internet sources (29.8%) but the publications of the national park, guide books, the TV and the printed press provided a great amount of information as well.
The connection of the visitors of the DDNPI to nature
Visitors do not usually have a clear picture of the categories of environmental protection 68% of them gave a wrong answer about the type of the environmental features of the place where they were staying 16
at. But it is even more important that the same rate of visitors (68.8%) know the rules of behavior and stay because they received information about them on the premises or because they gathered information on their own. Their environmental consciousness is shown by the fact that 69.1% said they did not produce litter during their stay. Those who did, could find rubbish bins but they were not upset if they did not find one. Regarding the factors that were put into order, the preference order of the respondents showed complete differences (Kendall coefficient W=0.01). Therefore we cannot order the attractions of leisure time activities in the nature. Silence, clean air, the beauty of nature, walking and doing exercise are equally important together with a certain sight or gathering new knowledge. According to the classification of the National Ecotourism Strategy the visitors of the DDNP Directorate are considered occasional eco-tourists. This result can be explained by the fact that the majority of the respondents come from the cities (out of 75.7% 37.4% come from big cities, 38.3% come from towns or suburbs) therefore general leisure time activities are as important as visiting a given sight. However when they choose the destination the given attraction (48%) is the most important motivating factor. On the basis of the paired preference examination (excluding inconsistent respondents and the order after examining same opinions) the most important preference of the rational visitors is still the protection of natural values. They put their own individual interests aside and they can be characterized by environment conscious thinking. During the agreement examination it turned out unequivocally that the visitors of national parks have environment conscious thinking they were educated like this and they think that it is important to educate their children in that way both at home and at school. They are interested in news about environmental protection as long as they do not have to pay money for it. Lack of time, the financial situation and everyday problems are more important that environmental problems. 17
The characteristics of the visitors of the DDNPI when they stay on the premises
36% of the visitors of the DDNPI can be classified as tourists. They mostly stay at hotels, guest houses, village houses or youth hostes. According to the majority (86.4%) of the visitors the route signs can be followed easily. Most of the tourists, while visiting a national park, take part in an individual or professional guided tour, take photos,visit an exhidition area or a cave. The time they spend in this way is usually 1-2 hours (47%), half a day (29.7%), just like hikers spend the time. After visiting the national park most of them see other sights (not the ones in national parks), eat out, go bathing or wine tasting (the latter ones are regarded as passive leisure time activities). Many of them would like to continue hiking but the same number would like to go home to relax. The average daily expenditure per person is divided as follows: two-thirds is spent for accommodation, meals and transport, 32.4% for other things: (entry tickets, presents)
The opinion of the visitors of the DDNPI
The most praised things were the given sights (265 people), the nature and the landscape (133 people), the guided tour (111 people). Some visitors were so satisfied that they could not mention any negative things when they had to list the least favourable things.The sign of absolute satisfaction was that some people (12 people) reinforced their positive opinions for the third time when I asked them. Most of them complained about the weather and the hiking partners, which were not the responsibility of the DDNPI. However, they criticized the service 18
facilities and buildings, Most of the suggestions affected the development of the given sight. Hypotheses H2, H3 and H4 were completely, H1 was partially justified. As a conclusion I drew up 5 groups of suggestions that I described in details in my dissertation. These are as follows: Using the information that we have about the characteristics of the visitors
19
Market segmentation, age specific programs
More active and targeted marketing-communication activity
Making program packages
Anticipating the observations and suggestions of visitors
