Annual Passes Lukáš Nekolný*, Dana Fialová

Original Article 167

The issues in methodology and data interpretation in studies of tourist attractions’ attendance: annual passes Lukáš Nekolný*, Dana Fialová

Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Science, Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Czechia * Corresponding author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The attendance belongs to the basic quantitative indicators, which are used for assessment of the offer in the tourism. It should be used for monitoring of development, geographical structure, seasonality and from interpretational view also for monitoring of achievement or failure. This paper discusses, emphasizes and evaluates the very current topic of methodological differences in the data collection of tourist attractions attendance. The work focuses especially on the subtopic of annual passes on the example of zoos, which belong to the most visited tourist attractions worldwide and where the sale of annual cards is a typical service. Nev- ertheless, this article proves on the example of the zoos in German-speaking countries that the rise of attendance does not only have to show the reality. The total number of visits and the positive attendance development is in some zoos connected to the methodological approach.

KEYWORDS methodology; tourism; attendance; annual passes; zoo

Received: 6 July 2017 Accepted: 19 June 2018 Published online: 3 September 2018

Nekolný, L., Fialová, D. (2018): The issues in methodology and data interpretation in studies of tourist attractions’ attendance: annual passes. AUC Geographica 53(2), 167–179 https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2018.17

1. Introduction and to highlight risks of interpretation by ignorance or lack of knowledge of data-producing methodolo- Tourism and recreation belong to the activities which gy. This has been performed through different meth- determine the surrounding geographical area. This determination is mainly long-term, but might be by the diverse methods of counting the annual passes short-term as well. It is connected to the maintenance entries.ods. The Throughout authors ask tourist which attractions influence canwith be statistics caused and establishment of tourist attractions and infra- of entries, zoos (zoological gardens and other ani- structure and also with a permanent occurrence of mal-based attractions) have a very privileged position tourist players. For evaluation of tourism as an eco- with one of the highest attendance worldwide (Dobro- nomic sphere and also for evaluation of its impacts we ruka 1989; Baratay, Hardouin-Fugier 2004, Rees 2011; need to have quality data sources. Assessment, ratings and statistics are part of all human activities, includ- these institutions in the study. The second one is con- ing tourism and recreation. But the other branches nectedFialová, to Nekolný zoos as 2015).appropriate It is the institutions first reason for for explain using- (e.g. health care) have more quality data compared to ing the methodological problems with annual passes. tourism and culture (Borská 2013). The attendance belongs to the basic quantitative indicators, which are used for assessment of the offer 2. Theoretical basis in this sector (Vystoupil 2007). It can be and it even should be used for monitoring of development, geographical structure, seasonality and from interpre- many tourist destinations of different scale levels tational and pragmatic view also for monitoring of (locations,Tourism generates regions significantor countries), economic assuming benefits proper in achievement or failure, which depends on growth management (Jakubíková 2012, Borská 2013). Some respectively downward trend (Lew et al. 2004). High countries, typically small islands, are even depend- and increasing numbers of attendance can have pos- ent on the revenue from the tourism sector (UNWTO itive effects but after reaching tolerable limits also the negative ones (e.g. situation in Barcelona) on in tourism there is a scarcity of high-quality data media image and branding (Kašková, Chromý 2015; (Borská2009; Fialová 2013). 2012). Not only In hascontrast data knowledgewith other crucialfields, - importance for several reasons, it also serves many uation. Moreover, we can recognise in which part of purposes. For a destination of any scale level, attend- theMatlovičková life cycle e.g. 2015) a tourist which attraction affects the is. Iteconomic is important sit ance data are one of the basic performance indices for its sustainability, which is a current parameter - from a long-term view. After all, sustainable devel- tistics of overnight stays in collective accommoda- opment of tourism is the topic of many articles and tion(Vystoupil establishments 2007). These (in Czechia,data can thesebe reflected statistics in staare books, which were published in last decades (e.g. Swarbrooke 1998; Pásková 2014) and, furthermore, said this information plays a prime role in academ- it is the basic topic of Journal of Sustainable Tourism. icsecured literature by the (Vystoupil Czech Statistical 2007). However, Office) and considering it can be But the data situation is not simple because the the current trends in tourism, individualisation and data base is relatively limited. In tourism, we have “authenticity” in private accommodation, which is not some information about collective accommodation registered statistically (mainly due to a protection of establishments, nevertheless, this information is - variable in the overall rating. It is for this same rea- ing impact of shorter trips and journeys without stay- sonindividual that data data), responding is growing to collective to be another accommodation significant ingbecoming overnight insufficient (Franke 2012). because For of this a steadily reason, increasit is also establishments are available only in municipalities appropriate to check the attendance of tourist attrac- with more than three pursued possibilities of accom- tions. We need these data for many reasons thor- modation (Fialová, Nekolný 2017). oughly analysed in the next section of this article. In Attendance can also be related to catering, cultur- the statistics of this topic, there can be a lot of meth- al and sport establishments as well as to all sorts of odological limits, differences and distortions, which could create meaningless numbers without almost Pásková 2012). A correct understanding of the term any importance. Published data can be therefore “attendance”tourist attractions is absolutely (firstly Cohenessential in for1972; an accurateZelenka, incomparable to each other. Because of this situation, - there is a real need of correction and presentation of ka, Pásková (2012), attendance refers to the num- risks to professional public, creating of discussion and interpretation of data in tourism. According to Zelen

