HIGH SPEED RAIL, ACCESSIBILITY AND THE TOURISM MARKET: EVIDENCE FROM EUROPEAN CITIES
Francesca Pagliara Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering University of Naples Federico II E-mail: fpagliar@unina.it
OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER PERSPECTIVES
2
INTRODUCTION Transportation and travel can be discussed without taking tourism into consideration, but tourism cannot thrive without travel (Seddighi and Theocharous, 2002). Transportation is vital in Tourism’s operation.
3
INTRODUCTION Postulates in the role of transport in tourism development Kaul (1985): One: The evolution of tourism is greatly influenced by and is a function of the development of the means of transport. Two: Tourism is a mass phenomenon as well as an individual activity, which needs and calls for transport and other facilities suitable for each category.
Three: Transport facilities are an initial and integral need for tourism and operate both as an expanding as well as a delimiting factor for traffic flows; the quality of transport services offered also influences the type of tourist flow. Four: The planned development, maintenance and operation of transport infrastructure under a well conceived overall transport policy, to meet the present and future technology and demand requirements, is the key to the success of the transport system contributing to the growth of tourism. Five: Transport prices influence elasticity of demand for traffic and diversification of price structure and competition has encouraged price reduction and qualitative improvements amongst modes of transport much to the benefit of tourism. 4
INTRODUCTION Six: The integration of domestic and international transport systems and parallel co-ordination with other countries contributes to the ease of tourism flow and growth of domestic and international tourism. Seven: Transport technological developments would exercise a deep influence on the means and patterns of transportation in both developing and developed societies, with the result that a more efficient, faster and safer transport system, beneficial to the growth and expansion of tourism would emerge and evolve. Eight: Accommodation, as an essential ingredient of tourism development and success, must maintain comparative growth to meet the increasing and diverse demands of tourism and transport expansion. Nine: The satisfactory development and equipping of terminal and en-route facilities, the systematic improvement in infrastructure, the absorption and adoption of new technology and appropriate mass marketing techniques in transport would have a pervasive impact in the continued growth of future world tourism. 5
INTRODUCTION
In the last years major investments on High Speed Rail (HSR) systems have been carried out.
Europe, together with Asia, is the leader in HSR systems. In USA, HSR is a nascent project. The administration of President Barack Obama has budgeted $10 billion for investments in HSR systems to connect major urban centers. These include corridors along the east coast linking Boston to Washington, Detroit and Chicago in the midwestern region and Los Angeles to Las Vegas.
6
INTRODUCTION
7
INTRODUCTION
HSR AND TOURISM IN CHINA
8
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
Operating and work-in-progress HSR lines In Europe the first HSR line was the "Direttissima" Rome-Florence. Built during the seventies, since 1978 the first section was operational.
2000:
2006: 2016:
248km HS line Rome-Florence half of Germany and Spain and 1/5 of France. 562km HS line opening of the RomeNaples and Turin-Novara sections. Several projects in progress
High Speed Railways
Total National Railways Network
1.355 km
24.179 km
Source: RFI
10
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
Current Scenario Mode shares in the study area Inter-province trips (%) Auto Air Intercity Railways High Speed Railways
37 trains
HSR service
62 trains
18 trains
66.5 4.3 9.2
54 trains
23 trains
65 trains
20.0 65 trains
100,0%
42 trains 8 trains 14 trains
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES Decrease of 40-50% in travel times thanks to the introduction of the High Speed/High Capacity Rail lines
Link
Travel times without HS
Travel times with HS
Decrease of travel times %
Turin-Milan
1h-30'
50'
-44%
Milan-Venice
2h-43‘
1h-25'
-48%
Milan-Bologna
1h-42'
60'
-41%
Milan-Rome
4h-30'
3h
-33%
Turin-Naples
8h-30’
5h
-41%
Bologna-Florence
59'
30'
-49%
Rome-Naples
1h-45'
1h-05'
-38%
Rome-Bari
4h-30’
3h
-33%
Naples-Bari
3h-40’
2h
-45%
12
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
Milan Venice Bologna Florence Rome Naples
Residents 1.324.110 270.884 380.018 317.282 2.761.477 959.574
Tourists 11.589.857 33.400.084 3.207.857 11.307.324 25.752.160 9.759.574
TRAVEL TIME BETWEEN THE MAIN TOURISTIC CITIES MILAN-VENICE 1h 25mins MILAN-BOLOGNA 1h VENICE-BOLOGNA 1h 25mins BOLOGNA-FLORENCE 37mins FLORENCE-ROME 1h 31mins MILAN-ROME 2h 55mins ROME-NAPLES 1h 5mins
13
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
In March 2008 an RP survey was carried out on the Naples-Rome link
Trip purpose Work Study Shopping Visiting parents/friends Tourism Other TOTAL
BEFORE HS IC ES 67% 51% 7% 5% 0% 8% 19% 16% 0% 17% 8% 3% 100% 100%
IC 40% 10% 5% 26% 10% 9% 100%
AFTER HS ES 56% 7% 5% 21% 6% 5% 100%
HS 72% 5% 3% 12% 5% 4% 100%
Source: Cascetta et al. (2011)
Trip purpose before and after HS Motivo dello spostamento
PRIMA AV 14
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
In 2011 an RP survey was carried out on the Rome-Milan link
Trip purpose Toursim Work Study
18% 55% 6%
Visting friends and relatives
21%
Other*
1%
* Sport, Health Source: Valeri et al. (forthcoming)
Trip purpose after HS 15
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
The survey in Rome A survey was carried out at Termini station, Colosseo, S.Peter and Vatican in Rome from 16th April–5th May 2012 (7.00 a.m.-8.00p.m). 241 complete questionnaires were collected. Respondent: any person who is in Rome for tourism purpose.
