Profiling the European Garden Heritage Tourist: Literature Review, Survey & Garden Expert Results

Report

by Claudia BAUER-KRÖSBACHER & Hannah PAYER

Krems, March 2012

I

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... V

List of Figures ...... VI

1 Introduction ...... 7

1.1 Background of the Study ...... 7

1.2 Aim of the Study and Research Questions ...... 7

1.3 Research Design ...... 8

1.4 Chapter Outline ...... 8

2 Literature Review...... 10

2.1 Garden Tourism...... 10

2.1.1 A Brief Historical Outline ...... 12

2.1.2 Classification of Gardens ...... 13

2.1.3 Gardens as Tourism Attractions ...... 14

2.2 The Garden Heritage Tourist ...... 17

2.2.1 Demographic and Socio-demographic Characteristics ...... 17

2.2.2 Motivations ...... 18

2.2.3 The Cultural and Nature Tourist ...... 20

3 Methodology ...... 23

3.1 Choice and Description of the Study Sites ...... 23

3.1.1 Powerscourt Garden ...... 25

3.1.2 Schloss Hof Castle and Garden ...... 25

3.1.3 Cluj-Napoca Botanical Garden ...... 26

3.1.4 Balchik Garden Bulgaria ...... 26

3.2 Questionnaire Design and Measurement Scales ...... 26

3.3 Pretest ...... 27 II

3.4 Sampling and Data Collection ...... 27

3.5 Qualitative Research ...... 29

3.5.1 Expert Interviews ...... 29

3.5.2 Ethics in Research ...... 30

3.5.3 Interview Partners ...... 31

4 Analysis and Results ...... 34

4.1 Findings of the Garden Surveys ...... 34

4.1.1 Visitor Profile ...... 34

4.1.2 Interest in Types of Gardens and Open Spaces ...... 46

4.1.3 Trip Characteristics ...... 50

4.1.4 Visitor Motivation ...... 52

4.1.5 Leisure Activities at Home and on Holiday ...... 55

4.1.6 Satisfaction ...... 56

4.2 Findings of the Expert Interviews...... 58

4.2.1 Definition of Garden Tourism ...... 58

4.2.2 Relevance of Garden Tourism in Europe ...... 58

4.2.3 Strength of Garden Tourism in different countries: ...... 58

4.2.4 Weaknesses of Garden Tourism in different countries: ...... 59

4.2.5 Potential of Garden Tourism in SEE: ...... 59

4.2.6 Main Characteristics of Garden Tourists ...... 59

4.2.7 Motivations of Garden Tourists ...... 60

4.2.8 Activities: ...... 60

4.2.9 Heritage Preservation in Gardens ...... 61

4.2.10 Sustainability in Gardens ...... 61

4.2.11 Recommendations: ...... 62

5 Summary and Conclusions of the Garden Survey ...... 63

List of References ...... 70

Appendices ...... 73 III

Appendix I: List of Gardens for Survey ...... 74

IV

List of Tables

Table 1: Garden Visitor Motivations ...... 18 Table 2: Types of Nature Tourists ...... 22 Table 3: Sample ...... 29 Table 5: List of Garden Experts interviewed...... 32 Table 6: List of Garden Tour Experts interviewed ...... 33 Table 4: Mean Age per Site...... 35 Table 5: Cross Tabulation Sites and Garden Ownership/Cultivation ...... 42 Table 6: Dwell Time by Site...... 50 Table 7: Cross Tabulation Site and Type of Trip ...... 51 Table 12: Mean Values of Visitor Motivations ...... 52 Table 15: Mean Values on Leisure Activities at Home and on Holiday ...... 55 Table 16: Mean Values of Satisfaction Items ...... 56 Table 17: Profile of the Garden Tourist ...... 69

V

List of Figures

Figure 1: Classification of Attractions ...... 15 Figure 2: A cultural tourist typology ...... 21 Figure 3: Age Distribution ...... 35 Figure 4: Country of Residence - Powerscourt...... 36 Figure 5: Country of Residence – Schloss Hof...... 37 Figure 6: Country of Residence – Cluj Botanical Garden ...... 38 Figure 7: Country of Residence – Balchik Garden ...... 39 Figure 8: Level of Occupation ...... 40 Figure 9: Level of Education...... 40 Figure 10: Garden Ownership ...... 41 Figure 11: Visitors‟ Knowledge about Horticulture ...... 42 Figure 12: Visitors‟ Knowledge about Garden Design ...... 43 Figure 13: Visitors‟ Knowledge about Garden History ...... 43 Figure 14: Visitors‟ Interest in Gardens ...... 44 Figure 15: Interest in different Types of Gardens ...... 46 Figure 16: Interest in different Types of Open Spaces ...... 47 Figure 17: First Time versus Repeat Visitors ...... 47 Figure 18: Companionship of Garden Visitors ...... 48 Figure 19: Length of Stay in the Garden ...... 49 Figure 20: Type of Trip ...... 50 Figure 24: Sources of Information ...... 51 Figure 25: Chance of Site Visitation in the Future ...... 56 Figure 26: Recommendation to Friends & Family ...... 57

VI

1 Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

The study to profile the European garden heritage tourist is undertaken as part of the CultTour Project, an EU project funded by the ERDF. The project addresses the need for professional tourism offers and well-educated staff according to international standards in the SEE (South Eastern Europe) region and deals particularly with cultural garden and open space heritage sites. The core activities of the project include the following:

 Developing scenarios and strategies for tourism development based on the principles of sustainability and regional economy;  Carrying out feasibility studies for the restoration and re-use of cultural heritage with a special focus on sites including a garden or park;  Selecting pilot sites in different countries, such as Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece and Italy, to analyse regional action and to implement the re- utilization concepts.

1.2 Aim of the Study and Research Questions

Garden tourism is nothing new but it is only since recently that researchers started to look at this specific area in more detail. The growing interest for this type of experience as well as growing offers have led researchers to take garden tourism on their research agenda. However, existing literature and research findings on garden tourism and the garden tourist is still scarce. The aim of the presented study is therefore to profile the European garden heritage tourists on a scientific level. More specifically, this research seeks to identify their main characteristics and motivations and to investigate their needs and behaviour. The contribution of this study lies particularly in the analysis of the demographic and socio- demographic characteristics of garden tourists along with an investigation and description of garden tourists‟ experiences and felt emotions.

7

The study seeks to answer the following research questions:

 How can the garden tourist be characterised in terms of demographic and socio-demographic features, interest in gardens in general and different types of gardens and open spaces, knowledge about gardens, and dwell time?  Which leisure activities do garden visitors engage in “at home” and “during their holidays”?  What are the garden tourist‟s main motivations for visiting a garden?  What are the main sources of information garden visitor use?  How satisfied are garden visitors with the respective sites?

1.3 Research Design

A mixed methods approach is applied to add to the body of knowledge in the field of garden tourism and the garden tourist. A literature review forms the basis of the study and is conducted at the beginning of the project. Thereafter a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods is chosen in order to answer the research questions. The quantitative study includes garden visitor surveys at four different sites and countries in Europe. Qualitative research is conducted in the form of expert interviews to get further insights into the garden heritage tourist.

1.4 Chapter Outline

The report commences with an investigation of the pertinent literature on garden tourism. First garden tourism in general is explored, including a brief historical outline and classifications of gardens. Then gardens as tourism attractions are explored. After that the garden heritage tourist‟s demographics and motivations are identified. Chapter three focuses on the quantitative approach of this study, i.e. the visitor survey, and provides information on the study sites, the questionnaire design, sampling, and data collection.

8

Chapter four is concerned with the analysis and the results of the garden visitor surveys. The outcomes of the garden visitor survey are described starting with the visitors profile, followed by information on motivation, experience and satisfaction with the sites.

Finally, the main findings are summarised and conclusion are drawn.

9

2 Literature Review

The subsequent chapters provide an overview of the existing body of knowledge on the topic of garden tourism and the garden tourist. First, garden tourism will be defined. Second, a brief historical outline of garden visiting is provided followed by a classification of the different types of gardens. Gardens as tourism attractions are then investigated and at the end the characteristics and motivations of garden tourists are explored.

2.1 Garden Tourism

When starting out an investigation it is important to become clear about specific terms and their meaning. Since this study deals with garden tourism it is helpful to clarify its meaning by investigating different definitions. However, when reviewing the literature hardly any definitions of garden tourism can be found.

First, it is important to elucidate the term “tourism”. The World Tourism Organisation defines tourism as “the activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes” (WTO and UNSTAT, 1994). Therefore, according to Cooper et al. (2008, pp. 11-12) the essential nature of tourism conveys the following:  A movement of people to, and their stay in, various places, or destinations.  The journey and stay take place outside the usual environment or normal place of residence and work so that tourism gives rise to activities that are distinct from the resident and working populations of the places through which they travel and stay.  The movement to destinations is temporary and short term in character. The intention is to return within a few days, weeks or months.  Destinations are visited for purposes other than taking up permanent residence or employment in the places visited.

10

Garden tourism can be seen as one element of the broad spectrum of cultural tourism. The World Tourism Organisation (1985) defines cultural tourism as “(…) includes movements of persons for essentially cultural motivations such as study tourism, performing arts and other cultural tourism, travel to festivals and other cultural events, visit to sites and monuments, travel to study nature, folklore or art or pilgrimages” (p. 131). Cultural tourism is not limited to the visitation of historical sites but include also contemporary ones.

A definition of cultural tourism is also provided by Richards (1996, p. 24) stating that cultural tourism is “the movement of persons to cultural attractions away from their normal place of residence with the intention to gather new information and experiences to satisfy their cultural needs”. Hence Richards goes one step further including also peoples‟ motivations. Smith (2009, p. 17) suggests that cultural tourism includes passive, active and interactive engagement with culture(s) and communities, whereby the visitor gains new experiences of an educational, creative and/or entertaining nature.” Smith, in her definition of cultural tourism puts emphasis on the different experiences tourists might engage in.

Garden tourism as defined by Antz and Hlavac (2006, p. 28) is “tourism whose geographical or thematic aim are gardens or parks, independent from its date of origin and independent from the fact if the property is public or privately owned”1. This definition emphasises that the main attraction in garden tourism is a particular garden or park that appears to people to be worth seen and visited. Furthermore, the focus of this definition is strongly on the garden and its characteristics, however, it ignores that visiting a garden is an activity based on specific motivations and experiences.

Hence, garden tourism can be seen as a form of tourism that focuses on the visitation of garden attractions in their various guises. Garden tourism includes different types of engagement with the environment (active or passive) that result in different depths of experiences. Just as with cultural tourism in general, when

1 Translated by the authors from German into English.

11 visiting gardens people can gain new experiences of an educational, creative or sometimes even entertaining nature. However, the typical garden visitation is more likely to be undertaken to enjoy the beautiful surrounding and to find peace and tranquility. This is exactly what sets garden tourism apart from other forms of cultural tourism.