timeber of range people (typically who visit one specificyear). This tourist is, nevertheless, attractions paperin the isideal to identify case of andestablishing introduce a whichunified basic system meth of- aor rather destinations idealistic and approach. who do Itso is within the number some ofspecific visits odologicalmeasuring problems/risksthe attendance exist.data. The first aim of this and not visitors that represents a more accurate perception of this concept (Smith 2013). This relates to explain mutual deviations and deviations from reality the fact that the same visitor can return to the same The main aim of this study is to find, document and Methodology and data interpretation in studies of tourist attractions’ attendance 169 attraction or destination repeatedly during the select- attractions (in particular historical sites or natural ed time (most commonly one calendar year). For the monuments) as the carrying capacity becomes exceed- correct assessment of any tourism segment, it has to be taken into consideration that the same person the decrease of the genius loci and the authenticity can visit more facilities of the same kind, and there- ed. Zedková (2012) finds this as a significant factor in fore the total number of attendances does not equal isof anthe unstable specific variable. attraction. The In perception addition, theof authenticity concept of person = one visit approach” is, unfortunately, used isauthenticity traditionally (firstly not applicableMacCannel in in case 1973; of Wangzoos (Wang1999) fairlyto that often specific and share contributes of human to population. incorrect statistics.This “one 1999). Pásková (2014) refers to the excess of carry- Holtorf (2008), for example, says that zoos in World ing limits as the tourism trap effect, during which the Association of Zoos and Aquaria tourism is depreciating itself by extending its own visited by over 600 million people, i.e. roughly 10% of the world’s population (or more (WAZA) actually are annually Gusset, The attendance (and its seasonality) depends on Dick [2011] with 700 million people). This value is, manycapacity factors. for the The sake basic of profit. ones are geographical, like nonetheless, only the sum of the entries in zoos under area and geographical position, site or localisation this organization and the fact that the same people (Baratay, Hardouin-Fugier 2004). These are connected to settlement (residential and demographic than once per year is not acknowledged. Consequent- factors and structure [Rees 2011]) and also to traf- ly,can under visit oneno circumstances specific zoo or the more total institutions number can more be contrasted with the world’s population. attractions (Mizicko, Bell 2001). In this context, Frost The number of paid visits is essential for anyone (2011)fic infrastructure emphasizes and that the aquaria,proximity for of instance,other tourist are engaged in tourism. It is, therefore, necessary to real- ize that one subject can manage more objects (tourist of long-term, attractive destinations. Cultural predis- attractions) in more locations (e.g. National Muse- positionsfounded in (e.g. places intercultural with the benefitrelationships, of the existenceattitudes um). Statistics handled these criteria are valuable for and connections with the environment) are also very aggregate management and economic view. On the important in different countries and regions (Davey other hand, attendance data for each tourist attraction 2007). For instance in the US and partly in Europe, - there is a very high level of using zoos as the sites of graphical indicators. Collected attendance data about recreation and family and social grouping (e.g. Reade, allseparately branches hold of thesignificance National mainlyMuseum for (located social and in geosev- Waran 1996; Turley 2001; Woods 1998). Even weath- en municipalities of four districts; annual report [AR] er plays its role (Rees 2011). In winter, the indoor 2013) provide no information about their distribu- attractions have bigger success than the outdoor tion and different position to other tourist attractions. ones, so there are some surveys exploring the param- The data about individual objects (tourist attractions) eters of weather and attendance as a complex matter play a key role in proper destination management and also in economic factors such as different structure the period from Easter to the end of summer holiday (e.g. AR of Magdeburg Zoo). According to Rees (2011) disabled people), who often greatly contribute to the the temperate climate. The fact that different tourist overallof visitors, attendance specific (e.g.needs zoos of non-payingin Bratislava, visitors Ostrava (e.g. or attractionshas a main influenceoffer different on the activities balance ofmakes attendance it neces in- Hluboká mention a 15% share [AR, emails]). sary to differentiate between more types of tourist Attendance is one of the rudimentary scales of attractions (in the case of Baratay, Hardouin-Fugier success/failure of tourist institutions, subjects, loca- differentiation also plays a role in attendance levels. 2012). That is why each such subject aims to reach Tourist[2004] zoos)attractions in a specific can be countryvery different or destination. (Kušen 2010) This thetions, highest and destinationsattendance, highest (Vystoupil number 2007; of visits, Zedková and and they have distinct character, cause and the circum- if possible, the highest number of visitors who will stances of their creation (Swarbrooke 2002). They return again (in this scenario the term number of visits instead of visitors 2012) and as a result also a distinct number of vis- emphasize that the returning visitors usually give have distinct area, capacity and attractivity (Vaníček positive feedback and is morerecommendation easily justified). of the Studies des- also play an important role in the attendance levels. tination to other potential clients (Jang, Feng 2007). its.High-quality Extraordinary statistics events ofsuch the as attendance floods or havedisease an application in the research, therefore in tourism exists the trend of decreasing average number of overnight timesThese more recommendations expensive than retaining save money the existing as finances ones stays (Franke 2012), shortening of journeys, and an spent on attracting new customers can be up to five increase in the importance of trips. The importance The high number of visits is an indicator of tour- grows with the necessity of better knowledge about (Rust, Zahorik 1993). these shorter journeys without the use of accommo- budgets. On the other hand, too high number of vis- dation. This obtained information also thanks to the itsist candestination have a negative attractivity impact and in iscase reflected of many in tourist their attendance data throughout the visitor attractions. 170 Lukáš Nekolný, Dana Fialová