Objective: To analyse the factors influencing destination choice for tourism purpose. To identify if HSR services influence tourists’ destination choices.
THE CASETHE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES ROMEMADRID AND PARIS Characteristics
Levels
%
Age
18-24
15%
24-44
53%
45-64
27%
>=65
4%
M
63%
F
37%
Married
36%
Single
64%
Italian
71%
Not Italian
29%
Primary
14%
High school
59%
Bachelor/graduate degree
35%
Post-Doc experiece
0.41%
Employee
44%
Manager
7%
Freelance
19%
Student
9%
Student-worker
9%
Retired
4%
Housewife
2%
Unemployed
6%
< 500€
23%
501€-2.500€
58%
>=2.501€
19%
Group
87%
Alone
13%
Gender Marital status Nationality Education
Employment
Income
Travel type
Socioeconomic characteristics
THE CASETHE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES ROMEMADRID AND PARIS
Transport mode to reach Rome
Transport mode
%
Airplane
35%
HSR
27%
Intercity rail
33%
Conventional train
1%
Car
3%
Coach
0.41%
Total
100%
THE CASETHE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES ROMEMADRID AND PARIS
Willigness to revisit Rome Motivation Yes Rich of historical, artistic, monumental heritage and cultural events etc. Presence of friends, family and relatives
%
75% 13%
Easy access
8%
Other:
4%
Total
100%
No Rome is a city too expensive
50%
Visited several times over time
14%
Poor organization and quality of some services (transport, tourist information, street cleaning) Need a lot of time to visit
15%
Other
1%
Total
100%
20%
THE CASETHE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES ROMEMADRID AND PARIS
Did the presence of HSR affect the choice of Rome as destination? YES 27% NO 73% Among the YES respondents, why did you choose HSR? Motivation
%
Fast to reach the destination
27%
Ease of access to the rail station
28%
Frequency of rail service
5%
Possibility to visit other cities
6%
Reduced travel time
13%
Other (cost, safety, worried of using the airplane, curiosity, train ticket on sale etc.) Total
18% 100%
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
Among the NO respondents, why not choosing HSR? Motivation High cost of HSR ticket Limited time to spend for a holiday Number of transfers Other Total
% 70% 20% 5% 5% 100%
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
Did the presence of HSR foster the visit of closer cities to Rome? If YES, why? Motivation Reduced travel time Comfort Accessibility to the city center Frequency of HSR services HSR ticket price Safety Total
% 42% 8% 29% 13% 4% 4% 100%
Which cities? Cities close to Rome reachable with HSR Venice
% 21%
Bologna
6%
Milan
9%
Florence
26%
Naples
38%
Total
100%
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES
WHAT DO WE MODEL?
THE PROBABILITY OF RIVISITING ROME FOR TOURISM PURPOSE.
THE PROBABILITY OF CHOOSING HSR FOR VISITING CITIES CLOSE TO ROME.
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS Regression models to multiples independent variables:
with:
where π is the probability of the outcome Y, α is the intercept parameter, βs is the vector of s slop parameters and Xs are a set of predictors.