People can visit gardens as part of their holidays or within their leisure time. For holidaymakers visiting garden attractions can be the sole motivator to travel to a certain destination. This group of people are also referred to as “garden enthusiasts”. Another group of garden visitors includes those people who see it more as an additional (important) element of their main holiday which could be for example a wellness holiday.

2.1.1 A Brief Historical Outline According to Connell (2005, p. 185) in Great Britain the origin of garden and country house visiting as it is known today can be traced back to the early Victorian period. Prior to this time, around the 17th century, garden visiting was predominantly a privileged leisure activity of the upper class, not only in Great Britain, but also in other European countries, such as France, Germany or Sweden. Princes and the affluent upper class travelled to discover gardens and become educated in cultural aspects. This form of travel had a strong educational purpose and was known as the “Grand Tour” (Towner, 1996 as cited in Connell, 2005, p. 185, Hlavac, 2002, p. 14).

In the Victorian period a new era of country house visiting commenced, as for the first time also the working class population had the possibility to travel to the countryside and visit gardens. This possibility was due to transport improvements and cheaper fares, as well as an increase in leisure time and disposable income (Connell, 2005, p. 186). This was not only the case for Great Britain but also for several other European countries where many visitors became attracted by the opening of stately gardens and parks (Hlavac, Zurück in's Paradies! Ein geschichtlicher Abriss des Gartentourismus, 2002, pp. 16-19). Examples of such

12 gardens are the gardens of Versailles and the Loire valley in France, the Renaissance gardens around Rome and Florence, as well as the Wörlitzer Gardens in Germany and the gardens of Schönbrunn in Vienna.

However, wartime in the early 20th century tempered the interest in gardens and during these years many garden properties around Europe were neglected and demolished (Connell, 2005, p. 188). With the end of World War II, the reconstruction phase in Europe and the revival of cultural and educational travel, gardens and parks attained touristic importance and became again of interest to tourists and residents (Hlavac, 2006, p. 24).

The potential of garden visiting has grown persistently since then as the following figures demonstrate. In 1999, around 16 million visits were made to garden in Great Britain (Evans, 2001, para 4); the castle gardens in Cesky Krumlov in Czech Republic received 600.000 visitors in 1999; about one million visitors visited the gardens of Wörlitz in 1999 and the Austrian federal gardens counted around 20 million visitors in 1997 (Hlavac, 2006, p. 25). According to Connell (2004, p. 233) this increasing interest in garden visiting can be explained by the growing interest in the natural environment, the fact that there is a growing proportion of garden owners who like to admire floral displays and the work of great landscape architects.

Today visiting a garden can be regarded as a serious form of leisure activity and visitors can choose among different types and styles of gardens to visit. The next subchapter, therefore, attempts to give a short introduction into the classification of gardens.

2.1.2 Classification of Gardens

There are several ways to classify gardens and therefore it can be distinguished between different types of gardens. Palace and castle gardens, botanical gardens, flower gardens, zoological gardens, country house gardens, garden shows as well

13 as allotment gardens are only some examples for specific types of gardens. Some typologies base on the use of a garden, for instance private or economic use. In many cases gardens are classified by their design and the type of gardening. There are different classifications for garden types and styles. It is important to notice that garden types refer to building types (castle, kitchen, scholar, etc.) and that garden styles are equivalent to architectural styles (classical, gothic, baroque etc.) (GardenVisit, 2008).

The earliest existence of gardens can be traced back to the Egyptian era around 1400 BC through a garden plan which shows tree-lined avenues and rectangular ponds. Throughout history many types of gardens emerged in different eras and countries. This includes the Hellenistic and Byzantine garden as well as the Renaissance, Baroque and Landscape gardens that were cultivated in Italy, France and Great Britain. In Asia traditional gardens such as the Chinese or Japanese garden emerged (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011). Later in the 20th century modern types of gardens evolved, for example the architectural garden which focuses on constructive and architectural elements. Furthermore, an increased amount of people cultivated their own little garden around the house after the First World War, particularly in and around cities where green spaces were scarce (Huber, 2006).

Today, due to the historical development and different approaches, gardens can be classified according to a lot of criteria. There is no strict differentiation, often different types are mixed and classifications are linked to different interpretation approaches.

2.1.3 Gardens as Tourism Attractions A tourism attraction in general is defined as “a single unit, and individual site or a small-scale geographic area accessible to tourists who are motivated to visit it in their leisure time for a limited period” (Ivanovic, 2008, p. 111). When looking at the different gardens as tourism attractions, they can not only be categorised

14 according to the type and style of the garden, but also along specific criteria such as market appeal, ownership, type of attraction, and entrance fee as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Classification of Attractions

Source: Leask, 2003

The figure displays that the product and its auxiliary services represent the core of the attraction. The second dimension includes whether visitors have to pay entrance fee or not and looks at the type of the attraction - either natural or built. A public or private ownership is a criterion in the next dimension and last, the market appeal of the attraction is displayed. An attraction can have a local, regional, national, or international appeal. Due to the increased interest in visiting gardens among the population and the fact that gardens are part of the attractions sector, it can be argued that today garden tourism constitutes an important niche market within the tourism industry. Many gardens have acquired the image of an interesting place to be. Kew Gardens in Great Britain, Versailles Gardens in France or Keukenhof in the Netherlands are

15 only a few examples of such garden attractions which also positively influence the tourism economy in their local region (Ballantyne & Packer, 2008, p. 439). The influence garden tourism has in smaller regions can also lead to an increase of the tourism sector in general as employment is created and gardens often work together with different suppliers of the region.

A popular example of what an impact a garden attraction can have on its environment is the Eden Projekt in Cornwall, England. Built on a 160-year-old exhausted china clay quarry, the garden today exhibits over a million plants from around the world in different parts of the project. However, the project not only displays plants, but sees itself as a charity and social enterprise fostering social and environmental projects, does research into plants and conservation and focuses on sustainability on all three levels (Eden Project, 2012). Regarding the economic impact, the project has contributed over a billion pound to the local community since its opening in 2001 and employs 650 members. Furthermore, 300 people have the opportunity to volunteer.

The example of the Eden projects reinforces the fact that gardens nowadays play a vital role in the tourism industry.

16

2.2 The Garden Heritage Tourist

Connell (2004), Connell and Meyer (2004), Fox and Edwards (2008), Ballatyne, Packer, and Hughes (2008), and NORD/LB Regionalwirtschaft (2002) have conducted studies on the topic of garden visiting as a popular form of leisure activity. At the beginning of many research studies the focus was mostly on visitor numbers and the revenue of entrance fees. However, different aspects such as the socio-cultural (characteristics and motivations), the art historical and the esthetical aspect are as well important and have lately become research objects in the field of garden tourism. Still, very little is known about the characteristics of garden tourists.

2.2.1 Demographic and Socio-demographic Characteristics According to Connell‟s visitor study (2004, p. 235) in Great Britain, the typical garden visitor is between 40 and 60 years old and belongs to a higher occupational group. Moreover the visitor is accompanied by a partner and owns or cultivates a garden. Family visits accounted only for 13% and 15% visit gardens on their own (ibid., 238). These characteristics are largely confirmed by other researchers such as Ballantyne, Packer, and Hughes (2008) whose study in the Botanical Garden in Brisbane furthermore revealed that the majority of garden visitors are women. Yet, in terms of age, visitors were on average between 30 and 40 years old. A study conducted in the gardens of Dessau-Wörlitz in 2002 Germany (NORD/LB Regionalwirtschaft, 2002, p. 59) revealed that visitors are above 45 years old, have a higher education and are accompanied by their partner, family or friends. Around half of all visitors remained one to three hours in the garden. Connell‟s visitor study (2004, p. 240) revealed that the majority of visitors (49%) stayed one to two hours in the garden followed by “a morning or afternoon” (37%), indicating that visiting a garden seems to be a leisure activity for half a day rather than a full day. This is in line with findings of a garden visitor survey in a botanical garden in Australia (Crilley & Price, 2006, p. 1382) where visitors remained between two and four hours in the garden.

17

Regarding the sources of information used for planning the trip, Connell (2004, p. 242) identified the following sources: word of mouth (83%), media (magazine 66%, newspaper article 61%, and television programme 59%) as well as leaflets (60%). The least used marketing channel was the Internet. Further cross tabulations revealed that some significant relationships between age and marketing channels exist, as for example those aged 40-60 were more likely to use a leaflet than any other group, and those between 18-39 and 40-60 were more likely to use the web than those over 60.

2.2.2 Motivations People visit garden for various reasons. Table 2 summarises the main motivations for a garden visit according to different studies.

Table 1: Garden Visitor Motivations NORD/LB Ballatyne, Fox & Connell (2003) – Glabau/Rimbach Packer, & Edwards (2004) Dessau (2006) - Thüringen Hughes (2008) (2008) Wörlitz enjoying a walking around garden design enjoying oneself to relax day out the pleasure enjoying a admiring a enjoying nature garden history of viewing the garden garden‟s scenery garden showing the spending quality to be with garden rest and nature trip time with friends friends and someone relaxation a family family else a pleasure of enjoying being being with to learn or be getting ideas walking around outdoors/ in friends and informed nature family

Source: based on Connell (2004), NORD/LB (2003), Glabau & Rimbach (2006), Ballatyne, Packer, & Hughes (2008) and Fox & Edwards (2008)

The table elucidates that the main motivations for visiting a garden can be clustered into several groups: connection to nature (walking around, enjoying nature/ a garden, being outdoors), learning desire (garden design, garden history, being informed), relaxation (to relax, rest and relaxation) and social desire (spending time with friends and family, showing the garden to someone else).

18

The social experience appears to be of particular importance as Ballantyne et al. (2008) in their study also emphasise the social aspect as a key component in garden visiting. This also reflects the findings of the earlier mentioned socio- demographics of garden visitors, namely that the majority visits gardens with their partner or family and friends. Connell (2004, p. 232) furthermore argues that garden visiting is intrinsically associated with emotions, attitudes and very personal factors and that the garden provides complex benefits to the visitor, conveying emotional, psychological, healing and spiritual values. Gardens therefore play a vital role in re-creation and are deemed to have a significant effect on human well-being. Concerning the desire to be informed and learn, Ballantyne et all (2008, p. 443) found out that non locals are more motivated by learning and discovery than locals and in a second step that the notion of restoration appears to be of higher significance than the motivation to learn and discover.

Crilley‟s and Price‟s (2006, p.1383) examined in a study in a botanical garden in Australia the various activities undertaken by visitors in the garden. Relaxation and reading, as well as viewing plants and doing a picnic were the top three main activities which can also be taken as an argument of why people visit a garden. Further research also revealed a strong desire for the following: relaxing/calming, time with family/friends, improving health, and learning about nature.