These data are not compared only within a one-year furthermore, many methodological differences com- period but mainly in trends. Namely, the important plicating any relevant data work. Some essential top- information about the position of any attraction on the market (and in the tourist-area life cycle) may to the detailed and long-term study of research arti- be found based on trends (Davey 2007). Butler came clesics of (e.g. methodological Smith 2013), problemsmainly annual were reports defined and thanks sta- with this concept (Lew et al. 2004) in 1980 and even tistical reviews with methodological notes, and also through correspondence with the representatives of and the model itself has a lot of problems (Palatková 2006),though itthe is realityan appropriate is rather modelsimplified instrument by this approach for fore- 2016). A simple summary is stated below: casting the future in any destination on any scale level. almost 40 zoos and the Hořovice Chateau (Nekolný Knowing the motivation and reasons behind visits attraction of touristic attractions is crucial for the visitor man- – Data per whole organisation/specific tourist agement – therefore the visitor studies were founded exhibitions (Mizicko, Bell 2001). For example, Ryan (2003) dealt – Data per per paid/all whole visitors/visits attraction/specific tour routes, with the typology of motivation. Motivation differs – Data realistic per entries/throughout the according to the type of attraction. Gelná and Fialová (2011) believe that experiences play bigger and more – Data per the different/the same time important role in leisure time. First visitor motivation coefficients studies were focused on museums. This approach These points are valid in general and they are could be also applied to zoos (Mizicko, Bell 2001). very well applicable to the context of zoos. The top- These particular studies also dealt with the issues of ic of zoos from the view of tourism is not elaborat- annual passes. Mizicko, Bell (2001) emphasize that ed strongly enough in literature, as commented by visitor studies are becoming more and more useful in Mason (2000) and Frost (2011). However, a very decision-making processes. interesting article with methodological warnings was Aside from the aforementioned way of data usage, - - book. This begins to emerge new term – zoo tourism tor (Davey 2007). It can have a considerable impact (e.g.published Mason by 2000 Davey in (2007)Journal in of International Sustainable Tourism).Zoo Year onfinancial economic sources support, represent which anothergoes hand important in hand with fac Hosey et al. (2013) say that zoos are full of animals high-quality marketing, promotion and a big role of as well as people. Poley (1993) highlighted the same, - saying that there are more people than animals in - - portmedia from (Fialová, important Nekolný sponsors, 2017). If visitors, the attendance and public fig tions (e.g. Dobroruka 1989; Baratay, Hardoui-Fugier resources.ures are high, The it compilation is much easier of rankingsto find financial (e.g. Czech sup- 2004;zoos. Zoos Fialová, belong Nekolný to the 2015). most Withvisited the tourist development attrac Tourism) can be perceived as a media support or of society, their function has changed, especially in a marketing tool. High rankings can put the spotlight the most popular ones. Originally, zoos were mostly on these attractions and ensure their brand being places of entertainment (Carr, Cohen 2011). Turley (1999) talks about three basic roles of modern zoos. 2015). On the other hand, it can be viewed as a natu- According to Poley (1993), Hediger talked about four ralacknowledged process – benchmarking (Kašková, Chromý – comparing 2015; Matlovičová to competi- aims of zoos. Very similar goals were mentioned by Carr, Cohen (2011), Rees (2011) and by Dobroruka analysis (Holešinská 2010). The output of the com- (1989) in Czech literature. Therefore, the functions of parisontion (Zelenka, depends Pásková on the 2012) chosen or interorganizational methodology and zoos can be distinguished in these four points: enter- hence cannot be realistic. tainment, recreation, education, research and conser- The attendance of many tourist attractions (e.g. vation of natural and cultural heritage. monuments, natural attractions) can be perceived in If we talk about the topic of attendance, litera- connection with education or gaining some knowl- ture is mostly silent. This is a very problematic topic edge: especially informal, but in the last years also with differences in methodology. British zoo expert Anthony Sheridan (2016) is aware of this issue, too. etc. The attendance levels cannot be interpreted as adirectly number formal of people through who receivedtours, information some education leaflets or constrain is connected to the fact that not every zoo knowledge, since one can visit the same attraction belongsIn the zoo to areapaid thereattractions are many (e.g. differences.wildlife parks The [wild first- more times. Consequently, the question of a precise parks] in Germany) and in those cases, the statistics interpretation is very problematic and overvalued are very often missing. Some zoos have detached (Smith 2013). expositions and, strictly speaking, these are separate Accurate and complete data are necessary but, tourist attractions. As the most troubling theme the problem that statisticians in tourism face is the lack ofunfortunately, data of other verythan difficultpaid services to obtain. (Vystoupil The 2007; basic measuringAnnual (orof visits seasonal) through passes the coefficients (in German instead Jahres- of Kruczek 2014). Except for this limitation, there are, kartenreal entries, in Czech can be permanentky identified. ) are offered only by Methodology and data interpretation in studies of tourist attractions’ attendance 171 some tourist and leisure attractions. The annual pass- in this type of tickets is growing, it is not a new trend. es are very popular in areas which are worth visiting 1974 that about 25% of all visits were accomplished Prototypical visitors of zoos as well as the most typ- viaNotwithstanding, annual cards (Baratay Mulhouse and Zoo, Hadouin-Fugier France reported 2004), in icalmore users times of per annual year, cardstypically are in families zoos (Vaníček with children 2012). this number can´t be generalized. The importance (Cain, Meritt 2007). Such visitors come mainly direct- of annual passes in different regions, countries, and ly from the “zoo city” because the shorter proximity, even for various tourist attractions and in different the higher probability of more frequent visits. Annual time periods differs depending on many factors. The number of inhabitants around an attraction (mostly in cities) and the city’s connection with the transpor- passes can be very profitable for this kind of visitors. tation network play the main role. These factors are appliesNevertheless, for methodology. the financial The profit main gained aim of from this holding contri- mainly geographical. Many zoos are visited by the bution,an annual hence, pass aims can to vary detect significantly and identify and the the method same- ologically problematical procedures. - icalsame city people zoo). multipleIn 2009, timesa survey a year, was suchconducted as Zlín in Zoo, the which is located in the suburbs of Zlín (it is not a typ 3. Methodology were reported by 14% of respondents, even though theirzoo, finding share thatof the repeated attendance, visits withinnaturally, the samehad to year be The information and data come from an own long- noticeably higher (multiplied per number of visits). term study of different attendance data sources, The motivation hidden in repeated visits can be found especially from hundreds of annual reports and sta- in the zoo’s attractive facilities. The annual cards are tistical yearbooks. In some cases this information is usually of less importance in smaller zoos and of larg- used only as a source of numbers (e.g. attendance, er importance in bigger ones. Another important fac- attendance per annual passes, the number of annual tor is the size of the city, where the zoo is situated. - Furthermore, according to Floriánová (2017) from er reports, there are also very useful methodological explanatorypasses) in selected notes oryears even (e.g. longer AR Jihlava texts withZoo). aIn more oth detailed evaluation, explanation and interpretation DěčínMoreover, Zoo, the the wide role range of annualof annual cards passes most prevents likely - dependsconflict situations on the political, at ticket historical offices. and economic sit- ble to compile long time series, which had been used uation. Identifying the share and the importance of in(e.g. this AR contributionMagdeburg Zoo). and Inparts some of zoos, them it arewas shown possi these long-term passes is dependent on the use of the - annual passes can be calculated through the websites odology for arriving at results, this fact becomes the ofgraphically tourist attractions. (e.g. fig. These 3 and data 6). were The profitabilityused for critical of fundamentalproper methodology. problem Sincewhich there hinders is no the unified comparabil meth- comparative analysis of methodological approaches. ity of published data. According to recent information The email correspondence with the representatives (e.g. Goldner 2014), we can talk about a problem that of nearly forty European zoos served as a very sub- has existed for many years and has been gradually stantial source of information (Nekolný 2016). The emails were sent to 133 zoos in 17 countries, so the years. Therefore, this topic deserves a professional data and other information provided approximate- research.becoming more significant, especially in the last few ly one third of the accosted. The emphasis has been put on Czechia and German-speaking countries that 5. The same coefficient in different Europe. The amount and the details of information situations dependreflect different on the situation approaches in the to institutions the methodology (in small in- er zoos there is often no detailed data basement, at The most important zoos in German-speaking least in the long-term view.). The communication has countries are associated in an organisation called been under way in Czech, German and English since - 2015. Addressed people work as directors, business - Verband der Zoologischen Gärten (VdZ). This profes manysional decadesassociation ago. implemented The aim of thisa specific approach methodolo was to ormanagers at the secretariat. and senior officers at departments of public achievegy of including high level the ofannual comparability passes through across coefficients these zoos contact, marketing and public relations, press officers (Dommes 2015; Kanton Basel-Stadt 2015). According