4. New and recent results and theses of scientific research T1: The visitors of DDNPI have the same features and motivations that characterize Hungarian ecotourists in general. Most of the visitors of the DDNPI have university degrees, live in urban areas, mostly in Southern Transdanubia and in Pest county, who travel with the family and with organized groups, young and the most important motivation of their trip is to see a certain sight. Most of them get information from the Internet and from the publications of the national parks and they can mainly be classified as hikers. Their general characteristics, their suggestions and their reflections are the same as that of the Hungarian ecotourists in general. In the DDNPI the rate of returning guests, the rate of visitors who spend only a few hours there and those who like passive relaxation is higher than that of other ecotourists. Although according to OÖS (2008), and the survey dealing with the travelling habits of residents (Halassy, 2007) men are more active participants of ecotourism, the surveys restricted only to the visitors of national parks (Sulyok, 2009; KvVM&MT ZRT. 2010) in accordance with Mintel’s study (2004) show a slightly higher proportion of women (58.7%) among the visitors of theDDNPI as well. T2: In the preference system of the visitors of DDNPI the aspects of sustainability and nature conservation have a higher priority than their own interests. In terms of the general and concrete factors of the reasons for seeking relaxation in nature the attempt to identify a preference order was unsuccessful; certain concrete attractions and the attractiveness of the natural environment in general were equally important for the visitors, therefore we can consider them occasional eco-tourists. Based on the results of the paired preference analysis protecting natural values is always in the first place amongst the preferences of the rational and aware visitors. The results of questions testing their agreement or disagreement 20
with given statements further proves their environmental awareness. Besides the above, the environmentally aware transport choices of visitors to the DDNP (36.5% claimed to have arrived to the sites by bus), and their behaviour on the sites (69.1% claim to have produce no litter and 68.8% claim to be aware of the codes of conduct) also clearly prove that the DDNP is characterised by responsible visitors who put their individual interests secondary to the interests of the environment. T3: The inventory of communications tools used by the DanubeDrava National Park Directorate contributes to the achievement of the strategic aims of the DDNP Directorate in line with the ecotourism demand however, its success is not reflected in the growth of the registered visitor numbers. The DDNPI has exceptional elements of supply, it offers a large number of individual programs and leisure time activities, several exhibition areas and educational centres wait for the tourists all year round and their communication keeps improving, however the number of visitors showed a continuous decrease in the examined period while this tendency does not characterize other national parks. T4: The demand for the DDNP is characterised by the demand for complex packages incorporating ecotourism product elements and other tourism services. The results of the observations, interviews conducted and of the questionnaire survey also confirm that there is a distinct lack of appropriate level of co-operation and complex service packages in the DDNP. However, the need for these seems to be apparent, visitors would like to combine their visit to the national park with visits to other sites of the DDNP Directorate and further attractions, and would use other services as well, as the questionnaire survey results showed. 56% of the visitors are repeat visitors and 46% of them have visited other areas of the DDNP, which also demonstrates the need for connecting the different attractions. The interviews conducted with other service 21
providers in the area of the operation of the DDNP Directorate revealed that the service providers are open to co-operation.
5. Trends of future research My planned research can be divided into 4 groups: 1. An overall survey should be made among the students of several institutions of higher education in Hungary about the Drava region and the DDNPI. In this way besides the students of Georgikon we could measure and control the knowledge and interest of the youths of the country in this field. First of all querying of the main source counties would be the target: Pest, Baranya, Somogy, Tolna and Bacs - Kiskun. 2. Besides the visitor’s questionnaire a new examination could be made with a questionnaire for a control group. The aim would be to evaluate the requirements, motivation and environmental consciousness of potential visitors who have never been to the DDNPI. With this control group examination we could have a comparison and the awareness raising role of the DDNPI could be measured. 3. Its enormous work but if I had the opportunity I would conduct an up-to-date visitor’s survey in all the national parks in Hungary. In this way we could compare the composition, knowledge and environmental consciousness of the visitors of different national park directories and their awareness raising potential. This research could be conducted in nature parks, geoparks and in the national parks of the neighbouring countries. 4. A further open question is the survey of the exact number of the visitors to national parks, the elaboration of a detailed method that is based on the data on the premises, it is an urgent task to make such a survey but naturally it presumes high financial resources.