Although several studies were already carried out it is still difficult to strictly classify visitors on the basis of their motivations as different people seek different experiences and motivations vary according to the type of garden visited, the season, companionship, and the mood of the visitor (Connell, 2004, p. 232).

The German NORD/LB – department of regional economy- is one research institution that has conducted several studies on the topic of gardens and garden tourism in Germany. A study carried out by the NORD/LB to investigate the visit of gardens and castles in Germany in 2003 also tried to cluster visitors according to their motivation and came up with the following four clusters of garden visitors: 34%

19 cultural visitors, 27% regular visitors, 20% experience oriented visitors and 19% nature lovers (Brandt, 2004, S. 23).

The above motivations and identified clusters suggest that the garden tourist unites characteristics of the cultural tourist, who is interested in the cultural and historical aspects of gardens, as well as the nature tourist, who is interested in the horticultural aspect of garden visiting. Both types of tourists have been popular research subjects for many tourism researcher and are of particular interest for the undergoing study. A typology of cultural tourists and nature tourists is presented in the next section.

2.2.3 The Cultural and Nature Tourist Regarding the cultural tourist, McKercher and DuCros (2002, p. 140) were one of the first to come up with a cultural tourist typology. They identified the following five different types of cultural tourists according to the cultural experience sought and the importance of cultural tourism in the decision to visit a destination:

 The purposeful cultural tourist: Cultural tourism is the primary motive for visiting a destination. The individual has a deep cultural experience.

 The sightseeing cultural tourist: Cultural tourism is a primary or major reason for visiting a destination, but the experience is more shallow.  The serendipitous cultural tourist: A tourist who does not travel for cultural tourism reasons, but who, after participating, ends up having a deep cultural tourism experience.  The casual cultural tourist: Cultural tourism is a weak motive for visiting a destination, and the resultant experience is shallow.  The incidental cultural tourist: This tourist does not travel for cultural tourism reasons but nonetheless participates in some activities and has shallow experiences.

20

Figure 2: A cultural tourist typology

Deep Serendipitous Purposeful cultural tourist Cultural tourist

Experience sought

Incidental Casual Sightseeing cultural cultural cultural tourist tourist tourist Shallow

Low High Importance of cultural tourism in the decision to visit a destination

Source: McKercher and DuCros (2002), p. 140

Bywater‟s (1993) categorisation distinguishes between three main types of cultural tourists: “culturally motivated”, “culturally inspired” and “culturally attracted” tourists. Most people tend to be culturally inspired or attracted and only a small percentage is culturally motivated and travels solely for cultural reasons. As garden tourist are a specific sub-group of cultural tourists it can be assumed that they follow a similar typology.

Richards (1996) who conducted an extensive study in the field of cultural tourism claims that the cultural tourist in general can be characterised as having a better education and relatively high average income. Furthermore, women constitute an important part and the younger population should not be neglected. Based on the findings of various garden visitor studies garden tourists seem to show likewise demographic characteristics.

Similar to cultural tourism, nature tourism is difficult to define as many different activities and aspects are included and researchers are often unclear about an exact definition. Siegrist and Stuppäck (2002) performed a comprehensive analysis on the offer and demand side of nature based tourism in Switzerland. Their study revealed five types of nature tourists as outlined in Table 3.

21

Table 2: Types of Nature Tourists Types of Nature Characteristics Demands on holidays Tourists

The Athletics  Sports activities in nature  Relaxing holiday  Seeking protected areas and  Escaping the mass (29%) wilderness  Enjoying life  Regional cultural offers  Relaxing The Regionals  Train and bus  Being with friends and family (26%)  Less demand for escaping the  Experiencing “the power of masses and civilization nature”  High ethical demands  Relaxing The Ethicals (18%)  Intensive activities  New experiences  Experience “the power of nature”  Enjoying life  High demands for their  Relaxing The Low-Incomer  holidays in general  Escaping civilization (14%)  Low demands for  Experience with friends and  accommodation family  High demands for public means  Escaping civilization The Relaxed (13%)  of transport  Relaxing  High importance of landscapes  Experiencing the “power of sceneries nature” Source: Sigriest & Stuppäck, 2002, p.57

On the basis of this study, the Swiss state secretariat for economics (SECO, 2002) established four different types of nature tourists (Danielli, 2011, p. 14). The first one is the “nature and landscape type” who takes pleasure in intact nature, animals, plants and the geological distinctiveness of a place. The second one is the “sport and adrenaline type” who prefers to practice nature based sport activities and enjoys the beautiful landscapes while doing so. The third type is the “gastronomy and regional type” who loves to taste the regional cuisine and typical regional bio products and visits extraordinary restaurants. The last type is the “soft mobility type” whose main focus is on using public transport, ships or carriages while traveling along attractive landscapes.

It can be assumed that gardens are attractive places to be visited by nature tourists as their motivations overlap with garden visitors as found out in the previous subchapter.

22

3 Methodology

In order to profile the European garden heritage tourist, different research techniques are applied. The first step included a literature review to describe the research context as done in chapter two. In a second step, a quantitative research technique is used by means of a garden visitor survey. This approach is described in detail in the following subchapters. Finally, expert interviews are used as a qualitative technique to obtain further ideas and insights on the topic of garden tourism and the European heritage garden tourist (see separate report on expert interviews).

3.1 Choice and Description of the Study Sites

First the decision had to be made which countries will be included in the survey. As the undergoing study is part of the project with a special focus on SEE countries it was self-evident to include Romania as the lead partner. In order to have another SEE country on board, which is also a partner of the project, Bulgaria was included. The two sites in Romania and Bulgaria were included not only because they are relevant as representatives of the South Eastern European Countries but also because they represent totally new destinations in terms of garden tourism and garden attractions. In order to make comparisons with an established garden destination Ireland was chosen. Ireland is known as a typical garden nation which offers numerous garden attractions similar to the UK. Finally Austria was incorporated as a country which is just at the start of becoming a well- recognised garden tourism destination with a considerable number of different types of gardens open for public visitation.

Second a list of possible sites to conduct a survey was set up. Sources used to identify suitable garden attractions included travel guides such as Charles Quest- Ritson‟s “Gardens of Europe”, “Eyewitness Companions Gardens of Britain and Ireland” by Patrick Taylor or Stephen Lacey‟s “Gardens of the National Trust”. Furthermore various internet platforms (see Appendix I) were analysed and

23 national and international tourism organisations, that defined gardens as visitor attractions, were consulted.

The gardens for the onsite visitor survey were then selected on the basis of specific criteria which will be elaborated in the following.

Most of the gardens open to the public are gardens which are attached to a castle, historic house, or a monastery. An important selection criterion was the requirement of being an attraction where the garden represents the main attraction. Furthermore, it was essential that they should attract not only local people but are also appealing to visitors from outside the area, i.e. tourists. Another requirement was that the attractions charge entrance fee. Motivations to visit a site are quite different if people have to pay entrance fee as opposed to sites which are free of charge. In order to avoid bias in the data it was decided to look only at sites which charge for admission. A further criterion included the type of garden. As it was not possible to have every type of garden included (see 2.1.2) it was decided to focus on Botanical gardens and gardens attached to famous castle, villa or house.

Identifying sites that met these criteria turned out to be a challenge for Romania and Bulgaria as no garden directories or garden travel guides are available at present. With the help of the local tourism authorities the most important attractions were identified and those suitable for the undergoing study were selected. The choice of potential sites in Romania and Bulgaria was limited. Actually the number of suitable survey sites included not more than a handful of sites.

On the basis of the final list the possible sites were contacted by phone with a request to participate in the survey. As a representative for Ireland Powerscourt Garden agreed to participate. In Austria Schloss Hof was happy to be included in the survey. In Romania the Botanical Garden in Cluj Napoca and in Bulgaria the Balchik Garden were acquired. The individual gardens are portrayed in the following.

24

3.1.1 Powerscourt Garden Powerscourt is a country estate in Ireland, situated in the mountains of Wicklow, about an hour outside of Dublin. The history of the castle and its surrounding gardens reaches back to the 12th century when it originally was an important strategic site for the Anglo-Normans who came to Ireland. Powerscourt Garden was designed in two main periods. In the first period, from 1731 onwards, the grounds were laid out in a series of formal rides and parkland to the North, including planned gardens, terraces grottos and a pond to the South. The aim at that time was to create a garden which was part of the wider landscape. A century later, new schemes for the garden were drawn by the architect Daniel Robertson whose focus was on Italian garden design, planting enormous numbers of trees and using statuary, ironwork and other decorative items. Throughout the following years further generations maintained the house and its garden, also adding Japanese gardens and the Pepper Pot Tower. The gardens were open to the public from 1961 onwards and constitute nowadays a major tourism destination (Powerscourt Estate, 2011).

3.1.2 Schloss Hof Castle and Garden Schloss Hof Palace and Garden extend over an area of more than 50 hectares in Eastern Lower Austria, representing the impressive Baroque period in Europe. The ensemble of the palace with its terraced garden and manor farm was laid out in the late 1720s as a country home and hunting lodge for Prince Eugene of Savoy by the renowned architect Lucas von Hildebrant. The Austrian Empresss Maria Theresia then bought the estate from Prince Eugene‟s heir as a present for her husband. However, the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the two World Wars then left its signs of wear and tear on the palace and its gardens. In 2002, a society for the restoration of this Austrian cultural heritage was then founded and in 2005 the palace and its garden could be opened for visitors (Marchfeldschlösser Revitalisierungs- und Betriebsges.m.b.H., 2011).

25

3.1.3 Cluj-Napoca Botanical Garden Cluj-Napoca Botanical Garden is situated in the city of Cluj which lies in the heart of Romania. It is one of the largest botanical gardens in Southeastern Europe as around 10 000 different plant species can be found there. The Botanical garden further includes a museum, several greenhouses with desert and tropical plants, a Japanese garden and a Roman Garden with archeological relics from the Roman colony of Napoca (Romanian National Tourist Office, 2011).

3.1.4 Balchik Garden Bulgaria The Botanical Garden of Balchik is located in the center of the old town of Balchik which lies at the coast of the Black Sea. The garden was built along with a summer palace for the Romanian Queen Maria shortly after World War I. The park area was designed after the project of a French garden designer and today more than 3 000 rare and exotic plants can be found there. The garden is particularly famous for is unique collection of 250 cacti species and represents a major tourist attraction in this region (Bulgarian Sea Resort, 2011).

3.2 Questionnaire Design and Measurement Scales

As regards questionnaire design general rules for questionnaire design were applied as suggested by authors such as Malhotra et al. 2002, Salkind 2006, or Veal 2006. In order to facilitate data analysis mainly closed questions were formulated. The questionnaire was translated into the following languages in order to meet the mix of guests in terms of nationalities of the respective sites: German, Romanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, and Russian.