4. Significance of annual passes annual card for one person is counted automatically asto this20 entries VdZ-coefficient in the attendance (VdZ-Schlüssel number. in German), The passes the The share of the annual pass entries in zoo attend- for up to four people (such as families and sponsors) ance can reach several tens of percent a year (e.g. AR the last years the methodology was criticised due to are counted as 80 entries (e.g. Basel Zoo 2015a). In Cologne Zoo; AR Münster Zoo). Although the interest 172 Lukáš Nekolný, Dana Fialová the overestimation of attendance (Goldner 2014). more examples in table 1. Also the offers vary – there Although the average number of twenty entries per - in the table 1), but the majority of the cards are pass- cult to estimate the right number. The particular situ- esare non-transferable transferable annual from tickets person (e.g. to Liberec person Zoo (linked – see one person is shown to be usually too high, it is diffi - Annual cards with unlimited number of entries are beration of is it influenced is cheaper by than many by factors buying (see per partpartes/indi 2 and 4)- totypical a specific in Germany. name, often In contrast, with a photo limited of the passes holder). are vidualincluding entries. the profitability This essential of thedifference pass – bywas what acknowl num- examples see in the table 1). different approaches/attitude of zoos see table 1. quiteOn commonthe basis inof Czechiathese data (e.g. we Jihlava can say Zoo, the for share other of edgedFor byinstance, VdZ (VdZ the 2014).Apenheul For Primatebasic orientation Park in the in the annual passes in the annual attendance depends Netherlands offers a season pass, pays for itself by - the second entry (Apenheul website 2016), where- tion as well as on the calculation methodology. In as the zoo in Kraków, Poland, sells annual cards with caseon the of favourability/profitability,zoos in central Europe with geographical accurate inclusion loca of the visitors it is possible to talk about a share of - up to 10% of the total number of visits. In Western aal financial card makes advantage sense forafter every between twelfth the visit fourth (Kraków and Europe the numbers are higher. It is probably a result Zoo website 2016). For the majority of cases, an annu of historical, cultural and political development along with the settlement structure. However, it could be fifth, eventually sixth entry (for German-speaking a very useful and interesting topic of future research. countries offers this comparison Schüling, Altefrohne In many Czech zoos the share is even lower than cards[2018], can in becomeCzechia favourablee. g. Ostrava at Zoo,different Pilsen number Zoo, Zlín of the aforementioned 10% – e.g. only ten passes in Zoo). We have to also know that the particular type of case of an adult card it is worth buying by the fourth - entries. For example, in Nordhorn Zoo (Germany), in Hodonín Zoo in 2016 (Uhrová 2017). But it seems to and for families already at the third visit (Nordhorn be an extreme case. More often we can find the por entry, even though for children it is by the fifth one- tion of about four percent (e.g. Ústí nad Labem Zoo ty in selected European zoos is analysed in detail with [Balejová 2016], Brno Zoo [Vavřinová 2016], Jihlava Zoo website 2016). This topic of different favourabili Zoo app. 3% [Mrázková 2016]). The institutions using the VdZ-coefficient have a higher share of annual card Tab. 1 Comparison of profitability of annual cards for adults in selected European zoos, March 2017.

Price of Price of Economical Zoo Country Currency Price ratio Note day-ticket annual card from entry no. Basel Zoo Switzerland CHF 21 90 4.29 5 non-transferable Zürich Zoo Switzerland CHF 26 130 5.00 6 non-transferable Berlin Zoo Germany EUR 14.5 49 3.38 4 non-transferable Cologne Zoo Germany EUR 19.5 85 4.36 5 non-transferable Leipzig Zoo Germany EUR 17 76 4.47 5 non-transferable Magdeburg Zoo Germany EUR 13 55 4.23 5 non-transferable Hellabrunn Zoo, Munich Germany EUR 15 49 3.27 4 non-transferable 590 3.03 4 non-transferable Dvůr Králové Zoo Czechia CZK 195 1600 8.21 9 transferable, 10 entries Liberec Zoo Czechia CZK 120 850 7.08 8 transferable, 15 entries Ostrava Zoo Czechia CZK 110 550 5.00 6 non-transferable Pilsen Zoo Czechia CZK 150 700 4.67 5 non-transferable 700 3.50 4 non-transferable, 12 entries Prague Zoo Czechia CZK 200 non-transferable, “No limit” 1350 6.75 7 – unlimited non-transferable, additional Zlín Zoo Czechia CZK 130 600 4.62 5 benefits non-transferable, additional Copenhagen Zoo Denmark DKK 180 440 2.44 3 benefits Kraków Zoo Poland PLN 18 200 11.11 12 – Vienna Zoo Austria EUR 18.5 44 2.38 3 non-transferable