THE CASETHE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES ROMEMADRID AND PARIS
MODEL 1: Probability of revisiting Rome for tourism purpose ESTIMATE (t-value)
COEFFICIENT
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AGE_25-44 GENDER MARITAL_STATUS INCOME_> 2.500€
0.9405 (1.8394) -0.8274 (-1.7593) 2.7063 (4.4540) 1.6932 (2.596) TOURISM RELATED
TRDURAT_≤7DAYS QUALITY_PROMOTION SATISF_PASTEXP
-1.0112 (-1.9195) 1.2634 (2.3273) 1.0338 (2.370) TRANSPORT
TRCOST*ORIGIN_IT TRCOST*ORIGIN_RESTEU TRCOST*ORIGIN_USA&ASIA
(-1.9766) (1.6199) 0.8168 --0.8168 (-2.4323) -1.6017
-2.9151 (-2.7657)
No. of observations:241 2 = 0.5745
THE CASETHE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES ROMEMADRID AND PARIS
MODEL 2: Probability of visiting cities close to Rome by HSR for tourism purpose COEFFICIENT
ESTIMATE (t-value)
SOCIO-ECONOMIC NATION AVBUDGET_501-1.600€
-2.5211 (-3.12) -1.6205 (-2.12)
TOURISM RELATED TRDURAT ≤ 7 DAYS
-3.3983 (-3.76)
TRANSPORT TRCOST SPEED_HSR EASY_2NEARCITIES
-2.8312 (-2.74) 2.9406 (3.50) 4.078 (3.44)
No. of observations: 241 2 = 0.6958 2 adjust= 0.6637
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES Project
Inaguration
L
year TGV Sud-Est (Paris - Lyon)
1981-3
447km
TGV Atlantique (Paris -
1989-90
282km
1992-4
121km
1993
320km
1994
70km
2001
303km
June 2007
300km
Tours/Le Mans TGV Rhone-Alps (LyonValence) TGV Nord (Paris â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Calais/
belgium frontier) TGV Interconnection (bypass of Paris) TGV Med (ValenceMarsellie) TGV East Paris- Strasburg
2037km in 2011
27
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES
The survey in Paris A survey was carried out at Notre Dame Cathedral, Eiffel tower and Gare de Lyon in Paris from October 26th – November 2nd 2012 (7.45 am–7.00pm). 226 complete questionnaires were collected. Respondent: any person who is in Paris for tourism purpose.
Objective: To analyse the factors influencing destination choice for tourism purpose. To identify if HSR services influence tourists’ destination choices.
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES Characteristics Gender Marital status Nationality Age
Education
Professional status
Income
Levels Male Female Single Partnered French Foreigner 18-24 25-44 45-64 >=65 Junior high-school High-school University Employee Manager/executive Freelance Student Student employee Retired Housewife/houseman Currently unemployed < 500€ 500 – 1500 € 1500 – 2500 € 2500 – 3500 €
% 42% 58% 32% 68% 42% 58% 22% 43% 31% 5% 7% 19% 74% 33% 23% 13% 15% 4% 7% 2% 3% 10% 16% 20% 21%
Socioeconomic characteristics
42%
Tourists living in France
58%
Tourists living in other countries
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES
ABOUT THEIR STAY AVERAGE STAY IN PARIS: 5 DAYS 24%
76%
Alone 58% 19% 1% 1%
Group
With family With friends With colleagues Accompanying school
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES
Transport mode choice to reach Paris - all sample 49%
HSR
34% 15% Not 51% 2% HSR 0
Plane Car Trains Buses
Motivations for not choosing HSR (Respondents could choose multiple options) Cost of travel Duration of travel Not accessible Not convenient Not possible Need flexibility Other
36% 34% 4% 23% 19% 3% 8%
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES
Transport mode choice to reach Paris for French tourists 64%
36%
HSR 8% 22% 5% 0%
Not HSR
Plane Car Trains Buses
Motivations of French tourists for not choosing HSR (Respondents could choose multiple options) Cost of travel Duration of travel Not accessible Not convenient Not possible Need flexibility Other
42% 9% 15% 30% 6% 9% 8%
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES
Transport mode choice to reach Paris for foreign tourists 38%
HSR
52% 10% 62% Not HSR 0% 1%
Plane Car Trains Buses
Motivations of foreign tourists for not choosing HSR (Respondents could choose multiple options) Cost of travel Duration of travel Not accessible Not convenient Not possible Need flexibility Other
33% 44% 19% 20% 24% 1% 7%
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES
Willingness to revisit Paris (based on all sample) 98% Will return to Paris 2% Will not return to Paris
Tourists visiting other places during the trip (based on all sample) 20% 80%