The questionnaire was designed to be administrated as self-completion questionnaire. In order to answer the research questions the questionnaire included items on the following issues:  demographic and socio-demographics;  garden visitation behaviour;

26

 preferred types of gardens and open spaces;  used sources of information;  interest in gardens;  motivation to visit the site;  satisfaction with the site;  re-visitation and recommendation of the site;  duration of stay;

3.3 Pretest Any questionnaire should be pre-tested – or pilot tested – prior to data collection (Jennings & Nickerson, 2006). The draft questionnaire was tested by 15 respondents in Schloss Hof on July 31st, 2011 for face validity. Respondents were checked as to how long it took them to complete the questionnaire. Additionally, they were asked if there were any questions unclear or too difficult to answer. As a result, small amendments in the wording, structure and layout were performed.

3.4 Sampling and Data Collection Sampling refers to “the process of selecting participants for a piece of research” (Finn, Elliott-White, & Walton, 2000). In the undergoing study the target population is defined as all visitors to the selected cultural attractions and sampling units are the individual visitors. Every visitor who passed the exit was asked to complete a questionnaire. The interviewers were instructed to not survey more than one person of the same travelling party.

Sample size and the technique used are also determined by time resources and financial support (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2003, Malhotra et al. 2002). With respect to Powerscourt Gardens in Ireland and Schloss Hof management decided to allow for a study over a two-week period during the month of August 2010. The reason for this was that they have surveys conducted by different institutions on top of their own surveys which are carried out on a regular basis. Therefore, data

27 collection took place in all gardens in parallel between August 15th to 28th, 2010. In order to collect as many questionnaires as possible it was decided to use the full period available for data collection. Hence, sampling included different days of the week as well as two week-ends. Also, August represents a month where garden visitation is at its peak.

For the field work professional interviewers were hired who received proper induction to the questionnaire. A self-completion questionnaire supported by an interviewer was applied mainly for practical reasons.

At both sites data collection started as soon as the sites opened in the morning and continued until closing time. In order to get as close to the stimuli that triggered the experience the survey was administered in situ (Bigné and Andreu 2004) immediately after the visitation of the site. This means that interviewers were located at the exit point and asked every visitor passing by to complete a questionnaire. This was considered as being a suitable point for obtaining a fair sample.

During the field work, a research diary was kept in which important issues such as weather conditions, day of the week, important observations, events in area or within the site, were noted. This should serve as an additional source of information to support data analysis and interpretation at a later stage.

During the collection period no unexpected difficulties appeared. The weather was extremely nice, however due to the heat in Bulgaria and Romania some visitors restrained from completing a questionnaire. In total, 954 questionnaires were collected (Table 3).

28

Table 3: Sample Number of Questionnaires Percentage Powerscourt 181 19% Schloss Hof 229 24% Cluj-Napoca 339 35,5% Balchik 205 21,5% Total 954 100% Source: by the authors

The data of the questionnaires were then entered into an excel sheet and for further calculations transferred into SPSS Statistics, Version 19.

3.5 Qualitative Research

Besides onsite garden surveys, expert interviews with garden tourism experts from countries across Europe were conducted. Expert interviews are a type of qualitative research and qualitative research as opposed to quantitative research does not involve the gathering of small amounts of data on a large number of cases, but the gathering of large amounts of detailed information on few cases (Veal, Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism, 2006, p. 99). Another key difference is that research strategies in quantitative research tend to be highly structured compared to qualitative techniques which are relatively unstructured (Bryman in Howitt, 2010, p. 9). And furthermore the social relationship between the researcher and participant is distant in quantitative, yet close in qualitative research (ibid., p. 10).

3.5.1 Expert Interviews As aforementioned, interviews are one example of a qualitative research technique and Jennings (Jennings, 2005, p. 99) describes interviewing in general as “becoming a global research method for understanding and making sense of the lives and of the peoples of this world”. Yet, interviews can differ greatly in how they are conducted as different forms of interviews exist: Structured interviews, semi-structured interviews and unstructured interviews. Structured interviews include a standard interview schedule designed to answer specific questions.

29

Semi-structured interviews also have specific questions in an interview guideline but allow more flexibility and researchers can probe to seek clarifications. The unstructured interview, also called “depth interview”, aims to understand the perspective of the interviewee. Although called unstructured still a certain structure is in place as no interview can have a total lack of structure (Finn et al., 2000, p.73).

For the purpose of this study, expert interviews, which are a type of semi- structured interviews, were chosen. Advantages of this type of interview include the fact that detailed information regarding attitudes, opinions and values may be elicited, the interviewer is able to ask for further clarification and probes can be altered to follow the path the interviewee is on (Jennings, 2001, p. 166). Important in expert interviews is the circumstance that not the person as a whole is of interest to the study, but his or her field of activity and his or her knowledge within this field (Meuser & Nagel, 2005, p. 75). Hence, a careful selection of the expert is important. The interviewer in expert interviews is considered an insider (Jennings, 2001, p. 129) and the success of an interview inevitably depends on the thematic competence of the interviewer (Pfadenhauer, 2005, p. 121). Hereby the development of the interview guideline is of importance as it allows the interviewer to familiarize him- or herself with the topic and gain competence in the field of interest. In addition the interviewer does not get lost in topics not relevant to the study (Meuser & Nagel, 2005, p. 78). Regarding the interpretation of expert interviews, analyzing and comparing the content of the expert knowledge are of special interest (Flick, 2006, p. 165).

3.5.2 Ethics in Research “Ethical behaviour is important in research, as in any other field of human activity.” (Veal, 2006, p. 70). The aim of studying ethics and outlining principal ethical behaviour is therefore to create a mutually respectful and win-win relationship with the research population (Jennings, 2001, p. 95). The following items summarise the most common codes of ethics which have also been taken strictly into consideration when conducting the expert interviews (ibid., p. 98):

30

 voluntary participation by the individual;  informed consent given by the participant after being provided with either oral or written information about the research;  the right of the individual to refuse to answer any questions or perform any actions;  the right of the individual to withdraw from the research at any time during the conduct;  the right of the participant not to be harmed during any stage of the research, as well as after the research has been conducted;  the right of the individual to have any personal information or data treated as confidential or anonymous;  and the right of research participants to access research findings.

In addition, careful examination and assessment of appropriate literature, a careful justification of the qualitative research employed and its appropriateness for the study, as well as a careful structuring of the data analysis to ensure full and descriptive evaluation contribute to the trustworthiness of a study, including the dimensions of credibility, dependability and conformability (Carson, Gilmore, Perry, & Gronhaug, 2001, p. 67).

3.5.3 Interview Partners On the one side, garden managers working in different types of garden attractions are interviewed. This aims to get insights from the supply side of garden tourism. On the other side, also tour operators from Austria and Germany are interviewed to obtain information on the demand side of garden tours and more important to reveal further information on the garden tourist. The following two tables present all conducted interviews, including the date of the interview, the garden attraction and the position of the interviewee.

31

Table 4: List of Garden Experts interviewed Date Garden Expert Country Position Type of Garden Interview 1 Darina Allen Owner of Ballymaloe 10.11.2011 Mixed (formal IE Cookery School & garden, kitchen Gardens garden) 2 Lena Visktrom S CEO of Gunnebo Slott 21.11.2011 Baroque garden

3 Andrea Boscu- I Owner of Villa di 21.11.2011 Formal garden Bandinelli Geggiano 4 Anonymous IE Castle in Ireland 22.11.2011 Castle garden

5 Heike Platter I CMO of the Gardens 01.12.2011 Botanical garden Trautmannsdorff 6 Andrea Stejskal A Manager of the 17.11.2011 Monastery garden Hofgarten Stift Seitenstetten 7 Henrik Neelmeyer DK CEO of Egeskov 23.11.2011 Castle garden & park 8 Wolfgang Leinner A Stadtbaudirector und 24.11.2011 Castle park Obmann des Vereins “Freunde des Eisenstädter Schlossparks” 9 Steffen Kaudelka D Head of Comm- 28.11.2011 Landscape garden unication & Service at the Kulturstiftung Dessau Wörlitz Ludwig Trauzettel D Head of the garden 22.11.2011 Landscape garden section der Kulturstiftung Dessau- Wörlitz 10 Cord Panning D Managing Director 05.12.2011 Landscape und Parkdirector der garden/park Stiftung “Fürst- Pückler-Park Bad Muskau” 11 Henri Carvallo F Owner of Chateau 13.12. 2011 Castle garden Villandry 12 Ronald Clark D Director Herrenhäuser 18.11.2011 Baroque garden Gärten Hannover Herreshausen 13 Jane Knight GB Landscape architect at 19.01.2012 Botanical garden Eden Project Source: by the authors

32

Table 5: List of Garden Tour Experts interviewed Date of Type of Expert Country Position Interview Company 1 Christoph Laade D Owner von “Laade 21.12.2011 Tour Gartenreisen” Operator 2 Petra Gmainer A Owner of Gartenträume 09.01. 2012 Tour Operator 3 Siegmund Baur D Owner von “Baur 13.12.2011 Tour Gartenreisen GmbH” Operator 4 Carsten Seick D Owner von “Dr. Seick 16.12.2012 Tour Gartenreisen” Operator 5 Carl Raml A Head of Marketing of 21.02.2012 Tour Sabtours Operator Source: by the authors

33

4 Analysis and Results

Chapter four deals with the analysis and the results of the onsite garden surveys and the expert interviews.

4.1 Findings of the Garden Surveys

As mentioned earlier the onsite garden surveys took place in four different countries across Europe: Ireland, Austria, Rumania and Bulgaria. After the collection phase data were prepared for analyses by means of editing and coding. Editing included dealing with ambiguous, inconsistent and missing data. Some questionnaires had to be eliminated entirely. Logically inconsistent data were excluded from the analysis. In terms of analyses mainly frequency distributions, cross tabulations, mean calculations, and analyses of variances are employed.

4.1.1 Visitor Profile The profiling of the visitor is based on the following variables: gender, age, occupation, education, garden ownership, companionship, interests in and knowledge about gardens, length of stay, and previous visitation of the site. To visualize the findings, graphs and figures with explanations are used. The numbers displayed in the graphs and tables are rounded.

4.1.1.1 Gender The gender breakdown shows that slightly more women than men visited the sites: 55% female compared to 45% male visitors.

A χ2--test was performed to investigate if there are differences between the individual sites in terms of gender. A p value of .345 (df=3) suggests that there are no significant differences. This is in line with findings of previous studies which indicate that on average more women than men visit gardens (Ballatyne, Packer, & Hughes, 2008)

34

4.1.1.2 Age As can be noted in Figure 3, 43% of the visitors are below 34 years old, 20% are between 35 and 44 and 38% are above 45 years. The average age of the visitors is 40.17 years.