22
6. List of publications 2007 Tóth Éva, 2007. április 18, XXVIII. Országos Tudományos Diákköri Konferencia, Az ökoturizmus jelentőségének vizsgálata a Duna-Dráva Nemzeti Park drávai szakaszán, Debrecen, II. helyezés, különdíj Tóth Éva: A Dráva-mente és az ökoturizmus kapcsolata, 2007. június 7, II. Pannon Gazdaságtudományi Konferencia – Európai Integráció Elvek és döntések, Gazdasági Fejlődés Európában, Veszprém, ISBN: 978-963-9696-29-7 Tóth Éva – Kocsondi József: Határmenti együttműködési lehetőségek az ökoturizmus fejlesztésében. Erdei Ferenc IV. Tudományos Konferencia, Kecskemét, 2007. augusztus 27-28. I. kötet. 117-120. p. ISBN 978-9637294 65-5 Tóth Éva: Ökoturizmus, mint a Dráva-mente fellendülésének alapja. 2007. szeptember 27, VII. Regionális Tanácsadási Konferencia, Miskolc. (konferencia-kiadvány CD-n, ISBN 978-963-661-786-8) Tóth Éva: Víziturizmus a Dráva folyó magyarországi szakaszán, 2007. november 2-4, VIII. Romániai Magyar Doktorandusok és Fiatal Kutatók Szövetsége Konferencia, Kolozsvár (konferencia-kiadvány szerkesztett formában, ISBN: 978-973-26-0898-2) Tóth Éva: Az ökoturizmus, mint a fenntartható turizmus jelentősége a Dráva-mentén. 2007. november 27, I. Országos Környezetgazdaságtani Ph.D. konferencia, Budapest, (konferencia-kiadvány CD-n ) 2008 Tóth Éva – Kocsondi József: Ökoturizmus a nemzeti parkok életében. 2008. március 27-28, XI. Nemzetközi Tudományos Napok, Gyöngyös, II. kötet. p. 689-695. (konferencia-kiadvány szerkesztett formában, ISBN: 978-963-87831-2-7) 23
Tóth Éva - Pintér Gábor: The significance of the eco-tourism in Hungary. 2008. május 28-30. Nyitra, International Scientific Days 2008, "Competitiveness and Economic Growth: European and National Perspectives", Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, (konferencia-kiadvány ISBN: 978-80-552-0060-6, tanulmány CD-n ISBN978-80-552-00613)
Tóth Éva - Dr. Kocsondi József - Horváth Krisztián – Pintér Gábor: Egy mintaértékű összefogás: „Dráva-projekt”, 2008. szeptember 25-26, 50. Georgikon Napok, Keszthely, (összefoglaló kiadványban ISBN 978-963-9639-31-7, tanulmány CD-n ISBN 978963-9639-32-4)
Tóth Éva - Horváth Krisztián - Dr. Kocsondi József: The possibilities of tourism development in the western region of Lake Balaton, 2008. szeptember 25-26, 50. Georgikon Napok, Keszthely, (összefoglaló kiadványban ISBN 978-963-9639-31-7, teljes tanulmány CD-n, ISBN 978-963-9639-32-4)
Horváth Krisztián - Tóth Éva - Dr. Kocsondi József– Pintér Gábor: A Nyugat-Balatoni térség turizmusának jövőbeni lehetőségei, 2008. október 9, VIII. Regionális Tanácsadási Konferencia, Miskolc, 2008. október 9, VIII. Regionális Tanácsadási Konferencia, Miskolc, (CDn, ISBN 978-963-661-860-5)
Tóth Éva – Pintér Gábor: Az ökoturizmus fejlesztése egy Drávamenti kistérségben, 2008. október 9, XXXII. Óvári Tudományos Nap, Mosonmagyaróvár, (CD-n, ISBN 978-963-9883-05-5) 2009
Tóth Éva – Pintér Gábor: Dráva-menti turisztikai lehetőségek az UMVP tükrében, 2009. április 16, XV. Ifjúsági Tudományos Fórum, Keszthely (összefoglaló CD-n, ISBN 978-963-9639-33-1)
24
Tóth Éva - Lukács Gábor - Kocsondi József: A Dráva-mente turisztikai pályázati lehetőségei 2009-ben, 2009. november 11-15. X. RODOSz konferencia, Kolozsvár (ISBN: 978-973-88970-8-3) Kolozsvár: Clear Vision Könyvkiadó, 2009. 2010
Tóth Éva – Kocsondi József: Ökoturisztikai felmérés a Duna-Dráva Nemzeti Parkban 2009-ben, 2010. március 25-26. XII. Nemzetközi Tudományos Napok, Károly Róbert Főiskola, Gyöngyös (ISBN 978-963-9941-09-0)
Tóth Éva: Turisztikai vizsgálatok a Duna-Dráva Nemzeti Parkban, 2010. március 25. XVI. Ifjúsági Tudományos Fórum, Keszthely (ISBN: 978-963-9639-36-2)
Tóth Éva - Kocsondi József: A Duna-Dráva Nemzeti Park szervezett túráin résztvevők vizsgálata, 2010. szeptember 30 október 1, LII. Georgikon Napok, Keszthely (elektronikus kiadvány ISBN-száma: ISBN 978-963-9639-39-3) 2011
Éva Tóth – Gábor Lukács: Schloß- und Hofhaltung: Diener- und Landwirtschaftsbeamten im Hof von Graf Georg Festetics an der Wende des 18. Jahrhunderts. Mogersdorf, Internationales Kulturhistorisches Simposion Mogersdorf, 2011. július 5-8., Fürstenfeld (megjelenés alatt).