Visiting other places Not visiting other places
Tourists visiting other places being influenced by HSR 43% 57%
Influenced by the HSR services Not influenced by the HSR services
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES
WHAT DO WE MODEL? MODEL 1. THE PROBABILITY OF RIVISITING PARIS FOR TOURISM PURPOSE. MODEL 2. THE PROBABILITY OF VISITING CITIES CLOSE TO PARIS BY HSR
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES
MODEL 1. ESTIMATION RESULTS Variable
Coefficient (t-test)
AGE_18-24
0.105 (1.979)
NATION
0.192 (3.904)
UNIV
0.238 (5.111)
TRAV_FRIENDS
0.167 (3.063)
TGV
0.177 (4.167)
VISIT_RELAT
0.160 (3.416)
ARCHITECT
0.434 (9.712)
MULTI_DEST
0.172 (3.677)
EVENT
0.0902 (2.036) No. of observations: 226 2 = 0.95 2 adjust= 0.898
THE CASETHE STUDIES CASE STUDIES OF ROME,OF PARIS, ROMEMADRID AND PARIS AND NAPLES
MODEL 2. ESTIMATION RESULTS Variable
Coefficient (t-student) NATION 0.108 (2.417) INCOME_0-2500 0.084 (1.954) TOT_HOLID_7DAYS -0.425 (-7.443) STAY_CITY_5DAYS 0.238 (4.589) TOT_HOLID_COST -0.257 (-2792) EASY_2NEARCITIES 0.289 (5.822) 2 2adj
0.41 0.392
THE CASETHE STUDIES THE CASE OF ROME, STUDY PARIS, OF MADRID MADRID AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES OF ROME AND PARIS Project
Inaguration
L
year
(km)
• Madrid - Ciudad Real - Puertollano Siviglia (Vmax 300 km/h) • Deviation to Toledo (Vmax 270 km/h).
Apr 1992
470
2004
21
•Cordova - Antequera Malaga (Vmax 350 km/h)
Dec 2007
154
• Madrid Guadalajara Calatayud Saragozza – Lleida
Oct 2003 621 Feb 2008
• Camp de Tarragona Barcellona (Vmax 350 Km/h) • Madrid - Segovia Valladolid (Vmax 350 km/h)
Dec 2007
183
• Madrid - Cuenca – Valenzia (Vmax 350 km/h)
2010
361
38
THE CASE STUDIES THE OF CASE ROME, STUDIES PARIS, MADRID MADRID AND NAPLES
The survey in Madrid A survey was carried out at the Royal Palace, Mayor Square, Prado and Reina Sofia museums in Madrid from June 24 th – June 28 th 2013 (10:00 am–2:00 pm/ 04:00 pm–7:00 pm). 501 complete questionnaires were collected. Respondent: any person who is in Madrid for tourism purpose.
Objective: To analyse the factors influencing destination choice for tourism purpose. To identify if HSR services influence tourists’ destination choices.
THE CASETHE STUDIES THE CASE OF ROME, STUDIES PARIS, OFMADRID PARIS AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES OF ROME AND PARIS THE TOURIST: SPANISH TOURISTS FOREIGN TOURISTS GENDER: MAN WOMAN MARITAL STATUS SINGLE PARTENERED MARRIED WIDOWED AGE 18-25 26-45 46-65 >65 LEVEL OF EDUCATION JUNIOR HIGH-SCHOOL HIGH-SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONAL STATUS EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYED HOUSEWIFE/MAN FREELANCE MANAGER/EXECUTIVE STUDENT STUDENT EMPLOYEE RETIRED OTHER MONTHLY INCOME <500 500-1500 1500-2500 2500-3500 3500-4500 >4500
27,7% 72,3% 54,7% 45,3% 45,3% 11,6% 41,3% 1,8%
Socioeconomic characteristics
25,7% 38,1% 29,3% 6,8%
2,0% 26,9% 71,1% 45,5%
5,0% 2,0% 9,0% 5,8% 18,2% 3,2% 10,8% 0,6% 28,7% 20,8% 18,6% 13,4% 8,4% 10,2%
27,7% Tourists living in Spain 72,3% Tourists living in other countries
THE CASETHE STUDIES THE CASE OF ROME, STUDIES PARIS, OFMADRID PARIS AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES OF ROME AND PARIS
ABOUT THEIR STAY AVERAGE STAY IN MADRID: 5 DAYS STAY ALONE WITH COLLEGUES WITH RELATIVES WITH FRIENDS WITH PARTNER OTHER (mainly:organized group) TYPE OF ACCOMODATION B&B / HOSTEL FRIENDS HOME HOTEL PARTNER HOME RELATIVES HOME OTHER TYPE OF ACCOMODATION How was your trip arranged? RELATIVES/FRIENDS BY MYSELF TRAVEL AGENCY TRAVEL PACKAGE
15,6% 3,4% 27,1% 20,4% 30,5% 3,0% 10,4% 11,0% 62,1% 2,0% 7,6% 7,0% 5,2% 76,4% 10,4% 8,0%
THE CASETHE STUDIES THE CASE OF ROME, STUDIES PARIS, OFMADRID PARIS AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES OF ROME AND PARIS
Criteria influencing the choice of Madrid as destination for tourism purpose (based on all sample) MOTIVATIONS
1st CHOICE
2nd CHOICE
3nd CHOICE
RELATIVES / FRIENDS
26,3%
7,2%
9,0%
HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL LANDMARKS/MUSEUMS
40,1%
32,3%
15,7%
NATIONAL CULTURE/GASTRONOMY
15,8%
41,0%
27,7%
LESS COSTLY THEN OTHER DESTINATIONS
1,4%
4,2%
10,9%
GOOD QUALITY OF TOURISM PROMOTION
3,2%
5,7%
16,1%
SHOPPING AND GENERAL EVENTS (SPORT, MUSIC, ETC.)