Figure 3: Age Distribution

n = 898

30% 26% 25% 20% 20% 17% 17% 15% 13%

10% 8% 5%

0% 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65 Age Categories

Source: by the authors

To obtain a more precise picture of the age distribution, the mean average of the age variable of each site is calculated (see Table 6).

Table 6: Mean Age per Site Mean Standard Deviation Powerscourt 40.36 13.80 Schloss Hof 51.74 13.91 Site Cluj-Napoca 35.58 13.40 Balchik 35.31 11.74 Source: by the authors

The calculation of the mean average shows that the highest mean average can be found in Schloss Hof followed by Powerscourt. Cluj and Balchik show quite similar mean values and seem to attract people who are younger compared to the other study sites. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicates that there are significant

35 differences among the four sites (F= 76.7, df=3, p=.000) in terms of visitors‟ mean age.

4.1.1.3 Country of Residence At Powerscourt most visitors were from Ireland (55%), followed by Great Britain (10%) and Germany (8%). In fact, Germany and Great Britain are among the major sending regions for Ireland. Powerscourt also attracts a small proportion of overseas visitors from the United States (5%). The rest came from Italy, The Netherlands, Austria and Israel. Each of the latter accounting for not more than 4% of the total number of respondents.

Figure 4: Country of Residence - Powerscourt Israel Austria n = 178 2% 3% Italy Other 4% 10% The Netherlands 3% United States 5%

Great Britain 10% Ireland 55%

Germany 8%

Source: by the authors

36

At Schloss Hof 86% of the respondents were from Austria, followed by Germany (6%) and Hungary (1%). The rest, totaling 7%, came from Bulgaria, Romania, The Netherlands, and Italy. However, inividually not accounting for more than 1% of the respondents.

Figure 5: Country of Residence – Schloss Hof

n = 226

Source: by the authors

At the Cluj Botanical Garden a plurality of the respondents came from Romania followed by a small proportion of Hungarians (3%). The rest, all below 3% came from such countries as Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Great Britain, the United States, Israel, and Bulgaria.

37

Figure 6: Country of Residence – Cluj Botanical Garden

n = 339

Source: by the authors

At Balchik Garden most visitors came from Bulgaria (49%) followed by neighbouring countries such as Romania (19%) and Russia (5%). 9% of the respondents came from Germany.

38

Figure 7: Country of Residence – Balchik Garden

n = 205

Source: by the authors

What all the sites share in common regarding respondent‟s country of residence is the fact that they attract mainly local people followed by visitors from neighbouring countries:

 Powerscourt: 55% locals people, 10% from the UK, 8% Germany;  Schloss Hof: 86% locals, 6% Germany;  Cluj Botanical Garden: 80% locals, 3% Hungarians;  Balchik Garden: 49% locals, 19% Romanians.

Schloss Hof Garden ranks first for attracting local people but has very small proportion of visitors from other countries. The Cluj Botanical Garden shows quite a similar picture. Powerscourt and Balchik Garden attract both local people and international visitors.

39

4.1.1.4 Occupation Garden visitors to the respective sites tend to have a very high occupational level with 52% holding a supervisory or managerial position. 14% of all visitors are students and 12% are retired people (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Level of Occupation

35% 31% n = 935 30% 25% 21% 20% 14% 15% 12% 12% 10% 4% 5% 3% 2% 0%

Source: by the authors

4.1.1.5 Education As shown in Figure 9 the highest degree of education reported by the respondents shows that 59% hold a university degree, 17% have a leaving certification and 17% are high school graduates. 6% completed an apprenticeship and 1% are primary school graduates. The high educational profile is also reflected in the previous findings on visitor‟s occupational profile.

Figure 9: Level of Education

40

University 59%

A-level / Leaving certification 17%

Secondary/High school (without A-level) 17%

Apprenticeship/Vocational Training 6,%

Grade school / Primary school 1%

n = 936 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Source: by the authors

4.1.1.6 Garden Ownership 59% of the respondents to the respective sites do actually own or cultivate a garden (see Figure 10), indicating a relationship between garden visitation and garden ownership.

Figure 10: Garden Ownership

n = 948

Source: by the authors

41

Table 10 below shows that at all sites except for Balchik garden more than 50% of the respondents indicated to own or cultivate a garden. Hence it is not surprising that a performed χ2-test reveals significant differences between the sites (p=.000, df=3).

Table 7: Cross Tabulation Sites and Garden Ownership/Cultivation Garden cultivation/ Ownership No Yes Total Powerscourt 32% 68% 100% Schloss Hof 24% 76% 100% Cluj 49% 51% 100% Balchik 55% 45% 100% Total 41% 59% 100%

Source: by the authors

4.1.1.7 Knowledge The frequency distribution about visitors‟ subjective knowledge in the areas of horticulture, garden design and garden history is shown Figures 11, 12, and 13.

Figure 11: Visitors‟ Knowledge about Horticulture

n = 944

Source: by the authors

42

Figure 12: Visitors‟ Knowledge about Garden Design

n = 943

Source: by the authors

Figure 13: Visitors‟ Knowledge about Garden History

n = 939

Source: by the authors

From the frequency distributions it appears that respondents have the largest knowledge of horticulture, followed by garden design and have relatively little knowledge of garden history. The proportion of visitors who have extensive knowledge in these areas is very small reaching from 8% in horticulture, 6% in garden design and 3% in garden history. 62% of the surveyed people claim to

43 have moderate knowledge of horticulture, 52% in garden design and 36% of garden history. The proportions of visitors who indicated to have no knowledge in the areas of horticulture is 30%, garden design 42%, and garden history 61%.

When comparing the level of knowledge of the different sites Schloss Hof visitors show the highest level in all three areas. With respect to knowledge in horticulture Schloss Hof visitors are followed by visitors to Cluj Botanical garden, Powerscourt, and Balchik. It is quite surprising that visitors to Cluj Botanical garden possess less knowledge in this area than visitors to Schloss Hof as it could be assumed that Botanical gardens attract very knowledgeable people. Schloss Hof visitors also outperform visitors to the other study sites in their level of knowledge in garden design and garden history. Visitors level of knowledge to this sites is followed by Powerscourt, Balchik garden and Cluj Botanical garden.

4.1.1.8 Interest in Gardens Besides the subjective knowledge, people were asked to indicate their interest in gardens. The following pie chart shows the frequency distribution of the results.

Figure 14: Visitors‟ Interest in Gardens

n = 949

Source: by the authors

44

About one third of the respondents (38%) indicated to have a special horticultural interest. 34% stated to have a general interest in gardens and 29% claimed to have no special interest in gardens but rather want to have a pleasant day out.

Regarding each site separately, a significant difference (p=.000, df=6) exists among the sites regarding visitors‟ interest as the majority of visitors at Schloss Hof have a particular horticultural interest, whereas visitors at Powerscourt, Cluj and Balchik rather have a general interest or just want to spend a pleasant day out.

45

4.1.2 Interest in Types of Gardens and Open Spaces Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the interest of visitors in various types of gardens and open spaces. Regarding visitors‟ interest in different types of gardens, the survey reveals that most visitors are particularly interested in palace and castle gardens (15%), followed by botanical gardens (14%) and flower gardens (13%). The results also show that visitors are least interested in allotment, museum or artists‟ gardens.

Figure 15: Interest in different Types of Gardens

palace and castle gardens 15,1% botanical gardens 13,9% flower gardens 13,3% villa and country house gardens 9,0% zoological gardens 7,9% garden shows 7,7% monastery and mosque gardens 7,4% farmers' gardens 7,1% private gardens/residential gardens 6,0% artists' gardens 5,5% museum gardens 4,8% allotment gardens 1,9% other garden types 0,2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

Source: by the authors

When it comes to open spaces a strong interest in natural landscapes (22%), in public parks (20%) and cultural landscapes (11%) can be noticed. However, the results also show that visitors have little interest in cemeteries, sports grounds and former industrial sites.

46

Figure 16: Interest in different Types of Open Spaces

natural landscapes 22,4%

public parks 20,5%

cultural landscapes 11,4%

squares 9,5%

streets and alleys 8,8%

churchyards 8,6%

memorials 8,0%

cemeteries 5,2%

sports grounds 3,1%

former industrial sites 2,1%

other type of of open spaces 0,4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Source: by the authors

4.1.2.1 Previous Visitation of the Site The results of surveys in the four different gardens show that 51% of the respondents are repeat visitors and 49% have visited the site for the first time (see Figure 17).

Figure 17: First Time versus Repeat Visitors

n = 951

Source: by the authors

47

When investigating the individual sites on repeat visitation Cluj Botanical garden had the highest number of repeat visitors (63%), followed by Schloss Hof (48%), Powerscourt (45%), and Balchik garden (43%). Whether visitors are locals or tourists can be seen as an influencing factor on repeat visitation. Those gardens attracting a big number of local people also have the highest number in repeat visitors, i.e. Schloss Hof and Cluj.

4.1.2.2 Companionship Respondents mainly came to visit the respective sites with their spouse or partner (44%), with their friends (20%), with their kids below 14 years of age (14%), with other family members (12%), or with kids above 14 years of age (6%). People who decided to visit the gardens alone represent only 4% of the sample (see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Companionship of Garden Visitors

50,0 44% 45,0 40,0 35,0 30,0 25,0 20% 20,0 14% 15,0 12%

10,0 6% 4% 5,0 2% 1% ,0

Source: by the authors

The Botanical garden in Cluj received the highest proportion of visitors who came alone with 8% whereas Schloss Hof rated highest in visitors who came with their

48 partner/spouse (69%) and other family members (18%). Cluj Botanical garden shows the highest number of visitors who brought their kids below the age of 14 (24%) and above the age of 14 (11.5%) along. Finally, Balchik garden attracted the highest number of visitors who came with their friends (31%).

4.1.2.3 Dwell Time The last variable for completing the visitor profile is the dwell time of the visitor in the garden. The mean average dwell time in the garden is 2.5 hours and the mode is 2 hours. Figure 19 shows the distribution of the dwell time in further categories.

Figure 19: Length of Stay in the Garden

40% 37% 35%

30% 26% 25%

20%

15% 9% 10% 8% 7% 7% 5% 5% 1% 0% ≤1 1,-1,5 1,6-2 2,1-2,5 2,6-3 3,1-3,5 3,6-4 ≥4

Source: by the authors

The breakdown for visitors‟ dwell time shows that most visitors stayed between 1.6 and 3 hours (70%). 15% of the respondents stayed longer than 3 hours and another 15% of the visitors remained in the garden less than 1.6 hours.