Source: Own processing based on the zoo websites. Note: This table shows annual cards without discounts (for adults). Some zoos offer two types of annual passes (e. g. Prague Zoo, Dvůr Králové Zoo). Methodology and data interpretation in studies of tourist attractions’ attendance 173 entries, in some cases even higher by an order. E.g. the change of the methodology caused the smaller

(Germany) – its director said that he was pleased Halle Zoo (ca. 30%; Bernheim 2016), Hellabrunn Zoo morenumber. with Similar the number situation 618 happened thousand in than Münster with Zoothe (2014:in Munich 71%; (2014: AR 2014). 43%; ARThe 2014), last mentioned Dresden Zooinstitution (2014: - reported56%; Marx a decrease2015; 2013: of this 65%; share AR 2013)after the or changeBasel Zoo of methodology to “mere” but more realistic nearly 45%. 915 thousand (VdZ 2016) – it was caused through Likewise, some smaller German zoos which are not usedout the for methodology. decades. Each In summerzoo has to2015 decide, VdZ decidedhow to approachto retire the this united change VdZ-coefficient, (Dommes 2015). which So now had we been can encounter more methodologies than before. Howev- a member of the VdZ use the coefficient – e.g. Zittau er, each zoo has to take different factors into account. entries)Zoo (2014: tend 19%; to achieve Großer the2016). highest The zoosshare offering (e.g. Basel the family annual cards (automatic coefficient: 4 × 20 = 80 therefore there was not a need for change in meth- err towards an even higher overestimation than due odologyE.g. Neunkirchen (Andres Zoo2015). did Therenot use is thea very coefficients paradoxical and toZoo). passes Therefore for one it person is possible, because due the to wholefamily four-partcards, to family does not have to be complete in all visits. Con- Alpenzoo publish two different attendance numbers. situation in Austria since Salzburg Zoo and Innsbruck of entries made through annual cards in surveyed destination rankings (AustriaTourism 2015) and the sequently, we wanted to find out the average number The first number can be found in Austrian tourist- 1) The average number of entries per one annual passzoos. does Here not are usually the basic exceed findings: the value ten. This num- onsecond their one source – which and uses one thewho coefficients is not familiar – in VdZ with web the ber is often only slightly lower than this value (2014: situationsite and tables cannot (VdZ grasp 2016). the reason Thus data of these are dependent dissimilar values. Some zoos are turning to new ways of data acqui- datae.g. Jihlava cannot Zoo be 9.46generalized. entries; InBrno Marlow Zoo for Bird unlimited Park in sition – often via use of turnstiles. The turnstiles are Germanypasses 9.01 the or season 2015: ticket Ústí Zoo is favourable 9.26). However, to buy thesefor at connected with the methodology of “person-entries”, least three visits. Therefore there are only 3.1 entries which means each pass through the entrance turn- per annual card on average (2015; Gereit 2016). stiles is counted as an entrance of one person. This 2) Some zoos are unable to say how many entries were done through the annual cards. These are not - dataprinciple are comparable is used in Prague with the Zoo majority or Artis of Royal Czech Zoo zoos in tions – e.g. zoos in Hluboká, Liberec, Olomouc, Ostrava andAmsterdam relatively (Macháčková recently with 2015; the GermanSloet 2016). zoos whichThese only zoos using coefficients but also other institu - - tive trend in comparability with other zoos and tour- mation(Czechia) is ornot Delitzsch important (Germany). for this Břečkovázoo. A different (2016), istgave attractions. up using theIn tourism, coefficients. the knowledge And this marks of the a devel posi- the press officer in Olomouc Zoo, says that this infor opment is the most important aspect and as a result of they write down lines by hand for the accurate num- that we also need to know the attendance calculated bersapproach (Balejová can be 2016). seen A in very Ústí unique nad Labem situation Zoo, is where to be via the methodology used long-term (albeit it could be inappropriate). Other way of solving this problem (2017) talks about the annual cards as something outsidefound in the Vyškov statistics Zoo. –The people deputy with director these passes Nepeřená are (according to the new methodology) was compared to not included in the number of visits. The zoo only has thecan attendancebe found in forBasel 2005 Zoo which where was the recalculated number for using2015 internal statistics about the number of sold passes. the annual cards average of the year 2015 (AR 2015). Therefore, it can be said that virtually every zoo uses - a different approach to this topic and it is an impor- es noticeable deviations from the reality in case of selectedThe figures zoos. These1 and 2are show located that inthe bigger coefficient cities causor in areas with the higher population density. Such zoos tant question in which cases we can find significant or usually have a high level of attendance and also a con- insignificant differences. siderable number of people buying the annual passes. 6. Recent changes in methodology Therefore the number of visits grows faster in such cities and mainly in Germany, Austria and Switzerland In 2013, according to the recommendation brought this development was multiplied by methodology – - fromby the 20 criticism to 10 entries, of coefficients starting used from in German-speak2014 (e.g. Hei- throughout the overstated coefficients. ing countries, some zoos have changed the coefficient 7. The annual passes and their trends number in 2014 was lower than in 2013, the media talkeddelberg about Zoo; a Heck record 2016). number Although of visits the(Knopik attendance 2015). The increasing attendance in some zoos But in 2014 the attendance was actually higher, only can be assigned to inaccurate and unrealistic 174 Lukáš Nekolný, Dana Fialová

Real attendance Attendance according to VdZ-‐coef>icient

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% attendace accoridng to VdZ-‐coef6icient to VdZ-‐coef6icient accoridng attendace Share of real attendance comparing with

Municipality with zoo

Fig. 1 Comparison of relative attendance according to different methodologies, selected member zoos of VdZ 2014. Source: Own processing based on VdZ 2016.