Tóth Éva - Lukács Gábor - Kocsondi József: Örökség és turizmus a Georgikon Karon. In: LIII. Georgikon Napok. Konferencia helye, ideje: Keszthely, Magyarország, 2011. szeptember. 29-30. p. 127. (összefoglaló kiadvány ISBN 978-963-9639-43-0 ISBN 978-9639639-44-7 elektronikus tanulmány ISBN 978-963-9639-44-7)
2012 25
Lukács Gábor - Tóth Éva (Ed.): Szendrey Júlia emlékkönyv. Keszthely: Pannon Egyetem, Georgikon Kar, 2012. (Georgikon Kiskönyvtár; 25.) ISBN 978-963-9639-46-1) (szerző, szerkesztő)
Tóth Éva – Lukács Gábor: Örökségturisztikai célú fejlesztések a Szendrey-telepen 2012. április 19, XVIII. Ifjúsági Tudományos Fórum, Keszthely (összefoglaló CD-n, ISBN 978-963-9639-45-4)
Tóth Éva – Lukács Gábor – Kocsondi József: A világháló szerepe a Duna-Dráva Nemzeti Park életében. In: LIV. Georgikon Napok. Konferencia helye, ideje: Keszthely, Magyarország, 2012. október 11-12. p.118. (összefoglaló kiadvány ISBN 978-963-9639-47-8, elektronikus tanulmány ISBN 978-963-9639-48-5) 2013
Tóth Éva: Nemzeti Parkjaink ismertsége 2013-ban. In: Hensch Árpád nyomdokain. III. Gazdálkodás konferencia. Konferencia helye, ideje: Mosonmagyaróvár, Magyarország, 2013.április 25. Mosonmagyaróvár: Nyugat-magyarországi Egyetem Mezőgazdaságés Élelmiszertudományi Kar, 2013. p. 36. (ISBN 9789633341070)
Tóth Éva – Lukács Gábor: A Dráva-mente ismertsége 2013-ban. In: LV. Georgikon Napok: A jövő farmja. Keszthely, 2013. szeptember 26-27., p. 98. (összefoglaló kiadvány ISBN 978-963-9639-52-2, elektronikus tanulmány ISBN 978-963-9639-53-9)
Lukács Gábor - Tóth Éva: Szendrey Júlia szülőháza – ikonikus hely. Reading the City II: Iconic Places, Veszprém, Pannon Egyetem, Modern Filológia és Társadalomtudományi Kar 2013. október 2526. (előadás)
Tóth Éva – Lukács Gábor: Vérbetűkkel íratott – 1526. Reading the City II: Iconic Places, Veszprém, Pannon Egyetem, Modern Filológia és Társadalomtudományi Kar, plenáris előadás, 2013. október 25-26. (előadás) 26
2014
Tóth Éva – Lukács Gábor (Ed.): Szendrey Júlia Emlékkönyv, második javított kiadás. Georgikon kiskönyvtár sorozat, 25. kötet. 2014 ISBN 978-963-9639-58-4 (szerző, szerkesztő)
Éva Tóth – Judit Poór: What is the different between the foreign visitors of Danube-Drava National Park Directorate and the ’average’ foreign visitors of Hungary? In: 20th Youth Scientific Forum p. 561-572. Keszthely, 23-24 May, 2014. ISBN:978-9639639-57-7
Tóth Éva: Vérbetűkkel íratott – 1526. In: TOPOS Journal, nemzetközi kétnyelvű peer-reviewed folyóirat. Tér-KultúraTudomány. Kiadja: Pannon Egyetem, Angol - Amerikai Intézet. 1/2014.
Tóth Éva - Lukács Gábor: Környezettudatos nemzeti parki látogatók. In: LVI. Georgikon Napok. Konferencia helye, ideje: Keszthely, Magyarország, 2014. október 2-3., p. 146. (összefoglaló kiadvány ISBN 978-963-9639-59-1, elektronikus tanulmány ISBN 978-963-9639-60-7) 2015
Tóth Éva – Lukács Gábor: Az ökoturizmus jelentősége Magyarország védett természeti területein. Turizmus a régiófejlesztés szolgálatában nemzetközi tudományos konferencia. Konferencia helye: Odorheiu Secuiesc és Madarasi Hargita, Románia, 2015. április 24-25.
Tóth Éva: A Duna-Dráva Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság leglátogatottabb vonzerői. XXI. Ifjúsági Tudományos Fórum, Keszthely, 2015. május 21. (összefoglaló CD-n, ISBN 978-963-963978-2)
Tóth Éva – Lukács Gábor (Ed.): Nagyváthy János 260. Georgikon kiskönyvtár sorozat, 27. kötet. 2015 ISBN 978-963-9639-79-9
27
Éva Tóth: THE RECOGNITION OF OUR NATIONAL PARKS AMONG YOUNG ADULTS, In: DETUROPE (The Central European Journal of Tourism and Regional Development), Volume 7, Issue 3, 2015 (http://www.deturope.eu).