The table below outlines visitors‟ dwell time at each site by showing the minimum and maximum of hours stayed, as well as the mean average and the standard deviation. It can be confirmed that visitors stay on mean average between 2 and 3 hours, yet the maximum length of stay is the highest in Cluj with 8 hours. The minimal length stayed is at Powerscourt with less than half an hour (see Table 8).

49

Table 8: Dwell Time by Site Site Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Powerscourt 0 5 2.20 0.89 Schloss Hof 0.5 6 2.99 1.21 Cluj 0.5 8 2.38 0.91 Balchik 1 5 2.58 0.85 Source: by the authors

4.1.3 Trip Characteristics The following reveals information on the respondents with respect to the type of trip they undertook, i.e. if the garden was visited within a day-trip or while on holiday. When asked to state what type of trip visitors are on, 53% of the respondents claimed to be on holiday, 42% on a leisure trip, and 6% visited the site within another occasion (see Figure 20). This result indicates that the sites are almost equally frequented by tourists as well as by local people.

Figure 20: Type of Trip

n = 927

Source: by the authors

Yet, as the four gardens are in different locations, it is of importance to have a closer look at each site. Table 9 indicates the findings of the cross tabulation

50 between the variables site and type of trip. The χ2-test reveals a highly significant p-value (p=.000, df=6). Table 9: Cross Tabulation Site and Type of Trip Type of trip Holiday Leisure Other Total Site Powerscourt 60% 29% 11% 100% Schloss Hof 25% 71% 4% 100% Cluj 55% 36% 9% 100% Balchik 68% 30% 2% 100% Total 52% 42% 6% 100% Source: by the authors

The table clearly shows that visitors at Powerscourt, Cluj and Balchik are on holiday, whereas visitors in Schloss Hof are mainly on a leisure day trip.

4.1.3.1 Sources of Information Regarding the sources of information used by the respondents the results show that the most commonly used source is “recommendation” with 29%. This is followed by “en route visits” (15%), indicating no special planning before the actual visit. 10% of the respondents used a “guide book” as their source of information. It is surprising that only 8% of the respondents consulted the attractions‟ websites. Figure 21 visualizes the results of the sources of information used.

Figure 21: Sources of Information

51

recommendation 28,7% en route visit 14,9% guide book 9,5% tourist brochure 8,2% attraction's website 7,6% TV programme 4,5% at holiday accommodation 4,3% newspaper 4,0% other website 3,5% any other information source 3,3% special interest magazine 3,0% travel agency 2,9% local inhabitant 2,1% tourism information centre on holiday 2,1% radio 1,3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Source: by the authors

4.1.4 Visitor Motivation Why visitors come to a garden is a crucial information for the management of successful garden attractions. Respondents were asked to state their reasons for visiting the respective gardens (22 different items in total) on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, 1 indicating strong agreement and 5 indicating strong disagreement. The following table shows the results of the calculation of all means, starting with items visitors most strongly agree with.

Table 10: Mean Values of Visitor Motivations Mean Std. Deviation to have a pleasant day out 1.42 0.78 to enjoy the garden's scenery 1.52 0.83 to enjoy being outdoors 1.55 0.87 to relax 1.61 0.88 to spend quality time with family/friends 1.81 1.14 to find peace and tranquility 1.99 1.06 to discover new things 2.05 1.13 to see unfamiliar plants 2.17 1.25

52

to be entertained 2.41 1.26 to be with people who enjoy the same things 2.47 1.30 to learn more about different plants 2.57 1.23 to learn more about the local culture 2.59 1.22 to be creative 2.64 1.35 to accompany somebody who wants to see the garden 2.66 1.55 to learn more about garden design 2.68 1.27 to bring the family closer together 2.77 1.41 to learn more about garden heritage 2.83 1.26 to show this garden to someone else 2.83 1.61 to get ideas for own garden/green space 3.03 1.47 because visit is part of a tour program 3.84 1.53 to buy plants/other garden related items 3.95 1.35 to participate in a special event 4.06 1.29 Source: by the authors

Visitors came to the respective gardens primarily “to have a pleasant day out” (mean value of 1.42), “to enjoy the garden‟s scenery” (mean value of 1.52), “to enjoy being outdoors” (mean value of 1.55), “to relax” (mean value of 1.61) and “to spend quality time with friends and family” (mean value of 1.81).

Overall quite strong motivators include “to discover new things” (2.05) and “to see unfamiliar plants” (2.17). With respect to the individual sites discovering new things is a stronger motivator to visitors in Balchik (1.66) as to visitors in Cluj (1.98), Schloss Hof (2.12) and Powerscout (2.56). Similar results are obtained when looking at the motivator “to see unfamiliar plants”. Again Balchik (1.66) ranks first followed by Cluj (1.98), Schloss Hof (2.44) and Powerscourt (2.75).

Overall the learning aspect does not seem to be a very strong motivator. When comparing the four sites the learning motives “learning more about different plants” and “learning more about garden design” was stronger at the gardens of Cluj (2.40 and 2.72) and Balchik (2.13 and 2.39) compared to Powerscout (3.01 and 2.90) and Schloss Hof (2.89 and 2.69). “To learn more about garden heritage” was a stronger motivator for visitors in Balchik (2.36) and Schloss Hof (2.82) than visitors in Powerscourt (3.11) and Cluj (2.93). “To learn more about the local culture” was a stronger motivator for visitors to Balchik (2.21) than visitors to Powerscourt (2.95), Schloss Hof (2.62), and Cluj (2.63).

53

“To get ideas for own garden”, “because the visit is part of a tour program”, “to buy plants”, and “to participate in a special event” were the motivations which can be regarded as the least strongest when making a visit to the respective gardens.

To obtain a more precise picture of the underlying motivations of garden visits, it was over interest to look at these motivations in combination with whether visitors own or cultivate a garden themselves. When performing a t-test for independent samples significant differences were found for the items “get ideas for own garden” (p=0.000), “came to see unfamiliar plants (p=0.000), “came to discover new things” (p=0.004), “came to learn more about garden design” (p=0.000), “came learn more about garden heritage” (p=0.001) and “came to buy plants/other garden related items” (p=0.000). In each case visitors owning a garden more strongly agreed with this specific reason for visiting than those not owning or cultivating a garden. This outcome is of importance as it shows that garden owners approach a garden differently and consequently also have different needs than non-garden owners.

54

4.1.5 Leisure Activities at Home and on Holiday Looking at visitors‟ activities at home and on holiday in relation to culture and nature should support in further characterizing the garden tourist. Table 11 below displays the mean values.

Table 11: Mean Values on Leisure Activities at Home and on Holiday Mean Std. Deviation At home Like to visit cultural attractions at home 1.85 1.030 Engage in nature based relaxing activities at home 1.81 .980 Engage in nature based sports activities at home 2.63 1.345

During holiday Like to taste the local cuisine during holidays 1.71 1.033 Like to visit cultural attractions during holidays 1.73 .981 Interested in the cultural heritage of the destination visited 1.79 1.006 Engage in nature based relaxing activities during holidays 2.05 1.099 Interested in the fauna and flora of the destination 2.09 1.090 Visit must-see cultural attractions during holidays 2.22 1.190 Visit less known attractions during holidays 2.32 1.206 Interested in the geological features of the destination 2.48 1.245 Engage in nature based sports activities during holidays 2.81 1.363 Source: by the authors

Visitors to the respective sites seem to come more from the cultural tourism angle rather than the nature tourist. No matter if at home or on holiday they like to visit cultural attractions. When on holiday they also like to taste the local cuisine (mean value of 1.71). During their holidays they visit both must see- and less known attractions as the mean values of these two items are similar, i.e. 2.22 and 2.32.

Neither at home or on holidays they engage greatly in nature based sports activities. They are not really interested in the geological features of the destination.

55

4.1.6 Satisfaction The last part of the garden visitor experience rapports the satisfaction level of the visitor which is measured on the basis of various satisfaction items. At first. visitors were asked to rate the statements. which can be seen in the table below. on a Likert Scale from one to five, one meaning strongly agree and 5 meaning strongly disagree.

Table 12: Mean Values of Satisfaction Items Mean Std. Deviation

Pleased to have visited the garden 1.44 0.73 Enjoyed myself in the garden 1.45 0.73 Overall satisfied with the visit 1.49 0.81 Garden offers good value for money 1.79 1.05 One of the best gardens ever visited 1.85 0.97 Source: by the authors

The mean and the standard deviation for each item are calculated. The results show that visitors strongly agreed that they were “pleased to have visited the garden”, that “they enjoyed themselves in the garden” and that “they are overall satisfied with the visit”. Visitors then agree with the statement that “the garden offers good value for money” and that “the garden visited is one of the best gardens ever visited”. The standard deviation for all five items is around 1 indicating that there is no strong deviation in the opinion of the visitors.

A further indication of how satisfied visitors are with the visit is the fact weather they consider visiting the garden in the future again. Results in this case show that 48% would definitely visit the garden again and 34% would probably visit it again. Only 1% indicated that they would definitely not visit the garden again.

Figure 22: Chance of Site Visitation in the Future

56

Yes, definitely 48%

Probably yes 34%

Neither yes nor no 9%

Probably not 8%

Definitely not 1% n = 904

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Source: by the authors

Regarding recommendation to friends and family the survey revealed that 78% indicated that they will definitely recommend this garden to friends and family.

Figure 23: Recommendation to Friends & Family

Yes, definitely 78%

Probably yes 18%

Neither yes nor no 2%

Probably not 2%

Definitely not 0,1% n = 939

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Source: by the authors

57

4.2 Findings of the Expert Interviews The following subchapters present the findings of the conducted expert interviews with the garden experts. For a better overview, the most important statements are summarized in bullet points.

4.2.1 Definition of Garden Tourism  It is part of cultural tourism.  It is a niche segment and very special type of tourism.  It includes the deliberate visit of gardens for different purposes.  Performed on holiday and during leisure time.

4.2.2 Relevance of Garden Tourism in Europe  small, not intensely marketed yet;  increasingly booming topic, potential in supply & demand.  importance differs within European countries: Great Britain, France and Germany, Netherlands and Denkmark.  for people who do not go on holiday/cocooning: spend more time living the culture and heritage of their own countries, own gardens.