Real attedance Attendance according to VdZ-‐coef>icient

3500 3000 2500

2000 1500 1000

500

0 Annual attendance (in thousands) attendance Annual

Municipality with zoo

Fig. 2 Comparison of absolute attendance according to different methodologies, selected member zoos of VdZ 2014. Source: Own processing based on VdZ 2016.

methodological procedure. The interest of visi- This zoo of worldwide importance has experienced tors in the annual passes is very different and it extreme surge of interest since 2009. From 2009 to also depends on the selected region or country. In 2014 the number of annual pass owners grew ten- Czechia, the sales of this kind of tickets are low- fold (from 4310 pc in 2009 to 44 697 pc in 2014; er compared to Germany and the Western Europe. Hence we suggest more detailed analysis aimed at is increasing. - fig.In 3). other It is likely zoological that the gardens knowledge the increasing about this trend offer nomenon. In this article we can only mention a cou- are not that noticeable, but in the majority of exam- plefinding of important the cause examples, and the development especially from of this Switzer phe- land. In the late ’80s and ’90s of 20th century some example, the number of season passes sold increased zoos saw a large increase in sales of annual cards ples positive development can be seen (fig. 4). For but others did not (adhere to this trend). This was, 2009–2014.

2.5 times in Zoo Magdeburg during the years

(1987: 1492 pc, 1992: 1612 pc, 1997: 1521 pc). disadvantages also due to the reason that this system for instance, the case of Hellabrunn Zoo in Munich Established system of coefficients has significant

Methodology and data interpretation in studies of tourist attractions’ attendance 175

10 Number of annual passes (in thousands) annual passes Number of

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Fig. 3 The development of annual cards in Hellabrunn Zoo, Munich (D), 2005–2015. Source: Own processing based on AR of Hellabrunn Zoo in 2005–2015.

Fig. 4 The development of sales of annual cards in German and Swiss zoos with available data, 2009–2015. Source: Own processing based on AR of zoos and email correspondence with representatives of zoos.

is not able to answer the basic questions about vis- – How many visitors visit free special events? itors. These questions represent the key for visitor - management. Knitter (2016) from the zoological ties, including the unawareness of the daily attend- and botanical garden Wilhelma Stuttgart especially ance.So theIn this coefficient case daily calculation data include causes visitors many difficul buying emphasizes these questions: one day tickets – non-paying visitors are then calcu- – How often the owners of the annual cards go to the lated as 5% of the paying visitors. And the number zoo? of entries via annual cards is calculated only in the – How many children go to the zoo as a part of a fam- annual attendance. ily (per family tickets)? The other methodical problem is differing lengths – How many children under the age of six (entrance of validity. Most often it is one year (12 months) after free) go to the zoo? – How many visitors use the free tickets? – How many students take part in the educational (2016)the purchase emphasizes, of the pass the annual (e.g. Münster pass purchased Zoo). In Ostrava before Zoo can be seen similar situation, but as Šoupalová programs? Christmas can be activated in June of the next year

176 Lukáš Nekolný, Dana Fialová

Real attendance Attendance according to VdZ-‐coef>icient

1000 900 800 700 600

thousands) thousands) 500 400

Annual attendance (in 300 200 100 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Fig. 5 Trend of attendance according to different methods, Goldau Zoo (CH), 2007–2014. Source: Own processing based on Hürlimann (2010), AR of Goldau Zoo in 2009/10–2014/15. Note: Methodological problem pertaining to Goldau Zoo: data from 1 April to 31 March of the next year – other zoos have data per calendar year.

Total attendance Attendance through individual tickets 1200000 30000

of annual passes Number 1000000 25000

800000 20000

600000 15000

Zoo attendance 400000 10000

200000 5000

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0

Fig. 6 Development of attendance by type of ticket, Münster Zoo (D), 1990–2014. Source: Own processing based on data from Jahresstatistik Stadt Münster 2014. Note: Decrease in 2001 below 800 thousand visits was caused by an outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

The zoo had to be closed for 20 days in spring Methodological note: The number of visits with the annual passes is calculated for families as four people × 20 = 80 entries. Thanks to this procedure we can compare all the types of annual passes (for families and individuals) among each other. Hence the number of sold annual tickets differs from the number in the fig. 6. Members of zoo society (Zoo-Verein) are also included in the annual passes chapter (Münster Zoo website 2016; AR 2000).

and it is the start of the 12 months period. If we cal- evidence in 2013. The resulting number of visits in problem arises because both new and old ones (from zoothis inyear Zürich exceeded established one million a new (precisely electronic 1,079,919). system of theculate last the year) annual are valid.cards Invia other coefficients, cases the a significantvalidity of the passes is constrained by calendar year or season yielded a number that was nearly twice the result of (e.g. Apenheul Primate Park in the Netherlands, Pairi theHowever, usage usingof the the electronic previous system method – 2,003,043 (via coefficients) entries

is valid to 15 March of the next calendar year (Basel Daiza in Belgium). In Basel Zoo the long-term ticket (AR Zürich Zoo 2013; Goldner 2015). Nearly the same- The introduced problems are possible to demon- tionsituation of the happened results and in Baselcomparison Zoo. The with result other of Eurothese- Zoo website). peanradical zoos. changes has to be reflected in the interpreta

strate also in the case of famous Swiss zoos. At first, Methodology and data interpretation in studies of tourist attractions’ attendance 177

9. Conclusion changes. This zoo exceeded the level of 300 thousand visitsGoldau immediately Zoo encountered after including similar children problems under and six The goal of this paper is to highlight and evaluate - the very current topic of methodological differences in the data collection of tourist attractions attendance. changeyears of the age published in 1994 (Hürlimann attendance 2010). surpassed The VdZ-cothe lev- The work focuses especially on the subtopic of annual efficient was first used there in 2006 and after this passes. This theme is exemplarily shown in detail on year 2014/2015, when the former methodology was the example of zoos, where the sale of annual cards is re-adoptedel of 800 thousands the attendance entries annually. decreased Since below financial 400 a typical service. It is also a possibility how the inter- thousands entries. For the differences between the est in repeated visits as well as in the whole zoo can be increased and how the attendance can be enhanced. Nevertheless, this article proves on the example of the results of the methodology see fig. 5. zoos in German-speaking countries that the rise of 8. Coefficient – risk of influencing a trend attendance does not only have to show the reality and