12,4%
7,7%
15,7%
HSR
0,8%
2,0%
4,9%
THE CASETHE STUDIES THE CASE OF ROME, STUDIES PARIS, OF MADRID MADRID AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES OF ROME AND PARIS MOTIVATIONS FOR CHOOSING HSR ALL THE TOURISTS
SPANISH TOURISTS
FOREIGN TOURISTS
1st 2nd 3nd 1st 2nd 3nd 1st 2nd 3nd CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE
LESS TRAVEL TIME
78,1%
12,8%
8,7%
76,9%
7,7%
6,3%
82,6%
18,2%
16,7%
ACCESSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTURE/ARRIVAL STATION
6,3%
46,2%
8,7%
7,7%
38,5%
12,5%
4,3%
72,7%
0,0%
FREQUENCY OF SERVICE
1,6%
15,4%
26,1%
2,6%
19,2%
25,0%
0,0%
0,0%
33,3%
VISITING OTHER CITIES LINKED BY HSR
0,0%
5,1%
17,4%
0,0%
3,8%
18,8%
0,0%
9,1%
16,7%
SAFETY
1,6%
7,7%
13,0%
2,6%
11,5%
12,5%
0,0%
0,0%
16,7%
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY
3,1%
0,0%
13,0%
2,6%
0,0%
6,3%
4,3%
0,0%
16,7%
OTHER
9,4%
12,8%
13,0%
7,7%
19,2%
18,8%
8,7%
0,0%
0,0%
THE CASETHE STUDIES THE CASE OF ROME, STUDIES PARIS, OF MADRID MADRID AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES OF ROME AND PARIS
Transport mode choice to reach Madrid - all sample TRANSPORT MODES
ALL TOURISTS
HSR CAR PLANE PARTIAL HSR COACH INTERCITY
12,8% 11,0% 59,1% 4,0% 9,2% 4,0%
Motivations for not choosing HSR (Respondents could choose multiple options) MOTIVATIONS TRAVEL COST ACCESSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTURE/ARRIVAL STATION TRAVEL TIME TOO MANY TRANSFERS OTHER
1st 2nd CHOICE CHOICE 19,2% 17,4%
3nd CHOICE 25,5%
8,0%
19,2%
23,4%
8,7% 1,8% 64,1%
28,2% 15,4% 17,9%
14,9% 17,0% 19,1%
THE CASETHE STUDIES THE CASE OF ROME, STUDIES PARIS, OF MADRID MADRID AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES OF ROME AND PARIS
Transport mode choice to reach Madrid for Spanish tourists TRANSPORT MODES
SPANISH TOURISTS
HSR CAR PLANE PARTIAL HSR COACH INTERCITY
28,1% 28,1% 8,6% 11,5% 18,0% 5,8%
Motivations of Spanish tourists for not choosing HSR (Respondents could choose multiple options) SPANISH TOURISTS MOTIVATIONS
1st CHOICE 2nd CHOICE 3nd CHOICE
TRAVEL COST
39,2%
19,0%
0,0%
ACCESSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTURE/ARRIVAL STATION
21,6%
14,3%
12,5%
TRAVEL TIME TOO MANY TRANSFER OTHER
3,9% 2,0% 33,3%
19,0% 4,8% 42,9%
25,0% 12,5% 50,0%
THE CASETHE STUDIES THE CASE OF ROME, STUDIES PARIS, OF MADRID MADRID AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES OF ROME AND PARIS
Transport mode choice to reach Madrid for foreign tourists TRANSPORT MODES
FOREIGN TURISTS
HSR CAR PLANE PARTIAL HSR COACH INTERCITY
6,9% 4,4% 78,5% 1,1% 5,8% 3,3%
Motivations of foreign tourists for not choosing HSR (Respondents could choose multiple options) FOREIGN TOURISTS MOTIVATIONS
1st CHOICE
2nd CHOICE
3nd CHOICE
TRAVEL COST ACCESSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTURE/ARRIVAL STATION TRAVEL TIME TOO MANY TRANSFERS OTHER
10,8%
19,3%
30,8%
3,9%
21,1%
25,6%
10,2% 1,8% 73,3%
31,6% 19,3% 8,8%
12,8% 17,9% 12,8%
THE CASETHE STUDIES THE CASE OF ROME, STUDIES PARIS, OF MADRID MADRID AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES OF ROME AND PARIS
Willingness to revisit Madrid (based on all sample) WILLINGNES TO REVISIT MADRID