4.2.3 Strength of Garden Tourism in different countries:  Gardens are part of the touristic offer. (I)  People are are much more aware of the needs of the visitor. Garden trails or the joint promotion. (IE)  Nice infrastructure: hotels, trains, etc., good education of gardeners. (F)  Free entry. (S)  Promotion in the form of informal groupings of organisations, National Trust. (GB)  Enthusiastic people, historical background. (A)  Value-performance ratio, gardens are in very good condition, good accessibility, diversity. (D)

58

4.2.4 Weaknesses of Garden Tourism in different countries:  No public policy helping gardens, e.g. marketing, provision of information for visiting gardens, missing money and awareness. (I)  Lacking facilities for visitors, tension between public and private gardens in terms of allocation of funding or any kind of joint programme. (IE)  Missing knowledge of visiting gardens. (F)  Missing support from the state. (DK)  Temporary projects – not long-term, awareness that marketing costs money, maintenance costs. (D)

4.2.5 Potential of Garden Tourism in SEE:  Greece and Bulgaria are connected with beach tourism.  Hot climate in these countries.  Italy is seen as an important garden destination.  Influence of the Euro on the economy of these countries.

4.2.6 Main Characteristics of Garden Tourists

 Interest: o Specific interest: knowledgeable in their field of interest, like gardening, often professional people, consists of a very small group. o General interest: garden as pleasant environment for day out, culture oriented tourists, garden is an additional reason why a destination is visited but not the main reason; consists of a larger group.

 Age: Average visitor tends to be older, >50 years, however, increasingly younger people with children.

 Nationality: o depends on location o High number of locals, regular visits, often through events & activities.

59

o Neighbouring countries. o Most visitors come from GB, DE, F, I, S, A, CH. o Increase of visitors from EE countries, China, Japan, US.

 Gender: Female, couples (women is the decision maker).

 Companionship: Couples, friends, families, bus tours.

 Attitude: respectful.

 Dwell Time: 2-3.5 hours up to half days; time spent in garden increases.

4.2.7 Motivations of Garden Tourists

 Different motivations depending on interest (special or general) including:  To ‚see„ the garden, proximity to nature;  Enjoyment & having a good day out;  Relaxation plays a key role; quiet places; ambience;  Getting ideas for own garden & learning (informal & playfully) not primary motive;  Reputation of the garden, recommendation/word-of-mouth, mentioned in travel guides/books/magazines;  Curiosity;  Interest in the historical aspect of the garden.

4.2.8 Activities:  Going for a walk;  Having a pick nick;  Soft sport: cycling, Tai-Chi;  Gondola rides if there is a lake;  Garden as a venue for birthday, wedding, movies & other events: concerts, markets, theatre;

60

 Special courses: aromatherapy, gardening;  Exhibitions;  Café, restaurant & shop increasingly important.

4.2.9 Heritage Preservation in Gardens  Important issue „to keep the authentic character of the place and preserving the original structure“.  Taking care of the original substance and restoration of the garden in its original condition.  Garden should not be fundamentally changed over time.  Gardens are very fragile - good maintenance and continuous care, restoration, and good gardeners are important.

4.2.10 Sustainability in Gardens In general it is important but difficult to implement sustainability at all levels. The following measures are taken on an individual level.

 Implementation of the ecological aspect: o Avoidance of chemicals and fertilizers; o Organic gardening and farming increasingly important; o Use of old and rare plants; o Photovoltaic systems; o Shuttle service for visitors; o Monitoring carrying capacity in the case of events.

 Implementation of the social aspect: o Collaboration with the community, garden as an employer, identity; o Garden made accessible to all people (handicapped).

 Implementation of the economic aspect: o Charging entrance fees – garden as viable business venture.

61

4.2.11 Recommendations:  Research and analysis phase at the beginning to ensure long term success;  Analysing costs, visitor numbers, infrastructure, competitors in the area;  Experts should be consulted;  Clear vision, mission and strategic aim;  Character of the place is important – USP;  Investment in marketing, especially at the beginning to draw attention;  Passionate people;  Establishing networks & Co-operations.  Garden tourism is related to tourism in general – infrastructure needs to be available in order to attract tourists: transportation, accommodation.  Long term thinking in terms of financing, investment and subsequent costs is essential for these destinations.  Using successful garden attractions as role models.

62

5 Summary and Conclusions of the Garden Survey

The majority of the respondents of the study are female (55 %) which suggests that women represent the typical garden visitor in terms of gender. This finding is also supported by other studies conducted in the UK and Germany. Nevertheless, it must be said that also men have to be considered as an important segment for garden visitations.

The overall mean age of the visitors is 40.17; however significant differences between the sites exist with Schloss Hof showing the highest mean average age. Powerscourt receives both, younger and older visitors. Cluj and Balchik show quite similar mean values of 35 years suggesting that visitors to these gardens are younger compared to the other study sites. Overall it can be said that garden visitors are younger than originally assumed. Against the general prevailing opinion visiting a garden is not an activity mainly performed by elderly people. However, the attractiveness of garden attractions to different age groups has also to be interpreted in view of the individual gardens and their styles, facilities and offers.

The respondents show a high level of occupation as 52% hold a supervisory or managerial position. These findings are not only reflected in the age structure but also in the educational level of visitors to the individual sites. At all sites, except for Schloss Hof, over 60% of the respondents indicated that they hold a university degree. Again the context or country respectively in which the garden is located as well as the style and offer can be seen as an important determinant when it comes not only to age but also to occupational and educational level.

Regarding respondents‟ country of residence the sites attract mainly local people followed by visitors from neighbouring countries. Schloss Hof Garden and the Cluj Botanical Garden attract mainly local people and have a very small proportion of visitors from other countries. Powerscourt and Balchik Garden also have a high proportion of local people but are capable of attracting also a big share of

63 international visitors. It appears that garden visitation is an activity performed by local people regardless of the context or geographical area in which the gardens are located. However, some gardens such as Powerscourt are well recognized among international visitors. Garden tourism has a long tradition in Ireland which is reflected not only in the number of sites offered for public visitation but also in the services provided at the individual sites. Moreover, different garden routes bring together a plethora of different gardens also showing that the marketing of gardens receives considerable attention among tourism professionals. Hence, garden tourism can be seen as an important element of the Irish tourism product which is well established and marketed compared to other countries. The popularity of visiting a garden can therefore be linked to the significance it receives within the overall tourism product. International visitors might not associate Austria, Romania and Bulgaria as garden tourism destinations yet. However, the sites also represent an important element of the culture and history of the respective countries. The Schloss Hof garden as well as the Balchik garden are inevitably connected with important epochs and events of history as well as historical figures.

In conclusion on the demographic characteristics of the respondents it can be said that the individual sites attract different types of visitors regarding their age, occupational level, education, and country of residence.

A plurality of the respondents in the survey owns or cultivates a garden (59%). The study revealed that garden ownership can be seen as a promising indicator of higher interest in visiting gardens, frequency of visiting a garden, and level of knowledge in horticulture, garden design and garden history than visitors who do not own a garden. This segment can therefore be seen as representing a high- potential market to be addressed. Advertising in garden journals or the offering of books and related articles in the shops are an option. The parks and gardens could also provide some information and advice for garden owners along the paths.

38% of the respondents indicated to have a special interest in horticulture while 34 % only have a general interest and the rest (29%) who came to visit the garden

64 claimed to have no special interest in the garden but rather want to spend a pleasant day out. When it comes to knowledge about specific topics around gardens it can be said that respondents have the largest knowledge in horticulture, followed by garden design and have relatively little knowledge in garden history. Only a tiny proportion of the visitors indicated to have extensive knowledge in these areas. This implies that people might be very interested in gardens but are actually not very knowledgeable on history or garden design topics. This also has to be seen in the face of visitors‟ motivation to visit a garden. Most of the visitors came to the respective gardens primarily to enjoy the beautiful surroundings and to relax. These visitors are not garden freaks who want to learn or getting ideas for their own gardens but rather want to get away from it all and having a pleasant day out.

The survey revealed that the top three types of gardens visitors are interested in are palace and castle gardens, botanical gardens and flower gardens. Visitors are least interested in allotment gardens, museum gardens and artists‟ gardens. The fact that the survey sites are either palace gardens (Powerscourt and Schloss Hof) or botanical gardens (Balchik, Cluj-Napoca) needs to be taken into consideration and further support the findings. Visitors might not have a clear concept about a museum garden or an artist garden and they do not have a broad quantitative effect and are not on the tourist map when compared to the palace and castle gardens. The same applies for allotment gardens.

When it comes to visitors‟ interest in open spaces natural landscapes followed by public parks and cultural landscapes appeared to be the most attractive ones. Weak interest was articulated in former industrial sites, sports grounds and cemeteries. These results show that the sites might not fit easily with the motivations of garden tourists revealed in this study. Visiting an industrial site might be a place to be enjoyed by people who are interested in historical aspects and who want to broaden their horizon by learning more about the history of the site. From a tourism perspective cemeteries are places of dark tourism. The main motivation to visit a cemetery is reverence. But cemeteries are often visited to

65 learn more about the culture of a place and are therefore considered as being part of the attractions system. Sports grounds, although open spaces, might be associated with physical exercises practiced mainly by local people in the first instance and might therefore clash with the notions of a garden tourist a being a place to relax. These findings are particularly interesting for further product development and research on the interests of the garden tourist and gives insights into the potential various types of gardens and open spaces have in the future in the field of tourism.

Half of the respondents of the survey indicated to have visited the site before. This can be regarded as an indicator of the satisfaction level of the visitors. When investigating repeat visitation of the individual sites it became evident that those gardens attracting a big number of local people also have the highest number in repeat visitors, i.e. Schloss Hof and Cluj. Local people can therefore be seen as an important segment as they are inclined to visit a garden several times a year.

Visiting a garden can be regarded as a social experience. The majority of visitors brought their spouse or partner along or came to visit the garden with their friends. Only a small proportion of the visitors came without any companion and hardly any respondent came with his/her children. Only 14% of the interviewees were accompanied by kids below 14 years and even only 6% by kids above 14 years. There is especially the need of a program and activities for kids. Packages for the whole family could be offered to encourage family visits to the respective sites.

Two or three hours seem to be the cutting point when it comes to visitors dwell time in the garden. With a mean average dwell time in the garden of 2.5 hours and a mode of 2 hours it can be said that visitors take their time when visiting a garden and spend several hours there.

Slightly more respondents visited the gardens within their holiday (51%), the rest include mainly local people who came to the sites for a day-trip (42%). Schloss

66

Hof attracted mainly people for a day trip while the other sites were visited within holiday.

Their main source of information is “recommendation by friends and family” (29%) and to a much smaller extent guide books and tourist brochures are used. These findings highlight the importance of a positive and memorable experience in the garden which visitors can then tell their friends and family. Word of mouth can therefore be seen as having strong influence on the garden‟s reputation. There is also a number of visitors who are spontaneous and do not plan much ahead (15%). This is mainly the case for Cluj Botanical Garden visitors. This fact underlines the importance of regional marketing to increase the number of spontaneous visitors. Attractive posters or flyers in certain tourist places are possible options. It comes with a surprise that visitors do not consult the attractions‟ websites to a big extent as originally assumed. It has to be noted that the quality of the different websites differs largely and especially for the Cluj Botanical garden and Balchik garden there would be considerable room for improvement. It can therefore be concluded that visitors do not yet see this medium as a valuable source of information.