If we talk about the annual passes, we have to think repeated visits). This positive development is in some about the trend of this segment as well as about the zoosthe visitor connected financial to the profitability methodological (in the “conception”. situation of trends of the attendance of the other visitor groups It could be true that both trends operate at the same in context of the total numbers of visits. The question - - gent. The detailed example of the attendance devel- time but it is not clear if both influences are conver- is whether the used coefficient can affect the attend cients can modify the trend – whether it is growing ance trends? On the basis of the example of Münster oropment declining. in Münster Publisher Zoo data shows aren‘t that comparable use of the coeffi auto- aroundZoo (Germany) 900 thousand it is clear or one that million it could entries be possible. during matically, it is necessary to know their methodology theFig. 256 shows years the1990–2014. total attendance From the fluctuated long term mostly view and to assess if and how we can work with them. The the numbers are relatively stable. However, the term possibilities of methodological purifying are some- stability is not applicable to the cases of different vis- times limited but only with the emphasis on the data itor groups – there were plenty of changes. The num- purity and reality relevant results can be reached. ber of visits made with traditional one-day tickets This methodological approach could also be used for declined from 650 thousand to 350 thousand (Stadt other tourist destinations and cultural institutions, especially in the boundary areas with entry fees and as well, but not that dramatically. The most crucial people motivation for repeated visits. If the explorer changeMünster came 2015). in caseThe ofsum annual of group passes tickets – their decreased number does not know (at least) any part of the methodology or anything that demonstrates the knowledge of the context, he exposes himself to the risk of an inappro- 6).and Similar officially development also the number was found of entries in other made German with priate interpretation. Unfortunately, this situation is orthem Swiss increased zoos (see during previous these chapters). 25 years And fivefold where (fig. is known from the media as well as from important statistical institutions and from time to time also directly from explorers. the attendanceproblem hiding? reached In nearly2014 Münster 948 thousand Zoo changed entries, butthe methodology.the electronic Usingcalculation the former yielded VdZ only coefficient around many years ago, in the time when there was lack of - The annual cards coefficients have been brought- ence is important for the interpretation, just as in 556 thousand of visits (VdZ 2016). Such big differ geographical,technical monitoring time and equipment,other differences a specific among compa desti- nationsrability. andHowever, attractions. these Thiscoefficients is exactly have something ignored that the aforementionedstability to speak Swiss of. At zoos. the beginning Thus in Münster of the 1990s there reallythe number was a ofsignificant one-day ticketsdecrease exceeded of attendance the number – no the utilization of annual passes. Additionally, the coef- of 700 thousand entries which means approximately influences the attendance as well as the importance of about 150 thousand more than was the total attend- usually overvalue the real situation. For these reasons ance in 2014. Therefore the analysis and evaluation theficients basic are recommendation in most of the examples is always unsuitable to collect – datathey of these data and the subsequent practical response more accurately, to check the methodology, to use should be one of the most important challenges for the destination management. if it is possible and not necessary. only the real(istic) data and not to use the coefficients 178 Lukáš Nekolný, Dana Fialová

References behaviour, management, and welfare. Oxford University Baratay, E., Hardouin-Fugier, E. [translated by Oliver Welsh] Hosey,Press, G. Oxford.R., Melfi, V., Pankhurst, S. (2013): Zoo animals:

Pbk. ed. London: Reaktion books. (2004): ZOO: a history of zoological gardens in the West. Hürlimann,Schwyzer M. Hefte (2010): 95, Verl.Der Natur-Schwyzer und Hefte, Tierpark Schwyz. Goldau, In: AustriaTourism. http://www.austriatourism.com Jakubíková,Die Entstehung D. (2012): und Marketing Entwicklung v cestovním zum modernen ruchu: Zoo. jak Besucherzahlen/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2014e_besucherzahlen- von Sehenswürdigkeiten 2013 (2015). von-sehenswuerdigkeiten-2013-mit-wien.pdf (15 March Jang, S., Feng, R. (2007): Temporal destination revisit 2015). intention:uspět v domácí The effects i světové of novelty konkurenci. seeking Grada, and Praha.satisfaction. Borská, K. (2013). Tourism Management 28(2), 580–590, https://doi Master thesis. Praha, Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze. .org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.024. Marketing státních hradů a zámků. míst. 24(4), 8–9. Aquariums.Fakulta podnikohospodářská. Tourism Review International [online] Kašková, M. Chromý, P. (2015): Přitažlivost „značkových“ Cain,11(3), L., Meritt, 295–306. D. (2007): http://openurl.ingenta.com/content The Demand for Zoos and Geografické rozhledy http://www. /xref?genre=article,issn=1544-2721,volume=11,issue=3 Knopik,heidelberg24.de/heidelberg/heidelberg-rekord- M. (2015): Ein tierisch gutes Jahr für den ,spage=295 (10 March 2017). heidelberger-zoo-viele-besucher-zuvor-4610766.htmlHeidelberger Zoo. Heidelberg24. (20 January 2016). Images of Entertainment, Education and Conservation. Carr,Anthrozoös N., Cohen, 24(2), S. (2011): 175–189, The Public https://doi.org/10.2752 Face of Zoos: Polska Organizacja Turystyczna, Kraków – Warszawa. /175303711X12998632257620. Kultur,Kruczek, Sport, Z. (2014): Freizeit Frekwencja (2015). Kanton w atrakcjach Basel-Stadt. turystycznych. http:// Davey, G. (2007): An analysis of country, socio-economic www.statistik.bs.ch/zahlen/tabellen/16-kultur-sport and time factors on worldwide zoo attendance during -freizeit.html (19 February 2016). Kušen, E. (2010): A system of tourism attractions. Tourism 217–225, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748 – An international Interdisciplinary Journal. 58(4), -1090.2007.00007.x.a 40 year period. International Zoo Yearbook 41, 409–424. Lew, A. (ed.), Hall, C. M. (ed.), Williams, A. M. (ed.) (2004): A companion to tourism. MA: Blackwell, Blackwell Dobroruka, L. (1989): Zoologické zahrady. Státní companions to geography, Malden. pedagogické nakladatelství, Praha. Fialová, D. (2012): Cena za cestovní ruch: přínosy versus Research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(4), 333–339, ztráty: vzdělávací modul geografie: výukový a metodický Mason,https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667368. P. (2000): Zoo Tourism: The Need for More text: Přírodní vědy a matematika na středních školách v Praze: aktivně, aktuálně a s aplikacemi. P3K, Praha. Mizicko, L., Bell, C. E. (eds.) (2001): Fialová, D., Nekolný, L. (2015): Rub a líc turistické Matlovičová, K. (2015): Značka územia. Prešov: Prešovská přitažlivosti. Geografické rozhledy 24(4), 8–9. Publishers,univerzita, Grafotlač.Chicago. Franke,Fialová, A.D., (2012): Nekolný, Statistiky L. (2017): cestovního Řečí čísel ruchu. cestovního Wolters ruchu. Nekolný,Encyclopedia L (2016): of the world’s Zoos. Fitzroy Dearborn Geografické rozhledy 26(3), 22–23. Problémy metodiky a interpretace dat Education,Kluwer Česká Entertainment?. republika, Praha. Channel View Publications, Palatková,návštěvnosti M. (2006): turistických Marketingová cílů. Diploma strategie thesis. destinace Praha, Frost,Buffalo. W. (2011): Zoos and Tourism: Conservation, Univerzita Karlova. Přírodovědecká fakulta. Gelná, T., Fialová, D. (2011): Changes in the current Czech ruchu. Grada, Praha. and German society and their effects on free time cestovního ruchu: jak získat více příjmů z cestovního spending. AUC Geographica 46(2), 55–66, https://doi .org/10.14712/23361980.2015.31. Poley,Pásková, D. (1993):M. (2014): Berichte Udržitelnost aus der cestovního Arche: Nachzucht ruchu. statt Wildfang.:Gaudeamus, TRIAS, Hradec Stuttgart. Králové. Humanistischer Pressedienst. http://hpd.de Reade, L. S., Waran, N. K. (1996): The modern zoo: How do Goldner,/artikel/10124 C. (2014): (20 Zoos January manipulieren 2015). Besucherzahlen. people perceive zoo animals? Applied Animal Behaviour Goldner, C. (2015): Eingesperrte Tiere angaffen? Nein Science 47(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016 danke!. 6. Norderstedt: BoD - Books on Demand. /0168-1591(95)01014-9. Gusset, M., Dick, G. (2011): The global reach of zoos Rees, P. A. (2011): An introduction to zoo biology and and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation management. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, https://doi .org/10.1002/9781444397840. .org/10.1002/zoo.20369. Holešinská,expenditures. A. (2010): Zoo Biology 30(5), 566–569, https://doi Customer Retention, and Market Share. Journal regionální politiky cestovního ruchu. Dissertation thesis. Rust,of RetailingR. T., Zahorik, 69(2), A. 193–215,J. (1993): https://doi.Customer Satisfaction, Brno, Masarykova univerzita,Destinační Ekonomicko-správní management jako nástroj org/10.1016/0022-4359(93)90003-2. fakulta. Ryan, C. (2003): Recreational tourism: demand and impacts. Channel View Publications, Aspects of tourism, Perspective. International Journal of Heritage Studies 11, Clevedon. Holtorf,14(1), C. 3–9, (2008): https://doi.org/10.1080 Zoos as Heritage: An Archaeological /13527250701711994. Sheridan, A. (2016): Europas Zoo unter der Lupe: Sheridans Handbuch der Zoos in Europa. Schüling, K. (Verlag), Münster. Methodology and data interpretation in studies of tourist attractions’ attendance 179

Tiergarten (2), 62–70. (internal document). Schüling, K., Altefrohne, T. (2018): Eintrittspreise. Vystoupil,VdZ (2016): J. (2007):Besucher Metody 2014 undpro tvorbuEintrittspreise strategických 2015 Visitor Numbers Using the Case Study of Australia. Smith,Biology L. (2013): 32(1), Visitors37–44, https://doi.org/10.1002or Visits? An Examination of Zoo Masarykova univerzita. /zoo.21013. Zoo Wang,a programových N. (1999): Rethinking dokumentů authenticity cestovního in ruchu. tourism Brno, experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349–370, .stadt-muenster.de/stadtentwicklung/publikationen. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00103-0. Stadthtml Münster. (25 February Jahres-Statistik 2016). 2014 (2015). http://www Woods, B. (1998): Animals on Display: Principles for Swarbrooke, J. (1998): Sustainable tourism management. interpreting captive wildlife. The Journal of Tourism CABI publishing, Wallingford. Studies 9(1), 28–39. Swarbrooke, J. (2002): The development and management of visitor attractions. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston. Turley, S. K. (1999): Conservation and Tourism in the Zedková, A. (2012): Analýza vlivu vybraných faktorů na návštěvnost památek a kulturních institucí v České 10(2), 2–13. republice. Sborník příspěvků V. Mezinárodní vědecké Turley,Traditional S. K. (2001): UK Zoo. Children The Journal and the of demandTourism forStudies university,konference Karviná. doktorandů a mladých vědeckých recreational experiences: the case of zoos. Leisure pracovníků, Obchodně podnikatelská Výkladový fakulta slovník Slezské Studies 20(1), 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080 cestovního ruchu. Linde Praha, Praha. /02614360122877. AnnualZelenka, reports J., Pásková (AR), M. statistical (2012): yearbooks, email UNWTO (2009): From Davos to Copenhagen and Beyond: correspondations with the representatives of European Advancing Tourism’s Response to Climate Change: zoos (Andres 2015; Balejová 2016; Bernheim 2016; UNWTO Background Paper.

3. mezinárodní Břečková 2016; Dommes 2015; Floriánová 2017; Vaníček, J. (2012): Využití marketingového výzkumu pro Gereit 2016; Großer 2016; Heck 2016; Knitter 2016; měřeníMasarykova atraktivity univerzita, turistického 73–80. cíle. In: Macháčková 2015; Marx 2015; Mrázková 2016; kolokvium o cestovním ruchu: Sborník příspěvků. Brno, Nepeřená 2017; Uhrová 2017; Sloet 2016; Šoupalová 2016; Vavřinová 2016), websites of mentioned zoos.