78,0% 22,0%
YES NO
Tourists visiting other cities of Spain during the trip (based on all sample) VISITING OTHER SPANISH CITIES OTHER THAN MADRID
62,1% 37,9%
YES
NO TOURISTS VISITING THEM BY HSR YES NO
56,1% 43,9%
THE CASETHE STUDIES THE CASE OF ROME, STUDIES PARIS, OF MADRID MADRID AND NAPLES CASE STUDIES OF ROME AND PARIS
Motivations for coming back to Madrid by HSR MOTIVATIONS LESS TRAVEL TIME
1st 2nd 3nd CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE 73,6% 8,8% 7,7%
ACCESSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTURE/ARRIVAL STATION
2,9%
18,4%
11,5%
FREQUENCY OF SERVICE LESS COSTLY
0,6% 6,3%
6,6% 14,7%
8,7% 9,6%
VISITING OTHER CITIES LINKED BY HSR
4,0%
11,0%
12,5%
SAFETY
0,0% 1,7% 10,3% 0,6%
11,0% 4,4% 25,0% 4,4%
17,3% 2,9% 29,8% 1,0%
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY
COMFORT OTHER
Motivations for not coming back to Madrid by HSR MOTIVATIONS LESS TRAVEL TIME
1st 2nd 3nd CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE 5,1% 17,6% 20,0%
ACCESSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTURE/ARRIVAL STATION
8,8%
17,6%
40,0%
TRAVEL COST
33,8% 0,7% 51,5%
29,4% 17,6% 17,6%
40,0% 0,0% 0,0%
TOO MANY TRANSFERS OTHER
THE CASE STUDIES THE CASE OFAND ROME, STUDIES PARIS, OF PERSPECTIVES MADRID AND NAPLES CONCLUSIONS FURTHER
Is High Speed Rail a crucial factor influencing the choice of revisting Madrid as a tourist destination? YES NO MOTIVATIONS LESS TRAVEL TIME ACCESSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTURE/ARRIVAL STATION FREQUENCY OF SERVICE LESS COSTLY VISITING OTHER CITIES LINKED BY HSR SAFETY ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY COMFORT OTHER
41,1% 58,9% 1st CHOICE 65,8%
2nd CHOICE
3nd CHOICE
12,5%
7,4%
7,0%
13,8%
11,6%
0,5% 3,5%
9,4%
8,3%
10,6%
5,0%
12,1%
11,3%
15,7%
0,5% 1,5% 8,5% 0,5%
12,5%
13,2%
6,9%
5,0%
23,1%
32,2%
0,0%
1,7%
CASE OF STUDIES ROME AND PARIS THE CASETHE STUDIES ROME,OF PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
WHAT DO WE MODEL?
THE PROBABILITY OF RIVISITING MADRID FOR TOURISM PURPOSE.
THE PROBABILITY OF CHOOSING AVE FOR VISITING CITIES CLOSE TO MADRID.
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
MODEL 1: THE PROBABILITY OF REVISITING MADRID FOR TOURISM PURPOSE VARIABLES DESCRIPTION NATION MARRIED FREELANCE TRANSP_COST>500Euro FIRST_TIME_MADRID STAY_RELAT_HOME ARCH_MUSEUM AVE
is equal to 1 if the tourist is Spanish; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if the tourist is married; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if the tourist is a freelance; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if the tourist has spent more than 500Euro; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if the tourist has never been bifore in Madrid; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if the tourist’ stays at his/her relatives’home; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if the tourist is coming back to Madrid for its architerctural heritage; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if tourist is influnced by AVE in the choice of revisiting Madrid; 0 otherwise.