According to the analysis in the four respective gardens the most important motives are “to have a pleasant day out”, “to relax”, “to spend quality time with family and friends” and “to enjoy the garden‟s scenery” and “to be outside”. This is in line with previous findings on garden visitor motivations such as by Ballantyne, Packer and Hughes (2008) and Nord/LB (2003). The respondents stated that they didn‟t come to the gardens because it was part of a tour program, they wanted to join an event or to buy plants or garden-related items. The importance of the learning aspect, identified by Fox and Edwards (2008) as one of the primary motivators, however, could not be supported by the undergoing study. “Getting ideas” and “showing the garden to someone else” was of minor importance for visitors to the respective sites but was identified as one of the prime motivators by Connell (2004) in her garden visitor study in Great Britain.

67

In order to get a more specific picture of garden tourists their leisure activities related to nature and culture at home and on holidays were analysed. Garden tourists are very interested in culture. During their leisure time as well during their holiday they like to visit cultural sites and attractions. At home garden tourists also engage in nature based relaxing and sport activities. During their holiday the respondents confirmed that they want to get to know the destination with all its facets: the culture, the heritage, the cuisine as well the fauna and flora.

The results show that visitors of all gardens were pleased to have visited the garden. They also agreed that they enjoyed the stay and that they are satisfied with the visit. The interviewees also declared that the gardens offer good value for money and that the garden visited is one of the best gardens ever visited. More than 50% of the people stated that it is not their first time that they visit the garden. The fact that people come again and that 78% would recommend the garden to friends and family can be seen as very positive.

The table below summarises the characteristics and behavour of the garden tourist. Nevertheless, it has to be born in mind that garden tourists are not a homogenous group, as they differ in their motivations and needs and behavior.

The profile of a typical garden tourist provides a promising basis for a number of advices for future activities and marketing channels that should be used.

68

Table 13: Profile of the Garden Tourist

Profile of a Garden Tourist Age  around 40 years old Gender  female Kind of visitor  local/ national tourist Education  high level of education, university degree Profession  managerial/clerical position, supervisory Motivation  holiday/ leisure, in more detail: time with family and friends, to spend a day outside, to relax, enjoying a garden Source of  recommended by friends or family Information Interests  cultural tourism, national cuisine, horticulture Type of garden  palace, castle, botanical and flower gardens Dwell  two hours Companionship partner, souse Other characteristics  owns a garden Source: by the authors

69

List of References Antz, C. (2006). Erfolgsgeschichte Gartenschauen? In C. Antz, & C. Hlavac, Vorwärts in's Gartenparadies. Gartentourismus in Europa (pp. 57-89). München-Wien: Profil-Verlag. Ballatyne, R., Packer, J., & Hughes, K. (2008). Environmental Awareness, Interest and Motives of Botanic Gardens Visitors: Implications for Interpretive Practice. Tourism Management, 29, pp. 439-444. Brandt, A. (2004). Besucherbereitschaft und Besucherverhalten in Gärten und Schlössern - Ergebnisse der Marktforschung. In A. Brandt, W. Bothmer von, & M. Rohde, Marketing für Gärten und Schlösser. Touristische Nutzungskonzepte für Gärten, Parks, Herrenhäuser und Schlösser. (p. 23). Rostock: Hindstorff. Bulgarian Sea Resort. (2011). Botanic Garden Bulgaria. Retrieved August 16, 2011, from Bulgarian Sea Resort: http://www.bulgariansearesorts.com/sightseeing/botanic_garden/. Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative Marketing Research. London: SAGE Publications. Connell, J. (2004). The Purest of Human Pleasures: The Characteristics and Motivations of Garden Visitors in Great Britain. Tourism Management, 25, pp. 229-247. Connell, J. (2005). Managing Gardens for Visitors in Great Britain: A Story of Continuity and Change. Tourism Management, 26, pp. 185-201. Cooper, Ch., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D., Wanhill, St. (2008). Tourism. Principles and Practice. 4th ed., Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Danielli, G. (2011). Nature Tourism Script. Lucerne: Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts. Encyclopædia Britannica. (2011). Garden. Retrieved from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/225726/garden Evans, M. (2001). Gardens Tourism - is the Market Really Blooming? Retrieved Feburar 26, 2011, from Tourism Insights:

70

http://www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=Gardens+Tourism+- +is+the+Market+Really+Blooming%3f Finn, M., Elliott-White, M., & Walton, M. (2000). Tourism and leisure research methods. Data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Harlow: Longman. Flick, U. (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications. Flick, U. (2006). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (3. ed.). London: SAGE. GardenVisit. (2008). Garden types and styles. Retrieved 11 16, 2011, from Gardenvisit.com. Hlavac, C. (2002). Zurück in's Paradies! Ein geschichtlicher Abriss des Gartentourismus. In C. Hlavac, Zurück in's Paradies! Neue Wege im Gartentourismus. München-Wien: Profil Verlag. Hlavac, C. (2006). Gartentourismus. Ein kurzer historischer Abschnitt. In C. Antz, & C. Hlavac, Vorwärts in's Gartenparadies. Gartentourismus in Europa (pp. 11-33). München-Wien: Profil-Verlag. Howitt, D. (2010). Qualitative Methods in Psychology. Harlow: Pearson Education . Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism Research. Milton: John Wiley & Sons Australia. Jennings, G. (2005). Interviewing - A Focus on Qualitative Techniques. In B. Ritchie, P. Burns, & C. Palmer, Tourism research methods: integrating theory with practice (pp. 99-116). Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing. Jennings, G., & Nickerson, N. (2006). Quality tourism experiences. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Lipton, D., Sachs, J., Fischer, S., & Kornai, J. (1990). Creating a Market Economy in Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland. Brookings Paper on Economic Activity(1), pp. 75-147. Marchfeldschlösser Revitalisierungs- und Betriebsges.m.b.H. (2011). The Palace History. Retrieved August 16, 2011, from Schloss Hof: http://schlosshof.at/cms-en/index.php?page=schlossgeschichte. McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural Tourism. The Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management. Binghamton: The Haworth Hospitality Press.

71

Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2005). Experteninterviews - vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz, Das Experteninterview (pp. 71- 93). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. NORD/LB Regionalwirtschaft. (2002). Das Gartenreich Dessau-Wörlitz als Wirtschaftsfaktor. Grundlagen für eine Marketingkonzeption (Vol. 6). Hannover/Magdeburg: Tourismus Studien Sachsen-Anhalt. Pfadenhauer, M. (2005). Auf gleicher Augenhöhe reden. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz, Das Experteninterview (pp. 113-130). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Powerscourt Estate. (2011). Powerscourt House History. Retrieved August 16, 2011, from Powerscourt House & Garden: http://www.powerscourt.ie/powerscourthouse/history. Richards, G. (1996). Cultural Tourism in Europe. Wallingford: CAB International. Romanian National Tourist Office. (2011). Cluj - Napoca. Retrieved August 16, 2011, from Romania Tourism: http://www.romaniatourism.com/cluj- napoca.html#parks. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Siegrist, D., & Stuppäck, S. (2002). Naturnaher Tourismus in der Schweiz. Angbeot, Nachfrage und Erfolgsfaktoren. Rapperswill, Zürich: Hochschule für Technik Rapperswill, Abteilung für Sozialpsychologie I Universität Zürich. Smith, M. K. (2009). Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies (2. ed.). Oxon: Routledge. Veal, A. (2006). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism (3rd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education. Veal, A. (2006). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism. A Practical Guide (3. ed.). Essex: Pearson Education. Verein der Gartenplattform NÖ. (n.d.a.). "Gartentourismus" im internationalen Trend: Hintergründe und Fakten. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from Die Gärten Niederösterreichs: http://diegaerten.at/de/?id=47873. WTO and UNSTAT (1994). Recommendations on Tourism Statistics. WTO, Madrid.

72

Appendices

73

Appendix I: List of Gardens for Survey

Ireland (CastlegardensinIreland.com. 2011)  Mount Usher Gardens. Wicklow  Kilfane Glen and Waterfall. Kilkenny  Lodge Park Walled Garden & Steam Museum. Kildare  Palm House Botanic Gardens. Belfast City  Lisselan Gardens. Cork  Ballindoolin House and Garden. Kildare  Turlough Park & National Museum of Ireland - Country Life. Mayo  Coolcarrigan Gardens. Kildare  Glanleam - Valentia Island. Kerry  Killruddery House & Gardens. Wicklow  Lismore Castle Gardens & Gallery. Waterford  Lough Rynn Castle Estate & Gardens. Leitrim  Brigit's Garden. Galway  Tullynally Castle Gardens. Westmeath  Rowallane Garden. Down  Cashel House Hotel Restaurant and Garden. Galway  Enniscoe Gardens. Mayo  Mount Stewart House & Gardens. Down  Marlay Demense. Dublin  Primrose Hill. Dublin  Newtownbarry House. Gardens & Gallery. Wexford  The Bay Garden. Wexford  Kells Bay House & Gardens. Kerry  Kilmokea Gardens. Wexford  Birr Castle Demesne. Offaly  Knockabbey Castle & Gardens. Louth  Vandeleur Walled Garden. Clare  Woodstock Gardens & Arboretum. Kilkenny  The Talbot Botanic Gardens. Dublin  Irish National Stud. Museum. Japanese & St Fiachra's Gardens. Kildare  Powerscourt Gardens. Wicklow

74

Austria (Verein der Gartenplattform NÖ. 2011)  Die Garten Tulln  Kittenberger Erlebnisgärten  Stift Melk  Schloss Laxenburg  Kaiserliches Festschloss Hof  Schloss Schallaburg  Arche Noah  Stift Altenburg  Stift Seitenstetten  Zisterzienserstift Zwettl  Renaissanceschloss Rosenburg  Stift Klosterneuburg  Amethyst Welt Maissau  Schloss Grafenegg  Museumsdorf Niedersulz  Praskac das Pflanzenland  Naturhotel Steinschalerhof  Sonnentor Kräuter-Sinnes-Erlebnis  Renaissanceschloss Greillenstein  Schlossinsel Orth an der Donau  Gartenbauschule Langenlois  Schloss Artstetten  Archäologischer Park Carnuntum  Marienschlössl Wiedendorf  Privatschaugarten Parbus  Privatschaugarten Hamilton  Botanischer Garten Linz  Botanischer Garten Innsbruck

Romania (Wikipedia.com. 2011)  Bucharest Botanical Garden  Cluj-Napoca Botanical Garden  Craiova Botanical Garden

75

 Iasi Botanical Garden  Rose Garden in Temesoara

Bulgaria:  Balchik Palace

76