Tóth Éva – Lukács Gábor: Az ökoturizmus jelentősége Magyarország védett természeti területein. Turizmus a régiófejlesztés szolgálatában. MÜTF oktatási központ, Odorheiu Secuiesc, Románia. (lektorált tanulmány megjelenés alatt).
Tóth Éva – Poór Judit: A Dráva-mente ismertsége. Gazdálkodás c. folyóirat (tanulmány második körös lektorálás alatt). 2016
Tóth Éva: Nemzeti parki termékek a fenntarthatóság jegyében. Fenntarthatóság – utópia vagy realitás? Konferenciakiadvány, BME, Budapest, 2016. ISBN 978-963-313-219-7
28
7. Links 1.
Babbie, E. (2008): A társadalomtudományi kutatás módszertana, Balassa Kiadó, Budapest.
2.
Bércziné, J. J. (2005): Marketing a XXI. században, Kereskedelmi és Idegenforgalmi Továbbképző Kft., Budapest.
3.
Dávid, L. & Jancsik, A. & Rátz, T. (2007): Turisztikai erőforrások. Perfekt Kiadó, Budapest.
4.
Halassy, E. (2007): A magyar lakosság nemzeti parkokkal, természetjárással és lovasturizmussal kapcsolatos attitűdjei, utazási szokásai és utazási tervei 2006-ban In: Turizmus Bulletin, XI. évfolyam, 1-2. szám.
5.
Ifjúsági Turizmus fejlesztési Stratégia (IFS) (2010): Pannon Egyetem Turizmus Tanszék, Veszprém.
6.
Kelemen, Z. (2006): Ökoturizmus, Természet – Kultúra Harmónia. Magosfa Környezeti Nevelési és Ökoturisztikai Alapítvány, Vác.
7.
Kocsis, K. & Schweitzer, F. (Ed.) (2011): Magyarország térképekben. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Földrajztudományi Kutatóintézet, Budapest.
8.
KSH (2013): Magyarország turisztikai régiói, 2013. november. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.
9.
KSH (2014): A háztartások életszínvonala, 2014. november. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.
10.
Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Minisztérium (KVvM) & Magyar Turizmus Zrt. (MT Zrt.) (2010): A magyarországi nemzeti parkok látogatónak jellemzői 2009-ben. / www.szakmai.itthon.hu letöltés: 2013. június/
11.
Magyar, Zs. & Sulyok, J. (2014): Az ökoturizmus helyzete Magyarországon. In: Turizmus Bulletin. 2014/2.
12.
Majoros, P. (2004): A kutatásmódszertan alapjai, Perfekt Nyomda, Budapest.
13.
Malhotra, N. K. & Simon J. (2009): Marketingkutatás, Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest.
29
14.
Mintel, A. (2014): Redefining Ecotourism. London, United Kingdom.
15.
Nemzeti Turizmusfejlesztési Stratégia (NTS) (2005): Magyar Turisztikai Hivatal. 2005-2013. Budapest.
16.
Nemzeti Turizmusfejlesztési Koncepció (NTK)(2013): Nemzeti Turizmusfejlesztési Koncepció 2014-2024. Stratégia tervdokumentum. Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium Turizmusért felelős Helyettes Államtitkársága.
17.
Országos Ökoturizmus Fejlesztési Stratégia (OÖS)(2008): Pannon Egyetem, Turizmus Tanszék - Aquaprofit Zrt. VeszprémBudapest.
18.
Rácz, A. (2015): Új irányok, fejlesztési lehetőségek az ökoturisztikai létesítmények kialakításánál – Ökoturisztikai és természetvédelmi konferencián elhangzott nyitóelőadás. 2015. június 12. Békéscsaba, Körösök Völgye Natúrpark látogatóközpontja (Széchenyi liget).
19.
Sulyok, J. (2009): A magyarországi nemzeti parkok látogatónak jellemzői. In: Turizmus Bulletin, XIII. évfolyam, 4. szám.
20.
V. Németh, Zs. (2015): Új irányok, fejlesztési lehetőségek az ökoturisztikai létesítmények kialakításánál – Ökoturisztikai és természetvédelmi konferencián köszöntő előadás. 2015. június 12. Békéscsaba, Körösök Völgye Natúrpark látogatóközpontja (Széchenyi liget).
30