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
ESTIMATION RESULTS: MODEL 1 VARIABLE NATION
COEFFICIENT (T-VALUE) 0,121 (3,633)
MARRIED
-0,063 (-2,315)
FREELANCE
0,104 (2,2040)
TRANSP_COST>500Euro
-0,028 (-,954)
FIRST_TIME_MADRID
-0,083 (-2,809)
STAY_RELAT_HOME
0,111 (2,131)
ARCH_MUSEUM
0,559 (20,409)
AVE
-0,015 (-,552) No. of observations: 501 2 = 0,493 2 adjust= 0,485
THE CASETHE STUDIES ROME,OF PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES CASE OF STUDIES ROME AND PARIS
Did the presence of HSR foster the visit of closer cities to Madrid? Why did the tourist use HSR:
VISITING OTHER CITIES OF SPAIN YES NO VISTING OTHER CITIES BY HSR YES NO
62,1% 37,9%
56,1% 43,9%
MOTIVATIONS FOR USING HSR LESS TRAVEL TIME ACCESSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTURE/ARRIVAL STATION FREQUENCY OF SERVICE LESS COSTLY VISITING OTHER CITIES LINKED BY HSR SECURITY ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY CONFORT OTHER
1st CHOICE 73,6%
2nd CHOICE 8,8%
3nd CHOICE 7,7%
2,9%
18,4%
11,5%
0,6%
6,6%
8,7%
6,3%
14,7%
9,6%
4,0%
11,0%
12,5%
0,0%
11,0%
17,3%
1,7%
4,4%
2,9%
10,3% 0,6%
25,0% 4,4%
29,8% 1,0%
MOTIVATION FOR NOT USING HSR LESS TRAVEL TIME ACCESSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTURE/ARRIVAL STATION TRAVEL COST TOO MANY TRANSFER OTHER
1st CHOICE 5,1%
2nd CHOICE 17,6%
3nd CHOICE 20,0%
8,8%
17,6%
40,0%
33,8% 0,7% 51,5%
29,4% 17,6% 17,6%
40,0% 0,0% 0,0%
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
MODEL 2: THE PROBABILITY OF CHOOSING AVE FOR VISITING CITIES CLOSE TO MADRID VARIABLES DESCRIPTION NATION COMFORT STATION_ACC EASY_2NEARCITIES
SAFETY SERV_FREQ
is equal to 1 if the tourist is Spanish; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if for the tourist comfort has influenced the choice of AVE; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if for the tourist station accessiblity has influenced the choice of AVE; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if for the tourist the easy access to two near cities to Madrid has influenced the choice of AVE; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if for the tourist safety has influenced th3 choice of AVE; 0 otherwise. is equal to 1 if for the tourist service frequency has influenced the choice of AVE; 0 otherwise.
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
ESTIMATION RESULTS: MODEL 2 VARIABLE
COEFFICIENT (T-VALUE)
NATION
-0,170 (-2,553)
COMFORT
0.528 (11,863)
STATION_ACC
0,461 (8,124)
EASY_2NEARCITIES
0,343 (5,531)
SAFETY
0,317 (4,938)
SERV_FREQ
0,381 (4,689)
No. of observations:311 2 = 0,541 2 adjust= 0,531
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
SURVEY TOOLS The survey has been employed between 28th Octover till 28th November 2013 and from 5th January to 5th February 2014 through the following websites:
www.tripadvisor.it www.enit.it www.turistipercaso.it
Total of 327 tourists visiting Naples. Objective: To analyse the factors influencing destination choice for tourism purpose. To identify if HSR services influence tourists’ destination choices.
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
Why do tourists visit Naples?
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES Characteristics Gender
Marital status
Nationality
Age
Level of Education
Occupation
% Man
58%
Woman
42%
Single
45%
Married/Partnered
55%
Italian
59%
Foreigner
41%
< 21
6%
21-35
38%
36-40
11%
41-60
35%
>60
10%
Primary school
2%
High School
38%
Degree
60%
Employed
59%
Manager
5%
Freelance
5%
Student
13%
Retired
9%
Unemployed
8%
Socioeconomic characteristics 59%
Italians
41%
Foreigners
Income
< 500 € 500 – 1500 € 1500 – 2500 € 2500 – 3500 € 3500 – 4500 € > 4500 €
23% 24% 23% 20% 5% 5%
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
Information about the journey Average stay in Naples: 3 days TRAVELLING WITH ALONE
17%
WITH FAMILY IN GROUP
WITH FRIENDS PARTENER
34% 83%
27% 22%
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
Transport mode chosen to reach Naples
HSR
41%
NOT HSR
Plane Car Train Bus
31% 10% 11% 7%
Willingness to revisit Naples Yes
71%
No
29%
THE CASETHE STUDIES ROME,OF PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES CASE OF STUDIES ROME AND PARIS
WHAT DO WE MODEL?
THE PROBABILITY OF RIVISITING MADRID FOR TOURISM PURPOSE.
THE PROBABILITY OF CHOOSING AVE FOR VISITING CITIES CLOSE TO MADRID.
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
MODEL 1 Variables description NATION MARRIED FREELANCE LESS-EXP
EVENTS (sport, music, shopping) GASTRONOMY CULT-ART_HERITAGE
HSR
equal to 1 if the tourist is Italian; 0 otherwise. equal to 1 if the tourist is married; 0 otherwise. equal to 1 if the tourist is a freelance; 0 otherwise. equal to 1 if the tourist has chosen to revisit Naples since it is less expensive w.r.t. other destinations; 0 otherwise. equal to 1 if the tourist has chosen to revisit Naples because of the presence of events (sport. music. etc.); 0 otherwise. equal to 1 if the tourist has chosen to revisit Naples because of its gastronomy; 0 otherwise. equal to 1 if the tourist has chosen to revisit Naples because of its cultural and artistic heritage ; 0 otherwise. equal to 1 if the tourist has chosen to revisit Naples because of the presence of HSR; 0 otherwise.
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
MODEL 1 estimation results
VARIABLE (Constant) NATION MARRIED FREELANCE LESS-EXP EVENTS (sport, music, shopping, etc.) GASTRONOMY CULT-ART_HERITAGE HSR
COEFFICIENT (T-VALUE) 0.324 (8.602) 0.056 (2.588) -0.118 (-2.986) -0.094 (-2.090) 0.851 (23.142) 0.880 (16.872) 0.145 (3.879) 0.901 (32.716) 0.107 (2.310)
2=0.462; 2adj=0.452
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
Model 2: Probability of visiting cities close to Naples by HSR for tourism purpose Variables description
NATION
equal to 1 if the tourist is Italian; 0 otherwise.
STATION_ACCESS
equal to 1 if the tourist has chosen HSR because of the departure/arrival station accessibility; 0 otherwise. equal to 1 if the tourist has chosen HSR because of the reduction of travel time; 0 otherwise. equal to 1 if the tourist has chosen HSR because of the service frequency; 0 otherwise. equal to 1 if the tourist has chosen HSR because it is safe; 0 otherwise. equal to 1 if the tourist has chosen HSR because of the comfort; 0 otherwise.
TRAVEL-TIME SERV_FREQ SAFETY COMFORT
THE CASE STUDIES OF ROME, PARIS, MADRID AND NAPLES
MODEL 2 estimation results
VARIABLE
COEFFICIENT (T-VALUE)
(Constant)
0.044 (3.455)
NATION
0.035 (2.058)
STATION-ACCESS
0.266 (10.191)
TRAVEL-TIME
0.530 (20.410)
SERV_FREQ
0.315 (7.530)
SAFETY
0.272 (6.327)
COMFORT
0.229 (7.213)
2=0.493; 2adj=0.485
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER PERSPECTIVES
HSR HAS AN IMPACT ON THE CHOICE OF DESTINATION FOR TOURISM PURPOSE IN THE FRENCH AND IN THE NAPLES CASE STUDIES. THE FRENCH HSR SYSTEM IS WELL ROOTED COMPARED TO THE ITALIAN ONE AND WIDELY ACCEPTED AMONG THE FRENCH AS A REAL TRANSPORT ALTERNATIVE. FOR MADRID AND ROME, AN IMPACT EXISTS SINCE HSR IS CHOSEN FOR VISITING CITIES CLOSE TO THEM. NEW INVESTIGATION WITH A LARGER DATA SET TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS. CARRY OUT THE SAME ANALYSIS FOR OTHER CASE STUDIES.
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER PERSPECTIVES
Conditions leading to the appearence of HSR impacts are related to: Existence of strong local potentialities. The presence of HSR is insufficient to develop tourism products (places) that are little known (QUALITY OF PROMOTION OF THE DESTINATION).
The existence of local strategies. The effects of HSR are not automatic (PROMOTION OF THE SERVICE ITSELF). The development of specific aspects of the toursim sector such as urban tourism and business tourism (HSR CAN SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN TOURISM, PARTICULARY FOR SHORT STAYS).
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER PERSPECTIVES